What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Service Bulletin 12-11-09 (Main Landing Gear Upgrade)

Oh the horror and embarrassment of it all!
Yep, I sure did. Actually I had them wrong the original installation, and just replaced them carefully the same way. It appeared that the rounded edges were there to conform to the inner web of the extrusion.
Good catch indeed, my thanks for pointing that out before I even torqued the bolts. That incidentally is the SECOND time that posting a photo has let someone point out an error I made. Posting photos can be a very good thing!
Geico266 said:
Nice catch!


Don! Don't tell me you installed it that way! :eek:
Click to expand...
 
yankee-flyer said:
describe what made 2 out of three of your rivets bad? It look like there are several things that can go wrong. I'm not sure that those of us with flying airplanes can use solid rivets.

The shank was not quite flush in the hole, meaning that it broke slightly below the hole opening. It might not have been a big deal but you don't want to take a chance with quality inspection standards set by the manufacturer. These rivets are great but more complex in there making and operation than LP rivets as the document referenced shows. I believe that, at least for the Cherrymax used in the central beam, the only reason VANs used them is that they did not want to burden the builders with buying (and learning to use) the tools needed to drive solid rivets. For future builders using solid rivets there will not be a problem as they could be squeezed with the rest of the solid rivets of the central beam.
Click to expand...
 
WingedFrog said:
yankee-flyer said:
describe what made 2 out of three of your rivets bad? It look like there are several things that can go wrong. I'm not sure that those of us with flying airplanes can use solid rivets.

The shank was not quite flush in the hole, meaning that it broke slightly below the hole opening. It might not have been a big deal but you don't want to take a chance with quality inspection standards set by the manufacturer. These rivets are great but more complex in there making and operation than LP rivets as the document referenced shows. I believe that, at least for the Cherrymax used in the central beam, the only reason VANs used them is that they did not want to burden the builders with buying (and learning to use) the tools needed to drive solid rivets. For future builders using solid rivets there will not be a problem as they could be squeezed with the rest of the solid rivets of the central beam.
Click to expand...

So, are we saying that, as long as we have the tools, and experience with AN470 rivets, that we may substitute them for any of the Cherrymax call outs?? Sounds good to me, if it's true!!..........Tom
Click to expand...
 
I am making a few mistakes on this build, but my first one had mistakes that threatened the issuance of an AW certificate. See if you can spot the mistake.
35iy53k.jpg
[/IMG]
Geico266 said:
Nice catch!


Don! Don't tell me you installed it that way! :eek:
Click to expand...
 
Air conditioning

"...but of course I had no wings to remove and had good access to that area and was in an air conditioned shop."

Me too, Don - my hangar has been running around 38-42 degrees for the past 6 to 8 weeks. The nice part of that is 1) I save $$$ on my air conditioning bills, and 2) I used to bring my lunch in a little cooler, and have found I no longer need it.

Bob Bogash
N737G
 
todehnal said:
WingedFrog said:
So, are we saying that, as long as we have the tools, and experience with AN470 rivets, that we may substitute them for any of the Cherrymax call outs?? Sounds good to me, if it's true!!..........Tom
Click to expand...

Not so fast! In case I was not clear enough in my post:
- I specifically addressed the case of the 8 Cherrymax rivets that go into the U channel. For the rest of the Cherrymax going into the skin I mentionned that I had no problem setting them.
- Furthermore when in doubt I call VANs, which I did and they said it was OK for these 8 rivets, not for the rest.
Click to expand...
 
I have also completed the SB, solo. It was very simple to do, and as Scott and others mentioned, I followed the factory instructions to the letter and it went great! Now, I did cheat to some extent since I'm not yet flying, and my wings weren't installed yet, no brakes to remove, etc. The entire process took 8-hours, as a data point for those at the same stage I'm at in the build.

I was going to use Don's idea of clamping a 'bridge' across the U-channel to hold the big center (inboard) bolt. But I had another quick idea: I had a 10-pound sledge hammer sitting in my shop. I wrapped the head of the sledge in a red shop rag and carefully set it into the channel. The weight of the sledge kept the large bolt in place, and kept it from trying to push back out. Worked good!

I used a cheap Harbor Freight pneumatic puller for almost all of the CherryMax rivets. They set perfectly. In the cases where that tool wouldn't fit, I used a 20-year old Arrow hand rivet tool. It also pulled great! As others mentioned, and as that link suggests (the CherryMax factory tutorial) just be darn sure the rivet is perfectly flush with the skin before you set the rivet. Mine all turned out great, but I can see how the CherryMax rivets could improperly be set at an angle- if your not flush up against the skin surface. Machine countersinking the big four holes was easy too. I followed Scott's / Vans instructions and they turned out flawless. I used the $13 100-degree bit (with a small pilot) from Aircraft Spruce. As folks mentioned, the pilot doesn't make a difference since it never touches any aluminum anyway. Just be sure to clamp the part down real tight on the drill press.

I'm no engineer, but I think this fix from Vans is fantastic. It is VERY beefy and stout, so I'm certain it's a great improvement. Hat's off to Vans for designing and providing the SB kit! And thanks to the original folks who brought this to the attention of Vans, and the -12 community.
 
WingedFrog said:
The shank was not quite flush in the hole, meaning that it broke slightly below the hole opening. It might not have been a big deal but you don't want to take a chance with quality inspection standards set by the manufacturer. These rivets are great but more complex in there making and operation than LP rivets as the document referenced shows. I believe that, at least for the Cherrymax used in the central beam, the only reason VANs used them is that they did not want to burden the builders with buying (and learning to use) the tools needed to drive solid rivets. For future builders using solid rivets there will not be a problem as they could be squeezed with the rest of the solid rivets of the central beam.
Click to expand...

Depending on the specifics of not quite flush, they may have been just fine (there is a grip range the rivets are rated for, and that variation causes the stem height to vary slightly.
You are partially correct, that solid rivets weren't used because their installation fell outside of the original tool capability's / requirements of the RV-12 kit. Another reason they were used is that the shear rating of the Cherry rivets is slightly higher than the rating for AN470 rivets.

Future builders using solid rivets in the channel is probably ok, but all of the testing was done with Cherry rivets installed, so you will be operating in untested territory.
It will not be an easy installation using a squeezer because of working around the flange of an angle on the top and the bottom.
I personally would still use the Cherry rivets on a new build. With the open access, it should not be difficult getting a good installation.
 
Last edited:
rvbuilder2002 said:
Another reason they were used is that the shear rating of the Cherry rivets is slightly higher than the rating for AN470 rivets.

Future builders using solid rivets in the channel is probably ok, but all of the testing was done with Cherry rivets installed, so you will be operating in untested territory..
Click to expand...

IMHO, if the difference between the shear rating of Cherry rivet and AN470 is of any importance in your tests as well as in the operation of an RV-12, VANs is in biiiiiiig trouble my friend! (and we, as customers, are too). Not only this means that you are pushing the enveloppe of the design but it means that the initial design involving 4 LP3 rivets was greatly deficient which is in contradiction with former statements claiming ASTM compliance.
As much as I know you, I can only interpret your answer as the deployment of a big shield to protect your anatomy which is OK with me.:p
 
A couple of us had a different problem with the cherrys into the channel. I put one in, thought it was a dud and drilled it out. I put in another, same dud, drilled it out as well. I finally put in all 8 and was not happy with how they looked, just too much sticking out on the bottom side!
Finally with some measurements, found the cherrys furnished were a wee bit too long in their grip range for the thickness! When you set a cherry with a grip range at the limits, they appear to be kind of goofy looking. It is our guess that the variation in the extruded channel allows some of us to be thinner than others. They look good to me though, well set locking collars etc. I think I will leave them as they are, shear strength would appear to be quite adequate.
 
WingedFrog said:
IMHO, if the difference between the shear rating of Cherry rivet and AN470 is of any importance in your tests as well as in the operation of an RV-12, VANs is in biiiiiiig trouble my friend! (and we, as customers, are too). Not only this means that you are pushing the enveloppe of the design but it means that the initial design involving 4 LP3 rivets was greatly deficient which is in contradiction with former statements claiming ASTM compliance.
As much as I know you, I can only interpret your answer as the deployment of a big shield to protect your anatomy which is OK with me.:p
Click to expand...

