Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant on contacts

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant on contacts

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:05 pm Post subject: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant on contacts

 	  Quote: 	
		  Is that advisable, and if so, can some-one recommend a readily 

available dielectric product (brush on or spray on) that will 

protect the contacts against corrosion without damaging the actual 

plastic connectors.



Cheers Bob Barrow


	


    What kind of connectors and what finish

    on the pins?

   Bob . . .

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

bobbarrow

Joined: 04 Sep 2011
Posts: 9

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:58 pm Post subject: Re: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant on cont

What kind of connectors and what finish 

on the pins? 

Power through Mil-C-26482 circular connectors with M39029 crimped contacts.  Signals through M24308 DSub connectors with M39029 crimped contacts.



The M39029 contacts are typically gold plated copper alloy. However the female contact for the circular connector seems to have a stainless steel socket.



I have Corrosion X and  LPS 1, 2, and 3 in stock.



I note that the spec on Corrosion X says it can be applied to "electrical and avionics components such as micro switches, Cannon plugs, antenna bases, circuit breakers, and bus bars.



The warning on Corrosion X in aircraft pertains to a research paper into the the affects that the lubricity of Corrosion X could have on friction mated structural components in shear. Nothing to do with use on electrical components.



I also have the normal run of behind-the-firewall connectors in the form of spades and ring terminals (forest of spade tabs for ground, bus bar ring terminals etc). These might benefit from some corrosion protection as well.



What do you think. Is a little corrosion X in order.



Cheers Bob Barrow

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

toddheffley

Joined: 24 Mar 2010
Posts: 8
Location: Fort Worth Texas

Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 5:06 am Post subject: Re: Advisability of using anti-corrosion lubricant on cont

Wow....Talk about the subject that will not die!



I have watched this controversy in my industry (large cabin executive jet maintenance) for some time now, and much like the discussion here, it will not die.



Some airframers do not want corrosion inhibitors between the antenna and the airframe.



Conversely,  I worked for a MRO that requires Pentrox Type 2 (grey) for every antanna installation. (conductive paste, feels like toothpaste, non-hardening)



My anecdotal experience tells me that antenna footprints are the first and worst hideouts for corrosion on many aircraft. Particularly lower antennas.  My experience is 1 to 1 without exception. If a removed antenna has Pentrox under the foot print, it has no corrosion. I come down as a strong advocate for adding Penetrox.



I have two theories: one is that Airframers live in perfectly clean factories with brand new airplanes that never corrode. Antennas are installed on perfectly clean ground planes, and that thinking is inviolate. MRO's live with 30 year old airplanes, thus the difference between the two.



Theory number 2 is that the clamp up force of an antenna is very low because of the large size of the footprint. Use of some type of "magic goo" seems more reasonable, because one can never achieve a  vapor tight fit up over the entire footprint of the antenna.



I doubt there is a wooden stake for this vampire, but I would like Bob's thoughts related to HBC background vs. OBAM background.



I come from a maintenance background , not a build background, so ....grain of salt....



Todd

- The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum -

Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:

http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

_________________
WWW.toddheffley.com
www.theinterconnectco.com for lighting products
AV-TS.com for Jet Aircraft Test Equipment

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum