Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Most challenging/frustrating part?
- Thread starter prkaye
- Start date
RVbySDI
Well Known Member
I will say the most frustrating part for me is not realized in any one task or build process associated with the RV9. It is rather the problem of getting myself out into the shop to start working. It seems that everytime I turn around there is some new "thing" in life that is pulling my attention away from working on the plane.prkaye said:
The frustration level only is intensified by my fulltime day job. I have the luxury of working in an environment that allows me to monitor this forum while at work. Because of this I spend 8 hours a day reading everything under the sun about building RV's from all of you guys. So the frustration comes from spending the 8 hours strapped to a chair reading when I would like to spend that time working on my RV. Now, don't get me wrong on this point. I greatly value the opportunity to read posts from other RV builders and would not give up the knowledge you guys give me for anything. It is just that I would much rather be spending this time in my shop.
It is very frustrating to want to be building and knowing that I cannot.
vlittle
Well Known Member
Phil, I had the most frustration with the sliding canopy.
I don't know if you have chosen the slider, but I found that it's about 50/50 whether the frame fits.
My survey locally here (Vancouver) shows that there are two types of fuselages (!).
I had a QB fuselage that was 3/8" wider at the roll bar than some others being constructed locally. My roll bar fit without adjustment of any kind, but the slider frame needed to be cut and welded to fit at the aft bows.
In addition, since the aft fuselage is the correct width, the fuselage longerons have to curve in more at the back, the slider rails then have large 'fish mouth' scallops at the end. There are all sorts of other adjustments required as well.
The second type has a normal width at the roll bar, but the roll bar needs to be bent to width, which is quite difficult. However, the canopy frame fits well and the slider rails only need slight tapering at the back end.
Why are the fuselages different widths? I contacted Van's, but never heard a response. I suspect it's just the jigging at the QB factory... the fuse width at the roll bar is difficult to maintain during construction.
My advise to you is to jig up the fuselage to the correct width during construction. I don't have the number right now, but you can measure it from other RV's that have good fitting sliders. I believe that this is the secret to a good fitting slider.
Vern Little 9A 60 hrs
fmi
C-FVRL website
I don't know if you have chosen the slider, but I found that it's about 50/50 whether the frame fits.
My survey locally here (Vancouver) shows that there are two types of fuselages (!).
I had a QB fuselage that was 3/8" wider at the roll bar than some others being constructed locally. My roll bar fit without adjustment of any kind, but the slider frame needed to be cut and welded to fit at the aft bows.
In addition, since the aft fuselage is the correct width, the fuselage longerons have to curve in more at the back, the slider rails then have large 'fish mouth' scallops at the end. There are all sorts of other adjustments required as well.
The second type has a normal width at the roll bar, but the roll bar needs to be bent to width, which is quite difficult. However, the canopy frame fits well and the slider rails only need slight tapering at the back end.
Why are the fuselages different widths? I contacted Van's, but never heard a response. I suspect it's just the jigging at the QB factory... the fuse width at the roll bar is difficult to maintain during construction.
My advise to you is to jig up the fuselage to the correct width during construction. I don't have the number right now, but you can measure it from other RV's that have good fitting sliders. I believe that this is the secret to a good fitting slider.
Vern Little 9A 60 hrs
fmi
C-FVRL website
kentb
Well Known Member
For me...
First frustration was when I banged the rivet gun in the the vertical skin. I made a couple of nice dints. "Did I say nice?" I was building a show plane up to that point, but that made me realize that I was just going to build an airplane the would fly good.
First hard part was the fuel tanks. What a sticky substance to work with. It goes slow because you have to clean thing all the time.
Next hard part came with fitting the canopy (mine is a tip-up, but I think that the slider is just as hard only different). Lots of fitting and adjusting the metal as well as the plexiglass.
I enjoyed wiring the plane, but it was frustrating because it took so long and I felt like I was close to flying. It looked like a plane, I should be able to go fly it!
Fitting the cowl was a challange. Lots of sanding and sanding and sanding.
Then comes the last thing that frustarated me. Painting the plane.
