Pre-build question... - Page 3

Shane O'Halloran · #21 12-11-2011, 07:34 AM

Quote:

The -3 is getting popular enough (two new ones this week!) that I think the support guys at Vans need to man up and build one, just to be better prepared to offer support.

Reckon they'd be better off using their spare time to give us pre-punched skins for the tail and fuselage kits, at the very least.

gearup · #22 12-11-2011, 01:12 PM

the jig is easy.. forming the bulkheads/ribs is not a problem.. after my T-18 NOTHING is hard about the -3 or -4.. if your interested, I am in process of rebuilding a -4 fuselage, putting it back in a modified jig.. I will post pics starting in jan... it may help a bit when you start loading yours... fyi, the bulkheads will have to be shifted a bit off the waterline to make the skins lay flush, or you can make shims.. I prefer to leave the bulkhead ON the centerline spine and then test fit the skins with clamps before drilling ANY holes... use 40's to start for pilot holes... you can open them up to 30s once you have everything in place, and FIRMLY attached to the jig... its had to explain without seeking if this is your first build.. remember, you ARE going to ruin some parts, it part of the learning experience... the key is to 1) ask a lot of questions. 2) keep the $$ mistakes to a minimum...
Jeff

gearup · #23 12-11-2011, 01:20 PM

HS 303/302 are bent out of flat stock... the area to be removed is to allow the mating plate HS308 to be attached to the 302 L&R remember, there is left and right for the 303 (forward spar) and the 302 (aft spar). Your elevators are attached to the 303.... preview plan #14 and #15....

David-aviator · #24 12-11-2011, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gearup

HS 303/302 are bent out of flat stock... the area to be removed is to allow the mating plate HS308 to be attached to the 302 L&R remember, there is left and right for the 303 (forward spar) and the 302 (aft spar). Your elevators are attached to the 303.... preview plan #14 and #15....

Thanks, finally got that question answered from the first message. Looks like one will need to buy or build a 48" box brake to do these parts.

David Paule · #25 12-11-2011, 05:12 PM

Or learn how to form parts around wooden shapes. It's an old technique that works well enough.

I prefer using hardwood but haven't tried the tooling Masonite the plans recommend. Don't forget to radius the corner of the form and allow for some springback. See the detail on the far right of drawing 14.

You'll need a second hardwood block clamped on top of the part to hold it secure and prevent the web from bending. Use heavy clamping pressure, you don't want anything to slip.

If you just start pounding on the flanges you'll certainly stretch them. Use a third hardwood block to distribute the bend, and you can pound on that.

I'm sure (in fact I hope) that someone with more current experience than mine can describe it for you.

Dave

David-aviator · #26 12-12-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gearup

HS 303/302 are bent out of flat stock... the area to be removed is to allow the mating plate HS308 to be attached to the 302 L&R remember, there is left and right for the 303 (forward spar) and the 302 (aft spar). Your elevators are attached to the 303.... preview plan #14 and #15....

Yes, the HS-302 and HS-303 are bent from .032 stock as per preview plan #14 and 15, BUT the builder does not have to do the bending. These parts are pre-formed by Vans. There is no need for a 48" bending brake.

This project is beginning to look more and more doable.

David-aviator · #27 12-18-2011, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David-aviator

Yes, the HS-302 and HS-303 are bent from .032 stock as per preview plan #14 and 15, BUT the builder does not have to do the bending. These parts are pre-formed by Vans. There is no need for a 48" bending brake.

This project is beginning to look more and more doable.

Yes the project is indeed very doable and if it were just me in the decision process, it would be the RV-3. But there's more to it.

My wife is my best friend. She seldom expresses an opinion about my interest in aviation as she is primarily a grandmother, a retired teacher, and spends much of her time in the yard as a master gardener - and loves it and my exploits in an airplane. But once in a while she gets an urge to fly with me.

Today she commented, if you build the RV-3, I will not be able to fly with you in it. Would you consider building the RV-8 so I am not completely disconnected from your activity? A reasonable observation and question since we can not afford more than one airplane. Well, the answer is yes.

I would prefer the 3 but it doesn't matter all that much, I simply want to sit on the centerline of an airplane like when I learned to fly so many years ago. Sort of going back to your roots so to speak.

The RV- 8 is in. The matched hole technology makes it a QB compared to the 3. Hope to be flying the 8 sooner than later.

Thanks to all for the RV-3 information, encouragement, and positive feed.

David Domeier
Troy, MO

Bob Axsom · #28 12-18-2011, 04:56 PM

I was going through the thread with the idea of throwing in my recommendation for the RV-8 vs. the RV-3B. Not only can you take the love of your life up with you when you want to and she wants to ... IT IS A BETTER AIRPLANE!

Anybody with any kind of insight and ability can take an existing design and create their own design with major changes to the basic airframe with new airfoils, wing shape, operational components, etc. and come up with a flyable airplane. As you said it is not rocket science. That is what Van admittedly did to evolve the RV-3B. The RV-8 is a clean sheet of paper airplane that is superior in every way to the RV-3 or any other RV in the only parameter that matters to me - SPEED! I was at the Prototype shop in 1996 when they were working on the fuselage ... God what a beautiful piece of work. The only thing ugly about it are those bat wing tips ... well the landing gear is a little stork like but ok I guess.

Bob Axsom

gearup · #29 12-18-2011, 06:00 PM

if you want to experience "building" an airplane, need the 2nd seat for 30% of your flying, go with the RV-4... the -8 is a kit, cost more, will go together easier, etc, etc... if you can, bum a ride in both....

Ironflight · #30 12-19-2011, 10:11 AM

Although we'd love to have you in the RV-3 world David, your decision seems to be quite rational for your situation - and you'll not be able to get me to choose between the -3 and the -8, which is why we now have both!

We are uniquely fortunate to be able to support multiple airplanes at this time in our lives, so we don't have to choose, but with both Louise and I as active pilots, we couldn't get by with ONLY a single-seater....

Paul