Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Grinded spar input please
- Thread starter Epsound
- Start date
Noah
Well Known Member
Evans, you are headed on the right path. I personally inspected this aircraft about a year ago after it had changed hands several times. I hate to say this, but I have never seen anything so poorly built, I was seriously ill after looking at this airframe. My only guess as to how this could have been built this way was that it was part of a high school trade class and the instructor fell ill so a substitute teacher oversaw the class and had absolutely no clue what they were doing, and the kids ran wild. That is the only possible explanation that made any sense to me, it was really that bad.
I strongly recommended that the previous owner scrap the kit but since he was unwilling to do this I insisted that he send photos of the spar to Vans for their input. This resulted in the RVAtor article. Unfortunately, the kit was passed on yet again when it should have been made into beer cans. This kit is not even good enough for a high school shop class non-flying training project at this point, IMHO. But who knows, maybe somebody would take it. At least you would get the tax break for the charitable donation if they did.
The canopy was "finished" and completely installed on the airframe but the edge resulting from the "big cut" looked like the builder had cut it with a circular saw and never bothered to file or sand the edge smooth. The jagged saw marks in the canopy edge were on the order of .080" deep, and these were still sharp enough to cut your hand. There were several cracks emanating from improperly drilled rivet holes at the edge of the canopy, some were stop-drilled, others were not.
There was a piece of structural aluminum angle in the corner just aft of the firewall at the engine mount which had been replaced with square-corner architectural-grade low-strength aluminum from Home Depot. Everywhere you looked on this thing there were big problems - this was not a case of "just the spar has problems, everything else is great". At least half of the rivets in the airframe were not bucked properly and needed to be drilled out and replaced.
I would HIGHLY recommend that if you do not scrap or donate this kit to a trade school that you send DOZENS of detailed photos to Vans and also get one-on-one help from a reputable local RV builder, Tech Counselor, or A&P.
I strongly recommended that the previous owner scrap the kit but since he was unwilling to do this I insisted that he send photos of the spar to Vans for their input. This resulted in the RVAtor article. Unfortunately, the kit was passed on yet again when it should have been made into beer cans. This kit is not even good enough for a high school shop class non-flying training project at this point, IMHO. But who knows, maybe somebody would take it. At least you would get the tax break for the charitable donation if they did.
The canopy was "finished" and completely installed on the airframe but the edge resulting from the "big cut" looked like the builder had cut it with a circular saw and never bothered to file or sand the edge smooth. The jagged saw marks in the canopy edge were on the order of .080" deep, and these were still sharp enough to cut your hand. There were several cracks emanating from improperly drilled rivet holes at the edge of the canopy, some were stop-drilled, others were not.
There was a piece of structural aluminum angle in the corner just aft of the firewall at the engine mount which had been replaced with square-corner architectural-grade low-strength aluminum from Home Depot. Everywhere you looked on this thing there were big problems - this was not a case of "just the spar has problems, everything else is great". At least half of the rivets in the airframe were not bucked properly and needed to be drilled out and replaced.
I would HIGHLY recommend that if you do not scrap or donate this kit to a trade school that you send DOZENS of detailed photos to Vans and also get one-on-one help from a reputable local RV builder, Tech Counselor, or A&P.
Thanks Noah...
This is valuable history data I had not had until now. I have that canopy here. I wasn't planning to use it but the guy threw it on the pile as I was packing it up.
I will do as you say as and send copious amounts of pics to Vans of more than just the previously discussed suspect area (thanks to you).
I guarantee many proper eyes will be laid on this before a final decision has been made. I guess we will be able to the 'the eyes will have it'...just kidding. I'm never funny when I try to be....:-(.
Thank you again for your history on this mess.
I will say this however, I have brought the paper work--per Vans's documentation--of the history of ownership current (I am the fifth owner).
Like I said previously, the buck stops here for this kit. I am very pleased knowing that whether or not this girl is revived it will be properly dealt with once and for all.
Update coming.
Evans.
This is valuable history data I had not had until now. I have that canopy here. I wasn't planning to use it but the guy threw it on the pile as I was packing it up.
I will do as you say as and send copious amounts of pics to Vans of more than just the previously discussed suspect area (thanks to you).
I guarantee many proper eyes will be laid on this before a final decision has been made. I guess we will be able to the 'the eyes will have it'...just kidding. I'm never funny when I try to be....:-(.
Thank you again for your history on this mess.
I will say this however, I have brought the paper work--per Vans's documentation--of the history of ownership current (I am the fifth owner).
Like I said previously, the buck stops here for this kit. I am very pleased knowing that whether or not this girl is revived it will be properly dealt with once and for all.
Update coming.
Evans.
java
Well Known Member
Just want to say that I admire your attitude and the honor you are showing in taking this position Evans. You could have done as the other four previous owners have done, and passed the issue on to someone else (either with disclosure or not). Karma has a way of working itself around, and I hope you get some good karma from the way you're approaching this.
Wow, there you have it.
Wow! Noah's description of his inspection of this kit is astonishing, though not surprising. That's about what I expected for the rest of the kit after seeing the wing spar.
Now, that right there is more than enough reason to make a final decision that this airframe should never fly.
Evans, again I commend you on your decision to act responsibly on the results of a qualified inspection. Now it's up to you to decide how much more time and effort you want to put into the inspection process. But with Noah having reported on his inspection, I think you have more than enough information already to make the unfortunate but obvious decision.
Again, good luck. And I do hope that after you properly dispose of this airframe, you'll consider starting over with a good kit and do it right. Best wishes,
-Roee
Wow! Noah's description of his inspection of this kit is astonishing, though not surprising. That's about what I expected for the rest of the kit after seeing the wing spar.
Now, that right there is more than enough reason to make a final decision that this airframe should never fly.
Evans, again I commend you on your decision to act responsibly on the results of a qualified inspection. Now it's up to you to decide how much more time and effort you want to put into the inspection process. But with Noah having reported on his inspection, I think you have more than enough information already to make the unfortunate but obvious decision.
Again, good luck. And I do hope that after you properly dispose of this airframe, you'll consider starting over with a good kit and do it right. Best wishes,
-Roee
My 2c (or 2p...)
Anyone who thinks it is acceptable to grind a spar like that in an effort to make it fit when something is obviously not right clearly does not have the skills or mind-set to build an aeroplane. The wings are scrap. There are obviously issues with the spar gap in the fuselage so that is probably scrap - or a huge, difficult rebuild. Would you trust the empennage? Not I!
Maybe you can salvage a few parts and save a few bucks on a new kit. Otherwise, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. I know that means a financial loss to you but so did my previous marriage. Still walked away and am happy now with a new wife
Anyone who thinks it is acceptable to grind a spar like that in an effort to make it fit when something is obviously not right clearly does not have the skills or mind-set to build an aeroplane. The wings are scrap. There are obviously issues with the spar gap in the fuselage so that is probably scrap - or a huge, difficult rebuild. Would you trust the empennage? Not I!
Maybe you can salvage a few parts and save a few bucks on a new kit. Otherwise, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. I know that means a financial loss to you but so did my previous marriage. Still walked away and am happy now with a new wife
Don't even consider donating this to a high school!! As someone who has spent years getting schools to accept aircraft building as a school concept, this would be counter-productive. Just having such poor workmanship in front of students would make a statement we should never make, regardless of how we present it. Knowing the aircraft would never fly also removes much of the incentive to do quality work, IMHO. Donating such a poor project would not do the school nor the students any favors.
Bob
aarvig
Well Known Member
I absolutely agree whole-heartedly. Use the spar for scrap or just get rid of it. Even if you sign a statement that the parts are not airworthy you have no control over what happens to the parts afterwards. If they end up on a plane and there is an accident, theoretically, you could be sued. You may win, but you could still get sued. The cost of your defense would exceed the cost of that spar. Just junk it.
Last edited:
Rick6a
Well Known Member
Instant Messaging
The thoughtful builder strives for perfection knowing he will never really achieve it. It is the personal reponsibility of each and every one of us to decide what is acceptable and what is not. Certainly, we are not "building a watch," yet another oft repeated catch phrase some builders are fond of mimicking yet it seems to me as ill-advised a message as "build on." Why is watch building somehow compared to airplane construction? It should be glaringly apparent there are not a whole lot of watches out there that can kill you.
I doubt there is any RV out there that stands as a model of perfection. As builders, we are all imperfect but we do have guidelines available to us in the form of accepted practices. To wander very far from long established technical standards is to court disaster.
All of us get only one chance at first impressions and I completely agree with you that no student should ever be initiated into the world of aircraft construction by first laying eyes on that sorry project. On full display for all to see, the project serves as a woefully bad example of craftsmanship. As such, its terrible condition cannot and will not do impressionable young students any favors.
Well said, Bob. If any one lesson can be gleaned from all this, perhaps it is this. When it comes to experimental aircraft building, quality is all over the map and the craftsmanship displayed on the mutiliated spar represents the worst quality of work our community of builders is capable of. As such, its shoddy workmanship serves all of us as an extreme example of builders behaving badly. Did Van's somehow contribute to this? I say that because I can't help but wonder if that famous "Build On!" advice communicated via uncounted emails from factory support personnel, a sentiment echoed repeatedly on this very forum, *may* have unwittingly provided fertile ground for bad decision making. Isn't "build on" just code for "don't sweat it?" Taken out of specific context and in some instances that is bound to be inevitable, doesn't that folksy little phrase risk giving an impression to some builders that the bar is set kinda low?
The thoughtful builder strives for perfection knowing he will never really achieve it. It is the personal reponsibility of each and every one of us to decide what is acceptable and what is not. Certainly, we are not "building a watch," yet another oft repeated catch phrase some builders are fond of mimicking yet it seems to me as ill-advised a message as "build on." Why is watch building somehow compared to airplane construction? It should be glaringly apparent there are not a whole lot of watches out there that can kill you.
I doubt there is any RV out there that stands as a model of perfection. As builders, we are all imperfect but we do have guidelines available to us in the form of accepted practices. To wander very far from long established technical standards is to court disaster.
All of us get only one chance at first impressions and I completely agree with you that no student should ever be initiated into the world of aircraft construction by first laying eyes on that sorry project. On full display for all to see, the project serves as a woefully bad example of craftsmanship. As such, its terrible condition cannot and will not do impressionable young students any favors.
The documentation that comes with RV kits is full of references of what is acceptable workmanship. The documentation also makes it clear that there is no way a construction manual and set of plans can teach the uninitiated how to build an airplane. They need to use all resources available, to get educated. It is unfortunate, but obvious, that a large percentage of RV builders never even read through sections 1-5 of the construction manual, let alone any other resource that is available. There is a lot of useful information in these sections.
Builders are also strongly encourage by the documentation, all the people at Van's, by EAA, the FAA, and people in the homebuilding community in general, to have other eyes looking at your project (use the EAA tech. councilor program, etc), particularly at the beginning stages.
Unfortunately, there is a percentage of the population with personality traits that makes them avoid outside help or input.
We all know that who ever did the poor work on this airplane never received an ok from someone at Vans to grind spar material so that the wing would fit in the fuselage. In fact it is highly probable that the person never called Vans for any type of help.
Providing help via phone is a challenge. A high percentage of builders call simply for reassurance that what they are about to do is correct. The only way I see that could prevent someone from messing up, since a person on the phone can only use what ever info is verbally described to them or e-mailed in (usually blurry, very poor quality) photos, would be to turn the help line into a referral service... call in to get the phone # of the RV building expert nearest you. Then have them come over and inspect what it is you have a question about.
Maybe Rick would like to be the first person put on the list
Well said
Nicely written. The original thought was well intentioned but these points highlight how we each impact future generations. That said, the idea of donating this is officially scrapped.
On a different but related note, I have sent pics to Vans and have already consulted with one FAA AI.
The results so far are surprising and also encouraging. But, I will wait until I have all the data and responses before posting the cumilative results and decision.
Respectfully,
Evans.
Nicely written. The original thought was well intentioned but these points highlight how we each impact future generations. That said, the idea of donating this is officially scrapped.
On a different but related note, I have sent pics to Vans and have already consulted with one FAA AI.
The results so far are surprising and also encouraging. But, I will wait until I have all the data and responses before posting the cumilative results and decision.
Respectfully,
Evans.
jcaplins
Well Known Member
I say... Build the plane!
That's right, go ahead and finish it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Then sink it in a quarry for divers to enjoy.
I am actually serious. It really sucks you got burned on this project, but perhaps you can get some donations to complete it in an un-airworthy state (visually anyway) and turn it into a piece of yard art, sink it in a lake/reservoir/quarry (although, not to many in Colorado) or perhaps a big weather vane, like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Douglas_DC3.jpg
(the link still works with the smiley)
That's right, go ahead and finish it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Then sink it in a quarry for divers to enjoy.
I am actually serious. It really sucks you got burned on this project, but perhaps you can get some donations to complete it in an un-airworthy state (visually anyway) and turn it into a piece of yard art, sink it in a lake/reservoir/quarry (although, not to many in Colorado) or perhaps a big weather vane, like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Douglas_DC3.jpg
(the link still works with the smiley)
Captain Avgas
Well Known Member
Rick, I concur with you 100% on this. Well said. The build quality in the Experimental category certainly covers an enormous spectrum, as one would expect. Some builders simply do not have the patience or mindset to build a safe aircraft. The oft quoted saying that anyone can build a good aircraft is as erroneous as the oft quoted saying that anyone can become a good pilot. For one reason or another some people are simply not up to the task.
I think that it is also worth noting that this terrible example of ineptitude has only come to light because the aircraft was onsold as a project and was thus readily subjected to additional scrutinization. My best guess is that many completed Experimental aircraft flying around contain hidden horrors known only to the builder.
Last edited:
Flying Scotsman
Well Known Member
Now that we've all thoroughly beat up on the person, whomever he or she is, who ground down this critical piece of the aircraft, may I respectfully suggest that we come up with a way to *help* other people avoid making serious errors like this? It's one thing to say "Wow! Look at the crappy workmanship THIS idiot did!", and quite another to turn it into a teaching moment for both that person and others who *may not know any better*.
I'm quite certain we've all made mistakes, and if we're lucky (or resourceful enough) to have others with more experience review our work and catch our mistakes, that's okay.
So...other than just telling new builders to "go take a class" or "you should have read Van's instructions", there must be a way to use the vast resources of this site to help new owners or builders be aware of a) common mistakes that you need to watch out for, b) critical parts of the build where you need to be extra cautious and get help if you're unsure of your skills, and c) truly bad practices and dangerous errors which have been made, and you should avoid at all costs.
The root cause of this error is probably not someone's lack of care or dimwittedness, but more likely that they *didn't know* why this was a bad idea, and/or they did something else wrong and then didn't know that this was not the right way to fix it.
Maybe a section or a sticky thread on "I learned a valuable lesson from X" or something like that.
Not everyone has ready access to tons of other builders, like we do here in SoCal, and they're working all on their own with no help. Let's help them...
I'm quite certain we've all made mistakes, and if we're lucky (or resourceful enough) to have others with more experience review our work and catch our mistakes, that's okay.
So...other than just telling new builders to "go take a class" or "you should have read Van's instructions", there must be a way to use the vast resources of this site to help new owners or builders be aware of a) common mistakes that you need to watch out for, b) critical parts of the build where you need to be extra cautious and get help if you're unsure of your skills, and c) truly bad practices and dangerous errors which have been made, and you should avoid at all costs.
The root cause of this error is probably not someone's lack of care or dimwittedness, but more likely that they *didn't know* why this was a bad idea, and/or they did something else wrong and then didn't know that this was not the right way to fix it.
Maybe a section or a sticky thread on "I learned a valuable lesson from X" or something like that.
Not everyone has ready access to tons of other builders, like we do here in SoCal, and they're working all on their own with no help. Let's help them...
Dennis_I
Active Member
There are some new rules coming to Sweden in the near future... You need to be an Aircraft Engineer or you need to attend a 20-30hr course in sheet metal work or plastic if your building a fibreglass aircraft, there you are supposed to learn at least the very basics in aircraft manufacturing before getting your "permit to build" from the Swedish EAA, don`t know if such system would work over there, but i think it is a good thing to prepare the owner of a kit what he is getting himself into...
/Dennis
/Dennis
Steve, you can't be serious...
I'm sorry, that's nonsense. Clearly the root cause of the problems with this kit IS the original builder's lack of care, and not lack of access to information or help. Plenty of information and expert help IS readily available to any RV builder anywhere in the world, provided he has access to the internet or a telephone. But the builder still has to choose to use those resources.
Among those resources are:
- Van's documentation that's provided with the kit
- A variety of books and other literature, much of which by the way is listed in Van's manual
- Van's tech support
- On-line forums such as this one
Again, these are all readily available to anyone. But you can only lead a horse to water...
The original builder of that kit clearly exercised extremely poor judgement in choosing to disregard the vast body of "know better" information that was available to him. The fundamental problem was not lack of available information, but rather the very dangerous mindset that made him disregard it. I'll say it in no uncertain terms: An individual with that kind of mindset has no business building or operating aircraft. Period.
I'm sorry, that's nonsense. Clearly the root cause of the problems with this kit IS the original builder's lack of care, and not lack of access to information or help. Plenty of information and expert help IS readily available to any RV builder anywhere in the world, provided he has access to the internet or a telephone. But the builder still has to choose to use those resources.
Among those resources are:
- Van's documentation that's provided with the kit
- A variety of books and other literature, much of which by the way is listed in Van's manual
- Van's tech support
- On-line forums such as this one
Again, these are all readily available to anyone. But you can only lead a horse to water...
The original builder of that kit clearly exercised extremely poor judgement in choosing to disregard the vast body of "know better" information that was available to him. The fundamental problem was not lack of available information, but rather the very dangerous mindset that made him disregard it. I'll say it in no uncertain terms: An individual with that kind of mindset has no business building or operating aircraft. Period.
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
It has been my experience with a couple of very poorly built aircraft that the type of builder who hacks a spar is a "hermit" who has no interest in interaction with other builders or those who might offer guidance. I suspect the original builder will never see this thread.
A builder who is concerned with fabricating a safe aircraft will seek help anytime a serious issue arises. But there are a few builders who can't be told anything by anyone in any manner..........
Hi Dennis, In the USA we usually refer to fibreglass or carbon fibre planes here as "composite" rather than plastic.
There are very good builder courses, some of them are single day courses that would teach you nearly all you need to know for the sheet metal work. And they are someone you can call to or get referrals from because they are local.
flion
Well Known Member
I somewhat agree with Sam's assessment. However, I was one of those 'hermits' for a long time and not entirely by choice. I began my build in 1994 in Ann Arbor. While I was able to locate a group of builders in Pontiac, I was never able to find any local help specifically for RVs. Fortunately, I was working for American International Airways at the time and the maintenance department was a huge help. An IA even got me through my initial riveting including evaluating the inevitable riveting dings. I also participated in the Matronics RV-list, which provided some help but there were times I'd have benefited from having someone come look at my work - and I simply could not locate anyone close enough to be willing to come by.
After the kit languished in Chicago for four years (where I at least managed to locate the builders who frequented Clow Airport), I came to Flagstaff. There I encountered an RV-9A builder who shortly moved his project to the Phoenix area. Once again I was on my own. Eventually I moved the project to the airport and located a 'Tech Counselor' about 30 miles away in Williams. I've written about that disaster elsewhere - short version: he deemed my entire project unairworthy because, as I found out later, he was hoping I'd abandon it and he could offer to take it. On the plus side, I finally got plenty of help, though I was still the sole RV builder around (sorry, AZTAILWIND, you don't count because you haven't been building since buying a flying RV).
I don't think that Internet resources, or the videos (though the Orndorff videos were a huge help to me), are enough. You need eyes and hands on your project. This is why I advocate building at an airport if possible (yes, not as convenient but you get a lot of inspection and advice), or at least getting other resources such as A&Ps, builders of other types, etc. As this thread shows, even the experts can be screwy. The A&P who advised the OP that the spar was not a problem was obviously someone you wouldn't want to take your plane to. The ones I rely on fly their own aircraft and I can judge their work for myself, which gives me a feel for how good their advice is. I became a TC, not because I am an expert but because I can at least guide others over the basic pitfalls and point them to better local resources as needed (the 'TC' who I encountered has since passed away and will not be hindering other builders). I've got a friend who is restoring a Scout - while it's tube and fabric, he's a great resource for welding and, because he ran a Jeep dealership for many years, knows a lot about engines and general mechanical systems. Another builder is my buddy who flies a Prop Jet and is invaluable for fiberglass assistance. And then there is the RV-7 builder who is also a machinist.
Bottom line (or my point - at last!): If we as a community want to improve building standards then we have to become more accessible. It's not enough to say 'we're here, come to us'. While it seems that the Internet is ubiquitous, it isn't, yet. There are builders out there who don't use it, don't know how to contact local builders (if there are any), or how to get help. Don't assume because you sit in the midst of a clump of builders that everyone is as lucky. And don't forget to use the non-RV resources available. I'm doing what I can in my outpost up here - my flock is small, but growing - but the real problem is making myself visible to those who want help but don't know where to find it. I'm listed in the White Pages, on the RV-10 builder's list, through Van's, on the EAA TC list, and on my website and the local EAA website. I'm still not sure it's enough. I think it would be nice if Van's included a list of local builders with each kit, rather than waiting to be asked - of course that would mean they'd have to maintain a database. Maybe they could hire DR's daughter and co-opt the white pages. I'm just saying there has to be a way to reach out because my experience says the available help is not as easy to find everywhere as you might assume.
After the kit languished in Chicago for four years (where I at least managed to locate the builders who frequented Clow Airport), I came to Flagstaff. There I encountered an RV-9A builder who shortly moved his project to the Phoenix area. Once again I was on my own. Eventually I moved the project to the airport and located a 'Tech Counselor' about 30 miles away in Williams. I've written about that disaster elsewhere - short version: he deemed my entire project unairworthy because, as I found out later, he was hoping I'd abandon it and he could offer to take it. On the plus side, I finally got plenty of help, though I was still the sole RV builder around (sorry, AZTAILWIND, you don't count because you haven't been building since buying a flying RV
).I don't think that Internet resources, or the videos (though the Orndorff videos were a huge help to me), are enough. You need eyes and hands on your project. This is why I advocate building at an airport if possible (yes, not as convenient but you get a lot of inspection and advice), or at least getting other resources such as A&Ps, builders of other types, etc. As this thread shows, even the experts can be screwy. The A&P who advised the OP that the spar was not a problem was obviously someone you wouldn't want to take your plane to. The ones I rely on fly their own aircraft and I can judge their work for myself, which gives me a feel for how good their advice is. I became a TC, not because I am an expert but because I can at least guide others over the basic pitfalls and point them to better local resources as needed (the 'TC' who I encountered has since passed away and will not be hindering other builders). I've got a friend who is restoring a Scout - while it's tube and fabric, he's a great resource for welding and, because he ran a Jeep dealership for many years, knows a lot about engines and general mechanical systems. Another builder is my buddy who flies a Prop Jet and is invaluable for fiberglass assistance. And then there is the RV-7 builder who is also a machinist.
Bottom line (or my point - at last!
): If we as a community want to improve building standards then we have to become more accessible. It's not enough to say 'we're here, come to us'. While it seems that the Internet is ubiquitous, it isn't, yet. There are builders out there who don't use it, don't know how to contact local builders (if there are any), or how to get help. Don't assume because you sit in the midst of a clump of builders that everyone is as lucky. And don't forget to use the non-RV resources available. I'm doing what I can in my outpost up here - my flock is small, but growing - but the real problem is making myself visible to those who want help but don't know where to find it. I'm listed in the White Pages, on the RV-10 builder's list, through Van's, on the EAA TC list, and on my website and the local EAA website. I'm still not sure it's enough. I think it would be nice if Van's included a list of local builders with each kit, rather than waiting to be asked - of course that would mean they'd have to maintain a database. Maybe they could hire DR's daughter and co-opt the white pages. I'm just saying there has to be a way to reach out because my experience says the available help is not as easy to find everywhere as you might assume.
Sam Buchanan
been here awhile
Excellent points, Patrick. Thanks for your thoughtful reply.
...
Bottom line (or my point - at last!
...
Patrick,
I partially agree with your comments. I'll grant you, not all sources of information and help are equally accessible to all people in all places. And sure, better access is better. But I don't think that is the bottom line.
People have built good airplanes in remote locations, and even without the internet (recall that the airplane pre-dates the internet
). There are plenty of other sources of information and help. But one still has to choose to use them.The bottom line, I think, is that it's still ultimately up to the individual builder to make use of available resources and choose to do what it takes to get it right. A builder with that mindset, I think, can succeed in building a robust airplane. A builder without that mindset, I think, will fail. And that's true whether the builder is living in a straw hut in the bush, or in a major metropolis and next door to a tech councilor.
If we as a builder community want to improve standards, there are a variety of things we can do, but among them I don't think we can sit quietly on the fact that certain mindsets are simply incompatible with aircraft construction.
-Roee
twsurveyor
Well Known Member
Flying "Time Bombs"!
The scary thing about following this thread is wondering just how many (out of the 7500 or so) flying RV's could actually have equally bad (or even worse) "hermit built" structural problems that slipped through the "inspection system" unseen and/or unnoticed?
When I look at other RV's (at flyins and shows), it's appearant that building quality goes form one extreame to the other. There are some that can only be described as absolutley beautful show quality aircraft and then there are others that look like they were built with a jackhammer and a brush ax! I have seen some real junkers taxi into the "RV Lot" at OSH and thought, "I can't believe that guy was actually brave (or stupid) enough to fly that thing in here!
Just makes one wonder how many "Flying Time Bombs" are out there???
The scary thing about following this thread is wondering just how many (out of the 7500 or so) flying RV's could actually have equally bad (or even worse) "hermit built" structural problems that slipped through the "inspection system" unseen and/or unnoticed?
When I look at other RV's (at flyins and shows), it's appearant that building quality goes form one extreame to the other. There are some that can only be described as absolutley beautful show quality aircraft and then there are others that look like they were built with a jackhammer and a brush ax! I have seen some real junkers taxi into the "RV Lot" at OSH and thought, "I can't believe that guy was actually brave (or stupid) enough to fly that thing in here!
Just makes one wonder how many "Flying Time Bombs" are out there???
rv9aviator
Well Known Member
I'm thinkin it might just come down to having plain old walking sense or the lack thereof.
Flying Scotsman
Well Known Member
Interesting that we're willing to pass judgement on someone we've never met. Ever consider that maybe this person *did* have someone advising him or her, and the advice was bad, but they didn't know any better?
Look at the very first post...2 out of 3 people the OP went to for advice basically said "build on":
What about these people, hmmm? Are they exhibiting a "lack of care", or a "dangerous mindset", or are they the type of personality that has no business building airplanes or flying them?
A lot of things could have gone wrong here, and I'm not willing to sit in judgement on someone I've never met or talked to or know anything about, based on two pictures and a couple of paragraphs.
Look at the very first post...2 out of 3 people the OP went to for advice basically said "build on":
What about these people, hmmm? Are they exhibiting a "lack of care", or a "dangerous mindset", or are they the type of personality that has no business building airplanes or flying them?
A lot of things could have gone wrong here, and I'm not willing to sit in judgement on someone I've never met or talked to or know anything about, based on two pictures and a couple of paragraphs.
Yes, they are. And it's especially bothersome if those two people are indeed an engineer and a pro builder. If those are in fact their qualifications, then they have absolutely no excuse for not knowing better, and for giving such careless and dangerous advice.
Thankfully, the OP had the common sense to distrust the answer given by those two, and inquire further. Kudos to the OP!
And by the way, the laws of physics are not governed by democracy. Their advice was flat out wrong, even if given by a 2/3 majority of the people polled.
MauiLvrs
Well Known Member
If you're the one that gets to fix stupid .... you're probably more willing to pass judgement. I have no problem considering at least one of the previous owners of our kit stupid. Sometimes you may just have to experience first hand .. maybe this is one of those...
Had we not acquired our kit ... and fixed all of the many problems it may have been one of those....
pierre smith
Well Known Member
I'm reminded of a Rocket.
An A@P/IA friend and multi-time RV builder looked at a Rocket in South Carolina a couple of years ago and we were both speechless at the "wreckage" we saw! Every control surface was severely warped...by more than an inch...every single one!
The lines of rivets were crooked as h**l and randomly spaced, never measured. Totally junk and we said so....edge distance be da***d.
The kit has disappeared and hopefully, never to fly...or rather, "attempt" to fly. There comes a time when you simply have to draw a line in the sand. This was one.
Best,
An A@P/IA friend and multi-time RV builder looked at a Rocket in South Carolina a couple of years ago and we were both speechless at the "wreckage" we saw! Every control surface was severely warped...by more than an inch...every single one!
The lines of rivets were crooked as h**l and randomly spaced, never measured. Totally junk and we said so....edge distance be da***d.
The kit has disappeared and hopefully, never to fly...or rather, "attempt" to fly. There comes a time when you simply have to draw a line in the sand. This was one.
Best,
Bill Wightman
Well Known Member
About pro builders: Without a doubt a great many of them do acceptable work or better. But, the biggest mistake for me was hiring a "pro builder" (professional A&P with about 20 years experience) to do a significant amount of work on my RV8. I hired him to bring a standard 8 kit up to the QB level, but with some mods I wanted.
For sure, some of the work he'd done didn't meet AC4313, and much of it was just plain ugly. Its my fault for not seeing the problems earlier and taking the project away from the guy - its a long story that I don't want to tell here. Cost me lots of time and $$ to fix it all.
The lesson learned for me is: be VERY careful who you trust. Credentials such as A&P, IA, Engineer, Pro Builder, might be good but don't necessarily by themselves guarantee quality work. If buying someone else's work, inspect it thoroughly!! Don't hesitate to bring substandard work to light. Do not accept excuses for anything that fails to measure up no matter who it is.
For sure, some of the work he'd done didn't meet AC4313, and much of it was just plain ugly. Its my fault for not seeing the problems earlier and taking the project away from the guy - its a long story that I don't want to tell here. Cost me lots of time and $$ to fix it all.
The lesson learned for me is: be VERY careful who you trust. Credentials such as A&P, IA, Engineer, Pro Builder, might be good but don't necessarily by themselves guarantee quality work. If buying someone else's work, inspect it thoroughly!! Don't hesitate to bring substandard work to light. Do not accept excuses for anything that fails to measure up no matter who it is.
Last edited:
