Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 6:57 pm Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

Rant mode on; drinkers of the 'Van's can do no wrong' koolaid, please 

stop & delete now.



Several weeks (months?) ago I built up all the fuselage bulkheads 

including the main spar carry-thru for my -7 kit. I carefully followed 

all the directions/drawing indications I could find, especially on the 

spar carrythru bulkhead. I noted & carefully followed the exploded views 

on dwg 11 (rev 10-16-00) & later, dwg 22 (rev 10-27-00) showing the 

bolts for the F633 L&R control brackets & all the F716 seat ribs with 

the heads to the rear, threads forward.



I built up the tail cone. I completed the prep work for final assy of 

the midsection. I began the riveting of the midsection several days ago 

& today, neared completion of the riveting.



While studying dwg 22 section views to determine the orientation of the 

bolts through the F715 seat ribs, I noticed that they show nuts on the 

rib flange of all the F716 seat ribs where they bolt to the F704 spar 

carry-thru. 'Curses; must have not been paying attention when I bolted 

this stuff together.' (Bad medium term memory of earlier careful study 

of plans.) Out came the wrenches, re-oriented all the F716 bolts, 

retorqued. Happened to glance at the exploded view on the same dwg. All 

rib bolts drawn with head on the rib flange. I checked dwg 11 exploded 

view for the F633 bolts; it's inconsistent with the section view on dwg 

22 also. Errors/inconsistencies #742 & 743 (guesstimate  ) noted in 

the plans and/or instructions. By the way, this same section in the 

instructions tells you to cleco in & drill the seat & baggage floors 

without telling you to install the baggage ribs at all & before they 

mention installing the F715 seat ribs, which must be curved by the 

builder, have centerlines drawn on their bottom flanges (not 

prepunched), & be match drilled to the belly skin. My revision of dwg 

shows the control stick walking beam assy to the spar with bolts 

oriented in a fashion that cannot be achieved under the current laws of 

physics. When I called about that, the tech guy had different 

orientation for some of the bolts, on his dwg with the same revision 

date. Excuse: 'Well, sometimes minor changes are made without changing 

the rev date/number.' His 1st suggested change also could not be 

achieved under the current laws of physics. The final result was 

basically, 'assemble it however you can to get it to work.'



I've lost count of the number of times I've called the tech guys at 

Van's to politely question or point out this kind of stuff & asked 

repeatedly why they don't offer a section of the website with 

corrections & updates. They are usually courteous, but I invariably get 

various lame excuses like 'you should read ahead', you should know how 

it's done', 'well, when we built the prototype, we didn't have the 

instructions', etc etc etc. Sometimes they say they will bring up the 

issue 'at a staff meeting' but rarely if ever do they act like the 

issues are any big deal. Never is there any feedback or encouragement to 

continue reporting this stuff & with a single exception (defective AL 

bar stock) never an admission that others have had the same issue.



Ok, rant mode off.



Question: should I care which way the F716 bolts are oriented (currently 

head forward, nut/washer on rib) or the F633 bolts (currently head on 

F633)? The belly skin rivets under the F716 bolts will be less 

convenient to drive, but still 'doable'.



Suggestion:



We all take advantage of Matt's wiki to add a section for each model & 

sub sections for each assy or part that we have problems understanding 

or that are obvious errors/inconsistencies. The entries should document 

the plan revision date and/or the instruction revision date. This should 

help us all by consolidating records of problem areas, something Van's 

is obviously unwilling to do.



Is this a worthwhile suggestion?



(Again, koolaid drinkers please don't reply.)



Thanks,



Charlie

jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:37 pm Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

Charlie England wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Rant mode on; drinkers of the 'Van's can do no wrong' koolaid, please 

 stop & delete now.

 Suggestion:



 We all take advantage of Matt's wiki to add a section for each model & 

 sub sections for each assy or part that we have problems understanding 

 or that are obvious errors/inconsistencies. The entries should 

 document the plan revision date and/or the instruction revision date. 

 This should help us all by consolidating records of problem areas, 

 something Van's is obviously unwilling to do.



 Is this a worthwhile suggestion?



 (Again, koolaid drinkers please don't reply.)



 Thanks,



 Charlie



Dose not make a  bit of difference which way the bolts are oriented, I 
	


know that there are always going to be people that say

down and back, but if torqued and tightned correctly they won't come 

off. As Vans say do it which ever way works for you,

( does that make me a koolaid drinker?) Wiki might be a good idea, but 

it seems like what is a problem for some is not a  problem for others.



Jerry(mined the raw materials to build my RV-6) 



do not archive



PS I did build a airplane one time and flew it for 500 hours, the 

drawings were  drawn on napkins at the

local coffee shop.



PSS Van does not do to much wrong when it comes to the RV's.

FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 1:09 am Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

In a message dated 8/26/2006 10:59:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Is this a worthwhile suggestion?



(Again, koolaid drinkers please don't reply.)



Thanks,



Charlie 	


 =========================================

 It sure is Charlie!

  

 As one person said: "PSS Van does not do to much wrong when it comes to the RV's. "  

 How little is wrong does not matter or count when you spend hours or days working on something only to find it cannot be built or fit together the way it was drawn or described.  It is still wrong.

 I really like RV's and there are less problems with RV's than GA planes.  But, get frustrated because of a 'wrong' and then tell me you want to kiss Van.  

  

 Barry

"Chop'd Liver"



"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third 

time." 

Yamashiada

jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:58 am Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   In a message dated 8/26/2006 10:59:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, 

 ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes:



     Is this a worthwhile suggestion?



     (Again, koolaid drinkers please don't reply.)



     Thanks,



     Charlie



 =========================================

 It sure is Charlie!

  

 As one person said: "PSS Van does not do to much wrong when it comes 

 to the RV's. "


	




That would be me as I am the only person that had responded. .. In the 

20+ years I have been building and

flying RVs it seem like there are always a few people that have constant 

problems and complaints. On the

the other hand there are several thousand  RVs being built where the 

builders do not have problems. I guess I

will stop here before getting into a nasty slug fest. I would have let 

it go if it had not been for the  koolaid

comment. Have you ever considered the koolaid drinkers are very happy 

builders and flyers?



do not archive



 	  Quote: 	
		   How little is wrong does not matter or count when you spend hours or 

 days working on something only to find it cannot be built or fit 

 together the way it was drawn or described.  It is still wrong.

 I really like RV's and there are less problems with RV's than GA 

 planes.  But, get frustrated because of a 'wrong' and then tell me you 

 want to kiss Van. 

  

 Barry

 "Chop'd Liver"



 "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the 

 third

 time."

 Yamashiada



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tim(at)MyRV10.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:14 am Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

I would suggest that the comments regarding laxity in accuracy of the

plans and laxity of notifications of revisions, and items like

those quoted are valid concerns.  These suggestions, if taken by

the Van's crew, would greatly simplify the common issues, and

could easily prevent them from having to spend as much time on the

phone in the first place.



That said, I can understand why Jerry would feel the way he does too.

Once you've actually completed and flown an RV, some of those issues

seem minor.



As I see it, the end product satisfaction shouldn't justify ignoring

product and plans improvements by Vans.  It would be to EVERYONE's

benefit if the plans had things listed properly, if plans issues

were posted for people to receive, and if when errors were found

they were corrected.  Doing this would turn a great Van's kit into

a Phenomenal kit, and as mentioned above, could lead to a time where

they don't have to provide any measurable phone support so they can

focus on doing more profitable things.  IMHO, almost all of the

quality support I've received in the build was provided by the

RV and RV-10 matronics list members.  The factory support always

seemed to lead to a dead end.



Note: I didn't drink the kool-aid, so I see fairly clearly....but

I'm still very happy with my overall build.



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying 116 hrs

do not archive

Jerry Springer wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com wrote:

 

> In a message dated 8/26/2006 10:59:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, 

> ceengland(at)bellsouth.net writes:

>

>     Is this a worthwhile suggestion?

>

>     (Again, koolaid drinkers please don't reply.)

>

>     Thanks,

>

>     Charlie

>

> =========================================

> It sure is Charlie!

>  

> As one person said: "PSS Van does not do to much wrong when it comes 

> to the RV's. "

 

 

 That would be me as I am the only person that had responded. .. In the 

 20+ years I have been building and

 flying RVs it seem like there are always a few people that have constant 

 problems and complaints. On the

 the other hand there are several thousand  RVs being built where the 

 builders do not have problems. I guess I

 will stop here before getting into a nasty slug fest. I would have let 

 it go if it had not been for the  koolaid

 comment. Have you ever considered the koolaid drinkers are very happy 

 builders and flyers?

 

 do not archive

 

> How little is wrong does not matter or count when you spend hours or 

> days working on something only to find it cannot be built or fit 

> together the way it was drawn or described.  It is still wrong.

> I really like RV's and there are less problems with RV's than GA 

> planes.  But, get frustrated because of a 'wrong' and then tell me you 

> want to kiss Van.  

> Barry

> "Chop'd Liver"

>

> "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the 

> third

> time."

> Yamashiada

>

perfeng(at)3rivers.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:25 am Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

Okay, I'll pipe up in defense of where I think Jerry is coming from.  As 

"homebuilders", "Experimenters", or what ever the proper and accepted 

moniker is being used this week, we are first and formost "fabricators"!  At 

least those of us that started building aircraft years ago from plans 

ordered from Mechanics Illistrated or other publication that sparked our 

desire to build and fly our own craft.

Yes, as an engineer of sorts, I too sometimes assume that the person who 

will be fabricating and or assembling an assembly from plans or drawings 

will have some basic intuition as to the proper and accepted manner in which 

to perform the task even if the plans do not project it.

If bolt "A" is supposed to go into hole "B" but is drawn as going into hole 

"C" and it is functionally required and obvious that it must go in "B" then, 

it goes in "B"!  Pretty simple actually.

Granted Charlie, I would like Van's to have a better means of providing 

updates to builders and have tech personnel that took a more active concern 

in some of the errors that have been brought to them in the past but come 

on, orientation of the bolts?  Some say down and back, some say up and 

forward, others say it dioesn't matter...who's right?  It's what ever works 

and meets the functional requirement of the installation.

Don't get mad if some folks don't share the same frustration on issues such 

as this.  When they tell you to "read ahead" what might be better said is to 

understand how the component or assembly is oriented, what connects to it, 

and what function does it serve.

I'm not trying to flame or start another 2 month rant thread, I'm just 

saying sometimes it's up to you to decide whats best for your ship.

DO NOT ARCHIVE



Jim Duckett  N708JD   RV-7A

---

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:12 am Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

FYI, I started a database of "errors" (or at least, shall we say,

"clarifications" as people reported them over the years. Oddly, though, I

really don't have that many. If folks have specifics, please e-mail them to

me at bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net (or if you're subscribed, just add it

yourself at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RV7A/database) and perhaps we can

make it easier on those who are to follow.



Bob Collins

St. Paul, Minn

RV Builder's Hotline free weekly newsletter

http://home.comcast.net/~rvnewsletter/



[quote] --

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 8:39 am Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

 	  Quote: 	
		  I checked dwg 11 

 exploded 

 view for the F633 bolts; it's inconsistent with the section 

 view on dwg 

 22 also. Errors/inconsistencies #742 & 743 (guesstimate  ) 

 noted in 

 the plans and/or instructions.


	


It's been awhile -- two years -- but I vaguely remember this part. However,

I didn't bother too much with the plans because there was -- as I recall --

another issue which solved the question for me -- access to the bolt head

(or maybe it was a nut) in the future. Anyway, as I recall -- without the

specifics -- there was no way for me to EASILY check on those nuts (to see

if they were working loose except if I oriented them one way (I have

removable floors). There have been certain phases of the build, I've

noticed, where it's helpful for me to slow down a bit and say "OK, this

might be the easiest way to BUILD it, but what's the easiest and best way to

accommodate an inspection once I'm built. YMMV.



I think the suggestion is a good one. I think the thread could prove helpful

ONLY if we can separate the suggestion from characterizing other people one

way or the other. 



I'm loathe to have another week of deleting messages that really have no

value to the build process, especially when the essence of the thread is

about building. 



Do not archive.

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

fstringham

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 87

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:18 am Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

Charlie and all you great RV builders



I have really enjoyed this thread as I to have had these same experiences. 

But I have learned alot more from my mistakes ( some very $$$$$$$$$$)  than 

from my success.



Now to the plans and instructions and those that read and use them. As an 

old high school chemistry teacher I was confornted many time by a few 

student that said my lab, test, and or assignment instructions were just 

plain terriable. And others, less vocally, would say they were great or 

would do them as described. In other words one man's poison is anothers 

cake. In fact on one occassion a student walked in to my class room and just 

unloaded on me, how he tought I was a terrible teacher, incapable of giving 

proper directions, and concept understanding. The very next student in the 

door praised my teaching ability and said "I just love the way you explain 

things and make the lab stuff understood................................" 

