What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Scary situation found during condition inspection

Jesse

Well Known Member
I have an RV-7A in my shop right now for a condition inspection. Upon removing the empennage intersection fairing, I noticed that the rivets on the Hs front spar were horrible. I told the owner, who was present, that I really needed to remove the HS and fix/replace the rivers in that area. When we pulled the front bolts on the HS, I almost lost my lunch when I saw what is in the attached pictures. The current owner has had the plane for a year, so this is his first condition inspection. He had a mechanic look over the plane before he bought it, but that mechanic was not familiar with RV's, and was apparently a friend of the seller (the builder is deceased). The plane has 145 hours. Number one, how did this ever get signed off?! Number two, how did it ever pass a condition inspection?! Number 3, how did it pass even an unfamiliar mechanic's Prebuy inspection?!

Upon further inspection, I recommended that the owner find someone selling a complete empennage kit and replace the whole empennage, and I will replace th substructure in the rear deck area. He could easily end up over $3,000 to repair something that should have never been allowed to fly in the first place. The wings and fuselage were both quickbuild, so they are in much better shape, but the empennage was, as Vic out it in my discussions with him, borderline criminal.

This shows the value of having somebody familiar with RV's do a Prebuy inspection for you. It may cost $500-2,000, but could easily save you from finding yourself in the situation where you have a several-thousand-dollar repair at your first condition inspection.

25d5e63e4559a513e8e2fdd7876c00ba_zpspjssvcej.jpg


6614ba2cbc8572b841c3ceb6de1d6672_zpsack4vwp1.jpg


bd8b846b47c976531f74f7f91f63c087_zpsfckmcctw.jpg


68ec3c6a43a510c6a24b6118d26f080f_zpslomryphe.jpg


f7baee36832c8c23e2d0d8d10590ecf5_zpskl7383w8.jpg
 
.???

So if a person is having this much trouble building the emp, why would they continue? Seems like this is just what Vans has in mind with the first kit. "Hey, do a good job on this and you enjoy it, I'll sell you the next kit"

The builder couldn't have enjoyed that process.
 
Despite quickbuild construction on the rest of the airframe, there's still a lot for the builder to do. I'd be going over the rest of the plane with a much finer toothed comb after seeing that.
 
Unfortunately, I find problems in the tail sections on about 30% of the airplanes for which I perform pre buys. Some of them are quite shocking, as is this one, and I can't help but wonder if it was just a paperwork inspection for both the initial airworthiness inspection and subsequent Condition Inspections. Nobody wins in those paperwork scenarios, and eventually it catches up, hopefully before anyone gets hurt.

Yes, we all start construction on the tail, and to be fair, some parts of the tail are quite difficult for first-time builders. Along with that, some of the areas are quite critical for safety. We all had to learn. I still remember bringing my horizontal stabilizer spar to the flight school A&P to ask him how my rivets looked, and he started laughing as I came in the door. It was very humbling---but he showed me how to do them right and the rest is history. With all of the resources avaiable today with just a click away on the internet, I don't understand how people continue to build in the dark.

I've been wondering if we could perhaps get some of the more prolific kit companies to include a flier on the EAA Technical Advisor program and EAA chapter lists with their kits, and am going to bring it up as a suggestion at Homebuilt Council. If anyone has other ideas, I am all ears.

Vic
 
What a hack job...just awful. Makes you wonder if a tech counselor was involved at any point in the process.
 
How did it ever pass??????

Since the tail was constructed with such skill what other problems are lurking in that plane. Very sobering to see that it must have been OK'd by a FAA inspection. :(. I'd love to see the main spar.
 
Very sobering to see that it must have been OK'd by a FAA inspection. :(. I'd love to see the main spar.

I would speculate that this was fairly hidden under the HS.. although you would think a mirror and flashlight would of been used. The main spar is most likely solid being a QB, unless he drilled through the webbing in the wrong places to run something.
 
This is the reason that I like our system here in Canada, although admittedly it costs me more money. Before any aircraft structure is closed up (in RV's, this means finish riveting any skins such that you can't see inside), the internal structure has to be inspected and signed off by a Transport Canada approved inspector. They have to be able to see every nut, bolt, and rivet. Only after you have the signed paperwork can you close up the structure, and that paperwork is not signed by the inspector until any remedial work is accomplished.

I realize this sounds onerous to our American friends, but on an RV, this really only amounts to two inspections: a pre-cover where the inspector can look at your ready-to-rivet-shut empennage, wings, and fuselage all at the same time, and then the final. The final inspection is always super detailed as well, and I don't know of anyone who has gotten through a final without some minor detail having to be addressed. There is a long checklist that the inspector must use during the inspection. He/she can't just do a walkaround and give you a thumbs up. All fairings, access covers, cowl, etc have to be removed for the final inspection. You also have to run the engine, cycle the prop (if CS), etc for the final. They always look for runs, drips, and errors.

We have to pay for these inspections, much like paying for a DAR in the US, but I feel a lot better knowing that a qualified person has looked at every piece of my work and approved it. I know that, at least in the US, there are EAA Tech Councillors who will come and do this service for you, but I fear that a lot of builders don't/can't take advantage of that.

Those rivets that are shown in the picture above would have never gotten by the first inspection, and CERTAINLY would not have passed a final.
 
Since the tail was constructed with such skill what other problems are lurking in that plane. Very sobering to see that it must have been OK'd by a FAA inspection. :(. I'd love to see the main spar.

FAA inspections can be useless paperwork inspections. The inspector DAR of my biplane spend an hour on paperwork and about 15 min inspecting. The airplane inspection consisted mostly checking placardsand data plate and having me run up the engine. Just a big waste of money all for a piece of government paper!
 
This is the reason that I like our system here in Canada, although admittedly it costs me more money. Before any aircraft structure is closed up (in RV's, this means finish riveting any skins such that you can't see inside), the internal structure has to be inspected and signed off by a Transport Canada approved inspector. They have to be able to see every nut, bolt, and rivet. Only after you have the signed paperwork can you close up the structure, and that paperwork is not signed by the inspector until any remedial work is accomplished.

I realize this sounds onerous to our American friends, but on an RV, this really only amounts to two inspections: a pre-cover where the inspector can look at your ready-to-rivet-shut empennage, wings, and fuselage all at the same time, and then the final. The final inspection is always super detailed as well, and I don't know of anyone who has gotten through a final without some minor detail having to be addressed. There is a long checklist that the inspector must use during the inspection. He/she can't just do a walkaround and give you a thumbs up. All fairings, access covers, cowl, etc have to be removed for the final inspection. You also have to run the engine, cycle the prop (if CS), etc for the final. They always look for runs, drips, and errors.

We have to pay for these inspections, much like paying for a DAR in the US, but I feel a lot better knowing that a qualified person has looked at every piece of my work and approved it. I know that, at least in the US, there are EAA Tech Councillors who will come and do this service for you, but I fear that a lot of builders don't/can't take advantage of that.

Those rivets that are shown in the picture above would have never gotten by the first inspection, and CERTAINLY would not have passed a final.

It used to be as you say here also. They have gotten away from having per-closer inspections. Most of that stuff has been shifted to the EAA and it's Tech. consular program now. Yours, R.E.A. III #80888
 
This is the reason that I like our system here in Canada, although admittedly it costs me more money. Before any aircraft structure is closed up (in RV's, this means finish riveting any skins such that you can't see inside), the internal structure has to be inspected and signed off by a Transport Canada approved inspector. They have to be able to see every nut, bolt, and rivet. Only after you have the signed paperwork can you close up the structure, and that paperwork is not signed by the inspector until any remedial work is accomplished.

I realize this sounds onerous to our American friends, but on an RV, this really only amounts to two inspections: a pre-cover where the inspector can look at your ready-to-rivet-shut empennage, wings, and fuselage all at the same time, and then the final. The final inspection is always super detailed as well, and I don't know of anyone who has gotten through a final without some minor detail having to be addressed. There is a long checklist that the inspector must use during the inspection. He/she can't just do a walkaround and give you a thumbs up. All fairings, access covers, cowl, etc have to be removed for the final inspection. You also have to run the engine, cycle the prop (if CS), etc for the final. They always look for runs, drips, and errors.

We have to pay for these inspections, much like paying for a DAR in the US, but I feel a lot better knowing that a qualified person has looked at every piece of my work and approved it. I know that, at least in the US, there are EAA Tech Councillors who will come and do this service for you, but I fear that a lot of builders don't/can't take advantage of that.

Those rivets that are shown in the picture above would have never gotten by the first inspection, and CERTAINLY would not have passed a final.

Many years ago this was also the practice in the US. Over time the FAA stated that they didn't have the manpower to perform these inspections and turned it over to the EAA Technical Counselors. Unfortunately the Tech Cnslr program is strictly voluntary and many people do not take advantage of it. It really should be mandatory in my opinion.

Oops! Looks like Robert types faster than I do!
 
Lets not over react

That assembly is poorly made but it shows no sign of failure.
From what I see, the upper longeron still has only one hole in it and replacing the hold down angle and possibly the doubler under the deck would bring it up
to an acceptable level.
While most of us have come to expect an airport full of RV builders and getting info everywhere we look, the builder of that airplane might have been somewhere without the expert help and expertise we now have at a moments notice.


This is the reason that I like our system here in Canada, although admittedly it costs me more money.

All that extra money and inspection didn't keep that RV-6 from loosing the tail
a couple of years ago. :rolleyes:
 
Tail Issues....

Were covered in this thread started by Vic a while back:

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=140972

I will re-emphasize (for the wannabe non-builder owners) the importance of having an "RV-familiar" set of eyeballs laid on to any potential purchase candidate, with particular attention paid to the tail and its construction.

I brought two "potential purchase" aircraft to Walt Aronow, and the education I got when he opened them up and we saw the bad construction involved was educational...to say the least. Buttoned 'em back up and sent them back to the owners...

Saved me big $$$ to say the least...maybe even the life of myself or my loved ones...

Worth every penny of what it cost me to have him look at it...
 
I'm currently working on my own "hack job". Bought a partial built RV-4 to save some build time and my tail was just about as bad. I had to tear it completely apart and start over.
 
Stuff deleted...

All that extra money and inspection didn't keep that RV-6 from loosing the tail
a couple of years ago. :rolleyes:

Not sure about an RV-6, but I do know of an RV-7 that lost it tail (it was a friend of mine). In that particular case the aircraft was way over VNE (according to recovered EFIS data) doing aerobatics with another aircraft. My understanding is he was trying to keep the aircraft in the field of view of his GoPro and he stabbed the rudder pedal to do so. This overloaded the vertical stab/rudder and it departed the aircraft.

I don't think ANY inspection would have been able to prevent this....
 
All good suggestions and observations.

If this were my RV at this point in time, I would do the deepest inspection possible with the plans in hand. Look for any and all areas where the builder had to fab or rivet anything in place and check it for workmanshiop and safety. Go deep, really deep! As mentioned, even quick builds require a lot of custom completion work.

I'm impressed that if this thing can fly and not fail, I am really confident in the design and in my RV (I built it and can't think of a single rivet I am not happy with).

Good catch.
 
Wow Jesse, thanks for posting this. It has significant power to me because I am at this step in my build right now. I just drilled those two outside holes the other day. I spent close to an hour measuring the holes that were going to pass through the longeron. I had my wife check my measurements. When I drilled, the hole was perfectly in the middle of the longeron, exactly where it was supposed to be, but I drilled from underneath where I could be sure of the exact location passing through the longeron.

Where the outside holes passed through the front spar of the HS I'm not as happy. They are a bit further aft and outboard than I'd like. They are legit, but I'd like them a bit further inboard. Had I drilled from above and put the holes where I wanted them on the HS, I would have been way to close the edge of the longeron.

This part of the build is not something the new builder is working on (the rivets are for sure). He has completed the wings and fuse before they get here. Those two outboard holes are some of the "there's no going back from here" holes. You munge up the outboard holes and you're replacing a longeron and/or the forward spar of the HS. Those are high dollar holes. Judging by that picture I would guess the longerons are scrap, too.
 
I have a small pile of new drilled parts that I did not like the outcome and replaced and rebuilt correctly. Sometimes the best learning occurs on the first part, figure what went wrong, try again with a new part and get it right. Its hard for some of us (me included) to scrap a part, hold up the task at hand, spend more money, and wait for shipping. But some famous person out there always said better safe than sorry! Oh! That was my Mom that said that!! :D
 
Unfortunately...

The poor workmanship shown at the beginning of this post, at least in my opinion, is not all that uncommon.
Having been a Tech Counselor for over 15 years, I have seen a few builds that needed serious improvement. Unfortunately, not all builders care to build to high standards. In one example, a plane I inspected at near completion stage had several pages of items I suggested he redo. The builder decided to go ahead with the DAR inspection and it failed. Eventually, he got it certified and ended up killing himself in the plane. I don't think it was due to an issue with the plane, rather due to poor flying decisions, but it illustrates the point that not everyone makes good decisions in building, as well as flying.
I have seen a few RVs that I wouldn't want to taxi, much less fly in.
That being said, RVs are extremely robust planes and do well even with poor craftsmanship during the build; however, I would recommend that anyone planning on purchasing a flying RV, or even a partially built kit, get a thorough pre-buy and go into it with eyes wide open. There are areas in the plane that demand good techniques in order to be safe.
Sadly, there is a lot of poor advice available on the web, and yes, even on this site, so pick your advice carefully. I occasionally read someone giving out building advice and then see in their signature line that they are just starting on their empennage. Makes me wonder. But then again, there are quite a few that have extensive building experience and their advice is sound. Can a new builder be expected to tell the difference?
Tech Counselors can provide a great service to novice builders, but it is voluntary on the part of the Tech Counselor as well as the builder. In the last 8 or 9 years, I have only been asked to visit 2 or 3 projects. Other Tech Counselors I know aren't getting calls either and there are plenty of kits under construction!
This probably has something to do with the internet, since I think people believe they can get everything they need, in terms of advice, from their computer. It sure is a great way to get information, but there is nothing that beats hands on help or advice from someone who has been there and done it before. (But, pick your counselor/mentor carefully, because Tech Counselors also come from the ranks of EAA builders and can include some with questionable building experiences and practices.)
As far as airworthiness inspections, I have used both DARs and the FAA on several occasions each. Typically, at least in my experience, the DAR does a much better job of inspecting the critical systems of the plane and making sure it is really safe. FAA inspectors I have dealt with are typically not very knowledgeable about the FARs specific to experimental planes and are more interested in the paperwork side of the inspection. (Likely because they have little or no experience in actually building or even maintaining an aircraft.) So, generally, it's probably worth the extra cost of the DAR, at least from a safety perspective.
Overall, I am grateful to Van for creating such wonderful kits that even a novice can build with confidence, but I also think that we should all be wary regarding planes where we are unfamiliar with the builder and the craftsmanship of the build. Don't take for granted that the original builder held to the same standards that you do.
Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but you shouldn't scrimp on anything that affects safety.
 
?Not sure about an RV-6, but I do know of an RV-7 that lost it tail??

Yes, it was an unfortunate accident and from the report, ?Prior to its first flight on 10 October 2008, the aircraft had passed all required inspections and was certified within existing regulations. It had accumulated approximately 232 hours of total air time prior to the occurrence and was authorized for aerobatics. There was no indication that the aircraft had previously encountered any flight control difficulties.?

Read through the following Transportation Safety Board report and you can see how all the holes in the cheese lined up?

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2010/a10o0018/a10o0018.pdf

John
 
?Not sure about an RV-6, but I do know of an RV-7 that lost it tail??

Yes, it was an unfortunate accident and from the report, ?Prior to its first flight on 10 October 2008, the aircraft had passed all required inspections and was certified within existing regulations. It had accumulated approximately 232 hours of total air time prior to the occurrence and was authorized for aerobatics. There was no indication that the aircraft had previously encountered any flight control difficulties.?

Read through the following Transportation Safety Board report and you can see how all the holes in the cheese lined up?

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2010/a10o0018/a10o0018.pdf

John
Some similarities between this and the Sep 20 2013 RV7A in flight breakup in Atlantic City NJ area. Both appear to have exceeded limitations.
 
Back to the OP - Jesse, is that fretting where the VS attaches to the HS? It almost looks like there were universal rivets compressed in there?

So what will you be replacing? Doing the HS Sb kit? Stiffeners, Fuse plate, heavy structure underneath? forward attach for the forward VS to HS?

That seems like a lot of parts, but all needed to restore structural integrity?

Thanks for sharing - it sure makes my mistakes look pretty.

It is a true testament to the forgiving RV design ( or a miracle) that we don't see stuff like this in NTSB reports.
 
Last edited:
With all of the resources avaiable today with just a click away on the internet, I don't understand how people continue to build in the dark.....

1)1st time Builder works weekends and builds during the weekday when everyone else is at work.

2) Builder lives out in the sticks

3) Build asks questions on online forums and gets his head handed to him, or gets no response at all.

That pretty much sums up my experience.

I've been working on my kit off an on now for a couple of years. Before that, the empennage kit remained in boxes in my garage for over 10 years, thanks to an unexpected layoff, several job changes and 2 years of additional college.

Now, when I find an experienced builder that is willing to look at my work, I'm very cautious about not wearing out my welcome.

--------------added----------------

Don't get me wrong. This is a great forum. I've gotten some good advice off this forum as a result of answers to some of my questions. But, there have been several times I've been really frustrated by some of the responses, or lack thereof. And, I'm sure its just par for the course. But, I can see how some first time builders might be tempted to just "press on".
 
Last edited:
Back to the OP - Jesse, is that fretting where the VS attaches to the HS? It almost looks like there were universal rivets compressed in there?

So what will you be replacing? Doing the HS Sb kit? Stiffeners, Fuse plate, heavy structure underneath? forward attach for the forward VS to HS?

That seems like a lot of parts, but all needed to restore structural integrity?

Thanks for sharing - it sure makes my mistakes look pretty.

It is a true testament to the forgiving RV design ( or a miracle) that we don't see stuff like this in NTSB reports.

I am replacing the entire empennage. Some internal riveting is bad too, and much of the outside cosmetics are terrible on the emp. We found a completed emp for sale and decided the best option is to replace the whole tail. The longerons are good. The cross bar angle is going to be replaced where the HS spar attaches and where the VS spar attaches at the back of the tailcone.

The rest of the build looks surprisingly good compared to the tail. I can't explain that, but that's the truth.

Btw, it was inspected by a FSDO inspector and has received 5-6 condition inspections since, a couple apparently by the builder, and several by an A&P who I don't know and will remain unnamed anyway.
 
Current owner of this airframe got seriously taken advantage of by the individual doing the pre-buy. Whom ever deemed this aircraft airworthy should be ashamed and embarrassed about their abilities.
 
1)1st time Builder works weekends and builds during the weekday when everyone else is at work.

2) Builder lives out in the sticks

3) Build asks questions on online forums and gets his head handed to him, or gets no response at all.

That pretty much sums up my experience.

I've been working on my kit off an on now for a couple of years. Before that, the empennage kit remained in boxes in my garage for over 10 years, thanks to an unexpected layoff, several job changes and 2 years of additional college.

Now, when I find an experienced builder that is willing to look at my work, I'm very cautious about not wearing out my welcome.

--------------added----------------

Don't get me wrong. This is a great forum. I've gotten some good advice off this forum as a result of answers to some of my questions. But, there have been several times I've been really frustrated by some of the responses, or lack thereof. And, I'm sure its just par for the course. But, I can see how some first time builders might be tempted to just "press on".

Really sorry you've had that kind of experience. If I am in that group I sincerely apologize. I think at times we all forget that this is supposed to be FUN.

I know lots of people are willing to help, and I make myself available most anytime for anyone. With FaceTime today it is very easy to see what someone is talking about and it makes it very easy to give advice in short order. Don't hesitate to ask me if you need help.

Vic
 
That's eye opening.

I really like the idea of having someone inspect the work prior to doing the final panel riveting.

I will be adding that tip to my list of 'must do's'.
 
This owner is blessed that he decided on Jessie for the inspection who knows what future lied ahead.

Vic
We never met but your name comes up at Eaa and hangers here in fort Myers. I appreciate your thoughtful responses and folks like you are the reason a guy like me even attempts such a task.

I look forward to my build coming up this year and will remember to ask for help.

Jessie thanks for sharing.
 
I had the opportunity, nay, the privilege, of inspecting a local builder's Skybolt as a pre-inspection prior to its final MD-RA inspection. This gentleman is a craftsman, through and through. Having worked on certificated aircraft all my life and seen "factory quality", it was an absolute pleasure to inspect that Skybolt and see how things should be done. Not just "right" but "better than right", and in many cases "as well as it can possibly be done". His airplane was a work of aviation art.

You can bet that I am hoping to enlist that gentleman's services in inspecting our project prior to first flight!

These are the kinds of resources that make EAA and RAA chapters of such great benefit to amateur aircraft builders. Our EAA chapter has such a wealth of knowledge and experience that one can't help but learn good practices and techniques, almost as if by osmosis. Peer review can be a wonderful thing, especially if those peers have been around the block once or twice.
 
An RV plus

One good thing about RV's is that if you screw up a part, most parts are fairly cheap to replace
I use discarded ruined parts as raw material, for instance part of a damaged RV 8 floor skin is now masquerading as a mounting panel for my radio and transponder in my RV3.
Also in the U.K. we have a similar inspection system as in Canada and I like my inspector looking at my aircraft and if I screw up I go to him for advice on how to fix it. I have had the same inspector for over 25 years.

Cheers
Rob
RV 8 very very slow build
RV3 G-BVDC Bought flying
L4 grasshopper small share for father son time
 
This thread gave me a nightmare last night: I found myself looking at an aileron pushrod (the most recent structural work I've done on the plane) and it looked like a partially crushed beer can in the middle. :eek:

In the dream I actually wondered if I could just leave it be! I don't know why my subconscious mind thinks that way, I know my conscious one certainly does not.
 
I don't see why one would have to be an RV familiar inspector to have found the problems in this particular airplane. Any airplane needs to have the covers taken off and to be looked into with some depth. I would expect any experienced professional IA to find it.

And like the other said, this gives me confidence that my airplane will fly safely! Many of the design cases for stressing an airplane are extreme and most airplanes will never get there, but I sure would not want to fly an airplane that didn't have those margins built in.
 
Don't get me wrong. This is a great forum. I've gotten some good advice off this forum as a result of answers to some of my questions. But, there have been several times I've been really frustrated by some of the responses, or lack thereof. And, I'm sure its just par for the course. But, I can see how some first time builders might be tempted to just "press on".


I had an early experience like this, not online, but with an EAA tech counselor. When I started building I looked around for Tech Counselors and emailed several. I got one response from a guy in a nearby chapter (not my local chapter) who told me to come to their meeting and their resident Tech Counselor would be happy to talk to me. I went to the next scheduled meeting only to find the TC was not interested at all in coming to my site to have a look at some of my work. He said "we all hang out over at KXYZ" and to come by and bring my work with me. I wasn't about to load up the rather large parts of the empennage into my pickup truck to haul them 45 minutes to another airport.

Even after that I emailed him several times asking him to consider looking at my work but got no substantive response.

Now at my current chapter, there are a lot of guys who are willing to help. In fact I will be hosting a chapter meeting at my workshop in a couple of months and everyone will get a chance to critique me.

So, while bad experiences with chapters and Tech Counselors can be very discouraging to new builders, there seem to be enough good eggs out there that you can find them and get their help. But I can see that some folks might give up asking for assistance or advice after a poor response like I initially experienced.
 
....I will be hosting a chapter meeting at my workshop in a couple of months and everyone will get a chance to critique me.

This point cannot be over-emphasized. During the past twenty years, our local builders have hosted dozens of "socials" (we don't call them meetings because that sounds too much like work...) at their shop for fellowship and critiquing the project. Most of the time other builders pick up ideas they carry home and apply to their builds.

Too many times a builder has commented about the lack of interest from a "mentor" but never been pro-active about taking the initiative to bring other builders to the project. The effort required to host a get-together pales in comparison to the value of having other builders and wannabes in the shop. Just leave the builder ego at the door and willingly accept all observations.

But the builders who concern me the most are the ones who neither seek out a mentor or have any interest in anyone seeing their project. Most likely that was the case for the builder whose "craftsmanship" prompted this thread.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with that, gives me confidence:)

+ 1 here on the confidence....

Just made a few accidental double holes dia #40 in fuselage frames while drilling them. Didn't bother fixing the parts, just ordered new one from Van's. Often I feel I am too perfectionist on my build. These pictures tells me other might not be as much as me...
 
Use the archives

1) I've gotten some good advice off this forum as a result of answers to some of my questions. But, there have been several times I've been really frustrated by some of the responses, or lack thereof. And, I'm sure its just par for the course. But, I can see how some first time builders might be tempted to just "press on".

VansAirforce in its current format has been around for almost a couple of decades now. The amount of information in the archives is now massive and very easy to search and access. Many questions asked daily on VansAirforce have been asked and answered dozens of times before in previous threads over the years.

I just think that many experienced builders on VansAirforce refuse to answer the same questions over and over again (I know I do). It becomes a "groundhog day" experience. I see knowledgable builders post comprehensive and presumably time-consuming responses to a specific question....and then a few weeks later some-one else starts a new thread and asks pretty much the same question (and then probably wonders why he's not getting much response).

The archives are the single most important reason to be involved in VansAirforce but they are obviously under-utilised by many builders. I don't know if that's because many builders are not aware of them...or they're just too lazy to do a search (easier to just shoot off a post). :rolleyes:

There are many significant advantages of using the archives for information (as opposed to starting a new thread). Firstly, you can generally access a huge amount of information on the subject of interest...possibly hundreds of posts. Secondly, you can get instant information because you don't have to wait for a posted response. :)

If I want information from VansAirforce my first port of call is always the archives. Only if I cannot find what I want there (and that's very rare) will I post a question in a new thread.
 
Here is a hint for searching. Use google and restrict it to vansairforce like this, "site:vansairforce.com rudder trailing edge"
 
If I want information from VansAirforce my first port of call is always the archives. Only if I cannot find what I want there (and that's very rare) will I post a question in a new thread.

I am assuming from the context of your post that by "archives" you essentially mean the search function.

It is amazing how many times I search for a topic and find nothing on it though. I think frequently people do not use good descriptive titles for their threads and so searches often miss important past threads. Searching for a set of keywords can return very long list of posts with really helpful titles like "So I made this mistake" or "need help with wings!"

Trying to limit searches very often results in no answers so I frequently have to wade through a lot of irrelevant posts. It is amazing how many time I have searched for specific part numbers and found nothing but have found relevant threads when using a non-canonical part name.

If I could ask everyone here to do one thing it would be to make their thread titles more descriptive, including the part number and/or plans page.

I know I have been guilty of this too in my haste to ask a question.
 
Use the Google

Totally agree with Rick's suggestion, that's what I do, use the Google. The VAF search is not nearly as sophisticated as Google's, for obvious reasons.

If only there was a way to get the old pictures who's links have moved into the afterlife.

About the question repeats, I personally believe repeated questions are not a bad thing, since our knowledge changes, and sometimes so do our methods.

Some examples I can think of - we now glue the canopy (mostly) instead of rivet, RV8 battery in the back - no longer needed with the new lifepo4 batteries saving many cheeseburgers worth of weight. Also, newer builders are often coming up with innovative ways to solve problems that when shared on the site add to the body of knowledge. They would not be prompted to explain how they did it on a very old thread, but if someone asks, they would feel good about contributing.
 
Last edited:
. . . include a flier on the EAA Technical Advisor program and EAA chapter lists with their kits, . . .
Vic

That is a good idea - if you can get that far with a flier list, a few other sources of information and communication ought to be included too, e.g. VAF.com, Kitlog.com, and probably a couple of others. A comment should be included that reminds that all sources of information referenced by any experimental aircraft builder should be considered carefully.

If unsure about the information you are seeing, then pursue other sources until you have a reasonable level of confidence in your interpretation and decided course of action. If you learn something that you feel is valuable and ought to be considered, then share that for others' consideration. Different and opposing points of view are not harmful, debate is good, it might slow your progress a little but the end result will be better for it.
 
I am assuming from the context of your post that by "archives" you essentially mean the search function.

It is amazing how many times I search for a topic and find nothing on it though. I think frequently people do not use good descriptive titles for their threads and so searches often miss important past threads. Searching for a set of keywords can return very long list of posts with really helpful titles like "So I made this mistake" or "need help with wings!"

Trying to limit searches very often results in no answers so I frequently have to wade through a lot of irrelevant posts. It is amazing how many time I have searched for specific part numbers and found nothing but have found relevant threads when using a non-canonical part name.

If I could ask everyone here to do one thing it would be to make their thread titles more descriptive, including the part number and/or plans page.

I know I have been guilty of this too in my haste to ask a question.



I've been a moderator in another forum for years, I never fail to answer that same question over and over, or I point them to a thread.( It's tough to be a newbie. ) I have had a hard time searching here at times and have used The google trick to get needed info, but still at times I've had to wade through similar sounding threads for hours before finding a solution. An experienced builder could (likely) have answered that same question in 2 seconds. (I know Fred usually can)

I'm not knocking this site (at all) cause it IS a great resource, A ++ people, I'd just like to remind people we were all newbies at one point and even though we might not be in one thing today we will likely be a newbie in something else soon enough. 😀

I have learned an amazing amount in a short period of time thanks to this and other forums as well as mentoring from people like Fred stucklen whose input has been invaluable to me.

Thank you, to all those who have helped a newbie with a repedetive or sometimes rediculous question.
 
Back
Top