Suggestions for Elevator construction...

To anyone who has not yet built their elevators, a lesson learned from experience. (I've gotten a lot of advice from here... time for me to return the favor for later builders!)

Over the past couple days a number on the Yahoo forum have helped me with my question regarding when to attach the elevator counterweight assembly to the spar. The consensus on this list was that it should be attached before the skin (top or bottom) is riveted onto the spar. That is good advice. However, it is not the way Van's instructs to do it, as per my instructions, version 2/27/04.

Quoting from p. 6-7 of the manual, about a third of the way down...
"RIVET THE SPAR ASSEMBLY, E-906 (root) RIB AND WD-605 TOGETHER."
"BACK-RIVET THE SKIN STIFFENERS TO THE UPPER E901 SKIN"
***"RIVET THE E902 SPAR TO THE TOP OF THE SKIN..."***
"RIVET THE STIFFENERS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SKIN"
***"RIVET THE E903/904/913 (counterweight) ASSEMBLY TO THE E902 SPAR"
(The instructions for the left elevator are basically the same.)

However, if you do it this way, you will be left with some VERY difficult to buck rivets connecting the spar to the inboard tip rib. Even with a homemade bucking bar (end of a socket wrench)and a 5" double offset rivet set in the gun, it lead to an ackward angle shooting the gun, one which resulted in my allowing the set to fall off the rivet head and bang up the spar a little. I eventually got them set, but there is absolutely no reason (my conclusion after having done the left elevator differently) not to attach the counterweight assembly BEFORE attaching the skin to the spar. Incidentally, this is also the method the Orndorff videos show.

A couple of folks mentioned the manual said to do it this way, rather than the way MY version of the manual suggests. If that is the case, that suggests that Van's must have changed something in my version of the manual. If you let me know this is the case, I'll send a message to Van's to point out the problem.

Anyway, I hope this helps someone farther down the line...

Steve

You go Steve!!!!!!!....just think 9, or NINE....who needs a letter attached to their model number?

Taildraggers rule! Did you see the photo I posted of the -9, in the thread that says something along the lines of "something you don't see on -9's everyday?" A beautiful -9, taildragger.

Take care,

Gary--
9 vs. 9a--still an insurance issue. Will have limited tailwheel time, but am hoping that if I have a liability only policy (I'm not a big fan of hull insurance on a homebuilt... if it crashes and I'm still alive, I'll just part it out and rebuild it), then the $$ to insure won't be so traumatic. Don't know for sure about that yet though. I kind of get different numbers and thoughts from anyone I talk to in the insurance business.

Steve

Look at it this way....at this point, I don't have much tailwheel time either. However, when I project out a completion date years down the road (most likely), I will have easily built up enough tailwheel time to not only feel comfortable with the plane, but also to meet the minimum number of hours for insurance. I mention "comfortable with the plane"....I will also get some transition training in RV's. In any respect, by the time I am ready to fly the -9, I will not only meet/exceed the minimum insurance requirements but also hopefully feel 'right at home' in the taildragger.

Just a few thoughts....