Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:12 AM - Re: Wire Sizes in the wing (Boyd Butler)
2. 02:42 AM - Re: Wire Sizes in the wing (Dale Larsen)
3. 05:46 AM - Re: Wire Sizes in the wing (Boyd Butler)
4. 07:49 AM - Re: Wire Sizes in the wing (Ken Moak)
5. 08:25 AM - Re: Wire Sizes in the wing (fcs@jlc.net)
6. 08:26 AM - Re: Stock Blank Panel (fcs@jlc.net)
7. 11:03 AM - Re: Wire Sizes in the wing (Stein Bruch)
8. 11:43 AM - Re: Source of Acetone ? (DThomas773@aol.com)
9. 05:38 PM - W-919 tank splice plate (Paul Eastham)
10. 05:47 PM - Re: W-919 tank splice plate (Glenn Brasch)
11. 07:31 PM - Re: W-919 tank splice plate (Richard E. Tasker)
12. 08:02 PM - Dimples, rivets and gaps (Gerry Filby)
13. 08:15 PM - Re: W-919 tank splice plate (Paul Eastham)
14. 08:27 PM - Re: Dimples, rivets and gaps (Paul Eastham)
15. 09:19 PM - Re: Dimples, rivets and gaps (Dave Nicholson)
16. 09:40 PM - Re: W-919 tank splice plate (Richard E. Tasker)
17. 10:35 PM - Re: W-919 tank splice plate (Paul Eastham)
18. 11:28 PM - Re: W-919 tank splice plate (Mike Hoover)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wire Sizes in the wing |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Boyd Butler" <linbb@worldnet.att.net>
I don't know where you got the amps for wire size but in most cases they
are fused
for the following, 10 ga, 30 amps; 12 ga 20 amps; 14 ga 15 amps. I do wiring
and am a certified mechanic and would not run 70 amps tru 10 ga wire, check
your house wiring its fused the same.Also use the FAA requirements for your
wire size and fusing not what someone thinks is right. I was also an
aircraft mechanic for several years and went to A& E school which I
graduated from, I learned that for aircraft you follow the FAA guidelines
not sayso by someone else. Boyd Butler
-------Original Message-------
From: rv9-list@matronics.com
Subject: RV9-List: Wire Sizes in the wing
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hi Guys,
Just a quick note about something that I've seen in the past month or two
that is a little confusing. I've had no less than at least 6 people ask me
for some AWG10 wire to use in their wings. Seems someone "out there" has
recommened AWG10 or AWG12 for running to the landing lights.
To anyone who is currently wiring your plane, don't fall into the trap that
some people do.....that being "if some is perfect, more must be better" -
with wire sizes, this is just a huge waste of money, weight, resources,
etc.. If the recommened wire is AWG16 or AWG18, there is NO reason to use
an AWG10.
Just a quick FYI, an AWG10 wire running the approximate length of a RVxx
wing, will carry something in the area of 800+ Watts. Who has a landing
light requiring that much power?!?! Heck, an AWG16 wire should carry well
over 180 Watts in that length.
Here's the simple breakdown before adding in resistance per 1K.
AWG10 - 70amps current carrying capacity
AWG12 - 50amps
AWG14 - 40amps
So, if you are one of those people running those huge AWG10 wires to your
wingtips, ask yourselves why?!? Two big reasons NOT to are:
1). Cost--AWG16-18 averages around $.17/ft & AWG10 is around $.50/ft (300%
higher).
2). Weight--AWG16-18 averages .005 lbs/ft, where AWG10 .03lbs/ft.
Meaning, for an average set of wings at 2 wires x 18' 36' x 2 wings 72'
of wire. At AWG16 or 18 the weight would only be about 8oz's total. AWG10
would be over 2 POUNDS!!
Anyway, sorry about the rant...I just thought it might be a good idea to
bring this to the surface. Somehow, somewhere, there is a movement to put
fat wires into the wings, and I don't know why. If you are one of those
people, please enlighten me and the rest of us!
FYI, I do have AWG12 on up, and will stock some AWG10 in the future, but in
all reality, there isn't much need for it.
