HCAT Propeller Hub Chrome Plate Replacement Program Aaron Nardi - Steve Pasakarnis Hamilton Sundstrand- Materials Engineering

Coatings Characterization Testing Contacts Fatigue - Steve Pasakarnis Wear - Aaron Nardi Corrosion - Blair Smith, Aaron Nardi TCLP - Folashade Anderson Low Pitch Stop Lever Sleeve, Sub-Component Test - Ed Faillace, Folashade Anderson

Covered in fatigue presentation on Wednesday morning by John Sauer

Wear Testing Coating Types Conterfaces Test Variables WC-Co WC-Co-Cr Tribaloy T-800 Chrome Plate (AMS 2406) Nickel Plate (AMS 2423) Conterfaces 4340 Steel Beryllium Copper Viton Seal Material 15% Glass filled PTFE Test Variables Contamination Iron oxide, silica sand, Arizona Road Test Oil Type (Mil-H-83282, Mil-H-87257) Drip on each specimen Stroke Length- Full Stroke and Dithering Load Surface Finish

Wear Test Fixture Load Pin 3000 lb. capacity Flat Counter-face Specimens Spring Washers Pivots Coated Panel Specimen

Wear Testing Results Quantitative Results Qualitative Results Weight loss and wear depth ( profilometer )results being measured Data not yet reduced Qualitative Results Chrome plate exhibited the most extensive pitting when dithering against steel with contaminated Mil-H-83282 Chrome plate exhibited the most extensive adhesive plowing against the Be-Cu samples phosphate lubricants in Mil-H-83282 will only lubricate iron based alloys Neither HVOF WC-Co or T-800, exhibited pitting or adhesive plowing to the extent of the Chrome Plate in any samples tested, with WC performing the best overall

Dithering Tests With Steel Counterfaces in Contaminated Mil-H-83282 Hard Chrome Plate WC-17Co HVOF T-800 HVOF

Stroking Tests With BeCu Counterfaces in Clean Mil-H-83282 Hard Chrome Plate WC-17Co HVOF T-800 HVOF

Corrosion Testing ASTM B-117 Testing Checked panels on a daily basis .001, .005, .010” coating thickness on coupons Testing ground vs. as sprayed surface Removal from tank criteria was: 3 or more spots Spot bigger than 1/4”

Results From Corrosion Testing Nickel Plating was the overall top performer WC-Co-Cr was marginally the best HVOF coating In General, the thick coatings performed better than thin coatings Machined specimens generally performed worse than panels in the as coated condition.e to substantial corrosion Photos are worst case-coated panels showed Co and CoCr showed varying results from panel to panel T800 results were very consistent across all panels Trends were similar across the thickness ranges

As Coated Nickel Corrosion Panels W-1, 8 days, 0.001 Thick W-6, 8 days, 0.005 Thick

As Coated Tribaloy T-800 Corrosion Panels T-1, 5 days, 0.001 Thick T-2, 5 days, 0.001 Thick T-3, 5 days, 0.001 Thick

As Coated WC-Co Corrosion Panels W-1, 12 days, 0.001 Thick W-2, 8 days, 0.001 Thick W-6, 20 days, 0.005 Thick

As Coated WC-Co-Cr Corrosion Panels WCR-1, 20 days, 0.001 Thick WCR-2, 8 days, 0.001 Thick WCR-3, 8 days, 0.001 Thick

TCLP Testing Results Spent Material Tested (WC-Co-Cr, T-400, T-800) Virgin Powder Tested (WC-Co-Cr, T-400, T-800) NOT HAZARDOUS WASTE In Connecticut Would Be Considered Non-Hazardous Regulated Waste

Rig/Component Testing Rig test of low pitch stop lever sleeve component Part experiences 10 cycles per flight and testing will accumulate sufficient cycles to correspond to 7500 hrs of flight (i.e. overhaul interval) Loading will simulate actual flight conditions using hydraulic fluid at 150 degrees and pressure of 310 psi

Program Milestones Wear Testing - April 2001 Fatigue Testing - April 2001 Corrosion Testing - Complete TCLP Testing - Complete Component Testing - Testing to begin April 2001 Flight Test - Start September 2001 Navy to Define Test Location