September_AMP

A D V A N C E D M A T E R I A L S & P R O C E S S E S | S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 5

4 6

DIDAL GORE INVENT THE

TITANIUMSIX FOUR?

In response to the April “Metallurgy Lane” article by Charles Simcoe,

Titanium

Part II,

Stanley Abkowitz, FASM, compiled this letter with some differing historical

evidence, based on a monograph he wrote that included a detailed discussion of

the patent office proceedings that resulted in the Ti-6Al-4V alloy patent.

everal years ago, I authored a

monograph titled “The Emergence

of the Titanium Industry and the

Development of the Ti-6Al-4V Alloy.” This

was produced at the request of John

Monsees, then director of the Interna-

tional Titanium Association. Many of the

facts reported in Part II of the “Metallurgy

Lane” series covering titanium are in

direct conflict with my monograph. Pub-

lished in 1999, themonograph addresses

what I consider to be misinformation

included in the April article, particularly

on page 35.

The monograph tells of the broadly

announced development of the Ti-

6Al-4V alloy in an official Army press

release in May 1954 based on my inter-

nal work during 1951-1954 on alloys

for armor applications. This work was

accomplished internally at the Arse-

nal Laboratory and it explains the part

played by Armour Research Foundation

(ARF) in this work. ARF was mentioned

in the press release as furnishing mate-

rial to the Army-developed specification

for the new 6Al-4V alloy. This was an

intentional effort to credit the govern-

ment contracted funding with bearing

some payoff, particularly in light of the

disappointing technical results coming

at that time. I thank my two mentors,

Leonard Jaffe, chief of the Physical Met-

allurgy Branch, and Abe Hurlich, chief

of the Armor Branch, for their guidance

in my Watertown program.

The monograph explains the sug-

gestion from Watertown to include the

Ti-6Al-4V alloy into Nate Promisel’s MAB

Ti sheet rolling program. This is docu-

mented with correspondence between

then Lt. Harris Burte of AFML andmyself.

It also explains the circumstances that

led to the Air Force contract to purchase

100-lb ingots to supply engine builders

with test material for high temperature

properties evaluation. This resulted

from the new information supplied by

the Arsenal to the Air Force.

The April article refers to an ARF

patent, but there never was an ARF pat-

ent. As explained in my monograph, an

ARF interference patent application was

denied by the court in view of the earlier

Battelle (Rem-Cru) broad range patent.

Furthermore, in the Watertown patent

application, the Arsenal did not request a

delay for security as Simcoe implies. The

delay request came much later from the

Secretary of the Army in October 1957

(almost three years after the filing date)

and was approved by the patent office in

December 1957. The original documents

are fully illustrated in the monograph.

Further, the April article never ref-

erenced the interference suit of ARF vs.

Crucible Steel. Chapter 12 of the mono-

graph explains how the ARF broad range

patent application could not overcome

the broad range patent of Crucible and

that neither showed a Ti-6Al-4V alloy

in their early reduction to practice.

Although the Battelle/Crucible patent

permitted Crucible to negotiate license

agreements with some U.S. and foreign

suppliers, when the Army patent was

finally issued, it eliminated any future

Ti-6Al-4V license opportunities. This

nevertheless permitted a period of time

for some to believe that Crucible was

the inventor of Ti-6Al-4V. Chapter 15

of the monograph details the Five Year

Proceedings with the Army application

in the patent office freezer.

Simcoe’s article refers to the Rem-

Cru suit against the government and

then interprets the outcome as leaving

the Ti-6Al-4V alloy invention “unset-

tled.” My monograph details the com-

plete legal deliberations in Chapter 13.

Lockheed Martin U-2S. Courtesy of Lockheed Skunk Works.