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
RV6's, Minneapolis
http://www.steinair.com
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wire Sizes in the wing |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Dale Larsen" <slickrock@been-there.com>
Ampacity of wire is calculated by the length of the wire (ohms/foot), and
the acceptable temperature rise. The temperature rise is different for free
air or in a bundle or conduit. 'Lectric Bob explains it best here:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/wiresize.pdf.
I think Steins point is some people are using wire way too big for the
application. Boyd is correct also, AC 43.13 Acceptable Methods shaould
rule.
Dale
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wire Sizes in the wing |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Boyd Butler" <linbb@worldnet.att.net>
Thank you Dale, the way that it was put by Steins about using too large a
wire size was correct, the part that bothered me was the amp rating he gave
the wire sizes. I don't know the publications any more to quote FAA wise as
am out of that loop now but one can use house wiring as an example of gauge
and amp raitings. Also using the correct type of wire for aircraft is a must
as it has certain properties of insulation and conductor material that is a
know item rather than some of the automotive wiring one gets at the local
auto parts store. Another thing that I am wondering why people don't use in
experimental aircraft for wiring is weather pack connectors like GM and many
others use in there cars. We use them extensively at work very well in all
low amp applications,below 30 amps. To go along with this the use of split
loom for abrasion resistance for wiring bundles. Again am out of the loop on
some of this as some may be using such already. This forum provides many
views on things and wish that it was around when I was building my RV3 as it
was the dark ages then no computer forums just phones and flyins. Good luck
to all of you builders out there. Boyd Butler.
>
-------Original Message-------
From: rv9-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV9-List: Wire Sizes in the wing
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Dale Larsen" <slickrock@been-there.com>
Ampacity of wire is calculated by the length of the wire (ohms/foot), and
the acceptable temperature rise. The temperature rise is different for free
air or in a bundle or conduit. 'Lectric Bob explains it best here:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/wiresize.pdf.
I think Steins point is some people are using wire way too big for the
application. Boyd is correct also, AC 43.13 Acceptable Methods shaould
rule.
Dale
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wire Sizes in the wing |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Ken Moak" <airplanestuff@sbcglobal.net>
I don't claim to know anything about electric, but AC 43.13 has a couple of
charts, Continuous Flow and Intermittent, then decide if it is a single wire
or in a bundle. Makes my decisions easy, figure if I ever get this thing
built and past looking like an Alcoa stock pile it is one less thing to
worry about. I don't want the FAA asking me questions I can't point to their
specs.
You are right the auto industry has some nice ways of dealing with things
like connectors; unfortunately they sure seem to be slow to move to aircraft
(except some of the more true experimental folks). I would say look at the
engines, but let's not go there.
ken
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Boyd Butler
Subject: Re: RV9-List: Wire Sizes in the wing
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Boyd Butler" <linbb@worldnet.att.net>
Thank you Dale, the way that it was put by Steins about using too large a
wire size was correct, the part that bothered me was the amp rating he gave
the wire sizes. I don't know the publications any more to quote FAA wise as
am out of that loop now but one can use house wiring as an example of gauge
and amp raitings. Also using the correct type of wire for aircraft is a must
as it has certain properties of insulation and conductor material that is a
know item rather than some of the automotive wiring one gets at the local
auto parts store. Another thing that I am wondering why people don't use in
experimental aircraft for wiring is weather pack connectors like GM and many
others use in there cars. We use them extensively at work very well in all
low amp applications,below 30 amps. To go along with this the use of split
loom for abrasion resistance for wiring bundles. Again am out of the loop on
some of this as some may be using such already. This forum provides many
views on things and wish that it was around when I was building my RV3 as it
was the dark ages then no computer forums just phones and flyins. Good luck
to all of you builders out there. Boyd Butler.
>
-------Original Message-------
From: rv9-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV9-List: Wire Sizes in the wing
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Dale Larsen" <slickrock@been-there.com>
Ampacity of wire is calculated by the length of the wire (ohms/foot), and
the acceptable temperature rise. The temperature rise is different for free
air or in a bundle or conduit. 'Lectric Bob explains it best here:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/wiresize.pdf.
I think Steins point is some people are using wire way too big for the
application. Boyd is correct also, AC 43.13 Acceptable Methods shaould
rule.
Dale
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wire Sizes in the wing |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "fcs@jlc.net" <fcs@jlc.net>
I did use GM Weather Pack connectors at my wing roots. They are not as
nice as Cannon Plugs, but I've got no complaint about them. I crimped,
then soldered them. By the way, I used 14awg wire for my Duckworth 100W
landing lights. Haven't smelled any smoke yet ;
)
"GM" Newsted - 110hrs on RV-9E and iced-in &!@#%
!
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Stock Blank Panel |
PRIORITY_NO_NAME
--> RV9-List message posted by: "fcs@jlc.net" <fcs@jlc.net>
I'll start the bidding at $50, plus shipping. Let me know.
Gary Newsted
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Wire Sizes in the wing |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Hi Guys,
Both of you make good points, but let me re-iterate a couple things. The
Ampacity for this wire is NOT car wire. The Ampacity tables for
Teflon/Tefzel wire are based on Conductor & Jacket heat
ratings/lenth/conductor coating/resitance-1K, etc.. I have many tables from
the wire mfgrs which are NEC (National Electric Code) stats. I stand by my
Ampacity ratings, I double checked them this morning, and they are in fact
correct for Mil-22759/16 Tefzel wire, NOT PVC Bare Copper Auto wire.
There are many places to get recommended wire charts from, Van's even
includes on it the construction manual, there is good data in the AC43.13,
and 'lectric Bobs book. When I get my new website done, I'll post a bunch
of these tables for all too read, but everyone should buy a 43.13 and Bob's
book.
My point is this, don't just select your wire sizes because it's what you
have in your car, or you heard it from someone else. Aircraft wire is
different in many ways from standard car wire. You gain NOTHING by putting
in extra large wire. Instead of frying the wire or breaker, now you'll fry
something else.
In the end, AWG10 is WAYYYYY to big for a wingtip light. The fact of the
matter is that wire in Tefzel will support at nearly 800 watts at 12V over
an 18-20' run. Ohm's law doesn't lie. Why in the world do people think
they need that to run a 100W light when AWG16 or 14 will do more than
enough!?!?
I won't even get into house wiring. Different current(AC), Different
conductor (solid), Different Voltage(110-220), etc... Comparing house
wiring and airplane wiring isn't remotely similar in any way, shape, or
form, other than they both are electrically based.
Didn't want to start a battle here, but you can see there may be some
"mis-informed" soles that might be considering putting extra weight, money,
etc.. into wiring their airplanes needlessly.
I'm just trying to stop that!
Cheers,
Stein Bruch
http://www.steinair.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv9-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Boyd Butler
Subject: Re: RV9-List: Wire Sizes in the wing
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Boyd Butler" <linbb@worldnet.att.net>
Thank you Dale, the way that it was put by Steins about using too large a
wire size was correct, the part that bothered me was the amp rating he gave
the wire sizes. I don't know the publications any more to quote FAA wise as
am out of that loop now but one can use house wiring as an example of gauge
and amp raitings. Also using the correct type of wire for aircraft is a must
as it has certain properties of insulation and conductor material that is a
know item rather than some of the automotive wiring one gets at the local
auto parts store. Another thing that I am wondering why people don't use in
experimental aircraft for wiring is weather pack connectors like GM and many
others use in there cars. We use them extensively at work very well in all
low amp applications,below 30 amps. To go along with this the use of split
loom for abrasion resistance for wiring bundles. Again am out of the loop on
some of this as some may be using such already. This forum provides many
views on things and wish that it was around when I was building my RV3 as it
was the dark ages then no computer forums just phones and flyins. Good luck
to all of you builders out there. Boyd Butler.
>
-------Original Message-------
From: rv9-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV9-List: Wire Sizes in the wing
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Dale Larsen" <slickrock@been-there.com>
Ampacity of wire is calculated by the length of the wire (ohms/foot), and
the acceptable temperature rise. The temperature rise is different for free
air or in a bundle or conduit. 'Lectric Bob explains it best here:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/wiresize.pdf.
