Rework on ASA "Nose-Job"

[roee]

Thanks, Allan. I'm sure we'll figure it out. I took a few photos and a bunch of measurements, and identified a possible suspect.

The chord line of the fairing measures 3.4" long. From Van's drawing C1 I get about 3.6" for that dimension (1.8" on the 1/2 scale drawing). So there's a potential culprit. The slightly shorter chord on my fairing would work against me here, causing it to narrow slightly faster moving aft toward the trailing edge. But the fairing is as it came from Van's (no substantial trimming along the trailing edge), so I suspect most are like mine rather than the drawing (can anyone please measure theirs)? And the taper angle at the trailing edge is also very shallow, so 0.2" more length added at the trailing edge would add very little width at any given station, unlikely to make the difference for as much interference as I'm seeing (but maybe???).

The blue line on the fairing (see photo below) marks the center of the gear leg, and is approx 1.3" from the leading edge of the fairing, and 2.1" from the trailing edge of the fairing (linear measurements along the virtual centerline, not along the fairing contour).

The apex of the Nose Job brace is approx 1.7" from the center of the gear leg, and 0.5" from the trailing edge of the fairing. The fairing is quite narrow that far aft, so further trimming of the brace might be required to make it fit. But let's set that aside for the moment.

With the fairing off the airplane, trailing edge closed, and under no stress, the inner width of the fairing is 1.2" at its widest point, which is approximately where the gear leg is centered. The outside diameter of the Nose Job clamp, fastened to the gear leg, measures about 1.14". So from those dimensions we can conclude that the clamp itself should not cause any interference. Good.

Now, further aft toward the trailing edge of the fairing in the area where the Nose Job bolts are located, the inner width of the fairing is approx 0.9". The Nose Job bolts are 1.0" long. Hence the interference. (And note that the nuts are slightly taller than the bolt heads, so the interference is asymmetric, more pronounced on the nut side.)

Thanks, Allan, for working with me to get to the bottom of this issue. I'll also send you my contact info via email in case you'd like to discuss off-line.

Thanks!
-Roee

[647jc]

I plan to install the new "Nose Job" on my finished 9A Monday or Tuesday depending on UPS and I will report my results.

[PerfTech]

Originally Posted by roee

Thanks, Allan. I'm sure we'll figure it out. I took a few photos and a bunch of measurements, and identified a possible suspect.

The chord line of the fairing measures 3.4" long. From Van's drawing C1 I get about 3.6" for that dimension (1.8" on the 1/2 scale drawing). So there's a potential culprit. The slightly shorter chord on my fairing would work against me here, causing it to narrow slightly faster moving aft toward the trailing edge. But the fairing is as it came from Van's (no substantial trimming along the trailing edge), so I suspect most are like mine rather than the drawing (can anyone please measure theirs)? And the taper angle at the trailing edge is also very shallow, so 0.2" more length added at the trailing edge would add very little width at any given station, unlikely to make the difference for as much interference as I'm seeing (but maybe???).

The blue line on the fairing (see photo below) marks the center of the gear leg, and is approx 1.3" from the leading edge of the fairing, and 2.1" from the trailing edge of the fairing (linear measurements along the virtual centerline, not along the fairing contour).

The apex of the Nose Job brace is approx 1.7" from the center of the gear leg, and 0.5" from the trailing edge of the fairing. The fairing is quite narrow that far aft, so further trimming of the brace might be required to make it fit. But let's set that aside for the moment.

With the fairing off the airplane, trailing edge closed, and under no stress, the inner width of the fairing is 1.2" at its widest point, which is approximately where the gear leg is centered. The outside diameter of the Nose Job clamp, fastened to the gear leg, measures about 1.14". So from those dimensions we can conclude that the clamp itself should not cause any interference. Good.

Now, further aft toward the trailing edge of the fairing in the area where the Nose Job bolts are located, the inner width of the fairing is approx 0.9". The Nose Job bolts are 1.0" long. Hence the interference. (And note that the nuts are slightly taller than the bolt heads, so the interference is asymmetric, more pronounced on the nut side.)

Thanks, Allan, for working with me to get to the bottom of this issue. I'll also send you my contact info via email in case you'd like to discuss off-line.

Thanks!
-Roee

....I set up one of our fixtures today and tried to duplicate the problems as seen in your photo above and took a couple of pictures of our findings. It appears to me that your fairing is mounted too far forward and possibly trimmed in a way that affords less clearance. Or there is some variation in the fairing, hing, rivets on something you received from vans. I have several new stock fairings here and when trimmed and clamped in place with the lower hose clamp mounting they all look just like the one i have pictured below. I can't find more that about .060" variation in any of them. We did find some hinge that I believe came from Vans that was wider and will definitely hit the back edge on the nose job. We sanded a 45 Deg. bevel in the area shown in the pictures and that issue was gone, then all was well. We have some shorter bolt and nut assemblies and I will send you some of those tomorrow. This will give you another .187" clearance at the bolts, Thus eliminating that portion of the problem. I am not saying you don't have a problem with what we see in your photo, but we have not seen it before. We have had a couple of customers say they beveled the trailing edge a little bit to gain extra clearance. If possible, please give me a call so we can try to solve this issue. I can send you a new stock fairing if you would like or, I see you haven't done your paint work as of yet. I will send you one of our ASA fairings (no charge) to affix to your plane. What ever it takes to get you past this is our pleasure
. Just let us know. Thanks Allan...

.

[roee]

Thanks again, Allan, for all your help toward sorting this out. Sounds like the cumulative effect of tolerances on a few different dimensions on the fairing just conspired against me here. But between everything you've suggested and offered, I'm sure we'll have this solved quick and easy.

So, as we discussed, let's start with the shorter bolt/nut assemblies which should alleviate that interference. Then we'll see how things look at the trailing edge, and go from there. If I can make it work with the existing fairing by chamfering the edge of the brace as you suggested, then that's the best all-around solution. Otherwise, I may take you up on your generous offer for another fairing. I'll report back as soon as I've tried the fit with the new bolts and chamfer.

Thanks again!

-Roee

[Skyhawk148]

Just installed the "Nose Job" (new one). Took about 30 minutes, fits nicely in the stock faring and snapped together as described. Also purchased the gust lock and it looks like the best RV solution on the market.

Keep up the good / innovative work. I will be watching for more.

RV7A flyer

[647jc]

I also just received and installed a new model ?Nose Job? on my finished RV9-A without any real problems. I did bevel the trailing edge of the bar near the apex to allow a little extra clearance for the fairing hinge as Allan Nimmo mentioned others have done but other than that, the installation went without a hitch. I also installed the nose skid and now waiting for my wheel to come back with the bearing mod installed.

I?m looking forward to flying with a little more piece of mind knowing if I do have to make an off-field landing or if I botch a landing, I?ll have a bit more insurance to keep me right side up, no guarantee expected just a bit more insurance.

[BillFear]

After just installing the older style unit, this will be a huge time saver. Fitting and finishing the new fairing was by far the biggest part of the job. In our case, it was OK because our old one was beat up and needed attention. Anti splat, keep the great ideas coming!

[Captain Avgas]

Originally Posted by PerfTech

I haven't posted any photos yet, but it looks pretty much the same. I have both in stock. They are each somewhat overkill for the task at hand and the new version I am sure will appeal to a lot of guys. Thanks Allan..

Dear Allan, considering that builders will fit their standard nose leg fairings differently it might make it easier for your potential customers if you were to provide a couple of product dimensions on your newest brace.

In particular the dimension from the centreline of the clamp (thus centreline of the nose gear) to the most rear point of the brace (apex) would be very helpful. With that information, builders with installed standard fairing could easily check to ensure that your new product will fit inside their existing fairing.

You might also like to consider providing a radius at the rear apex of the brace as a standard feature. Builders can, of course, grind this area themselves, but that will remove the corrosion protection afforded by the zinc electroplating.

[KTM520guy]

As someone who has had the opportunity to install these for others, I can't say if the new design is any better. It's definitely less work for me. That's not good. I need new shoes.



Tongue firmly planted in cheek

[PerfTech]

Originally Posted by Captain Avgas

Dear Allan, considering that builders will fit their standard nose leg fairings differently it might make it easier for your potential customers if you were to provide a couple of product dimensions on your newest brace.

In particular the dimension from the centreline of the clamp (thus centreline of the nose gear) to the most rear point of the brace (apex) would be very helpful. With that information, builders with installed standard fairing could easily check to ensure that your new product will fit inside their existing fairing.

You might also like to consider providing a radius at the rear apex of the brace as a standard feature. Builders can, of course, grind this area themselves, but that will remove the corrosion protection afforded by the zinc electroplating.

.
... We took all 277 pcs. of the new type we have in stock, set up the mill and did the mod on them just today. It is virtually impossible to make them hit now with this material removed. All future runs of this product will be this way. These will need to go to the plating shop tomorrow, get stripped and re-plated. We will be shipping them again in a few days with all mods and plating finished. Thanks guys, Allan