It is all done now and I am flying (9 hours). It was all worth the frustration. Keep at it.
Kent
First frustration was when I banged the rivet gun in the the vertical skin. I made a couple of nice dints. "Did I say nice?" I was building a show plane up to that point, but that made me realize that I was just going to build an airplane the would fly good.
First hard part was the fuel tanks. What a sticky substance to work with. It goes slow because you have to clean thing all the time.
Next hard part came with fitting the canopy (mine is a tip-up, but I think that the slider is just as hard only different). Lots of fitting and adjusting the metal as well as the plexiglass.
I enjoyed wiring the plane, but it was frustrating because it took so long and I felt like I was close to flying. It looked like a plane, I should be able to go fly it!
Fitting the cowl was a challange. Lots of sanding and sanding and sanding.
Then comes the last thing that frustarated me. Painting the plane.
It is all done now and I am flying (9 hours). It was all worth the frustration. Keep at it.
Kent
Dayton Murdock
Well Known Member
Canopy
Hi Guys
The most frustrating part my RV4 was the canopy. Here is the link to my canopy building page.link While cutting the canopy I was worried about cracking and cutting it to small,. Then fitting the side skins trying to bend them in the correct location was difficult at best, lastly drilling through the skins. canopy and hitting the small frame tube. I am glad that it is over.
Hi Guys
The most frustrating part my RV4 was the canopy. Here is the link to my canopy building page.link While cutting the canopy I was worried about cracking and cutting it to small,. Then fitting the side skins trying to bend them in the correct location was difficult at best, lastly drilling through the skins. canopy and hitting the small frame tube. I am glad that it is over.
Davepar
Well Known Member
I know what you mean.RVbySDI said:
My frustrations have been the unexpected things. Parts I've screwed up and had to re-fab. Or things that haven't fit the way I expected them to.
There will be frustrations along the way. Coping with them constructively is an important part of the project.
Putting in the time is the hardest part...
I started the wings (doing both at once) the day Randys Lervold and Griffin inspected the tail, and started going out every day. Two days were 1/2 hour or less - clean, set up for next step, whatever. In eight days I completed both main and both rear spars - ready to jig!. I'm 3 days into rib prep and am about half done. I think in a week they will be primed and everything will be jigged up. I think I will be well into the tanks by the end of August. At this rate, maybe I can order the fuse by the end of the year...
Oh sure, there were (and will be) areas where some thinking ahead would have reduced (if not eliminated) some pain and frustration. For me it's like (I'm guessing) childbirth - once I'm past it and see my baby, I forget about the pain. I think it helps to work through it, even if just a few minutes a day, rather than avoid it. There wont be any progress if you don't put in the time.
Well, back out to those ribs...
Agreed. During the empenage, I went out a day or two of my weekend, and occaisionally during the week. Throw in camping or other family things, and it might be weeks between sessions. Which explains why the tail took 6 months! At that rate, I figured a year and a half or more for the wings...RVbySDI said:
I started the wings (doing both at once) the day Randys Lervold and Griffin inspected the tail, and started going out every day. Two days were 1/2 hour or less - clean, set up for next step, whatever. In eight days I completed both main and both rear spars - ready to jig!. I'm 3 days into rib prep and am about half done. I think in a week they will be primed and everything will be jigged up. I think I will be well into the tanks by the end of August. At this rate, maybe I can order the fuse by the end of the year...
Oh sure, there were (and will be) areas where some thinking ahead would have reduced (if not eliminated) some pain and frustration. For me it's like (I'm guessing) childbirth - once I'm past it and see my baby, I forget about the pain. I think it helps to work through it, even if just a few minutes a day, rather than avoid it. There wont be any progress if you don't put in the time.
Well, back out to those ribs...
Paul Eastham
Well Known Member
Mentally most difficult part: getting out there to work and not feeling guilty about all the other things I "ought" to be doing. Setting up a schedule, agreed upon by family and weighed carefully against all competing timesinks, might help.
Physically most difficult: Any part with compound curves in it. Namely: canopy (tip-up), cowl, baffles. I found these extremely frustrating and extremely time consuming. Parts were often poorly made and/or did not fit, not even close. Mind-numbing iterations of remove/trim/replace.
Physically most difficult: Any part with compound curves in it. Namely: canopy (tip-up), cowl, baffles. I found these extremely frustrating and extremely time consuming. Parts were often poorly made and/or did not fit, not even close. Mind-numbing iterations of remove/trim/replace.
Jamie
Well Known Member
For me, the most difficult and frustrating part of my -7A thusfar has not been the canopy, tanks, etc. Those were difficult and frustrating but the absolute most difficult part of the build for me was this: making all the decisions. Slider vs. Tipup, FP vs CS prop, tri-gear vs. taildragger. It literally kept me up at night. The other things are a breeze by comparison.
Most Frustrating
The Slidr on my 9 was very very frustrating. I believe the Tip-up could be just as difficult. I am now working on the cowling. It is very frustrating. FYI, the RV builders in Griffin, Ga are using a product called Sikka (??) to make their canopies. It looks like the way to go to me. Good luck.
Rolly Clark
The Slidr on my 9 was very very frustrating. I believe the Tip-up could be just as difficult. I am now working on the cowling. It is very frustrating. FYI, the RV builders in Griffin, Ga are using a product called Sikka (??) to make their canopies. It looks like the way to go to me. Good luck.
Rolly Clark
Bryan Wood
Well Known Member
Frustrating and challenging
Without a doubt the most challenging parts were the forward sections of the longerons, the canopy, and the glass work around the windshield. The most frustrating part of building/owning the 9a is the constant need to apologize or defend it against being a trainer. As everybody knows Van installed an engine and prop off of a Cessna 150 on the prototype 9 to prove a concept and take the kit plane market in a new direction. Unknowningly, Van attached a label that the vast majority of builders who are choosing larger engines cannot shed ourselves of. Sadly the stigma has stuck and those of us with 9's are now kind of like the folks who ride mopeds in a crowd of Harley riders. If the truth be told the 9 is a great airplane and as folks are beginning to realize it the sales appear to be picking up some steam.
I suspect that this answer is far removed from the intent of your question, but it answers it truthfully. Please know that you will love your airplane and it's capabilities will serve you well. All the best to you and your journey.
Without a doubt the most challenging parts were the forward sections of the longerons, the canopy, and the glass work around the windshield. The most frustrating part of building/owning the 9a is the constant need to apologize or defend it against being a trainer. As everybody knows Van installed an engine and prop off of a Cessna 150 on the prototype 9 to prove a concept and take the kit plane market in a new direction. Unknowningly, Van attached a label that the vast majority of builders who are choosing larger engines cannot shed ourselves of. Sadly the stigma has stuck and those of us with 9's are now kind of like the folks who ride mopeds in a crowd of Harley riders. If the truth be told the 9 is a great airplane and as folks are beginning to realize it the sales appear to be picking up some steam.
I suspect that this answer is far removed from the intent of your question, but it answers it truthfully. Please know that you will love your airplane and it's capabilities will serve you well. All the best to you and your journey.
N941WR
Legacy Member
The very first rivet!
I have always complained about the nose rivets in the HS as being the most difficult to drive.
Recently I helped two builders drive these very same rivets, one -7 and one -9A. Getting down into the HS with even a small bucking bar is a pain. Even worse is that you have no clue as to what you are doing at that point.
I wish Van had you start on the VS rather than the HS.
After those rivets, the rest are easy.
As for the -9 being a trainer, the only people I have ever heard that from are other -9 owners / builders. Go figure. (Also, the 108 hp O-235 Lycoming came from a 152. The 150's were powered by a 100 hp continental O-200.)
I have yet to fly in a -9 but have had the opportunity to fly in a -4, -6, -7A, and a -8. All are great flying machines, I can only hope my -9 is 1/2 as good as those other RV?s because that will mean it is twice as good as a production spam can.
I have always complained about the nose rivets in the HS as being the most difficult to drive.
Recently I helped two builders drive these very same rivets, one -7 and one -9A. Getting down into the HS with even a small bucking bar is a pain. Even worse is that you have no clue as to what you are doing at that point.
I wish Van had you start on the VS rather than the HS.
After those rivets, the rest are easy.
As for the -9 being a trainer, the only people I have ever heard that from are other -9 owners / builders. Go figure. (Also, the 108 hp O-235 Lycoming came from a 152. The 150's were powered by a 100 hp continental O-200.)
I have yet to fly in a -9 but have had the opportunity to fly in a -4, -6, -7A, and a -8. All are great flying machines, I can only hope my -9 is 1/2 as good as those other RV?s because that will mean it is twice as good as a production spam can.
Paul Eastham
Well Known Member
N941WR said:
Well, aside from wishing, we can help educate people to just start with the VS. This is the first thing I say to every new 9 builder I meet. Unfortunately, many people, me included, start the project with a slightly perverse cut-no-corners attitude and this extends to not skipping around in the directions...so you need to insist that they do it, not just recommend
(I should say, I still have a cut-no-corners attitude, but I know better now what is truly a corner and what just saves time.)
As far as you guys being frustrated by disparaging remarks about the 9, maybe we 9 builders should try to avoid perpetuating the myths by repeating those bogus statements. A positive instead: "cruises 3 mph slower, but stalls 7 mph slower!" (O-320 9 versus 7)
Last edited:
Bryan Wood
Well Known Member
Bill, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. 150, 152...? Not really the point of what I was trying to say. Whatever it was Van was able to show the industry how amazing the airplane was with this setup, but at the same time forever labeled the plane as a trainer. I can't even count how many threads that have addressed what to build, and the advice that comes in on a regular basis is that you will outgrow the 9 so build one that you won't outgrow. The trainer description is something that I've been reading about since the beginning. I'm 9A builder #8 and can tell you with certainty that the stigma is there and has been since the beginning. When I started my airplane I struggled with the label and came very close to not building a 9a over it. Thankfully those folks didn't play on my insecurities enough to get me to not build a 9A.
Can we agree on this... The fact that we are debating often whether one plane is a better choice, or more fun, or whatever shows how truly blessed we all are in our lives. There are lots of people that would like to be worried about these kinds of things. You are now on my list of people that I'd like to buy a cold coke someday at a fly inn. I think your around number 3 now that I torqued without the intent to do so on this site. Sometimes it is clumbsy at best to try and get a point accross in a paragraph or so, especially with the TV going in the background and interactions going with the family.
Just a thought, but didn't Jon Sharp and his legendary plane Nemesis run a stock 100hp Continental?
Regards,
Can we agree on this... The fact that we are debating often whether one plane is a better choice, or more fun, or whatever shows how truly blessed we all are in our lives. There are lots of people that would like to be worried about these kinds of things. You are now on my list of people that I'd like to buy a cold coke someday at a fly inn. I think your around number 3 now that I torqued without the intent to do so on this site. Sometimes it is clumbsy at best to try and get a point accross in a paragraph or so, especially with the TV going in the background and interactions going with the family.
Just a thought, but didn't Jon Sharp and his legendary plane Nemesis run a stock 100hp Continental?
Regards,
Bryan Wood
Well Known Member
I'll try to make this the last time I post on this topic. Here is a quote right off of Van's site describing the 9A from the designers viewpoint.
The RV-9/9A would make an excellent trainer, and it is easy to envision several ?wannabe? pilots forming a partnership to build the airplane and then learning to fly in it. But unlike most trainers, the RV-9/9A will continue to provide useful performance and fun long after the pilot's certificate is obtained, so there is not the usual need to ?move up? to a more capable, and often much more expensive, airplane.
Okay, I'm done now. Soap box put away.
The RV-9/9A would make an excellent trainer, and it is easy to envision several ?wannabe? pilots forming a partnership to build the airplane and then learning to fly in it. But unlike most trainers, the RV-9/9A will continue to provide useful performance and fun long after the pilot's certificate is obtained, so there is not the usual need to ?move up? to a more capable, and often much more expensive, airplane.
Okay, I'm done now. Soap box put away.
It's been said many times before but worth repeating because it fits this topic to a tee. The overall construction of an RV consists of many, many, many (did I say many?) small tasks instead of one large task. Once I accepted this and began to work on the project this way, the frustration of a seemingly endless project became much easier to cope with and much more enjoyable.
Been at it 4+ years, probably 2 more to go (at my pace).
Rick Schwandt
RV-9A Fuselage
www.rjsflyer.com
Been at it 4+ years, probably 2 more to go (at my pace).
Rick Schwandt
RV-9A Fuselage
www.rjsflyer.com
jbDC9
Well Known Member
Jamie said:
LOL, I guess I got lucky in that department; for some reason I knew from the start what I wanted... a QB tandem seat taildragger, must be an -8. Tri-gear? Not an option. Engine/prop? Easy, O-360 180 hp with CS prop, no question. Glass panel/EFIS? Nahh, too much $$.
For me, the toughest part on the 8 has been mounting/aligning the gear... woof. I was apprehensive (scared to death!) of the glass layups around the windshield, but now that it's basically done, it wasn't really that bad. Next scary item? Mounting wings and drilling the aft spar holes, nooooo!!!!!
n2prise
Well Known Member
RV-9A N2PZ over 200 hours flying...
I read all these statements and can agree with most having completed my RV-9A slider last year. As for a trainer? My last flight was to take up a Lancair 235 builder to give him a taste of a high-performance, sensitive airplane. This guy is now in California getting transition training to fly his 235 when it is ready to go.
When he talked to his Lancair transition training instructor over the phone 2 weeks ago and told him of his flying only Cessna 152's and 172's, the instructor told him to get some stick time in an RV to get the feel of a sensitive airplane. Last Sunday, that was what he did in my RV-9A. He could not get over the climb rate with my CS prop and the 160 HP ECI O-320 up front. I took him up to 10,500 MSL to avoid the heat and keep the engine cool since it was 97 degrees F on the ground. He could not believe the wide flight envelope of the 9A as we cruised level at 10,500 on about 6 gallons per hour maintaining 160 MPH true air speed over Chattanooga and the surrounding area.
I shared with him my transition experience with Mike Seager flying the RV-6A N666RV and the speeds and approaches, etc. and how the RV-9(A) flies the approach at 10 MPH less than the RV-6,-7,-8 with their shorter wings.
As far as wanting to trade up? Not a chance! I flew to Oshkosh and back with a gross takeoff weight of 2000 pounds. I knew the airplane would take it since I had worked the weight and balance numbers with my friendly EAA counselor A&P, and the DAR who signed off the airplane last year. Other than the Cessna-style takeoffs at max gross weight, the RV-9A still delivered on the 160 MPH cruise speed at altitude and makes long cross-country trips a breeze to fly. Why do you think the Van's Aircraft staff pilots always fight to get the RV-9A or the RV-10 to fly to the shows? That Roncz airfoil that is used on the RV-9(A) and the RV-10 is what makes the airplane a joy to fly in the wallet and the cool air way up high.
My next trip is a day trip from Chattanooga, to Franfort, Kentucky, to Greenville, South Carolina, then home to Chattanooga -- all on the same day to see two different customers.
As for you guys building the RV-8, I can appreciate what you are doing. I am helping an RV-8 builder with his QB kit. We have aligned and drilled the gear leg mounts, but have the airplane still sitting on the saw horses until we finish wiring it. The last of the mechanical work on the fit of the canopy rails is going on now.
Jerry K. Thorne
RV-9A N2PZ
www.n2prise.org
I read all these statements and can agree with most having completed my RV-9A slider last year. As for a trainer? My last flight was to take up a Lancair 235 builder to give him a taste of a high-performance, sensitive airplane. This guy is now in California getting transition training to fly his 235 when it is ready to go.
When he talked to his Lancair transition training instructor over the phone 2 weeks ago and told him of his flying only Cessna 152's and 172's, the instructor told him to get some stick time in an RV to get the feel of a sensitive airplane. Last Sunday, that was what he did in my RV-9A. He could not get over the climb rate with my CS prop and the 160 HP ECI O-320 up front. I took him up to 10,500 MSL to avoid the heat and keep the engine cool since it was 97 degrees F on the ground. He could not believe the wide flight envelope of the 9A as we cruised level at 10,500 on about 6 gallons per hour maintaining 160 MPH true air speed over Chattanooga and the surrounding area.
I shared with him my transition experience with Mike Seager flying the RV-6A N666RV and the speeds and approaches, etc. and how the RV-9(A) flies the approach at 10 MPH less than the RV-6,-7,-8 with their shorter wings.
As far as wanting to trade up? Not a chance! I flew to Oshkosh and back with a gross takeoff weight of 2000 pounds. I knew the airplane would take it since I had worked the weight and balance numbers with my friendly EAA counselor A&P, and the DAR who signed off the airplane last year. Other than the Cessna-style takeoffs at max gross weight, the RV-9A still delivered on the 160 MPH cruise speed at altitude and makes long cross-country trips a breeze to fly. Why do you think the Van's Aircraft staff pilots always fight to get the RV-9A or the RV-10 to fly to the shows? That Roncz airfoil that is used on the RV-9(A) and the RV-10 is what makes the airplane a joy to fly in the wallet and the cool air way up high.
My next trip is a day trip from Chattanooga, to Franfort, Kentucky, to Greenville, South Carolina, then home to Chattanooga -- all on the same day to see two different customers.
As for you guys building the RV-8, I can appreciate what you are doing. I am helping an RV-8 builder with his QB kit. We have aligned and drilled the gear leg mounts, but have the airplane still sitting on the saw horses until we finish wiring it. The last of the mechanical work on the fit of the canopy rails is going on now.
Jerry K. Thorne
RV-9A N2PZ
www.n2prise.org
You have to think of the building process this way. Your not building an aircraft, your assembling one from the hundreds of sub-assembles that you build. Complete one assembly move on to the next, and before you know it there?s and airplane sitting in you workshop.
Just like long cross counties are made up of sort point to point flights. Add them up and there you go.
N941WR
Legacy Member
Bryan,Bryan Wood said:
Sorry if it sounded like I was upset, not the case at all. Just trying to clarify the engine thing. No need to buy me a coke, but thanks just the same.
As for the Nemesis, I don't know but I can't imagine he had a "stock" O-200 in his plane. Kind of like thinking a stock car is "stock" I would think.
Bryan Wood
Well Known Member
Bill,
Actually, I'm pretty sure the engine was a stock 100 hp and part of what made the waxing that Nemesis gave everybody so special.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/nemesis.htm
Regards,
Actually, I'm pretty sure the engine was a stock 100 hp and part of what made the waxing that Nemesis gave everybody so special.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero/aircraft/nemesis.htm
Regards,
Last edited:
N941WR
Legacy Member
It is my understanding, and I could be wrong here, that Roncz designed the airfoil specifically for Vans. So you are both correct.Roadster said:I didn't know the RV-10 airfoil was a Roncz design. I thought it was a custom design?
Bryan,Bryan Wood said:
It looks like I owe you a Coke. I no idea they ran stock engines in that class. I must admit that I'm in shock at the thought of it. I would have expected a custom cam shaft, higher compression pistons, porting, flow matching, custom intake and exhaust, high tech electronics, etc., etc., etc.
Sounds like they are doing those speeds with aerodynamic improvements alone.
Awesome!
MrNomad
Well Known Member
The 9 feels like a GTO on takeoff, versus my 150
Before I bought my 9 QB, I flew in three "9"s. Two were 160hp, one was 200hp!! I own a Cessna 150 and I can tell you that the 150 and the "9" have one thing in common. They both fly. That's it. The "9" goes like a rocketship, feels like a GTO on takeoff, versus my 150 which kids on bikes usually pass me by.
When you yank the stick back on the "9" it knows exactly what it's supposed to do and does it versus the 150 which blows all over the sky. The "nine" with the 160hp O-320 gained altitude with ease and the "nine" with the 200hp engine shot up to 13000 feet in (what seemed to be) seconds. Anyone who calls a nine a trainer simply has not enjoyed the pleasure of flying in one.
