3003 vs 5052 Aluminum tubing

Ed Haywood

Ed Haywood

En-Route
Joined
Jul 12, 2020
Messages
2,980
Location
Tampa FL
Display Name
Display name:
Big Ed
Am in the process of restoring the fuselage on my '78 Bellanca Decathlon. OEM lines in my aircraft are 5052 aluminum. American Champion uses 3003 for new production aircraft.

Thoughts on which to use?

5052 is tougher, but more difficult to bend. 3003 is softer but hence easier to shape.

Shipping is a factor. 3003 is shipped coiled while 5052 comes in straight lengths of 6 or 12 feet. The run from the header tank to the rear manifold is 10 feet.
 
How did the original 5052 lines hold up? Was there any cracking etc?
 
Ed Haywood said:
Some of the lines were damaged during removal when stripping the frame for refurb.
Click to expand...
I would stay with original 5052, sounds like it cost more because of shipping? That sucks, Good luck with your rebuild.
 
Gary Ward said:
I would stay with original 5052, sounds like it cost more because of shipping? That sucks, Good luck with your rebuild.
Click to expand...

Most of the lengths are short, so shipping is no big deal, but there is one 10 foot run. There are a few aviation supply stores within an hour's drive, so I might be able to find it locally.

OTOH, American Champion has been producing the same aircraft since 1990 with 3003 tubing, and no history of problems yet. The lines are gravity fed, so pressure is not an issue here. Other than the initial straightening required, 3003 is easier to work with.
 
The choice may depend on what you have for tooling.

Lines that are incorrectly bent or have improper flares are far more likely to fail.

Suggest you get some cheap tubing to practice on. There are some simple tools

that will make things easier. Maybe not the first try though.


A Cessna 172 has a line that goes from the Tank, down the doorpost, turns inboard

and finally runs forward to the Fuel Selector . A new line from Cessna was a

MTO item ( made to order ) which equates to Sticker Shock +++. Since my bending

experience was minimal I approached the task somewhat reluctantly. Practice and

patience won out though!!
 
I have access to appropriate tools for either. The main run is relatively simple, just a 10 foot straight run with a 90* bend on each end. That would argue in favor of 5052 if I can obtain the material easily.

I have read that 5052 is actually easier to flare. That seems counterintuitive.

The old school sources I have read say 5052 for fuel and hydraulic, 3003 for less important stuff. But I don't know if that is based on engineering analysis or experience, or just a general bias towards "stronger is better".

Hoping one of the long time mechanics here can weigh in on ease of working with each.
 
Personally I would use what the OEM used. Logbook entries and any future questions about the repair should be a non event.
 
Have you contacted Am-Champ for any tech input on this? There may well be

a SL or SM rev that addresses your concern.

I’m one of the older techs on the forum but this is not my area of expertise.

Do I have any?

My take would be duplicating a Mfg Installation would qualify for Approved Data.
 
Magman said:
Have you contacted Am-Champ for any tech input on this?
Click to expand...

Yes. American Champion uses 3003 now. They switched for production reasons, eg easier to work with. If I order PMA parts from them, I will get 3003.
 
Folks, to clarify, I'm not looking for legality or paperwork advice here. I've got an IA for that. I'm looking for experience working with both materials, to advise on which one is easier to obtain good results with. Specifically looking for insight on whether the difficulty of working with a harder material is justified by the increased strength, and whether increased strength is necessary or beneficial in that application.
 
Ed Haywood said:
Folks, to clarify, I'm not looking for legality or paperwork advice here. I've got an IA for that. I'm looking for experience working with both materials, to advise on which one is easier to obtain good results with. Specifically looking for insight on whether the difficulty of working with a harder material is justified by the increased strength, and whether increased strength is necessary or beneficial in that application.
Click to expand...
first off, both are not hard to work with proper tools. 3003 can be formed with cheap tools, 5052 is more intolerant of cheap tools. good benders and flair tools are required. as to the strength, in reality, both will work fine, but the legalities must be considered. without engineering support from ac, or a DER a material change could be a issue. if AC is selling those parts with 3003, then they should have no problem sending you the EO to support it for your records.
 
I doubt the increased strength is important here. It may be that 5052 was less expensive or more readily available at one time. 5052 is also more corrosion resistant than 3003. It also may have been easier to work with straight lengths of 5052 instead of straightening and re-bending 3003 coil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top