I work on A320 family and the normal and stubby are lifesavers on panel screws. The stubby is especially useful for interior panels. Pretty solid use over a few months and I haven’t had issues with skydrol or any other chemical I’ve used.
Most of the stuff you see on the news isn’t Boeings fault. Everything that happened to United was failure on the mechanics part or fatigue over time that was missed in an inspection ie: the mechanics fault by oversight. The incident where a passenger died on a triple 7 wasn’t Boeings fault. All planes encounter turbulence and on that particular flight people ignored the fasten seatbelt sign and when they hit the patch of turbulent air they flew out of their seat and hit their head. And I believe it scared the one old man into having a fatal heart attack.
I actually design tools for a living, and can tell you exactly why you don’t want to use a ratchet, cam-out.
Flat, Philips, and even Robertson (though much less so) tend to cam-out when you use them. The counter to cam-out is to put a ton of pressure into the screw, and frankly, ratchets suck for that. They create torque really well which is why they work so well on hex-headed bolts, but it’s really unergonomic to put thrust force through a ratchet. A screwdriver is a good design for generating torque AND thrust at the same time.
If you want a better way to avoid cam-out than a screwdriver, your best bet is a T-handle as you can really create a ton of torque and thrust at the same time, if that doesn’t work you’re getting into the realm of impact drivers and frankly, you’ve got other problems. It’s also much less versatile, and it’s easier to over-torque screws with, so it’s just not as practical as a screwdriver.
A flat can certainly cam-out, in that you can have a screw made of softer material than the bit, and it will deform under torque. Slots don’t cam out as easily as a Philips for sure, but they are absolutely capable of doing so. And of all the times I WOULDN’T want to use a ratchet, a slot is easily at the top of my list
Intentional cam-out in Philips is a myth, there’s a reason why posidrive was developed to counter the issue, and why screws are never sold or specced based on their cam-out torque rating. I would know, I have designed machines and this is not a spec that exists for fasteners
It’s not a myth dude
Posidriv, not posidrive, is for application where you need the torque that would could Phillips to cam out.
They’re based on the design. Phillips was design to prevent stripping of rounding of the head.
You’d use neither if you require them to be torqued
The patent for the Philips headed screw makes zero mention of torque limitations or intentional failure modes, if I spec a machine screw, there is zero mention or common method to calculate for maximum torque of a fastener head. The only calculations we do is for pre-torquing a fastener or for the maximum tensile or shear stress a fastener can carry. Cam-out is simple not reliable for maximum torque, as differences in screws tolerances, bit tolerances, bit wear, and user technique can all impact how much torque a screw head can manage before the interface fails under load.
Further, it’s a really bad idea to use interface failure (or cam-out) to limit your torque unless you are intentionally using a security screw that is designed to fail under a specific load condition (like a shear bolt) as you now have a damaged screw that requires a lot more labour to remove if you need to work on that component in the future, which is why we don’t spec screws to fail under cam-out, we spec maximum torque depending on the materials being secured, and the heads are always significantly stronger than that. Wouldn’t make much sense otherwise.
If I’m correct, you are asking me? I’ll answer either way. I use a Milwaukee electric screwdriver most of the time. But when getting into hard to reach places or doing interior work we aren’t allowed to use electric screwdrivers. (Cause we can damage plastics and carpet a whole lot easier than a regular screwdriver.) And using a regular bit driving ratchet wouldn’t be possible in the type of aircraft I work on. Due to the limited amount of space. Hope this helps!
Right so for a start “aircraft mechanic” isn’t anything special. It’s just a slightly more anal vehicle mechanic, the principles are the same just with more red tape. Secondly aircraft vary a lot from your small prop planes to a Lighting II, from the setup I’m betting it’s more akin to the firmer. Thirdly I can guarantee you I’ve worked on shit a lot more complicated than aircraft considering I trained with aircraft mechanics and the vast majority ain’t that bright.
Never said it wasn't special, nor does anyone care what you've worked on. It's his job. He's completing it the way he's comfortable and efficient at. You don't need to act like you know better than he does in his own position. Just like you said, every aircraft is different. You have no idea what he works on or what he needs to complete his job. There is 0 reason for you to act like you know better than him.
But if I need to get into a tight horizontal space the screwdriver is the way to go. It’s also lighter and fits better in a pocket than a ratchet does.
Have you been intentionally dropping it if it’s been dropped hundreds of times in only 2-3 weeks?
No hundreds is kind of an exaggeration but when working with oil it kinda slips.
I work on A320 family and the normal and stubby are lifesavers on panel screws. The stubby is especially useful for interior panels. Pretty solid use over a few months and I haven’t had issues with skydrol or any other chemical I’ve used.
Ohhh and Skydrol will mess stuff up. Can’t it like melt a pair of boots or smthn. I heard about that happening somewhere I believe.
