Drawing call out - SAE straight thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Q_Goest
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Drawing Thread
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the best practices for calling out SAE straight thread ports on engineering drawings. Participants explore various approaches to dimensioning, referencing specifications, and the implications for machine shops that may not be familiar with these standards.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests calling out all individual dimensions for clarity, while also considering the efficiency of referencing existing specifications like SAE J1926-06.
  • Another participant mentions using MS33649 and MS16142 interchangeably in practice, despite them not being technically identical.
  • There is a discussion about the use of special reaming tools for these specifications, which could reduce the need for detailed drawings.
  • Concerns are raised about machine shops' familiarity with these specifications, with some participants expressing frustration over the need to provide extensive details to ensure proper machining.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of considering the purpose of the print, suggesting that excessive dimensions could complicate inspection processes.
  • Another participant concludes that calling out the MS port might be more effective, especially when dealing with multiple machine shops.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the best approach to calling out SAE straight thread ports. Some advocate for detailed dimensions while others prefer referencing specifications without additional details. The discussion remains unresolved as no consensus is reached on a single best practice.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the effectiveness of calling out specifications may depend on the familiarity of local machine shops with those standards. There are also considerations regarding the impact of detailed drawings on inspection efficiency.

Who May Find This Useful

Engineers and designers involved in drafting technical drawings, particularly in contexts where SAE straight thread ports are relevant, may find this discussion useful.

Q_Goest
Science Advisor
Messages
3,014
Reaction score
42
Just for fun, thought I’d throw this out for discussion. What do you think is the best way to call out an SAE straight thread port on a drawing? For example, you could call out all the individual dimensions so that every machine shop would be able to machine it even if they’re not familiar with it. In addition, a general note could be added to mention that a form tool (ex: roughing and finishing tool) is advisable so the shop doesn’t waste time trying to cut the port on a mill or lathe with conventional tooling. The only problem with calling out all the individual dimensions is that it’s really a waste of time. You’d think a shop could simply pick up the spec or locate the dimensions off the network such as is found here:
http://www.inserta.com/PDF/AI-STR-THD-PORT-DIM.pdf

When I was working in aerospace, we’d always use the MS equivalent and simply call out MS33649-06 for example. So I wonder if there’s an equivalent way of calling out an SAE straight thread port, such as SAE J1926-06. Have you ever seen SAE straight thread ports called out on drawings without having to dimension every feature? How have they done it?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
To this day I still call out MS33649 and/or MS16142. Technically they are not the same thing however in practice I have not had one problem interchanging the two (for the record, NOT on flight hardware).

Both MS33649 and J1926 have special reaming tools that the mill hands can use to take all of this into account. This negates the need for a overly detailed drawing by adding a callout for using the tool.

Here is one for the J1926/MS16142:
http://www.newmantools.com/cutters/ms16142r.htm
 
Hi Fred,
Knew I could count on you to respond! :smile: MS16142 as you probably already kinow, has the same dimensions as the SAE port. The MS33649 is more of an aerospace thing equivalent to the old AND10050 spec (going by memory here). Both work. So yea, I could call out the MS16142 spec and get the same dimensions as the SAE spec.

So do you just call out the spec and leave it without dimensions? Do you ever have machine shops calling up and saying, “We can’t find this, what the hell is it?” I called one of my favorite machine shops and they weren’t familiar with either of them unfortunately. It’s like you have to spoon feed these guys the entire set up, including tooling plus dimensions and tolerances. Kinda frustrating when it’s so easy really.
 
The few times I have had that happen I gave them a copy of the spec and went about our business. I guess if your local shops aren't used to it, then that's a bit of a different story. I can't really see the benefit of doing a completely detailed drawing for a spec'd out port. It kind of negates the whole purpose, doesn't it?

The only time I have ever dimensioned a print is when I have modified a depth on one of the call outs.

I guess I would look at your drawing. If you only have one size port (yeah, right) and I was worried about my machinists messing things up, then I would do a detail. I would try to save the time though and just use a call out. To me, there is no difference between a port call out and a standard thread call out.

One other aspect of this that you may want to think about...What is the purpose of your print? If it is simply to get the thing machined properly, then what we're talking about here is OK. However, if the print is used for inspection purposes, then you may want to think twice about throwing a bunch of dimensions on your print. It can really add up time to the tail end for your inspection department. By calling out the spec, you are allowing the QC guys at either end to use accepted inspection gauges, etc...If you have a bunch of the dimensions called out on your print, it may take a month of Sundays to get your parts through inspection and with poor results.
 
All good points Fred, thanks. I think I'll take your advise and just call out the MS port (instead of the SAE equivalent) since at least I have that spec in hand. I can then add a note because we have a half dozen different machine shops that handle our work so it's best to clarify when at least one machine shop is sure not to know what MS16142 means.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
11K