This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Metalworking Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metalworking, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Metalworking on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalworkingWikipedia:WikiProject MetalworkingTemplate:WikiProject MetalworkingMetalworking Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

My reading of the linked PDF is that JIC and AN fittings are the same, with the exception of the thread class. This means (AIUI) that they *can* be used together, and *are* compatible in that sense, except that they meet different specifications, and the AN (class 3A thread) will perform better. The performance difference is the reason the linked PDF states they are not interchangeable -- changing from one to another will change how the design performs. But they're compatible, unlike, say, AN and NPT, which aren't even remotely the same thing. Evand 19:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My experience with race cars that use anodized aluminum Earls and Aeroquip fittings is that JIC will work and fit just fine. But were hardly talking mission critical aerospace applications here. Scottanon (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

add-on comment:

The major difference between AN and JIC is that the UNJF-3B thread gives the AN fitting attachment 40% more fatigue strength and 10% more shear strength at the threads. This increase in strength might not be important for some applications. In other applications the use of JIC instead of AN might result in failure. For details see https://web.archive.org/web/20090102152106/http://www.mechanicsupport.com/articleStronger.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.169.161 (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above link redirected to malware. I replaced it with the archived version. Comfr (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is sometimes mistakenly referred to as "Air Force-Navy", - This statement is not correct. Many "AN" drawings are labeled "Air Force - Navy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.173.187 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was AN as Army Navy incorrect? That's the proper term, then AND now.

Template:UnsignedIP --> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.66.163 (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the origin of the mini-controversy about the name is that the Air Force did not exist as a separate service branch during WWII, when the AN fitting specifications were developed. Since the concern was the suitability and reliance on these fittings in aircraft, the parts of the service mostly engaged in flying, the Navy and the Air Force, were the main participants in developing the AN specifications. But the Air Force was part of the Army. Technically it was the Army Air Corps. So it is correct, really, to call AN either Army-Navy or Air Corps-Navy, or, colloquially, Air Force-Navy. 68.106.198.98 (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Army-Navy is the correct reference. In fact, that's where the traditional red/blue coloring of the parts is from ^[1] We should definitely revisit renaming this from "AN Thread" to "AN Fitting" and account for the various types. Automotive SME (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Aircraft Spruce and Specialty, the aircraft parts supplier, and put in the search box: AN914-1D, you will see the page for the AN elbow fitting, aluminum. Scroll down to where it says "Tech Data." Click on that and it brings up the technical specification sheet from the original Dept of Defense Mil-F-5509 specifications. It is form DD 672-1. In the info box at the bottom it clearly states: "Air Force-Navy Aeronautical Standard." I think this clearly settles the issue. 2600:1700:1540:438F:6CA6:FEE9:1D0C:2B8B (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, this article is only about the 37 degree flared tubing fittings, not the thread standard. I can't find any discussion of AN bolts on Wikipedia. AN bolts use AN threads, but have nothing to do with 37 degree flared tubing fittings. I think this page should be renamed "AN Fitting" instead of AN Thread. Either that, or this article should be expanded to cover AN bolts. AN bolts are sold by grip length. For a given diameter, the thread length is constant. The load bearing joint is supposed to be on the unthreaded portion of the bolt. AN washers are used to make sure the nut does not bottom out on the threads. Mediasponge (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on AN thread. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coastfab.com/images/pdf/2010/bolts_an3_an10.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080922143138/http://www.mechanicsupport.com:80/articleStronger.html to http://www.mechanicsupport.com/articleStronger.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]