Same instruction, instructor, and process!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I do know this, that at the begining of my RV 7A project I would just follow 

the plans step at a time to find that down the road was an instruction that 

said, make sure you do....what ever.....before you do the things you have 

just done........DAH............



So I started reading a head, choreographing my days fabrication, measue 

thrice /cut once, e-mail group for clairification before I moved ahead, and 

would call Van's when all else failed.



Does this mean that Van's should just rest on there laurals....No....I would 

hope that they are in continual reflection, introspection, and change. With 

that said I must play the cards that are passed my way (instructions, parts, 

other info) and do the best I can. This has been the best fun of my life and 

I wouldn't change a thing ( will maybe IF I build again there will be a 

bunch of things I would do different and or change) as it has been a great 

growing journey.



For me success comes knowing that life is a series of problems in which 

successsful people solve their problems successfully.



I am coming up on my second anniversary of building (September 4, 2004) and 

can see a little light at the end of the tunnel. New Challenges, new 

mistakes to correct, and more interaction and learning from all you great 

airplane builders. Thanks for all your past help and info.................



Now back to my control stick grip fabrication. Now how can I add throttle, 

mixture, carb heat, and props controller to my grip that will have flaps, 

trims, seat heat, flip flop com, VOR adjustment, altimeter pressure gage 

adjustment, tire pressure adjusting switch, canopy latch actuator, 

.............. have I left any other essential switches out, oh 

ya.....engine start button, wig wag switches, weapons bay actuation, weapons 

release, and last but not least emergency radio 121.5 switch. I know I have 

left someting important out so please e-mail me of what I need to add.



Alright pass the koolaid...............bill o'rielly fans.....



Frank at SGU and SLC RV 7A ...wiring, you gotta love that fiberglass work,  

looking for instrument and engine $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



[quote]From: "Jim Duckett" <perfeng(at)3rivers.net>

Reply-To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

To: <rv-list(at)matronics.com>

Subject: Re: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 09:23:32 -0600






Okay, I'll pipe up in defense of where I think Jerry is coming from.  As 

"homebuilders", "Experimenters", or what ever the proper and accepted 

moniker is being used this week, we are first and formost "fabricators"!  

At least those of us that started building aircraft years ago from plans 

ordered from Mechanics Illistrated or other publication that sparked our 

desire to build and fly our own craft.

Yes, as an engineer of sorts, I too sometimes assume that the person who 

will be fabricating and or assembling an assembly from plans or drawings 

will have some basic intuition as to the proper and accepted manner in 

which to perform the task even if the plans do not project it.

If bolt "A" is supposed to go into hole "B" but is drawn as going into hole 

"C" and it is functionally required and obvious that it must go in "B" 

then, it goes in "B"!  Pretty simple actually.

Granted Charlie, I would like Van's to have a better means of providing 

updates to builders and have tech personnel that took a more active concern 

in some of the errors that have been brought to them in the past but come 

on, orientation of the bolts?  Some say down and back, some say up and 

forward, others say it dioesn't matter...who's right?  It's what ever works 

and meets the functional requirement of the installation.

Don't get mad if some folks don't share the same frustration on issues such 

as this.  When they tell you to "read ahead" what might be better said is 

to understand how the component or assembly is oriented, what connects to 

it, and what function does it serve.

I'm not trying to flame or start another 2 month rant thread, I'm just 

saying sometimes it's up to you to decide whats best for your ship.

DO NOT ARCHIVE



Jim Duckett  N708JD   RV-7A

---

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 10:37 am Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

1st, I want to be clear that I'm flying a -4 & building a -7 because I 

think that Van's planes are the best overall value on the market. Having 

said that, the best can still be a lot better with not a lot of effort.



There's a story about one of our famous WW2/test pilots flying an early 

jet after a maintenance session. The controls jammed & as the story 

goes, only his superior skills kept him alive as he worked around the 

problem. He managed to get the plane on the ground in one piece & 

subsequent inspection revealed that during maintenance, an old salt who 

knew the rules about the bolt head going forward noticed a bolt that was 

in backward & corrected it. What he missed was the documentation that 

that particular bolt had to be reversed to prevent potential jamming of 

the controls.



This is not just a value issue; it's a safety issue. Most of us are 

working through our 1st build on our model of choice. As others have 

pointed out, we can't read Van's mind & know how they did it. Many, many 

hours are wasted & many, many parts are replaced at the builders' 

expense due to ambiguous or outright incorrect instructions. Again, as 

others have pointed out, it would be to Van's advantage to make these 

updates & corrections readily available to all. Should that bolt follow 

convention with the head forward, or did Van intend for it to be 

reversed for future access? It's drawn both ways. Why should I be forced 

to guess his intent when I paid good money for a kit & instructions 

instead of a truckload of ore?



Why, in two phone conversations while searching for a part in the 

inventory, did one tech guy insist that all hardware be kept in the 

original bags & another recommend that it be sorted by type into 

containers? (Mine was still in the original bags containing the 

seemingly random mix of parts.) No matter which I did, I'd be wrong 1/2 

the time.



I've had quite a few conversations with Van's various tech guys offering 

what I consider constructive suggestions that could improve the kits at 

minimal expense & radically reduce phone time for them. All have met 

with indifference or resistance. For example, how many hours did you 

spend inventorying your kit? Would a pick list printed in numeric order 

have saved about 80% of those hours? When asked for a 'soft copy' so I 

could sort it myself, I was offered various excuses. When I tried to 

explain how much time is wasted with the current setup & how easily & 

cheaply it could be corrected (with free, open source application 

software & volunteer work to provide the data conversion routines), they 

were uninterested. How many hours have you spent trying to decide which 

of multiple pieces of bar or angle stock with varying lengths to cut 

when fabricating a part? Someone at Van's made up a cutting schedule so 

they know lengths to send in the kit. Why do we have to guess, often 

incorrectly, which piece we should use & then be forced to buy more 

stock when the cutting schedule could easily be provided with the parts 

list? If I really wanted a scavenger hunt, I'd have gone to a church 

social, for free. 



Again, I think that Van's kits (& planes) are the best available. I just 

think we can have it a lot better for minimal effort. These posts are 

made with the hope that something productive & useful will result. Bob 

Collins mentioned that he had started a list of problem areas. I'll try 

to do my part & send all the stuff I've found so far to him. Hopefully, 

all this stuff will eventually migrate to one totally open location 

where all can go to post or research issues.



Charlie



Jim Duckett wrote:



[quote] 



 Okay, I'll pipe up in defense of where I think Jerry is coming from.  

 As "homebuilders", "Experimenters", or what ever the proper and 

 accepted moniker is being used this week, we are first and formost 

 "fabricators"!  At least those of us that started building aircraft 

 years ago from plans ordered from Mechanics Illistrated or other 

 publication that sparked our desire to build and fly our own craft.

 Yes, as an engineer of sorts, I too sometimes assume that the person 

 who will be fabricating and or assembling an assembly from plans or 

 drawings will have some basic intuition as to the proper and accepted 

 manner in which to perform the task even if the plans do not project it.

 If bolt "A" is supposed to go into hole "B" but is drawn as going into 

 hole "C" and it is functionally required and obvious that it must go 

 in "B" then, it goes in "B"!  Pretty simple actually.

 Granted Charlie, I would like Van's to have a better means of 

 providing updates to builders and have tech personnel that took a more 

 active concern in some of the errors that have been brought to them in 

 the past but come on, orientation of the bolts?  Some say down and 

 back, some say up and forward, others say it dioesn't matter...who's 

 right?  It's what ever works and meets the functional requirement of 

 the installation.

 Don't get mad if some folks don't share the same frustration on issues 

 such as this.  When they tell you to "read ahead" what might be better 

 said is to understand how the component or assembly is oriented, what 

 connects to it, and what function does it serve.

 I'm not trying to flame or start another 2 month rant thread, I'm just 

 saying sometimes it's up to you to decide whats best for your ship.

 DO NOT ARCHIVE



 Jim Duckett  N708JD   RV-7A

 ---

Michael Wynn

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 148
Location: San Ramon, CA

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:14 pm Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

I was struck, when starting my -8 with the empennage, just how simple and  straightforward the plans and instructions were.  Nice little check boxes  for each step.  Then I got the wing kit.  The wing is much more  complex and the instructions are much less exacting.  Like where it  discusses how to rivet the bottom skins.  Then, the next page talks about  what to do before you put on the bottom skins and then the next page goes back  to how to put on the bottom skins.

