Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: Greg Cardinal
Help:Can anyone shed some light on how to figure decimal equivalents of the gagemeasurements found on the 1933 plans from Don Pietenpol. I have aconversion chart from The Machinery's Handbook (pg. 2420 from the 1997edition), but it seems there were a few different systems of gagemeasurement at the time the plans were drawn. For instance, the conversionchart shows 12 gage steel as 0.1046 inches, and 13 gage as 0.0897. Any helpwould be appreciated.Mark BoyntonPhoenix, AZ ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Graham Hansen
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: decimal equivalents of gage measuresMark and group,Last year Grant put out a chart on his web site thatlisted a gage to decimal conversion. There was somediscussion about this chart at Brodhead.I have been looking into the gage vs. decimal thickness and I believe I haveit sorted out.Tubing follows the Birmingham or Stubs Wire gage chartAvailable decimal sizes follow this gage chart and there is no confusion.Sheet and plate are a different story. Steel is no longer sized in gages. Infact, available decimal thicknesses do not follow ANY gage thickness chart.Commonly available thicknesses today follow a numbering system titled"Preferred Thicknesses for Uncoated Metals and Alloys Under 0.250 Inch inThickness" (ANSI B32.1-1952, R1988)I found this in "Machinery's Handbook 25th Edition"Looking through the Dillsburg catalog confirms this numbering system foravailable sizes.So I made up my own gage to decimal chart as follows:Gage DecimalGreg Cardinal>>> 01/11 12:02 PM >>>Help:Can anyone shed some light on how to figure decimal equivalents of the gagemeasurements found on the 1933 plans from Don Pietenpol. I have aconversion chart from The Machinery's Handbook (pg. 2420 from the 1997edition), but it seems there were a few different systems of gagemeasurement at the time the plans were drawn. For instance, the conversionchart shows 12 gage steel as 0.1046 inches, and 13 gage as 0.0897. Any helpwould be appreciated.Mark BoyntonPhoenix, AZ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: mboynton(at)excite.com
Mark and group,Last year Grant put out a chart on his web site thatlisted a gage to decimal conversion. There was somediscussion about this chart at Brodhead.I have been looking into the gage vs. decimal thickness and I believe Ihave it sorted out.Tubing follows the Birmingham or Stubs Wire gage chartAvailable decimal sizes follow this gage chart and there is no confusion.Sheet and plate are a different story. Steel is no longer sized in gages.In fact, available decimal thicknesses do not follow ANY gage thicknesschart.Commonly available thicknesses today follow a numbering system titled"Preferred Thicknesses for Uncoated Metals and Alloys Under 0.250 Inch inThickness" (ANSI B32.1-1952, R1988)I found this in "Machinery's Handbook 25th Edition"Looking through the Dillsburg catalog confirms this numbering system foravailable sizes.So I made up my own gage to decimal chart as follows:Gage DecimalGreg Cardinal>>> 01/11 12:02 PM >>>Help:Can anyone shed some light on how to figure decimal equivalents of thegagemeasurements found on the 1933 plans from Don Pietenpol. I have aconversion chart from The Machinery's Handbook (pg. 2420 from the 1997edition), but it seems there were a few different systems of gagemeasurement at the time the plans were drawn. For instance, the conversion=chart shows 12 gage steel as 0.1046 inches, and 13 gage as 0.0897. Anyhelpwould be appreciated.Mark BoyntonPhoenix, AZ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Greg Cardinal
Greg:Thanks for the useful info.Mark BoyntonPhoenix, AZ> Mark and group,> Last year Grant put out a chart on his web site that> listed a gage to decimal conversion. There was some> discussion about this chart at Brodhead.> I have been looking into the gage vs. decimal thickness and I believe I> have it sorted out.> Tubing follows the Birmingham or Stubs Wire gage chart> Available decimal sizes follow this gage chart and there is no confusion.> > Sheet and plate are a different story. Steel is no longer sized in gages.=> In fact, available decimal thicknesses do not follow ANY gage thickness> chart.> Commonly available thicknesses today follow a numbering system titled> "Preferred Thicknesses for Uncoated Metals and Alloys Under 0.250 Inch in=> Thickness" (ANSI B32.1-1952, R1988)> I found this in "Machinery's Handbook 25th Edition"> Looking through the Dillsburg catalog confirms this numbering system for=> available sizes.> So I made up my own gage to decimal chart as follows:> > Gage Decimal> > > Greg Cardinal> > > >>> 01/11 12:02 PM >>>> Help:> > Can anyone shed some light on how to figure decimal equivalents of the> gage> measurements found on the 1933 plans from Don Pietenpol. I have a> conversion chart from The Machinery's Handbook (pg. 2420 from the 1997> edition), but it seems there were a few different systems of gage> measurement at the time the plans were drawn. For instance, theconversion=> > chart shows 12 gage steel as 0.1046 inches, and 13 gage as 0.0897. Any> help> would be appreciated.> > Mark Boynton> Phoenix, AZ> > > > > _______________________________________________________> ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: Greg Cardinal
i,ve heard that the conversion is different for aluminum versus steel.this may or may not be true? anyone know for sure?-----Original Message-----