Re: bell aircraft tooling numbers
Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:00 am
Looking at what you came up with, I think that one of the hole designators is incorrect. You shouldn't have the same base number for two different styles of hole flanging. The only difference between the -1 and the -6 should be size and not style. Is it possible that the print you are looking at is blurred enough that the 4 in the base number could be questioned?
As to the IPB drawing... it's only a reference drawing to show general placement and arrangement. Even very up to date IPB's have drawings that only approximate the actual part sometimes, so I wouldn't sweat a difference there.
As to the IPB drawing... it's only a reference drawing to show general placement and arrangement. Even very up to date IPB's have drawings that only approximate the actual part sometimes, so I wouldn't sweat a difference there.
Re: bell aircraft tooling numbers
Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:16 am
i was actually looking at the wrong drawing (for the Q not D), the holes are Q180-13, Q180-7 Q184-6 and 184 has a different bead
Re: bell aircraft tooling numbers
Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:20 am
also that stiffener is the same fwd and aft left and right, i have 1 busted up, but the bell material is "30Z7 D-32".. any idea what that is? its very hard, the bulkhead collapsed around it but it is straight and not even corroded, just broke the bottom of the right aft stiffener a little bit
Re: bell aircraft tooling numbers
Mon Nov 21, 2016 2:56 pm
Ok, Q180-x is most likely standard 35 degree punch and flare tools. I suspect that if that hole is a -7, then it would be a 1 7/32" punch and die, with the steps in 32ths of an inch. The numbers don't quite work out for the info that I have, but it's close. When you get some time, measure up another couple of holes and find the dash numbers and we will try and coordinate the dash number to what you have.
Q164 is a punch and bead die, and based on the numbers you gave me, I will bet that they are Bell specific sizing. It will take another couple of holes to verify.
Question... When you made the measurements, are you using calipers or a scale? If calipers, take several measurements at various clockings to generate an average dimension. Accuracy counts to a point. Measurements to 2 decimal places is plenty for this exercise, but it takes a good eye and some practice to get that close on holes using a scale
. To make it easier, instead of using the end of the scale, slide over and use the 1" mark as your zero point and adjust your readings. Again, use several clockings to get an average number and verify the hole is actually round and has not been distorted from the structural damage...seen it happen before and unless you were looking carefully, it wasn't apparent.
Moving on to the material D-32. I suspect that it's a nickle steel and probably outlandishly expensive for what you need for the rebuild. You could take a sample and have it analyzed for content and then compare compositions to get the same stuff, but that can be expensive and you have to have a piece you can let be destroyed to get the data. I'd see what the other guys doing rebuilds used for this before I dropped the cash to do an analysis.
I'll be out of pocket til this weekend, so no real hurry on getting numbers.
Q164 is a punch and bead die, and based on the numbers you gave me, I will bet that they are Bell specific sizing. It will take another couple of holes to verify.
Question... When you made the measurements, are you using calipers or a scale? If calipers, take several measurements at various clockings to generate an average dimension. Accuracy counts to a point. Measurements to 2 decimal places is plenty for this exercise, but it takes a good eye and some practice to get that close on holes using a scale
. To make it easier, instead of using the end of the scale, slide over and use the 1" mark as your zero point and adjust your readings. Again, use several clockings to get an average number and verify the hole is actually round and has not been distorted from the structural damage...seen it happen before and unless you were looking carefully, it wasn't apparent.Moving on to the material D-32. I suspect that it's a nickle steel and probably outlandishly expensive for what you need for the rebuild. You could take a sample and have it analyzed for content and then compare compositions to get the same stuff, but that can be expensive and you have to have a piece you can let be destroyed to get the data. I'd see what the other guys doing rebuilds used for this before I dropped the cash to do an analysis.
I'll be out of pocket til this weekend, so no real hurry on getting numbers.