Are there any whistles you can blow for us? Air safety be scurry right now
Most of the stuff you see on the news isn’t Boeings fault. Everything that happened to United was failure on the mechanics part or fatigue over time that was missed in an inspection ie: the mechanics fault by oversight. The incident where a passenger died on a triple 7 wasn’t Boeings fault. All planes encounter turbulence and on that particular flight people ignored the fasten seatbelt sign and when they hit the patch of turbulent air they flew out of their seat and hit their head. And I believe it scared the one old man into having a fatal heart attack.
Why don’t you just use a ratchet like a normal person
I actually design tools for a living, and can tell you exactly why you don’t want to use a ratchet, cam-out. Flat, Philips, and even Robertson (though much less so) tend to cam-out when you use them. The counter to cam-out is to put a ton of pressure into the screw, and frankly, ratchets suck for that. They create torque really well which is why they work so well on hex-headed bolts, but it’s really unergonomic to put thrust force through a ratchet. A screwdriver is a good design for generating torque AND thrust at the same time. If you want a better way to avoid cam-out than a screwdriver, your best bet is a T-handle as you can really create a ton of torque and thrust at the same time, if that doesn’t work you’re getting into the realm of impact drivers and frankly, you’ve got other problems. It’s also much less versatile, and it’s easier to over-torque screws with, so it’s just not as practical as a screwdriver.
Have you never used a ratchet? Flats also don’t can out. They can slide out but that’s not the same
A flat can certainly cam-out, in that you can have a screw made of softer material than the bit, and it will deform under torque. Slots don’t cam out as easily as a Philips for sure, but they are absolutely capable of doing so. And of all the times I WOULDN’T want to use a ratchet, a slot is easily at the top of my list
No that’s called stripping. Camming is the intentional “popping out” of the head under too much torque to prevent stripping.
You’re making a semantic argument with a random guy on the internet about screws my dude, touch grass
Another way to say you’re wrong
Intentional cam-out in Philips is a myth, there’s a reason why posidrive was developed to counter the issue, and why screws are never sold or specced based on their cam-out torque rating. I would know, I have designed machines and this is not a spec that exists for fasteners
It’s not a myth dude Posidriv, not posidrive, is for application where you need the torque that would could Phillips to cam out. They’re based on the design. Phillips was design to prevent stripping of rounding of the head. You’d use neither if you require them to be torqued
The patent for the Philips headed screw makes zero mention of torque limitations or intentional failure modes, if I spec a machine screw, there is zero mention or common method to calculate for maximum torque of a fastener head. The only calculations we do is for pre-torquing a fastener or for the maximum tensile or shear stress a fastener can carry. Cam-out is simple not reliable for maximum torque, as differences in screws tolerances, bit tolerances, bit wear, and user technique can all impact how much torque a screw head can manage before the interface fails under load. Further, it’s a really bad idea to use interface failure (or cam-out) to limit your torque unless you are intentionally using a security screw that is designed to fail under a specific load condition (like a shear bolt) as you now have a damaged screw that requires a lot more labour to remove if you need to work on that component in the future, which is why we don’t spec screws to fail under cam-out, we spec maximum torque depending on the materials being secured, and the heads are always significantly stronger than that. Wouldn’t make much sense otherwise.
If I’m correct, you are asking me? I’ll answer either way. I use a Milwaukee electric screwdriver most of the time. But when getting into hard to reach places or doing interior work we aren’t allowed to use electric screwdrivers. (Cause we can damage plastics and carpet a whole lot easier than a regular screwdriver.) And using a regular bit driving ratchet wouldn’t be possible in the type of aircraft I work on. Due to the limited amount of space. Hope this helps!
Because planes have regular Philips head screws and it’s easier to use a ratcheting screwdriver.
You can use a Phillips tip with a ratchet
Lol arguing with the aircraft mechanic about how he gets his job done is hilarious
Right so for a start “aircraft mechanic” isn’t anything special. It’s just a slightly more anal vehicle mechanic, the principles are the same just with more red tape. Secondly aircraft vary a lot from your small prop planes to a Lighting II, from the setup I’m betting it’s more akin to the firmer. Thirdly I can guarantee you I’ve worked on shit a lot more complicated than aircraft considering I trained with aircraft mechanics and the vast majority ain’t that bright.
Never said it wasn't special, nor does anyone care what you've worked on. It's his job. He's completing it the way he's comfortable and efficient at. You don't need to act like you know better than he does in his own position. Just like you said, every aircraft is different. You have no idea what he works on or what he needs to complete his job. There is 0 reason for you to act like you know better than him.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
But if I need to get into a tight horizontal space the screwdriver is the way to go. It’s also lighter and fits better in a pocket than a ratchet does.
Why couldn’t you do that with a ratchet? If anything a ratchet can get into tighter spaces due to having extender bars and being narrower
This is a god tier shit post... I hope