I new to this game Bob, and I'm learning. I'm only a year and a half into my-8 and only just about to flip the fuse. The -8 is only my second airplane and the first one was all tube and fabric so I have a lot to learn.
Bob Barrow said:
I'm sorry but although often said, the above comment contains not an ounze of truth. In fact very very few RVs are of certificated quality. If you look at the EAAA Airventure judging guidelines you will find that homebuilt planes are rated from 1 to 10. "Average" quality is actually 4 ("Generally meets the aeronautical standards with some inconsistencies. Slightly under or overbuilt in some areas. Little finesse or detail").
I guess I've just been lucky. Now I haven't seen thousands of RVs only several hundred at Osh and Sun-N-Fun and a few local shows. On the days I've seen those RVs I guess the guys with the crappy ones decided to stay at home. The ones I have seen were built from kits that were purchased from Vans and I wouldn't say any were under-built at all. Maybe Van does design in a bit more strength than is necessary but is that a negative? I'm not an engineer, I have only heard the A&P's on my field and other pilots (all with decades of experience) comment that my kit sure is built strong. I haven't added a thing to my -8, it's being built by the book just as Van's sent it. They are comparing it to the certified airplanes they have seen and worked on.
Bob Barrow said:
Only planes rated a 9 or 10 (very rare) are considered to be "equal or better than a factory new aircraft".
A 9 means ("Outstanding workmanship. Exceptional attention to detail").
A 10 means ("Flawless in all respects").
I guess in this respect I've been unlucky. If the standard is a 9 or 10 when it comes to factory new then I haven't seen a "flawless in all respects" airplane of any sorts that came from a factory. Actually, if a builder were honest I don't think any plane is "flawless".
Bob Barrow said:
A 9 or 10 is a major award winner. And there are not too many of those around.
Given that you consider a 9 or 10 to be equal to a factory built airplane, then all of the Cessna's, Pipers, etc should be major award winning quality? Wow, can you imagine, you've put in the time, money and skill to build an airplane, fly it to Osh and win! Holy cow, you've just won at Osh and a guy walks up and says congrats, you've just built a plane that's as good as my 152. What an eye-opener! I thought it really meant something to win at Osh, not to mention what it says for those that didn't even place. I hope they all made it home safely!
Bob Barrow said:
The truth is that the "average" RV is quite roughly built, usually by a builder without previously acquired skills. Building an RV to certificated standards takes many thousands of hours of meticulous workmanship and most builders simply do not have the trade skills or patience (or capacity to study and learn correct aviation procedures) to achieve this.
The average RV is "quite roughly built"? O.K. fair enough, from the few builders that I have talked to they didn't have any special skill before building. But I certainly wouldn't say any that have actually completed any major portion of an airplane didn't have the capacity to study or learn. Actually I would say that they certainly DO have a capacity to learn. They learned to study a manual, read drawings, take pieces of metal and turn them into flying machines. That's gotta count for something. I just gotta ask Bob, and I'm not throwing stones 'cause I'm far from an award winning builder, is your RV "average"?
Bob Barrow said:
To highlight the point just take a look at what passes for priming on most RVs, including the Vans QBs. Then take a look at the current Cessna and Piper specs (degrease, phosphoric acid etch, alodine, and Boeing spec BMS10-11 two pack strontium chromate epoxy primer on all surfaces, including all skins). Need I say more.
I'm not going to debate primers, just because the government has decided this is what Cessna should do to meet a standard doesn't mean what any good paint shop does isn't better than that gov't standard. It's a matter of opinion.
I will admit I haven't read the EAA guidelines for judging aircraft but I will. If what you are saying is an Osh winner is considered by EAA standards to be just as good as any average Cessna that rolls off the line well, I'm a bit disappointed. I guess I am a bit naive 'cause I thought the standard would have been a lot higher than that. All I've had to go on was my untrained eye so far. I've been very lucky and I guess my standards are too high because if you were to park a nice RV next to any new Cessna, I would probably give the edge to the RV. But then again I would give a few extra points knowing the love and passion put into the RV that simply isn't there in the Cessna. I know that is skewed but still, that's just me. I also realize that a number of Osh winners were not built by the owners at all but by hired guns that have the skill to build a winner. That too is disappointing and in my opinion takes away from the awards.
So if there isn't an ounce of truth in what I say, I'll yield to you. I guess my standards aren't high enough but from what I have seen and the builders I meet, they sure do have some purdy airplanes.