  

 I suppose the truth is that I learned enough from the empennage to sort out  how to do most of the wing--with a lot of help from the online community and a  few questions to Van's.  My guess is that the online community would  probably be happy to re-write the assembly manual given the opportunity.

  

 Anyway, most the kit and plans are pretty straightforward.  I would be  happier if I had a bunch more pages of little check boxes.  I am clearly an  assembler and not an engineer.  I think the second RV would be a lot  easier.  I suppose Van's has other stuff to do, but I think they would sell  even more kits if all the instructions were as well documented as the empennage  instructions.   

 Regards,



Michael Wynn (Ginger ale drinker)

RV-8,  Wings

San Ramon, California



Do Not  Archive



  [quote][b]

_________________
Michael Wynn
RV 8
San Ramon, CA

gcomfo(at)tc3net.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 4:31 pm Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

--

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

I presume at some  point the instructions for the 7/8/9 will mirror those of the 10. That is, no  instruction manual at all.

  

 Bob

  

 Do Not  Archive 

  

 // Anyway, most the kit  and plans are pretty straightforward.  I would be happier if I had a bunch  more pages of little check boxes.  I am clearly an assembler and not an  engineer.  I think the second RV would be a lot easier.  I suppose  Van's has other stuff to do, but I think they would sell even more kits if all  the instructions were as well documented as the empennage instructions. 

 [quote]       



[b]

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:33 pm Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

gordon or marge wrote:



[quote]



--

ptrotter

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 28
Location: Westchester County, NY

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:45 pm Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

In general, I think that Van's has designed excellent aircraft and their 

kits are great.  But in some respects the instructions could be a little 

better.  Yes, we should be able to extrapolate from the drawings and 

instructions to figure out what we should be doing, but when there are 

specific instructions or drawings for an operation, we should be able to 

rely on them.  It is not that the instructions need to be expanded, it is 

that those that are there should be correct.  Any incorrect or contradictory 

instructions should be fixed.  This is not hard, as I'm sure that Van's has 

been apprised of the errors by many  people. Also, we should not have to 

worry about following the instructions and doing something only to find out 

later that something else should have been done first.  Reading ahead in the 

instructions is a good idea, but they should be in the proper order anyway. 

I'm having a great time building my 8, but sometimes it is frustrating 

trying to figure out what to do when the instructions and drawing are 

unclear or contradict each other.



The instructions that are provided, at whatever level of detail that Van's 

feels are necessary, should be accurate.  It would take very little effort 

to create a section on their website with corrections to the instructions 

and drawings.  For anything beyond that, I feel that these forums and email 

lists are a great resource.



Paul Trotter

RV-8 82080 Fuselage Kit



 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Charlie et al:



 It might be helpful to think of the builders manual as an outline to 

 direct

 your own thought processes.  A manual sufficiently detailed to satisfy

 everyone would be impractical.  One needs to think through the tasks and 

 the

 builders manual will help you do that but it will not do it for you.  Time

 spent trying to improve Van's perceived performance could be spent solving

 problems using any and all resources that can be found.  The literature 

 has

 many volumes describing standard practices, techniques methods and goals

 that have been a part of aircraft manufacture for decades.  These projects

 are part of a learning process we can strive for.  The ensueing self

 reliance can be gratifying.



 Gordon Comfort

 N363GC

_________________
Paul Trotter
RV-8 82080 Fuselage Kit
N801PT (reserved)

ceengland(at)bellsouth.ne
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

Now you're talking! I've heard great things about the -10's 

plans/instructions. Isn't it interesting that Van gets high praise for 

reducing build time on the -8 by prepunching the fuselage but we get 

criticized for asking that we not be required to waste time needlessly 

searching for parts or trying to sort out two instructions in direct 

conflict.



Charlie



Bob Collins wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   I presume at some point the instructions for the 7/8/9 will mirror 

 those of the 10. That is, no instruction manual at all.

