I made some corrections to the markup as I had some circular referencing of datums which I'm not sure is legal to do so. Instead of I've changed datum A into a flatness call-out since I'm most interested in coplanarity with this and I changed the profile tolerance of datum C to get rid of the...
3DDave, Pmarc, randy64 and all
Thanks for your comments. It makes sense to me that there's still a single degree of freedom available. So I've attached a new markup adding another datum to the surface profile that should set that last degree of freedom. I changed the call-outs to reflect...
randy64 and community,
Thanks for the help. It helped me out a lot. I've attached another sketch and am hoping that this makes sense. It seems like there's a circular reference in there that may make it invalid so I want to make sure that if that's not possible, I'll have to find an...
randy64
Thanks for the response. I do not have a copy of the latest Y14.5 spec so can you please explain to me what it says in that figure? Thanks a lot for your help.
pmarc,
Thanks for the information. So that means none of the call-outs I mentioned would work as well. So would this be acceptable and allow me to have control over the location of the hole to the datum scheme and secondarily with the hole to hole dimension. The new call out I would use is...
drawoh and pmarc, thanks for your responses. Thanks for the correction on the true position feature control frame To answer some of your questions.
The hole location only needs to be accurate to position tolerance of 1.5mm but from hole to hole they must be lie within 0.5mm to each other...
I'm attaching a sketch of a situation that I'm encountering where I need to make sure that the co-axial holes on a clevis remain inline after the stamping is complete. The holes are done at the last stations and I need to be able to locate both holes correctly so that I will be able to get a...
