What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Over countersinking?

Mort04

Member
Ok, I’m not sure why I feel like I’m struggling with the Front Spar on my Empennage, but here it is.

I countersunk HS-710 and HS-714. I think I may have gone a little too deep in an attempt to make the dimples on HS-702 fit into the countersunk hole. I know section 5 says 7 clicks past flush is the proper depth, however it didn’t seem like the dimple fit properly. Attached is a link to a picture with a AN426AD4 rivet inserted into the hole for reference. I’m worried I’ll need to order new reinforcement angles. What are your thoughts?


https://flic.kr/p/GUigan
 
Last edited:
Countersink

Ok, I’m not sure why I feel like I’m struggling with the Front Spar on my Empennage, but here it is.

I countersunk HS-710 and HS-714. I think I may have gone a little too deep in an attempt to make the dimples on HS-702 fit into the countersunk hole. I know section 5 says 7 clicks past flush is the proper depth, however it didn’t seem like the dimple fit properly. Attached is a link to a picture with a AN426AD4 rivet inserted into the hole for reference. I’m worried I’ll need to order new reinforcement angles. What are your thoughts?


https://flic.kr/p/GUigan

That's a close one Kyle. Send it to Vans to be certain. If you send it now and call this afternoon, they may be able to advise by phone and avoid waiting all weekend. I suspect they will say it's ok provided the dimple rests in the countersink and not so deep it doesn't touch bottom.
I suggest fabricating a set of dimple tokens. Tip is on my blog.
Also, never trust a cutter. Test before use on a hunk of scrap drilled full of holes.
 
Last edited:
That's a close one Kyle. Send it to Vans to be certain. If you send it now and call this afternoon, they may be able to advise by phone and avoid waiting all weekend. I suspect they will say it's ok provided the dimple rests in the countersink and not so deep it doesn't touch bottom.
I suggest fabricating a set of dimple tokens. Tip is on my blog.
Also, never trust a cutter. Test before use on a hunk of scrap drilled full of holes.


Thanks for the input, and very good info on your blog. I?ll give vans a call and see what they say. I?m half tempted to just order and start fresh with the reinforcement angles.
 
I did this on purpose on my cowling so that i could fill in the void with filler that way you cant see the rivets.

I set them by taking a very large dimple die, grinding the male part flat and using that to set the rivet. It works perfect. Hopefully vans blesses off on it in your case. Yours is a structural component, mine is not.
 
I obsessed over the proper counter sink depth for a while. It really bugged me that chapter 5's recommendation of seven clicks past flush wasn't deep enough to allow the dimpled part to fit perfectly flush into the countersink. After a ton of searching and reading about countersink depth on these forums I came across this post:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showpost.php?p=1154282&postcount=5

That, along with another post from the same person where he pointed out that the RV-14 prototype was built entirely using 7 clicks past flush was enough to convince me that 7 clicks was adequate. I'd rather have a tiny sliver of light visible between the parts than risk countersinking too deep and decreasing the strength of the joint. I've also heard that once the parts are riveted together that small gap usually disappears anyway. However, I can't remember ever holding two riveted parts up to a light to see if I can still see light between them or not.
 
I'd do some dimples in a piece of scrap and see how they "fit" in the CS.

Should be less than .002" between the skin and spar. (If more, too shallow of a C/S. If it "slides" or "wiggles" C/S is too deep).
 
Looks too deep

The picture looks too deep in my opinion. I religiously followed Vans advice and use the depth gauge part of a dial caliper to get the .007.
 
The verdict is in, time to order new HS-710 and 714 reinforcement angles. Vans got back to me and as a couple people mentioned earlier in this thread 7 clicks past flush is what I should have done, regardless of the two peices not mating completely tight. Not sure why I would question that as a first time builder......

Anyway, one thing Vans pointed out to me that I didn?t think about is the shape of the dimple vs the countersink. It is slightly different. Below is Vans response to me. Thanks for everybody?s input.


That does look substantially deep. I would probably start over.

The concern is that if you go too deep, you won?t have a solid interface between the skin and the underlying structure. You will almost always have some gap showing between the skin and underlying structure. The edge on that countersink is pretty sharp whereas the edge on the dimple is rounded. 7 clicks beyond flush is safe.
 
The verdict is in, time to order new HS-710 and 714 reinforcement angles. Vans got back to me and as a couple people mentioned earlier in this thread 7 clicks past flush is what I should have done, regardless of the two peices not mating completely tight. Not sure why I would question that as a first time builder......

Anyway, one thing Vans pointed out to me that I didn?t think about is the shape of the dimple vs the countersink. It is slightly different. Below is Vans response to me. Thanks for everybody?s input.


That does look substantially deep. I would probably start over.

The concern is that if you go too deep, you won?t have a solid interface between the skin and the underlying structure. You will almost always have some gap showing between the skin and underlying structure. The edge on that countersink is pretty sharp whereas the edge on the dimple is rounded. 7 clicks beyond flush is safe.

Don't take it too hard, I had to do this area 3 times before getting everything just right! I still have them part numbers memorized...
 
Dimple nesting

I was running into the same issue. I countersunk .007 deep (verified by putting a rivet in the hole and measuring depth with end of caliper. The dimple on the spar didnt seem to nest right. Since I knew I had the correct countersink I started looking at the dimple. Bottom line, the dimple from the drdt-2 does not nest while the dimple formed with the c-frame fits just right. When you look real close the dimples look almost identical but the one formed by c-frame is sharper.
 
I was running into the same issue. I countersunk .007 deep (verified by putting a rivet in the hole and measuring depth with end of caliper. The dimple on the spar didnt seem to nest right. Since I knew I had the correct countersink I started looking at the dimple. Bottom line, the dimple from the drdt-2 does not nest while the dimple formed with the c-frame fits just right. When you look real close the dimples look almost identical but the one formed by c-frame is sharper.

Bingo! Many new builders underset their dimples, and the best way to dimple is a c-frame or a properly adjusted pneumatic squeezer. The dimple should be crisp and the skins should not be wavey around the dimple.

I have seen builders using 'better' tools with fancy names that do a worse job than the old-school tools. A c-frame and a dead blow hammer is noisy but effective.

V
 
Dimple devices

Bingo! Many new builders underset their dimples, and the best way to dimple is a c-frame or a properly adjusted pneumatic squeezer. The dimple should be crisp and the skins should not be wavey around the dimple.

I have seen builders using 'better' tools with fancy names that do a worse job than the old-school tools. A c-frame and a dead blow hammer is noisy but effective.

V


With that being said, I used a pneumatic squeezer for my dimples on the 702 spars. I still need a DRDT-2 or a C-frame. For the money, the C-frame seems more economical. Is it the consensus that the C-frame is an all around better dimpling tool?
 
With that being said, I used a pneumatic squeezer for my dimples on the 702 spars. I still need a DRDT-2 or a C-frame. For the money, the C-frame seems more economical. Is it the consensus that the C-frame is an all around better dimpling tool?

This is debated heavily, if you do a search you will find lots of information. I use a c-frame and works great! at a third the cost mind you...
 
Personally I believe it has more to do with the dies than the tool as long as a proper amount of pre-load is used on the DRDT-2. I have both a DRDT-2 and a C-frame and with the same dies I cannot see a difference between the dimples.

As for the dies, I have a new set that came with my toolkit and an old set (probably 10 years old by now) that came with tools I am borrowing from another builder. The older set produces a dimple with much crisper edges than the new dies, but even with the old dies I cannot see a difference between the DRDT-2 and the C-frame.
 
Personally I believe it has more to do with the dies than the tool as long as a proper amount of pre-load is used on the DRDT-2. I have both a DRDT-2 and a C-frame and with the same dies I cannot see a difference between the dimples.

As for the dies, I have a new set that came with my toolkit and an old set (probably 10 years old by now) that came with tools I am borrowing from another builder. The older set produces a dimple with much crisper edges than the new dies, but even with the old dies I cannot see a difference between the DRDT-2 and the C-frame.


Just to clarify in my example, I used the same set of dies in my drdt-2 and the c-frame. They look about the same to the eye. The c-frame one nests a machined countersink, the drdt-2 one does not. Drdt-2 is set properly and I use it everywhere else. But when trying to fit formed dimples to sharp machined countersinks the c-frame works better for me.
 
Don't feel bad, the HS-710 was the first part I had to reorder for the exact same reason. I lost sleep for a couple nights but got over it. ;)
 
Back
Top