  

 Bob

  

 Do Not Archive 

  

 // Anyway, most the kit and plans are pretty straightforward.  I would 

 be happier if I had a bunch more pages of little check boxes.  I am 

 clearly an assembler and not an engineer.  I think the second RV would 

 be a lot easier.  I suppose Van's has other stuff to do, but I think 

 they would sell even more kits if all the instructions were as well 

 documented as the empennage instructions.

lifeofreiley2003(at)yahoo
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 6:49 pm Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

<snip>



It's 

unfortunate that they cannot or will not recognize

that the kits could 

be significantly improved and the need for factory

support minimized 

with a little attention to their documents.



<snip>



Charlie,



I understand where you're coming from. It has been a

few years since Van himself decided to make the

company employee owned. Maybe now it's a Job/Owner

Security issue. 



      Darrell Reiley

  RV7A "Reiley Rocket"

  N622DR  Reserved 

   

  CenTex_RV_Aircraft-owner(at)yahoogroups.com

   

  



__________________________________________________

wgill10(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 7:36 pm Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

That's called "Job Security"



Bill

--

Jack Fromm

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 2
Location: KDMW Maryland

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

Well said, Paul.  My sentiments exactly.  Now for an anecdote...



About a year and a half ago, my EAA chapter held a sheet metal assembly

workshop using the old Van's flap project.  Before the workshop, all of us

"instructors" got together to put one of the projects together to

familiarize ourselves with it so we wouldn't make fools of ourselves when we

actually went to teach it.  Good thing, too.  During this familiarization, I

found at least three problems with the one-page instruction/drawing sheet

that came with the project!  One was a nutplate part number callout where

the drawing disagreed with the instructions, the other showed one of the end

ribs facing the wrong way and finally, a couple of steps in the instructions

were out of sequence.  I could have sworn Van did this intentionally.  It

must be his way of preparing us for all the problems we would encounter with

the real plans.  Seeing this, I suggested to my fellow instructors that we

begin the workshop by having the students take a half-hour to read ahead,

just like Van's suggests in the real plans, to see who could spot the three

problems and that we award a door prize to the winner(s).  They didn't take

my suggestion either.  



Jack Fromm

RV-8 81120  Flying



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 In general, I think that Van's has designed excellent aircraft and their

 kits are great.  But in some respects the instructions could be a little

 better.  Yes, we should be able to extrapolate from the drawings and

 instructions to figure out what we should be doing, but when there are

 specific instructions or drawings for an operation, we should be able to

 rely on them.  It is not that the instructions need to be expanded, it is

 that those that are there should be correct.  Any incorrect or

contradictory
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   instructions should be fixed.  This is not hard, as I'm sure that Van's

has
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   been apprised of the errors by many  people. Also, we should not have to

 worry about following the instructions and doing something only to find

out
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   later that something else should have been done first.  Reading ahead in

the
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   instructions is a good idea, but they should be in the proper order

anyway.
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   I'm having a great time building my 8, but sometimes it is frustrating

 trying to figure out what to do when the instructions and drawing are

 unclear or contradict each other.



 The instructions that are provided, at whatever level of detail that Van's

 feels are necessary, should be accurate.  It would take very little effort

 to create a section on their website with corrections to the instructions

 and drawings.  For anything beyond that, I feel that these forums and

email
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   lists are a great resource.



 Paul Trotter

 RV-8 82080 Fuselage Kit

_________________
Jack Fromm
RV-8 N138JF
Flying - 200 hours

rcrosley(at)adelphia.net
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: Rant, question, suggestion: errors in plans/drawings

Here is a copy of a letter I wrote in 1999 while building  my RV-8.  Doesn't sound like things have changed much,  Too  bad.

  

 The plans are useable, but...........

 	  Quote: 	
		  

 Take  a look at the plans that Frank Christen had for the Christen Eagle II

  twenty years ago.  Outstanding!!! A manual for every kit, subdivided with  a

 general description of what the task is, description of new skills,  an

 accurate list of parts needed on the next section, tools needed  and

 preaddressed cards to report back any errors or questions.   Isometric

 pictures on every page.  Change letters on every page,  upgrades sent until

 you are done with that area.  Small parts  packaged in plastic boxes with the

 part number for each part depicted in  the lid of the box when you flipped

 the it open.



 Van's  plans are useable but they could be much better.  I think I learned

  just as much building the Eagle without all the guess work and wandering

  around the garage trying to figure out what Van meant.  You still have to  do

 the work and use the tools, you just know that what you are doing is  RIGHT.

  
	


  

 Rich Crosley

 RV-8, N948RC

 175 hours

 



   [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum