Piper Leading Edge Discrepancy

I am preparing to make new leading edges for my wings and found a discrepancy between an old piper leading edge in my shop and the piper drawings. Before I make assumptions about which dimension to use to make them I thought I would ask here.

The piper drawing I am looking at is 10631
It lists the dimensions as 23 9/16 X 32 9/16. The lower flange is 1". The upper flange is 1 1/8"

I have the same (but beaten to death) leading edge in my shop. In measuring it I get a small difference.

The one I have is 23 7/17 X 32 9/16 with the same flanges. In other words, the original I have is 1/8 smaller than the drawings. Is this a drawing error or manufacturing tolerance (which I dont see on the drawing). It may not matter in the end but I wanted to check. Also, I will be using .025 instead of the original .016.

I just dont want to bend up a bunch of aluminum that I have to throw away. Thanks for any responses.

23 9/16" is the better dimension. If you go 1/8" shorter it may cause a cupping effect at the break edge when the skin is attached. Also break the bottom to 90 deg. and the top to 105 deg.

Are you using 2024-T3 or 5052-H32 stock?

5052 H13. Two of my beaten up leading edge pieces (when you convert over from the old nomenclature) are 3003 H13. The tank bay false spar piece is also 3003. Interesting.

I would use 2024-T3. It is stiffer and more dent resistant than 5052. No difference in weight.

skywagon8a said:

I would use 2024-T3. It is stiffer and more dent resistant than 5052. No difference in weight.

Click to expand...

I always use 2024-t3 too....

and if it was soft stuff originally you might be able to use a thinner hard alum with same strength/dent result as soft, and weigh ~~25% less......

man I've seen some of the -t3 on a '51 SC was as soft as -SO.......

.025 is good for 5052 but .032 is better for the tank bay. It gets alot of abuse during refueling. If you go with 2024 .020 is fine, except use .025 at the tank bay. Just my two cents.