It never ceases to amaze me how some people will self engineer changes because they believe it will make it "a little stronger", (without even knowing if it will, or if it needs it), but then others want to pin me down when I do give specific details that show that a particular deviation may be reducing strength slightly.

Does it not make sense to build it as strong as possible?
You stated yourself that you removed some rivets out of concern for proper strength.

My statement was not a CYA, it was based on personal experience with the (often incorrect) info. freely distributed here on VAF, and was meant to say "Don't necessarily listen to every expert on VAF with a keyboard (sorry to be so blunt, but since you are, I will be also).

Your "As much as I know" statement is very well said (you only know a little bit of the whole story), so I am going to ignore your accusations, and sum it up with just this...

Regardless of what strength the gear mod. adds, someone will still eventually cause some damage. I guarantee, the very first post here on VAF will be to ask what was lacking in the gear mod. that allowed this to happen.

It is inevitable that there will be situations where a pilot needs every single bit of strength possible, regardless of what the ASTM standards require! Because of that, it makes sense to not knowingly reduce that by any amount.
Now do you get my point?
 
DonFromTX said:
A couple of us had a different problem with the cherrys into the channel. I put one in, thought it was a dud and drilled it out. I put in another, same dud, drilled it out as well. I finally put in all 8 and was not happy with how they looked, just too much sticking out on the bottom side!
Finally with some measurements, found the cherrys furnished were a wee bit too long in their grip range for the thickness! When you set a cherry with a grip range at the limits, they appear to be kind of goofy looking. It is our guess that the variation in the extruded channel allows some of us to be thinner than others. They look good to me though, well set locking collars etc. I think I will leave them as they are, shear strength would appear to be quite adequate.
Click to expand...

Don, If your channel was thinner, then you would have had less of the mandrel sticking out than expected (not more). The thing that probably throws people off is that a properly installed Cheery rivet of this style does have quite a bit of the mandrel sticking out.
 
Thank vans for the added strength

After reviewing the fix that vans has supplied it seems as I stated in all my posts on this subject.

The channel is rotating front down and bottom back and up , the big doublers in the back of the spar is stopping the rotation from going up and the little section under the spar is in tension tying it to the front skin stopping the bottom of the channel from moving back . The added F-1204U is to tie the channel to the skins in shear ( a very important connection ).

This all stems from the removable wings and no bolt through the spar tying the front skin into the equation.

Vans fix will help to help prevent damage from a non standard landing and or tire skip.

Thank vans for the added strength.
My View
 
Well I think you are right, the pictures in the cherry max book are not all that detailed and we are used to NOT seeing the mandrel sticking out of the shop head that far. As others have said, the cherry max for the sides went in with never a glitch, look very nice and proper. I did have to drill out two of them as well, I had not got the factory head completely seated against the work and the reflection fooled me when pulling it.

rvbuilder2002 said:
Don, If your channel was thinner, then you would have had less of the mandrel sticking out than expected (not more). The thing that probably throws people off is that a properly installed Cheery rivet of this style does have quite a bit of the mandrel sticking out.
Click to expand...
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Now do you get my point?
Click to expand...

Yes Scott, I got it well and thanks for your patience as I was a tad tough on you. Here is what rattled me: when I called the support line at VANs and I explained my problems with the Cherrymax rivets of the U channel and our suggestion to replace them with solid rivets there was no hesitation to say it was OK and the responder even identified the type as AN470s. Then in your comment above you basically tell me that I am on my own with the AN470s. As most other builders, I trust VANs and I particularly appreciated the efforts made to solve the weakness detected and corrected by the SB. But if there is not a common view at VANs on issues and solutions who are we builders going to trust? This is even more concerning in cases where the E-LSA certification could be at stake. Now tell me that the substitution of eight Cherrymax with eight AN470 will not put my E-LSA status in jeopardy and I will be a happy builder again!:D
 
WingedFrog said:
Now tell me that the substitution of eight Cherrymax with eight AN470 will not put my E-LSA status in jeopardy and I will be a happy builder again!:D
Click to expand...

I don't think that it would.
Having said that, anyone that deviates from the plans should get the change approval in writing (e-mail or something similar) so that you have proof for your inspector should they question it.

That is the primary reason for my comment... that builders should not be giving advice to others regarding changes prior to certification. Just because one builder got the ok (whether they have it in writing or not), is not a blanket approval for everyone to do it.
So, your statement "I call VANs, which I did and they said it was OK for these 8 rivets, not for the rest" is not approval for you to imply to everyone else that they should do it also (even if it would be easy during construction).
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
You are partially correct, that solid rivets weren't used because their installation fell outside of the original tool capability's / requirements of the RV-12 kit. Another reason they were used is that the shear rating of the Cherry rivets is slightly higher than the rating for AN470 rivets.

Future builders using solid rivets in the channel is probably ok, but all of the testing was done with Cherry rivets installed, so you will be operating in untested territory.
It will not be an easy installation using a squeezer because of working around the flange of an angle on the top and the bottom.
I personally would still use the Cherry rivets on a new build. With the open access, it should not be difficult getting a good installation.
Click to expand...

Thanks Scott! Not being familiar with Cherrymax Rivets, your statement regarding shear strength is good enough for me. Cherymax it is!!

Tom
 
Threadless!

Let me repeat like almost everyone on here I am really pleased how Van's has handled this landing gear SB. Best decision I've made was to go with such a responsible manufacturer.

Spent several hours today match drilling, countersinking the wear plates per the SB instructions when I discovered that one of the four AN509 screws was missing its threads. I confess while I inventoried the parts for the SB a few weeks ago, in my excitement to get started I clearly overlooked something pretty obvious!... hopefully they can get a replacement out to me soon as I am not going to be able to move forward on at least one side of the aircraft.

343kkn6.jpg
 
Service Bulletin

Finally got it done. Van's has done a incredible job with this. The speed of response, detailed instructions and free parts. You won't find that any place but here. Anybody tried dealing with Beechcraft?

Richard
120002
 
joedallas said:
After reviewing the fix that vans has supplied it seems as I stated in all my posts on this subject.

The channel is rotating front down and bottom back and up , the big doublers in the back of the spar is stopping the rotation from going up and the little section under the spar is in tension tying it to the front skin stopping the bottom of the channel from moving back . The added F-1204U is to tie the channel to the skins in shear ( a very important connection ).
My View
Click to expand...

There is something I don't quite get here:
When the channel tends to rotate, the rivets tying the F-1204U (on top) and F-1204T (on bottom) to the U beam would come under tension, not shear while the rivets tying the F-1204U and T to the skins would be stressed in shear as you noted. This would mean that the Cherrymax choice for the U Beam is questionable compared to solid rivets. Even more questionable is the choice of the rivets tying the F-1204U and T to the skins which are regular LP4-3 but should logically be Cherrymax.
Do I miss something?
 
WingedFrog said:
There is something I don't quite get here:
When the channel tends to rotate, the rivets tying the F-1204U (on top) and F-1204T (on bottom) to the U beam would come under tension, not shear while the rivets tying the F-1204U and T to the skins would be stressed in shear as you noted. This would mean that the Cherrymax choice for the U Beam is questionable compared to solid rivets. Even more questionable is the choice of the rivets tying the F-1204U and T to the skins which are regular LP4-3 but should logically be Cherrymax.



Do I miss something?
Click to expand...

Yes.
The part about thinking that the rivets are only loaded in tension.
 
rvbuilder2002 said:
Yes.
The part about thinking that the rivets are only loaded in tension.
Click to expand...

Not very convincing.... and yet we have 4X4=16 LP4-3 attaching the F1204s to the skins that are stressed in Shear when the Channel is pulled or rotates: why not use Cherrymax there?
 
It's not that simple

It's not that simple

The loads tension or shear on these four rivets is a component of their location about the center of rotation which may be as high as 6" or 8" above the channel
My guess is the shear in larger factor then the tension

Note: only 4 rivets in channel and eight in the skin in this connection
In my view vans has this right


Also Note: in a hard landing the channel tries to move up the rivets in the bottom go in tension at the channel and the rivets at the top go into a shear tension component based on their distance and bending moment from the apex of the angle

This is a complex connection many different loads may be applied


WingedFrog said:
There is something I don't quite get here:
When the channel tends to rotate, the rivets tying the F-1204U (on top) and F-1204T (on bottom) to the U beam would come under tension, not shear while the rivets tying the F-1204U and T to the skins would be stressed in shear as you noted. This would mean that the Cherrymax choice for the U Beam is questionable compared to solid rivets. Even more questionable is the choice of the rivets tying the F-1204U and T to the skins which are regular LP4-3 but should logically be Cherrymax.
Do I miss something?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
joedallas said:
This is a complex connection many different loads may be applied
Click to expand...

I would agree with that statement. However, without the specific knowledge that Vans now have based on practical tests and detailed analysis, all the theories about what happens, however interesting, are really just speculation (and probably wrong).
 
Sound engineering principles ( not speculation )

I agree we don't have all the data that vans has.

I do believe that my experiences over the years of evaluating structural problems and the fix that vans implemented confirms my evaluation of the problem ( and is most likely correct )

The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development defined engineering as follows:
?The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures"

rgmwa said:
I would agree with that statement. However, without the specific knowledge that Vans now have based on practical tests and detailed analysis, all the theories about what happens, however interesting, are really just speculation (and probably wrong).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
joedallas said:
I agree we don't have all the data that vans has.

<snip>
The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development defined engineering as follows:
?The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures"
Click to expand...

That's a narrow definition of engineering. Some of us mechanicals have nothing to do with structures (unless you count turbulent flow structures).:cool:

Jerre
 
The rest of the stoty

The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation or safety to life and property



AeroDog said:
That's a narrow definition of engineering. Some of us mechanicals have nothing to do with structures (unless you count turbulent flow structures).:cool:

Jerre
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Note to normal readers: This is what an engineer's pissing contest looks like.

An engineer:
Someone who solves a problem you didn't know you had, in a way you don't understand.

Q: What do engineers use for birth control?
A: Their personalities.

You might be an engineer if ...
... in college you thought "spring break" was metal fatigue failure.
... at an air show you know how fast the skydivers are falling.
... you sit backwards on the amusement rides to figure out the special effects.
... you have saved every power cord from all your broken appliances.
... you see a good design and still have to change it.
... you still own a slide rule and know how to use it.
... you think that people yawning around you are sleep deprived.
... you've tried to repair a $5 radio.
... you chuckle whenever someone says "centrifugal force".
... you've been arrested by the ASPCA for performing the Schrodinger's Cat experiment.
... you make four sets of drawings and seven revisions before making a bird bath.
... you can name 6 Star Trek episodes.
... you have ever purchased an electronic appliance "as is".
... you have a neatly sorted collection of old bolts and nuts in your garage.
... you don't find the above at all funny.

Bill H. BSME, La. Tech, '75
 
Re: Bill H post

What's funny?




Happy New Year when it arrives - just comimg over the horizon here (Scotland)

Cheers..Keith
 
joedallas said:
I do believe that my experiences over the years of evaluating structural problems and the fix that vans implemented confirms my evaluation of the problem ( and is most likely correct )
Click to expand...

Joe, I'm sure you have a better understanding of structures than many others on the forum who don't have the benefit of a technical background.

Nor would I disagree that under certain loading conditions (which we on this forum still don't know BTW), the channel was able to translate/rotate sufficiently to buckle the side skins/baggage floor area, which therefore had to be strengthened in the most practical and effective way possible given the constraints of the current design. If they were starting with a clean sheet, Vans may well have done things differently, but they didn't have that luxury.

I've also been around structures long enough to know that the accuracy of forensic anaylsis is no better than the reliability or completeness of the data on which it's based. In this case Vans have the data, we don't. That's not to say that it's not fun to try and figure out what's going on and how to fix it. I've been guilty of that myself. In fact when I first put the fuselage kit together I spent quite some time looking at that whole area of the fuselage because I didn't much like the look of it, especially with the channel being so close to the spar slots. It appeared that there were some heavy concentrated loads being taken by what seemed to be rather light structure.

However my point is that this part of the structure is subjected to complex loads and that without the data, the prediction of how the various parts interact with each other, where the forces go, and which rivets do what, etc remains at best, educated guesswork. Many an elegant structural theory has later been demolished by an inconvenient fact that emerged when more work was done. That's why I believe we should be cautious about handing out detailed advice or explanations based on scanty information (ie speculation).
 
Last edited:
For what it is worth, I think we should praise Van's for an excellent design, superb product support and then go fly and have fun.

That is what the RVs are all about - fun.

For those who have yet to taste the delights of their machine in the air, you will not be disappointed.

I would like to also thank Scott for all of his hard work, advice and insight provided to this forum - despite those who seem to want to continually whinge! Long may it coninue. I've said it before and I'll say it again - just try getting that level of support from certified airframe and engine manufacturers.....

Happy New Year from England (different country to Scotland, eh, Keith...?).

:)
 
Think I'm not an engineer? Here is my long-suffering wife's latest Facebook post.
FROM PAM:
SO it is our 36th Anniversary and Bill gives me a pretty card with a love poem on it! And, engineer that he is, he decides to clarify the poem with footnotes. *Sigh* Here it is.

What is Love? (*1)
Love is the way (*2)
that our lives intertwine (*3)
Love is the feeling (*4)
of your hand in mine (*5)
Love is each look
and each meaningful touch (*6)
The unspoken language (*7)
That tells us so much (*8)
Love is the laughter (*9)
and joy that we share (*10)
But most of all (*11)
Love is just knowing (*12)
you're there (*13)
The warmth and joy
that fill my heart (*14)
the love that's meant to be (*15)
The greatest treasure of my life
that's what you are to me (*16)

(*1) Baby, don't hurt me.
(*2) In the generic sense of a directed path, not like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Way_International
(*3) Like DNA twisting axially around protein molecular bonds
(*4) A funny feeling like Han Solo had when approaching the Cloud City on Bespin
(*5) Well, not literally, as your hand should remain attached to your body
(*6) Not "Healing Touch" - let's keep it real
(*7) Klingon? Esperanto? Na'vi?
(*8) "So much" as in "a desirable quantity," not in the sense of a post-rain statement like "Well, so much for the picnic."
(*9) Did you know that laughter is not truly the best medicine? Particularly when bacteria are involved. In that case, ampicillin would be significantly superior to laughter
(*10) As in "what's mine is your and whats your is yours"
(*11) Since Infinity is always larger than any amount designated "the most of all," this literal concept is invalid. Interesting!
(*12) As in an hypothesis that supports the explanation of existing empirical evidence and makes accurate predictions, but is still open to change based on new evidence
(*13) Or as closely as your position can be determined in light of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
(*14) Actually, plasma and hemoglobin are the primary contents of my heart, but the "warm" part is certainly valid
(*15) The concept and applicability of free will vs. determinism does make a destined outcome a problematic concept!
(*16) 100% Accurate! A+!


Moderator, please delete if the drift is excessive!
 
Engineers see things as they are

Engineers see things as they are

To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
 
joedallas said:
Engineers see things as they are

To the optimist, the glass is half full.
To the pessimist, the glass is half empty.
To the engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.
Click to expand...

Joe, Australian engineers figure you can fit twice as much in. ;)
 
POSTING FOR - JOHN SHEFFELS ( John Bender ) - -

I just came up with an easy way to check the landing gear bolt torque
without removing landing gear fairings and F61275 cover plates etc, if
torquing from the bottom. I don't like using the crowfoot wrenches when
torquing from the top. There must be a better way.

I found a special extreme access 1/2" socket from Sears that I modified by
grinding both the bottom and top away as show in this photo. I then ground
off the male square part of a 1/4" 6" extension and brazed the two parts
together. I used a 1/4" to 3/8" adapter for my torque wrench. Works well.

John and Marilyn Sheffels





IMG_0333_zps70e7bd69.jpg

IMG_0343_zpsc6a46157.jpg
 
Just what I was looking for! I refuse to torque them from the head.
Problem is, I cannot quite understand what you did and how you did it. Can you elaborate or expand your explanation a bit for us that are slow?
 
It looks like he made a very short socket that is able to get onto the nut in the confined space available. Good work John Sheffels.
Joe Gores
 
I was just thinking today that I had not seen anything out of Joe Gores for awhile. Glad to see you are still with us.
 
Custom socket

Great idea JS. If you want to go into the socket manufacturing business, I can guarantee you at least one customer.
 
DonFromTX said:
Just what I was looking for! I refuse to torque them from the head.
Problem is, I cannot quite understand what you did and how you did it. Can you elaborate or expand your explanation a bit for us that are slow?
Click to expand...
How to do it
1. First you need to purchase a Craftsman ?? MAX AXESS socket, a ?? x6? extension, and a ?? to 3/8? adapter. Cost is about $12.

2. As viewed from the 2nd picture, use a bench grinder to grind off the narrow neck of the left side of the socket, down to the beveled edge.

3. Grind the large right side of the socket approximately halfway, as show in the picture.

4. Grind off the male square part of the 6? extension.

5. Place the 6? extension into a vise with the ground part up.

6. Place the socket over the protruding part of the 6? extension.

7. Adjust protruding part of the extension so it is just slightly below the round inside edge.

8. Braze the socket to the extension.
 
In addition to playing with us and our toy airplanes, Bob Bogash also is featured in the Air and Space Smithsonian March 2013 edition that just arrived. Page 10 also has his photograph! We truly are in the midst of greatness we have not appreciated!

Tony_T said:
My MLG upgrade thread is straying off topic a bit, but that's OK. And now, as the OP, I will exercise the privilege of straying a bit further because I want to introduce Bob Bogash.
As you already know, Bob is an airplane nut and knows a lot about them. What you may not know is the depth of his involvement and you will be astounded when I show you some of his accomplishments. Bob, among other things, is a very active volunteer at the Museum of Flight in Seattle. A link to his website is a step into a amazing world of Planes, Trains and other...
So, to introduce, here is a picture of Bob, wife Dot, and one of his mistresses, a Super Connie:
i-qwsH3Xz-L.jpg

Bob was (volunteer) project manager to acquire, refurbish and transport, by highway the Connie from Canada to the Museum in Seattle. Quite a trip as photos on his website will show. Here it is arriving in Seattle after a road trip from New York:
i-4SW2JMc-L.jpg

Bob's forum moniker, NASA515, is the ID number of the prototype 737 which he worked on as a Boeing engineer.
i-pbwbw67-L.jpg

In retirement, Bob made over 140 trips across the Cascades to Moses Lake, to get the retired 737 prototype flyable and fly it back to Boeing Field where it now resides in the Museum airpark. Talk about a commute to the airport. He "owns" many other aircraft included a B-52, and is busy on several acquistion project including a Boeing Clipper that was sunk by naval gunfire (ours) and is currently at the bottom of the ocean. I think he may get it.
Gentlemen, check out his website, this is not a guy who failed retirement.

Tony
Click to expand...
 
Not sure what you are doing here

Mich48041 said:
DSC00056a.JPG

DSC00048a.JPG

Links to bigger pictures:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/pid5vN0Ngi6ZhGTRuFHxItMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/O6HRwEDeIjd749nneyNIy9MTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
I used a 3/8" x 1/2" adapter to connect a torque wrench to the open end of a stubby combination wrench. Keep torque wrench at 90 degrees to combination wrench for accurate torque.
Joe Gores
Click to expand...

More explaination Joe. Thanks
 
Posting 241 above shows how to make a tool to torque nuts using a 1/2" socket. But brazing is required to make the tool.
I used tools that I already had in my toolbox, no cutting or brazing required. The box end of the 1/2" stubby wrench goes around the nut. A 3/8 x 1/2 inch adapter fits into the open end of the 1/2" stubby wrench. And the torque wrench (with extension) fits into the adapter. The adapter is designed for using a 3/8" ratchet with 1/2" drive sockets.
Most builders use a crow's foot open end wrench. But the crow's foot has a limited swing arc because it hits the heavy channel sooner than a box end wrench.
My method of torquing the nuts might not be any better than other methods. But it is an easy option using the tools that I had at hand.
Joe Gores
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top