What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Well done Vans!

bertschb

bertschb

Well Known Member
Friend
A couple months ago I shared my critique of the RV-14 plans. To summarize, I feel Vans could improve the plans and reduce support calls with very little effort. The early kit builders thought I was whining and when comparing old plans to new, I understand their position.

Now that I’ve got 554 hours of building experience I see the genius of the kit design. Not only do all the parts fit together perfectly but the sequence of when steps are completed is very well thought out. Dimple these holes but not those. Rivet this but not that. Leave these nut plates off for now…etc. It’s very impressive to see how much thought went into each step of the building process.

So, although I still think Vans could improve the plans to clarify things in certain areas (they could start by simply incorporating the Wiki notes), the quality of the parts and thought that went into the plans is remarkable.

Thank you to all the past and present employees at Vans. Well done!
 
bertschb said:
A couple months ago I shared my critique of the RV-14 plans. To summarize, I feel Vans could improve the plans and reduce support calls with very little effort. The early kit builders thought I was whining and when comparing old plans to new, I understand their position.

Now that I’ve got 554 hours of building experience I see the genius of the kit design. Not only do all the parts fit together perfectly but the sequence of when steps are completed is very well thought out. Dimple these holes but not those. Rivet this but not that. Leave these nut plates off for now…etc. It’s very impressive to see how much thought went into each step of the building process.

So, although I still think Vans could improve the plans to clarify things in certain areas (they could start by simply incorporating the Wiki notes), the quality of the parts and thought that went into the plans is remarkable.

Thank you to all the past and present employees at Vans. Well done!
Click to expand...
OH I wished way back in 1990 I could have made people aware of the situation with plans. BUT, there wasn't an internet (barely) to communicate on. We learned We built and we accomplished and now a days we dream of the Cleco together and then rivet kits of today.
I would love to build and 14 just for the fun of easy assembly, But then what would I do with eh 2 RV-6's I have already.
My luck varies though Fixit
 
Agree. The quality of plans/instructions is much better than even the -7 plans I used to build 3WW over 15 years ago.
The "order fo work" helps a lot.
Of course, talk to a -4 builder and look at their plans/instructions. Sometimes we forget how far things have come.
And, here is comes . . . . , the old builders will say we are just "assemblers" not "builders" like them. :p
 
BruceW said:
Agree. The quality of plans/instructions is much better than even the -7 plans I used to build 3WW over 15 years ago.
The "order fo work" helps a lot.
Of course, talk to a -4 builder and look at their plans/instructions. Sometimes we forget how far things have come.
And, here is comes . . . . , the old builders will say we are just "assemblers" not "builders" like them. :p
Click to expand...
Actually the early -6 plans were worse than the -4. The -6 wing plans were converted from the -4 plans and there were lots of errors. Primarily the fuel tank attach hole measurements. There were 3 different documents for drilling these holes. NONE of the 3 were correct. We had to be VERY careful not to drill into spar rivets, etc.

Talk about measure twice and drill once......Measure at least 9 times before you drill anything.
 
Agree fully, yet also note with some frustration that there are still errors in the instructions that can really become gotchas. I really wish they'd just update the documents :)
 
bertschb said:
A couple months ago I shared my critique of the RV-14 plans. To summarize, I feel Vans could improve the plans and reduce support calls with very little effort. The early kit builders thought I was whining and when comparing old plans to new, I understand their position.

Now that I’ve got 554 hours of building experience I see the genius of the kit design. Not only do all the parts fit together perfectly but the sequence of when steps are completed is very well thought out. Dimple these holes but not those. Rivet this but not that. Leave these nut plates off for now…etc. It’s very impressive to see how much thought went into each step of the building process.

So, although I still think Vans could improve the plans to clarify things in certain areas (they could start by simply incorporating the Wiki notes), the quality of the parts and thought that went into the plans is remarkable.

Thank you to all the past and present employees at Vans. Well done!
Click to expand...
 
Although building the structure kits of my -6A was not easy per se, I have always thought building the structure on my airplane was the well documented part. System design and install as well as firewall forward took me twice as long as building than the aluminum airframe did. I bought the wiring kit Vans sold for the 6 but ended up just using the wires as raw stock as it was to general of a wire bundle. There was no firewall forward kit yet. Everything after the aluminum kit was available from Vans catalog but you needed to design your systems all yourself, determine what to buy, and when it needed to be installed. I think those days are gone just like the laying out and drilling holes has passed.
 
Last edited:
plehrke said:
have always thought building the structure on my airplane was the well documented part. System design and install as well as firewall forward took me twice as long as building than the aluminum airframe did
Click to expand...
Oh, now you have me going...

Structural assembly is the (relatively) "easy" part. It's fairly well documented and (at least on aluminum airplanes, I can't speak to other construction methods) the inspection criteria are pretty cut and dried. Most of the structural work by hours is mindless prep activities like dimpling, painting, and deburring, and even with the occasional scary picture from later inspections, we see very few structural failures.

IMHaBO, the systems work is really the critical part. The vast majority of non-pilot-error accidents seem to be related to some kind of system failure, whether poorly installed, poorly inspected, or just improperly "fixed".

And I believe that's why the FAA structures the 51% rule as being heavily tilted towards structure (well, that and aircraft like gliders might have minimal systems to worry about). They allow the systems work to mostly be hired out in a bid to encourage it to be done properly.

Unfortunately I think that leads to a situation where you can have someone who builds enough of the structure to meet 51% and manages to get a repairman certificate without really touching or understanding much of the fuel/powerplant/electrical systems at all. I think I figured once that I can get more credit for building the elevators (yes, important parts for sure, but pretty simple to do) than designing and installing all of the electrical and avionics.

Honestly I enjoy the systems work and would rather hire out parts like the fiberglass <spit>. But oddly you can't find many people willing to do that part...
 
rmartingt said:
Honestly I enjoy the systems work and would rather hire out parts like the fiberglass <spit>. But oddly you can't find many people willing to do that part...
Click to expand...
You hit it on the head. I love building the structure (airframe) and the FWF and avionics package - but fiberglass? That stuff needs to die in a dumpster fire. I would happily hire out the finishing work on fairings - but like you said, nobody wants to do it.
 
While we weren't rolling our own aluminum, we whittled fiberglass parts out of horse hair and hoof based glue. We hiked deep into caves to study hieroglyphs for assembly instructions.
When you really got stuck and called Vans tech support on a land line, Dick answered the phone and faxed you a sketch he'd drawn up right there. Those were the days.

​

 
I guess with the new kits you don't get to rivet the wing spar, or maybe that is still an option?



20221221_134321.jpg
 
Mel said:
The most boring part of the build for me was sitting at the lathe for hours on end making thousands of rivets.
Click to expand...
Ahh, the -3 era. You received 1 blueprint of finished plane with;
Note 1:should look close to this when finished, good luck!
Note 2: make sure the fuel tank doesn’t leak or you’ll have wet pants.
 
To slightly swing back on thread.....

Having done a 7, 8, two 12's and now a 10, I feel able to comment.

The 7 and 8 were plans that you had to think about and interpret, however you could go off piste and do sub assemblies which helped in the build process.

The 12 was a massive difference with isometric plans. As we started the 12, with some experience of previous builds, we got frustrated with some of the build instructions and found we had to spend time thumbing ahead to find out why nutplates weren't riveted or parts fitted. It was then discovered some pages ahead why. One of the main reasons was the way that Vans changed assembling parts to overlap layers and use 1 set of fasteners, which was very efficient !

What is needed in the plans is a little 'Wally' character - a hovering cartoon that says why you are delaying a fastener or fitting, with a print reference.

Now we go onto the 10.... Bear in mind, I believe they were the first isometric plans and date back 20 years.

They really should have had a mid life upgrade with Wally appearing because of all the sets of plans I have used so far, these are the most frustrating and you have to build exactly in order, but many times, it makes no sense. All gets revealed, but non the less, frustrating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top