AN3 hole tolerance question 3

[PJYDE]

hi all,

I'm working on the wing spars of a 2 seats light kit airplane.
The spars are already drilled and assembled by the factory.

Here an image of the root part:

I found out that the thread-lock-paint on some AN3 bolts was broken, so I wanted to re-torque them.
But I was surprised that the bolt had quite some play in the hole.
The bolt has a dia of: 0.1870 inch
The holes vary from 0.1900 to 0.1950 inch
Is this too much?

I though about going to a NAS6603-16 bolt because they are a bit thicker: 0.1885 to 0.1895 inch.
But these are shear bolts and have a shorter thread, so it will be difficult to use a standard washer and AN365-1032 nut and still have 1 to 3 threads protruding.
Are these joins in shear or tension?

What would be the best solution?

Many thanks for your advice.

 

[MOHR1951]

No one has yet to reply to my earlier post.Perhaps my answer lies in the comments made,and speak for themselves.But tell me anyway,my kit money is burning a hole in my pocket.

 

[rb1957]

I appreciate that english is not your native language, but your question isn't clear.

Maybe start your own thread ? (rather than hi-jacking someone else's)

But if you want to build a kit plane, survey the available kitplanes, get active on kitplane sites (to get a feel for how specific kits are thought of), then take your choice and pay your money and have fun building your own plane. Maybe also talk to your local airworthiness authority to see how much involvement they have (should be very little).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[SwinnyGG]

I appreciate that english is not your native language, but your question isn't clear.

I believe he is asking for the name of the manufacturer of the kit being discussed in this thread.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

[WKTaylor]

RB... RE Your comment...

"that doc looks like it comes from MD but that typeface looks like Boeing (as in their structures manuals)". See attached NAVWEPS 00-25-559 Tips on Fatigue circa 1963. You may recognize some of the illustrations that were plagiarized for the Shop Awareness Briefing of the 1980s [?].

http://files.engineering.com/getfil...e4&file=NAVWEPS_00-25-559~Tips_on_Fatigue.pdf

BTW... that 'NAVWEPS 00-25-559' [1963 document] illustrates a teaching style that is characteristic of the era: intermix formal figures, sketches, cartoons, wisdoms/quotes and 'special emphasis' interspersed within the body of the text [text was generally limited to 1-to-1.5 columns per 2-collumn per page... before something 'interesting/visual' was inserted]. Not only is this writing style interesting and compelling and motivating to the reader, it gives the mind a useful 'break' between critical thoughts that enhances learning. Sure, these documents are a LOT more intense to write... and somewhat longer in published form... but they challenging to the author to keep it interesting. SADLY current technical writing style is extraordinarily dry: Text up-front; data tables, figures, etc all neatly packaged at the back of a document/chapter. No wonder no one wants to read technical stuff anymore@$%&(*)(&^#$#%^&*!

BTW... that spar does NOT look lightly built... as I expect for a very light/simple aircraft. The spar looks like its intended for a high performance acft.

BTW... I'm having a hard-time deciding if there is any primer on these parts... or if I'm [just] seeing [green-yellow tint] chromic acid anodize [CAA] finish W/O primer...



Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]