New aircraft wing panels extruded from 7075-T6 aluminum exhibited an unusual pattern of circular black interrupted lines, which could not be removed by scouring or light sanding. The panels, subsequent to profiling and machining, were required to be penetrated inspected, shot peened, H2SO4 anodized, and coated with MIL-C-27725 integral fuel tank coating on the rib side. Scanning electron microscopy and microprobe analysis (both conventional energy-dispersive and Auger analyzers) showed that the anodic coating was applied over an improperly cleaned and contaminated surface. The expanding corrosion product had cracked and, in some places, had flaked away the anodized coating. The corrodent had penetrated the base aluminum in the form of subsurface intergranular attack to a depth of 0.035 mm (0.0014 in.). It was recommended that a vapor degreaser be used during cleaning prior to anodizing. A hot inhibited alkaline cleaner was also recommended during cleaning prior to anodizing. The panels should be dichromate sealed after anodizing. The use of deionized water was also recommended during the dichromate sealing operation. In addition, the use of an epoxy primer prior to shipment of the panels was endorsed. Most importantly, surveillance of the anodizing process itself was emphasized.

The torque-arm assembly (aluminum alloy 7075-T73) for an aircraft nose landing gear failed after 22,779 simulated flights. The part, made from an aluminum alloy 7075-T73 forging, had an expected life of 100,000 simulated flights. Initial study of the fracture surfaces indicated that the primary fracture initiated from multiple origins on both sides of a lubrication hole that extended from the outer surface to the bore of a lug in two cadmium-plated flanged bushings made of copper alloy C63000 (aluminum bronze) that were press-fitted into each bored hole in the lug. Sectioning and 2x metallographic analysis showed small fatigue-type cracks in the hole adjacent to the origin of primary fracture. Hardness and electrical conductivity were typical for aluminum alloy 7075. This evidence supported the conclusion that the arm failed in fatigue cracking that initiated on each side of the lubrication hole since no material defects were found at the failure origin. Recommendations included redesign of the lubrication hole, shot peeing of the faces of the lug for added resistance to fatigue failure, and changing of the forging material to aluminum alloy 7175-T736 for its higher mechanical properties.

A forging of 7075-T6 aluminum alloy, which formed a support for the cylinder of a cargo door, cracked at an attachment hole. Fluorescent penetrant inspection showed the crack ran above and below the hole out onto the machined flat surface of the flange. A 6500x electron fractograph proved the crack to be a forging defect called a cold shut. Because defects of this type are usually detected when the raw forging is inspected, this occurrence was considered to be an isolated instance.