Instrument Panel Holes
Roger Felton
holes? Or better yet, a hole pattern that will accept both 3 1/8" and
80mm (2 1/4" and 57mm) standard instruments?.
RF
TIM WARD
"Roger Felton" <Rog...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3E735EFC...@socal.rr.com...
Try:
http://www.rst-engr.com/rst/jimsdata/index.html
and scroll down to Instrument Hole Cutout Dimensions.
Tim Ward
Bob Kuykendall
> Does anyone have the dimensions for
> 80mm and 57mm instrument panel holes?
The Aircraft Spruce catalog has templates for the usual
suspects in their instrument section.
For the 2-1/4' (57mm) instrument, they suggest a 2-5/16'
(59mm) hole with the four .169' (~4.5mm) mounting holes
on a 2-5/8' (~66.7mm) dia. circle.
For the 3-1/8' (80mm) instrument, they suggest a 3.16'
(~80.3mm) hole with the four .169' (~4.5mm) mounting
holes on a 3-1/2' (~88.9mm) dia. circle.
> Or better yet, a hole pattern that will accept both
>3 1/8' and
>80mm (2 1/4' and 57mm) standard instruments?.
ACS has panel hole adapters (they call them reducing
masks) that let you put a 2-1/4' instrument in a 3-1/8'
hole. Part number 10-06100. Other than that, no.
Hope that helps some.
Thanks, and best regards to all
Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com
John Morgan
(877.635.1708) has the EI A102 (3 1/8" to 2 1/4") for $11.95 and the EI A103
(same as above but UBG) for $19.50. Aircraft Spruce and others have
templates and drilling guides. Or a custom one can be easily made by any
machine shop with rotary index table.
--
bumper <bum...@ten.tta>
"Dare to be different . . . circle in sink."
to reply, the last half is right to left
"Roger Felton" <Rog...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3E735EFC...@socal.rr.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 2/26/2003
Tim Mara
the 80 mmm (3 1/8") are 80mm
the 57mm (2 1/4") are 57mm
tim
--
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at
www.wingsandwheels.com
"Roger Felton" <Rog...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3E735EFC...@socal.rr.com...
Paul Remde
One word of warning. I have found that many instruments to not fit the
standard 80 mm and 57 mm hole cutouts. Be sure the measure the hole size
needed before cutting.
Paul Remde
"Roger Felton" <Rog...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3E735EFC...@socal.rr.com...
Roger Felton
give the whole story. I want to make drill jigs and router guides for
the large and small instrument holes. As I understand it there are
slight differences between the 80mm cutout and the 3 1/8" cutouts, as
well as slight differences between the 57mm cutout and 2 1/4" cutouts.
Undoubtedly there is a hole diameter and screw pattern that will
accommodate both metric and imperial sized instruments. I have the
standard dimensions for the 3 1/8" and the 2 1/4" cutouts. If I had the
standard dimensions for the 80mm and the 57 mm cutouts I could compare
the two and come up with a common pattern, thus allowing me to make one
drill jig and router guide for the 80mm / 3 1/8" instrument cutout (and
one drill jig and router guide for the 57mm / 2 1/4" instrument cutout).
I was also hoping that someone with practical experience could quantify
the differences between the imperial and metric cutouts, and suggest a
pattern that would work for both.
Thanks,
Roger Felton
tango4
are precision manufactured and will fit all aircraft instruments.
Installation is straightforward mounted on the end of a panel punch they can
be pressed into aluminium, epoxy glass or carbon glass instrument panels.
The kit holes are a little more complex requiring either a punch mounting
tool or radial cutter to install the main hole and a manual or electric
drill with 4.2mm bit for mounting hole installation.
Please specify hole sizes and quantities required.
Holes are packaged in protective envelopes and the price includes worldwide
shipping.
<< Sorry everyone but the discussion about holes brought back some old
memories about a silly little game an old girlfriend and I used to play! The
general idea was to patent *holes* ! >>
<< Its been waaaaaay toooooo long since I did any good flying >>
Ian
"Roger Felton" <Rog...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3E735EFC...@socal.rr.com...
Bob Kuykendall
> As I understand it there are slight differences
> between the 80mm cutout and the 3 1/8" cutouts, as
> well as slight differences between the 57mm cutout
> and 2 1/4" cutouts.
That does not match my understanding. If it's true, you're pretty much on your own.
Bob K.
John Giddy
"Bob Kuykendall" <b...@hpaircraft.com> wrote in message
news:42f0299c.03031...@posting.google.com...
The exact conversions are: 3 1/8" = 79.375 mm; 2 1/4"
= 57.15 mm
Thus an 80 mm hole will fit a 3 1/8" instrument, but a 57 mm
hole will be too tight for a 2 1/4" instrument
Most panels I have seen have holes about 1 mm larger than
the instrument. i.e. 81 mm and 58 mm
The screw mounting hole radii seem to be pretty exact, but I
am open to correction here.
Cheers, John G.
Mike Borgelt
wrote:
>I have a large supply of holes available ex-stock a US$1.00 ea. These holes
>are precision manufactured and will fit all aircraft instruments.
>Installation is straightforward mounted on the end of a panel punch they can
>be pressed into aluminium, epoxy glass or carbon glass instrument panels.
>The kit holes are a little more complex requiring either a punch mounting
>tool or radial cutter to install the main hole and a manual or electric
>drill with 4.2mm bit for mounting hole installation.
>Please specify hole sizes and quantities required.
>Holes are packaged in protective envelopes and the price includes worldwide
>shipping.
>
><< Sorry everyone but the discussion about holes brought back some old
>memories about a silly little game an old girlfriend and I used to play! The
>general idea was to patent *holes* ! >>
><< Its been waaaaaay toooooo long since I did any good flying >>
>
>Ian
Remonds me that around the time of the Berlin Wall demolition I was in
our kitchen, sledgehammer in hand moving a doorway about 3 feet to one
side. It is amazing how difficult it is to move something that masses
nothing.
Mike Borgelt
iPilot
"Roger Felton" <Rog...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:3E735EFC...@socal.rr.com...
Bob Kuykendall
> The exact conversions are: 3 1/8" = 79.375 mm; 2 1/4"
> = 57.15 mm
>
> Thus an 80 mm hole will fit...
I see that we're divided by a common language. :) The way I understand
it, "80mm" and "57mm" are not dimensions; they're conventions. Sorta
like a .38 caliber bullet having an actual OD of .357" (9.067mm).
That is to say, 80mm and 57mm are the _nominal_ dimensions of the
portion of the instrument that inserts through the big hole in the
panel. In my experience in mounting a variety of instruments, the
actual outside diameter of the inserted portion varies between
manufacturers. Most are smaller than the nominal 80mm and 57mm. Some
are a bit larger. The suggestions I supplied in an earlier post, and
to a smaller degree Jim Weir's templates at RST Engineering, account
for that by making the instrument hole comfortably larger than
nominal. In specific, the ACS catalog suggests 3.16" (80.26mm) for
3-1/8" ("80mm") instruments, and 2.31" (58.67mm) for 2-1/4 ("57mm").
When in any doubt, refer (RT( )M) to the documentation supplied with
the instrument in question.
tango4
:-)
Ian
"Mike Borgelt" <mbor...@borgeltinstruments.com> wrote in message
news:6qsa7vgi6gbf96rt7...@4ax.com...
Brent Sullivan "PQ"
"tango4" <i...@tango4.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b558qb$b2u$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
Roger Felton
airspeed indicator with a Winter airspeed indicator. It didn't fit the presumably
"standard" 3.125" instrument cutout. Not really a big deal to enlarge the holes to make
it fit, but it pointed out that there were in fact differences in the hole sizes and
patterns. Looking online at manuals from various instrument manufacturers reveals that
most of them have a different idea of what a "standard" instrument cutout is. If there
truly were a standard I would have expected to see the same dimensions over and over
again. For the most part the differences aren't huge, but if the hole is even just a
few thousands of an inch too small or a fraction of an inch out of position, you aren't
going to get it in without modification.
RF
Bob Kuykendall
>It didn't fit the presumably "standard" 3.125" instrument cutout...
How big was the hole? Was it, as ACS suggests, 3.16" (80.3mm) or
greater? If the inserted portion of the instrument had an OD greater
than the 3.16", I'd very much like to know about it.
Bob "dial calibre" K.
Andy Durbin
mounting holes for the Microair were on a different radius than the
Winter instruments. I'll try to get the data when I'm home next.
Andy (GY)
Roger Felton <r...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message news:<3E76AB4B...@socal.rr.com>...
> Well I guess I'm on my own then. A while back I was replacing a United Instruments
> airspeed indicator with a Winter airspeed indicator. It didn't fit the presumably
> "standard" 3.125" instrument cutout. Not really a big deal to enlarge the holes to make
> it fit, but it pointed out that there were in fact differences in the hole sizes and
> patterns. Looking online at manuals from various instrument manufacturers reveals that
> most of them have a different idea of what a "standard" instrument cutout is. >
Roger Felton
find the measurment now. But more importantly I do remember that the
mounting holes did not line up and I had to significantly enlarge the
four screw holes to get the Winter ASI to fit. Not because the screws
for the Winter instrument were larger in diameter but because the
mounting screw pattern was on a different pitch circle. The next time I
get a chance I'll pull the Winter ASI out of the panel and measure it.
RF
Bill Daniels
the minimum diameter and slowly enlarge the hole until you get a perfect
fit.
Now, anybody know of such a tool?
Bill Daniels
"Roger Felton" <Rog...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3E77BBBB...@socal.rr.com...
Bruce Friesen
tape followed by sandpaper around it, and twirled it by hand (trying not
to move the centre of the circle). I added layers of masking tape to
gradually increase the diameter of my tool. This worked for a panel
formed in glass fibre.
And I can confirm the protruding portion of each instrument was a
different diameter.
Bruce
Bill Daniels
"Bruce Friesen" <bandjf...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3E77D10C...@shaw.ca...
> Admittedly low tech, but I used a standard hole saw, wrapped masking
> tape followed by sandpaper around it, and twirled it by hand (trying not
> to move the centre of the circle). I added layers of masking tape to
> gradually increase the diameter of my tool. This worked for a panel
> formed in glass fibre.
>
> And I can confirm the protruding portion of each instrument was a
> different diameter.
>
> Bruce
Works for me.
Here's a guy that told me that he would do a glider panel for around $125.
http://members.aol.com/panelcut/
Bill Daniels
Bob Kuykendall
> This calls for a new tool to ream instrument panel holes. Just start with
> the minimum diameter and slowly enlarge the hole until you get a perfect
> fit.
Interesting thought. Maybe the tool that engine rebuilders call a
"ridge reamer" could be adapted to that service. A ridge reamer
removes the ridge that forms at the top of a cylinder above where the
piston rings stop.
Bob K.
Bill Daniels
That might do it. You would have to be careful that the hole didn't get
ovaled out.
Recognizing that the screw pattern won't always be the same diameter, I
usually make the holes into 3mm radial slots to accept the variations.
Bill Daniels
Leon McAtee
to the correct diameter just clamp or bolt it to the old hole and route out
using an edge trimmer bit. I missed the earlier part of the discussion so I'm
not sure this is what is being attempted.
Lennie the Lurker
> This calls for a new tool to ream instrument panel holes. Just start with
> the minimum diameter and slowly enlarge the hole until you get a perfect
> fit.
>
> Now, anybody know of such a tool?
>
> Bill Daniels
>
doubt that anyone wants to go the cost of the tool. It should be
possible to make something from an aluminum disk with one cutter and
two guides that would work, but lack of market ensures that it won't
attract many tool makers.
Roger Druce
tapered cylindrical form, ie. a cone shaped. It is about 2 inches long and
the diameter is 1/8" above the required nominal 3 1/8" or 2 1/4" size at one
end and 1/8" below the nominal diameter at the other end. So it is right on
size in the middle. I use steel, and the centre is machined out to lighten
it, but you need not lighten it at all. Aluminium would work fine too.
I cut the holes a fraction undersize. If panel is timber or fibreglass,
then I wrap the form with course sandpaper and sand by twisting the form
around. I enlarge the hole diameter until it just accepts the lip of the
jig which I then insert and use to locate & drill the four instrument screw
holes. With the screw holes drilled I then further enlarge the instrument
hole to accept the largest diameter of instrument that hole might have to
accomodate.
If the panel is aluminium then I file the initial undersize hole to enlarge
it and drop the form into the hole from time to time to check that I am not
filing out of round. When near size you can then use course sandpaper with
aluminium to finish it neatly to accept the jig for the 4 instrument holes.
None of this is fast. Yes I am a masochist. But I get top result I reckon
(my unbiased opinion).
Cheers
Roger Druce
"Bill Daniels" <n22...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:b58g7j$ajm$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Bill Daniels
"Roger Druce" <rogd...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:b5c51p$oo7$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...
Neat tool. How might those of us without access to a lathe get one?
I presume that you insert the cone from the back side of the panel so that
the slight taper of the hole can not be seen.
Bill Daniels
Mike Borgelt
<rogd...@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
>What I use to enlarge instrument panel holes that little bit extra is a
>tapered cylindrical form, ie. a cone shaped. It is about 2 inches long and
>the diameter is 1/8" above the required nominal 3 1/8" or 2 1/4" size at one
>end and 1/8" below the nominal diameter at the other end. So it is right on
>size in the middle. I use steel, and the centre is machined out to lighten
>it, but you need not lighten it at all. Aluminium would work fine too.
>
>I cut the holes a fraction undersize. If panel is timber or fibreglass,
>then I wrap the form with course sandpaper and sand by twisting the form
>around. I enlarge the hole diameter until it just accepts the lip of the
>jig which I then insert and use to locate & drill the four instrument screw
>holes. With the screw holes drilled I then further enlarge the instrument
>hole to accept the largest diameter of instrument that hole might have to
>accomodate.
>
>If the panel is aluminium then I file the initial undersize hole to enlarge
>it and drop the form into the hole from time to time to check that I am not
>filing out of round. When near size you can then use course sandpaper with
>aluminium to finish it neatly to accept the jig for the 4 instrument holes.
>
>None of this is fast. Yes I am a masochist. But I get top result I reckon
>(my unbiased opinion).
>
>Cheers
>Roger Druce
I just built a panel for a Standard Cirrus.
Drew it on 5mm graph paper, took it to a local outfit that do high
pressure water jet cutting who converted my drawing to CAD and then
cut the 2.5mm aluminium panel for A$60 plus tax (about USD$36
currently) outline plus holes. Seems like a bargain to me. This will
work on fiberglass too.
Laser cutting is also OK but they don't like aluminium all that much
but up to 3mm is OK.
Mike Borgelt
Borgelt Instruments