I think Steins point is some people are using wire way too big for the
application. Boyd is correct also, AC 43.13 Acceptable Methods shaould
rule.
Dale
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Source of Acetone ? |
--> RV9-List message posted by: DThomas773@aol.com
You can find it in just about any hardware or paint store.
Dennis Thomas
RV9, taildragger/tip up
waiting for inspection
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | W-919 tank splice plate |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Eastham <eastham@netapp.com>
Hi everyone in rv9land,
I just started to dimple the splice plate the joins the LE to the
tank, and I'm suddenly not sure I drilled this thing right. The tank
screw dimples go right to the edge of the plate, distorting the edge
slightly, and the #40 platenut attach holes are right at minimum edge
distance, .22" or so.
Is this similar to anyone else's? I read the drilling directions
again and I seem to have followed those, but it sure looks like the
whole plate should have been placed further inboard, toward the tank.
Thanks,
Paul
http://hmb.dyndns.org/~eastham/rv
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: W-919 tank splice plate |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Glenn Brasch" <gbrasch@earthlink.net>
Paul, I just finished doing that on mine. Is your exposed edge of the 919
the proper distance out from the skin? If so, I don't know how you would
have a problem since you should have match drilled the holes thru the tank
skin into the 919. Does that make sense?
Glenn in Tucson, -9A Wings, fuselage ordered.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Eastham" <eastham@netapp.com>
Subject: RV9-List: W-919 tank splice plate
> --> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Eastham <eastham@netapp.com>
>
> Hi everyone in rv9land,
> I just started to dimple the splice plate the joins the LE to the
> tank, and I'm suddenly not sure I drilled this thing right. The tank
> screw dimples go right to the edge of the plate, distorting the edge
> slightly, and the #40 platenut attach holes are right at minimum edge
> distance, .22" or so.
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: W-919 tank splice plate |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
I don't know what version of the plans you have, but my manual said that
the W-919 should extend 5/8" past the outboard skin. This is WRONG! It
should extend 7/8" from the outboard skin.
My tanks are attached to the wings so I can't measure it, but with that
much extension, there should be plenty of room for the platenut attach
holes. I don't have a good picture either - sorry.
Dick Tasker, RV9A #90573
Paul Eastham wrote:
>--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Eastham <eastham@netapp.com>
>
>Hi everyone in rv9land,
> I just started to dimple the splice plate the joins the LE to the
>tank, and I'm suddenly not sure I drilled this thing right. The tank
>screw dimples go right to the edge of the plate, distorting the edge
>slightly, and the #40 platenut attach holes are right at minimum edge
>distance, .22" or so.
> Is this similar to anyone else's? I read the drilling directions
>again and I seem to have followed those, but it sure looks like the
>whole plate should have been placed further inboard, toward the tank.
>
>Thanks,
>Paul
>http://hmb.dyndns.org/~eastham/rv
>
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Dimples, rivets and gaps |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
Getting ready to rivet up the VS. My reading of the
recommendations for dimpling vs countersinking leads me to
believe that the spars in the VS should be dimpled to accept
the dimples in the skin. The spars are too thin to be
countersunk. So that's the way I went.
But when I cleco the ribs, spars and skins together after
dimpling - there is a gap between the skins and the spars, they
don't sit perfectly flush against each other- probably less
than half a millimeter of gap. The interlocking dimples does
make the assembled structure quite rigid, but still I'm
concerned ... seems like the rivets might "work" over time. I
would really like to see the skins flat against the spars.
When I countersank the HS spars it led to a much nicer mate
with the skins. Am I going in the right direction here ?
g
==========================================================
Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
Home (415) 239 4846
Cell (415) 203 9177
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: W-919 tank splice plate |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Eastham <eastham@netapp.com>
My manual says that 11/16" should remain to support the tank.
(goes out to garage to cleco plate to skin)
Mine actually wound up being slightly short of that at 21/32".
What makes you say that the manual is wrong? Did Van's tell you that?
Wouldn't be the first time, their j-stiffener measurements are all
wrong too. Alas, no plans updates seem to be forthcoming...
