VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Main > RV General Discussion/News
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-27-2014, 06:18 PM
rvbuilder2002's Avatar
rvbuilder2002 rvbuilder2002 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hubbard Oregon
Posts: 9,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BillL View Post
Not arguing with the result, just trying understand the "why". So, I assume the thickness of this flange is insufficient to simply step up to the next size rivet due to the knife edge at the bottom of the countersink affecting the structural integrity of this rivet (these rivets) joint? I am also assuming that the nesting nature of the countersink gives this joint its significant shear strength.

Thanks,
The additional shear strength resulting from a dimpled joint is not relied upon for in the engineering (just taken as extra) but if a skin dimple doesn't fit a countersink tightly, it will have a lower strength than if it was a joint with just a plain AN470 rivet.
The next larger rivet would start getting close to knifing the edge, and it would be breaking the minimum edge distance rule on the wing skins by about .015"
__________________
Opinions, information and comments are my own unless stated otherwise. They do not necessarily represent the direction/opinions of my employer.

Scott McDaniels
Van's Aircraft Engineering Prototype Shop Manager
Hubbard, Oregon
RV-6A (aka "Junkyard Special ")
  #22  
Old 09-27-2014, 06:18 PM
Norman CYYJ Norman CYYJ is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Victoria B.C.
Posts: 1,266
Default

Why phone Vans again? RVbuilder2002 has told you why you should not consider using the damaged spar. He knows what he talking about.
  #23  
Old 09-27-2014, 06:39 PM
N427EF N427EF is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,516
Default That's why

Quote:
Yes I have a dimpled test piece which nests nicely into the countersink with no play.
Maybe all this is based on miscommunications.

I am absolutely not saying that you should not follow Van's advise.
But $1600 is worth double checking previous communications.
__________________
Ernst Freitag
RV-8 finished (sold)
RV-10 Flyer 600 plus hours
Running on E10 mogas
Don't believe everything you know.
  #24  
Old 09-27-2014, 06:53 PM
Mike S's Avatar
Mike S Mike S is offline
Senior Curmudgeon
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dayton Airpark, NV A34
Posts: 15,420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
the skin dimples wouldn't fit tightly within the countersinks. There would be clearance that would allow lateral movement of the dimple within the countersink.
As I read the above, the area where the problem would occur is hidden from view--------so there would be no visible warning of possible failure.
__________________
Mike Starkey
VAF 909

Rv-10, N210LM.

Flying as of 12/4/2010

Phase 1 done, 2/4/2011

Sold after 240+ wonderful hours of flight.

"Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it."
  #25  
Old 09-27-2014, 07:40 PM
paul mosher
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The lesson to be learned is to set up the microstop in some scrap aluminum before hacking up the expensive parts.
  #26  
Old 09-27-2014, 09:22 PM
miko38 miko38 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: vermilion ohio
Posts: 83
Default

I'm not sure I understand, if you fit the skin over the countersink and there is no play, and the rivit fits in the skin (because it was dimpled to fit that rivit) , and rivets expand to fill voids, where is the failure point?
Still $1600.00 in the overall sceme of everything is not to bad.
Mike
  #27  
Old 09-27-2014, 10:51 PM
lr172 lr172 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 5,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rvbuilder2002 View Post
The additional shear strength resulting from a dimpled joint is not relied upon for in the engineering (just taken as extra) but if a skin dimple doesn't fit a countersink tightly, it will have a lower strength than if it was a joint with just a plain AN470 rivet.
The next larger rivet would start getting close to knifing the edge, and it would be breaking the minimum edge distance rule on the wing skins by about .015"
Good engineering details here. I still wonder how if the dimpled sheet is a tight fit, how could a smaller countersink be correct? Won't the dimpled sheet ride high? I have been countersinking until the the dimple goes in far enough that the sheet and structure mate flat together.

I would still put some playdoh or clay in the countersink, place the dimpled scrap with a rivet and hit it lightly with the rivet gun or light hammer. You will then know what type of gap you are dealing with.

EDIT: Disregard. I just ran a quick test on how I have been doing it and find that I have tight fitting sheets with .008" head depth. That left me a countersink diameter of .200" I don't think that the OP's fittings can be tight with a hole diameter of .230". That would leave the outer hole diameter around .050" bigger than spec.

Larry

Last edited by lr172 : 09-27-2014 at 11:18 PM.
  #28  
Old 09-27-2014, 11:17 PM
skylor's Avatar
skylor skylor is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 882
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vbug View Post
Thanks for the responses. Yes the dimpled leading and main skins are riveted to the spar flange. The countersinks are primed with a qtip that's why the look so bad but are indeed uniform and smooth. I inserted a rivet to show depth.
Yes I have a dimpled test piece which nests nicely into the countersink with no play.
I am going to call tech support just to confirm the understanding of the issue since communication has been completely via email.
New spar is $1625. Its not the money just can't believe what I did. I have built a lot of things in my life and never destroyed anything in the process.
Like they say if your gonna be dumb you gotta be tough!
But the real question is, is there no play in the un-primed holes, or is the primer itself masking a sloppy fit of the dimpled test piece?

Skylor
RV-8, Flying
  #29  
Old 09-28-2014, 12:33 AM
az_gila's Avatar
az_gila az_gila is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: 57AZ - NW Tucson area
Posts: 10,011
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylor View Post
But the real question is, is there no play in the un-primed holes, or is the primer itself masking a sloppy fit of the dimpled test piece?

Skylor
RV-8, Flying
Or is it simply the radius of the back side of the dimple sitting on the sharp edge of the countersink?
__________________
Gil Alexander
EAA Technical Counselor, Airframe Mechanic
Half completed RV-10 QB purchased
RV-6A N61GX - finally flying
Grumman Tiger N12GA - flying
La Cholla Airpark (57AZ) Tucson AZ
  #30  
Old 09-28-2014, 02:15 AM
miko38 miko38 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: vermilion ohio
Posts: 83
Default

If the fit is that critical, and you over countersink by .003 inches wouldn't you be able to add a piece of .003 aluminum to the top of the spar. Match hole drill it, dimple it, and it should be a perfect fit. .003 is less then the thickness of a piece of typing paper.
If vans says to replace the spar I would without any doubt replace the spar. It would make me sleep better at night.

Mike

Last edited by miko38 : 09-28-2014 at 08:15 AM.
Closed Thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:06 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.