Rick6a
Well Known Member
If driven by a limited budget, I can understand why a one-time builder would select a "C" type pneumatic squeezer with interchangeable yoke capability over the alligator type. The "C" type squeezer is readily available from multiple sources and tends to get better press than the alligator type simply because more people have and use them. I happen to own both types of squeezers and much prefer the alligator. If we are talking about both squeezers having the same throat depth or reach.....the alligator squeezer will reach almost every riveting situation the "C" type can and then go on to reach rivets impossible to access with the "C" type. You doubt? Lets say you need to rivet an electrical or hydraulic clip to an existing cockpit sidewall or floor stiffener. In many if not most cases, this would be asking for the impossible using a "C" type squeezer but child's play for the alligator. Dimpling operations are far more ergonomically comfortable and efficient using the alligator too, similiar to holding a pair of scissors. Certainly, there are a relative few situations in which dimpling or setting a rivet in existing structure is easier to accomplish with a "C" type. ...but then the cheaper hand squeezer comes into its own but overall, the alligator squeezer offers significantly greater pneumatic utility than the ubiquitous "C".
Rick Galati "RV-6A Darla
Rick Galati "RV-6A Darla
Last edited: