Tip up canopy side skins: Dimple or?

[jimgreen]

Can't find a thread that addresses this question for the tip up.
The plans call for c/s side skins.
I'd prefer to c/s the side rails and dimple the side skins. Are there any problems with this? Seems simple enough.

[Rupester]

My 9A tip-up went nicely by countersinking the canopy sides (C-725?) and dimpling the skins. I thought that's what Vans called out in my instructions.

On the rt side of my canopy the curve of the side piece didn't fit the curve of the fuse. I finally got exactly the right curve by putting multiple .025 to .032 shims between the canopy side and the outer skin ...meaning those too had to be dimpled. It took extra time, but the results were great. Curvature now matches perfectly. No way to tell from the outside.

[roee]

Originally Posted by jimgreen

I'd prefer to c/s the side rails and dimple the side skins. Are there any problems with this? Seems simple enough.

That's what I did, no problem. That seems like the obvious way to do it, and I don't see any call-out on the plans indicating otherwise.

Originally Posted by jimgreen

The plans call for c/s side skins.

Where did you see this? Drawing number? Drawing revision number / date? What region of the drawing?

[jimgreen]

I couldn't find anything in the written instructions, but DWG 48 section B-B shows the side skin machine countersunk. Drawing is dated 2001.
Seemed sensible to dimple the skins, but that isn't what the drawing shows.

[roee]

Originally Posted by jimgreen

DWG 48 section B-B shows the side skin machine countersunk. Drawing is dated 2001.

Ah, I see what you mean. It does look like that, although I'm not sure if that detail was deliberately drawn that way and meant to be taken so literally. You could ask Van's to be sure. But unless there is some special reason that I'm not aware of, dimpling the outer skin and machine-countersinking the side rail would be the preferred approach as a matter of general practice, given their thicknesses.