VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

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

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 11-27-2017, 06:02 PM
jcarne's Avatar
jcarne jcarne is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Worland, Wyoming
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mort04 View Post
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 didnít think about is the shape of the dimple vs the countersink. It is slightly different. Below is Vans response to me. Thanks for everybodyís input.


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

The concern is that if you go too deep, you wonít 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...
__________________
Jereme Carne
PPL
RV-7A Emp. coming along
Working on Wings
Exempt but gladly paying!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-27-2017, 06:13 PM
Mlidzct Mlidzct is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Southington, Ct
Posts: 40
Default 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.
__________________
RV-7A QB under construction
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-27-2017, 07:28 PM
vlittle's Avatar
vlittle vlittle is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Victoria, Canada
Posts: 1,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mlidzct View Post
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
__________________
===========
V e r n. ====
=======
RV-9A complete
Harmon Rocket complete
S-21 in the oven
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-28-2017, 07:04 AM
Mort04 Mort04 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15
Default Dimple devices

Quote:
Originally Posted by vlittle View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-28-2017, 07:39 AM
jcarne's Avatar
jcarne jcarne is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Worland, Wyoming
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mort04 View Post
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...
__________________
Jereme Carne
PPL
RV-7A Emp. coming along
Working on Wings
Exempt but gladly paying!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-28-2017, 09:01 AM
tims88 tims88 is online now
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Arvada, CO
Posts: 43
Default

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.
__________________
Tim
Arvada, CO
RV-10 started 1/1/17
https://timsrv10blog.wordpress.com/
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-28-2017, 10:40 AM
Mlidzct Mlidzct is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Southington, Ct
Posts: 40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tims88 View Post
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.
__________________
RV-7A QB under construction
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-28-2017, 10:51 AM
boom3's Avatar
boom3 boom3 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Sumner, WA
Posts: 715
Default

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.
__________________
Jeff Bloomquist
Sumner, WA
PP-ASEL, IR

RV-7A
Flying
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 02:34 PM.


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.