I'll have a picture up of what the plate looks like shortly:
http://hmb.dyndns.org/~eastham/rv
Paul
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:28:30PM -0500, Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> --> RV9-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
>
> I don't know what version of the plans you have, but my manual said that
> the W-919 should extend 5/8" past the outboard skin. This is WRONG! It
> should extend 7/8" from the outboard skin.
>
> My tanks are attached to the wings so I can't measure it, but with that
> much extension, there should be plenty of room for the platenut attach
> holes. I don't have a good picture either - sorry.
>
> Dick Tasker, RV9A #90573
>
>
> Paul Eastham wrote:
>
> >--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Eastham <eastham@netapp.com>
> >
> >Hi everyone in rv9land,
> > I just started to dimple the splice plate the joins the LE to the
> >tank, and I'm suddenly not sure I drilled this thing right. The tank
> >screw dimples go right to the edge of the plate, distorting the edge
> >slightly, and the #40 platenut attach holes are right at minimum edge
> >distance, .22" or so.
> > Is this similar to anyone else's? I read the drilling directions
> >again and I seem to have followed those, but it sure looks like the
> >whole plate should have been placed further inboard, toward the tank.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Paul
> >http://hmb.dyndns.org/~eastham/rv
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dimples, rivets and gaps |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Eastham <eastham@netapp.com>
Hey Gerry,
Is it the dimples themselves that are holding the skin apart? Can
you tell? If it's the dimples, I'll bet the skin will come together
when riveted. To a point, riveting will often pull layers together,
especially with dimples.
I think you're probably fine, but I'd have to look at it (got a digital
camera?) to give you a more definite opinion.
Yep, dimpling was the right thing to do...always dimple when practical...
Paul
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 08:02:02PM -0800, Gerry Filby wrote:
> --> RV9-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>
>
> Getting ready to rivet up the VS. My reading of the
> recommendations for dimpling vs countersinking leads me to
> believe that the spars in the VS should be dimpled to accept
> the dimples in the skin. The spars are too thin to be
> countersunk. So that's the way I went.
>
> But when I cleco the ribs, spars and skins together after
> dimpling - there is a gap between the skins and the spars, they
> don't sit perfectly flush against each other- probably less
> than half a millimeter of gap. The interlocking dimples does
> make the assembled structure quite rigid, but still I'm
> concerned ... seems like the rivets might "work" over time. I
> would really like to see the skins flat against the spars.
>
> When I countersank the HS spars it led to a much nicer mate
> with the skins. Am I going in the right direction here ?
>
> g
>
> ==========================================================
> Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
> Home (415) 239 4846
> Cell (415) 203 9177
>
>
>
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dimples, rivets and gaps |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Dave Nicholson" <n347sd@insightbb.com>
This is one of the many places where I used the "Tank Dimple Dies" from
Cleaveland Aircraft Tool.
These dies are just a little deeper than the stand die.
When it is used on the inner layer, the outer layer, with the standard
dimple, sits better in the deeper dimple on the inner layer.
Dave Nicholson
90347
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerry Filby" <gerf@gerf.com>
Subject: RV9-List: Dimples, rivets and gaps
> --> RV9-List message posted by: Gerry Filby <gerf@gerf.com>
>
>
> Getting ready to rivet up the VS. My reading of the
> recommendations for dimpling vs countersinking leads me to
> believe that the spars in the VS should be dimpled to accept
> the dimples in the skin. The spars are too thin to be
> countersunk. So that's the way I went.
>
> But when I cleco the ribs, spars and skins together after
> dimpling - there is a gap between the skins and the spars, they
> don't sit perfectly flush against each other- probably less
> than half a millimeter of gap. The interlocking dimples does
> make the assembled structure quite rigid, but still I'm
> concerned ... seems like the rivets might "work" over time. I
> would really like to see the skins flat against the spars.
>
> When I countersank the HS spars it led to a much nicer mate
> with the skins. Am I going in the right direction here ?
>
> g
>
> ==========================================================
> Gerry Filby gerf@gerf.com
> Home (415) 239 4846
> Cell (415) 203 9177
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: W-919 tank splice plate |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Well, according to my manual (and I asked this question in Jan 03):
The instructions say to draw a line 5/16" from one edge and then insert
the strip between the skin and the nose rib until the line is visible
through the skin holes.
It further states that this allows 5/8" of protrusion to support the
tank skin. The numbers don't add up... The strip is 1.5" wide. The hole
centers are 5/16" from the edge of the skin. This uses up 5/8" of the
strip width (5/16" on either side of the holes). If we subtract this
from 1.5" we get 7/8" of protrusion, not 5/8" as stated in the manual.
The answer then was that 7/8" was correct and it worked for my parts.
Don't know what your instructions say now though.
On the other hand, as long as you have enough edge distance, I don't see
anything wrong with going with what you have.
I have reported half a dozen things like this to Van's and they say they
will fix them. Of course, I don't know whether they do or not since I
never see anything but my plans. Additionally, I have gotten
conflicting answers when I asked the same question twice some time
apart. I think you have to use the plans as a guide and use some common
sense when building. My $0.02...
Dick Tasker, RV9A #90573
Paul Eastham wrote:
>--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Eastham <eastham@netapp.com>
>
>My manual says that 11/16" should remain to support the tank.
>(goes out to garage to cleco plate to skin)
>Mine actually wound up being slightly short of that at 21/32".
>
>What makes you say that the manual is wrong? Did Van's tell you that?
>Wouldn't be the first time, their j-stiffener measurements are all
>wrong too. Alas, no plans updates seem to be forthcoming...
>
>I'll have a picture up of what the plate looks like shortly:
>http://hmb.dyndns.org/~eastham/rv
>
>Paul
>
>
>On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:28:30PM -0500, Richard E. Tasker wrote:
>
>
>>--> RV9-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
>>
>>I don't know what version of the plans you have, but my manual said that
>>the W-919 should extend 5/8" past the outboard skin. This is WRONG! It
>>should extend 7/8" from the outboard skin.
>>
>>My tanks are attached to the wings so I can't measure it, but with that
>>much extension, there should be plenty of room for the platenut attach
>>holes. I don't have a good picture either - sorry.
>>
>>Dick Tasker, RV9A #90573
>>
>>
>>Paul Eastham wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Eastham <eastham@netapp.com>
>>>
>>>Hi everyone in rv9land,
>>>I just started to dimple the splice plate the joins the LE to the
>>>tank, and I'm suddenly not sure I drilled this thing right. The tank
>>>screw dimples go right to the edge of the plate, distorting the edge
>>>slightly, and the #40 platenut attach holes are right at minimum edge
>>>distance, .22" or so.
>>>Is this similar to anyone else's? I read the drilling directions
>>>again and I seem to have followed those, but it sure looks like the
>>>whole plate should have been placed further inboard, toward the tank.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Paul
>>>http://hmb.dyndns.org/~eastham/rv
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: W-919 tank splice plate |
--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Eastham <eastham@netapp.com>
Well, there is enough edge distance for the #40 platenut holes,
but who knows what proper edge distance is for a monster #19
hole for a screw. I'm guessing it's a tension load so it may
not matter so much...anyway I'll ask Van's.
As for the manual, I got my wing kit in Nov 03, so it sounds like your
revision didn't make it. *Very* disappointing.
Paul
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 12:37:22AM -0500, Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> --> RV9-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
>
> Well, according to my manual (and I asked this question in Jan 03):
> The instructions say to draw a line 5/16" from one edge and then insert
> the strip between the skin and the nose rib until the line is visible
> through the skin holes.
> It further states that this allows 5/8" of protrusion to support the
> tank skin. The numbers don't add up... The strip is 1.5" wide. The hole
> centers are 5/16" from the edge of the skin. This uses up 5/8" of the
> strip width (5/16" on either side of the holes). If we subtract this
> from 1.5" we get 7/8" of protrusion, not 5/8" as stated in the manual.
>
> The answer then was that 7/8" was correct and it worked for my parts.
> Don't know what your instructions say now though.
>
> On the other hand, as long as you have enough edge distance, I don't see
> anything wrong with going with what you have.
>
> I have reported half a dozen things like this to Van's and they say they
> will fix them. Of course, I don't know whether they do or not since I
> never see anything but my plans. Additionally, I have gotten
> conflicting answers when I asked the same question twice some time
> apart. I think you have to use the plans as a guide and use some common
> sense when building. My $0.02...
>
> Dick Tasker, RV9A #90573
>
>
> Paul Eastham wrote:
>
> >--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Eastham <eastham@netapp.com>
> >
> >My manual says that 11/16" should remain to support the tank.
> >(goes out to garage to cleco plate to skin)
> >Mine actually wound up being slightly short of that at 21/32".
> >
> >What makes you say that the manual is wrong? Did Van's tell you that?
> >Wouldn't be the first time, their j-stiffener measurements are all
> >wrong too. Alas, no plans updates seem to be forthcoming...
> >
> >I'll have a picture up of what the plate looks like shortly:
> >http://hmb.dyndns.org/~eastham/rv
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 10:28:30PM -0500, Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> >
> >
> >>--> RV9-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
> >>
> >>I don't know what version of the plans you have, but my manual said that
> >>the W-919 should extend 5/8" past the outboard skin. This is WRONG! It
> >>should extend 7/8" from the outboard skin.
> >>
> >>My tanks are attached to the wings so I can't measure it, but with that
> >>much extension, there should be plenty of room for the platenut attach
> >>holes. I don't have a good picture either - sorry.
> >>
> >>Dick Tasker, RV9A #90573
> >>
> >>
> >>Paul Eastham wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>--> RV9-List message posted by: Paul Eastham <eastham@netapp.com>
> >>>
> >>>Hi everyone in rv9land,
> >>>I just started to dimple the splice plate the joins the LE to the
> >>>tank, and I'm suddenly not sure I drilled this thing right. The tank
> >>>screw dimples go right to the edge of the plate, distorting the edge
> >>>slightly, and the #40 platenut attach holes are right at minimum edge
> >>>distance, .22" or so.
> >>>Is this similar to anyone else's? I read the drilling directions
> >>>again and I seem to have followed those, but it sure looks like the
> >>>whole plate should have been placed further inboard, toward the tank.
> >>>
> >>>Thanks,
> >>>Paul
> >>>http://hmb.dyndns.org/~eastham/rv
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: W-919 tank splice plate |
--> RV9-List message posted by: "Mike Hoover" <mikehoover@sc.rr.com>
Paul,
I got a reply from Vans the other day on this. I had been confused because
the 7/8 on the drawing didn't agree with the manual (Revision 9s7r3
3/14/03). Their reply as follows:
Mike,
We revised the manual since you bought your preview plans and
the 1/2" and 11/16" dimensions are correct. We failed to update
the drawing. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Most builders
don't read the drawings that closely.
Bruce Reynolds
brucer@vansaircraft.com
> Hey Vans,
>
> I am resending this in case it did not arrive on my first try:
>
> I have installed the W-919 joint strip in the inboard end the leading
> edge skin per the manual. I am a bit confused when I reference Drawing
> 9, Section D-D. There is a reference on the right side of Section D-D
> that states, "7/8 distance from inbd edge of W-901 skin to the inbd
> edge of W-919." What is the 7/8 in reference too? Page 7-5 of the
> manual (Revision 9s7r3 3/14/03) instructs the builder to "mark a line
> on the W-919 Splice Strip 1/2" from the edge. This will match up to
> the holes in the skin, leaving 11/16" exposed to support the tank
> skin." This is what I have done, so the "7/8" on Drawing 9, Section
> D-D is confusing. Furthermore, the same Section D-D shows that the
> W-919 outboard edge lines up with the W-908L Wing Leading Edge Rib
> flange edge. In actuallity, the W-919 outboard edge extends about 1/8"
> or more beyond the edge of the 908 rib flange. It seems that the
> drawing is more inline with a prior version of the manual (perhaps
> 9s7r3 1/22/03 that was in my preview set). Even then, the manual says
> to mark a line 5/16" from the edge (this will get the 919 and 908
> flange lined flush) and also says there will be 5/8" exposed to
> support the wing tank skin. But still, the "7/8" on the drawing
> doesn't make sense. Please advise.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Mike Hoover
> 90707
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|