Build on and expect the best. Great handling, great performance, and economical flying. The motivation from the three rides makes me build 7 days a week even if it's only 30 minutes per day.
Most frustrating item? That there's only 27 hours in every day.
N941WR said:
Before I bought my 9 QB, I flew in three "9"s. Two were 160hp, one was 200hp!! I own a Cessna 150 and I can tell you that the 150 and the "9" have one thing in common. They both fly. That's it. The "9" goes like a rocketship, feels like a GTO on takeoff, versus my 150 which kids on bikes usually pass me by.
When you yank the stick back on the "9" it knows exactly what it's supposed to do and does it versus the 150 which blows all over the sky. The "nine" with the 160hp O-320 gained altitude with ease and the "nine" with the 200hp engine shot up to 13000 feet in (what seemed to be) seconds. Anyone who calls a nine a trainer simply has not enjoyed the pleasure of flying in one.
Build on and expect the best. Great handling, great performance, and economical flying. The motivation from the three rides makes me build 7 days a week even if it's only 30 minutes per day.
Most frustrating item? That there's only 27 hours in every day.
Last edited:
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Nemesis
Hi Bryan (and others),
This is a little off-topic but when I raced F1 in 1974, you were allowed to balance the engine, period. Some guys got away with mild porting and polishing, but the cam was degreed and the lift checked....had to be stock. The cylinder volumes were checked and you had to have no more than 200 cu. ins. Of course, if the engine were blueprinted, all cylinders could be matched for even power pulses. The spirit (and rule) was that you were running a stock 0-200 or smaller (C-85 or C-90).
It was inferred that some guys may have had nitrous concealed in the fuselage tubing and a little just kinda "escaped" into /near the intake as needed to pass a competitor but nothing ever proven to that effect. Fuel was also supposed to be avgas but, hey, it's only cheating if you get caught, is the thinking in some circles. Remember that these guys are also turning over 4000 RPMs ! Many fuels are available that add a bunch of horsepower and it was speculated that some guys had used it initially for the first few laps from a header/concealed tank and then finished the race on pure avgas leaving no evidence of fuel use.
Regards
Hi Bryan (and others),
This is a little off-topic but when I raced F1 in 1974, you were allowed to balance the engine, period. Some guys got away with mild porting and polishing, but the cam was degreed and the lift checked....had to be stock. The cylinder volumes were checked and you had to have no more than 200 cu. ins. Of course, if the engine were blueprinted, all cylinders could be matched for even power pulses. The spirit (and rule) was that you were running a stock 0-200 or smaller (C-85 or C-90).
It was inferred that some guys may have had nitrous concealed in the fuselage tubing and a little just kinda "escaped" into /near the intake as needed to pass a competitor but nothing ever proven to that effect. Fuel was also supposed to be avgas but, hey, it's only cheating if you get caught, is the thinking in some circles. Remember that these guys are also turning over 4000 RPMs ! Many fuels are available that add a bunch of horsepower and it was speculated that some guys had used it initially for the first few laps from a header/concealed tank and then finished the race on pure avgas leaving no evidence of fuel use.
Regards
Robert M
Well Known Member
..........kinda embarrassing and frustrating........
Riveted an entire row of stiffner rivets on a rudder skin. Did the best darn job on those rivets since starting the project. Then I realized the stiffner wasn't there. DANG! Had to drill 'em all out. Took my time - got them out really neat - no oops rivets there. Most frustrating thing is I almost did it on the other skin too. Got in a hurry. Trying to finish that "part" before - well - um - I don't really know what I was racing against?!?!?!?
Riveted an entire row of stiffner rivets on a rudder skin. Did the best darn job on those rivets since starting the project. Then I realized the stiffner wasn't there. DANG! Had to drill 'em all out. Took my time - got them out really neat - no oops rivets there. Most frustrating thing is I almost did it on the other skin too. Got in a hurry. Trying to finish that "part" before - well - um - I don't really know what I was racing against?!?!?!?
I'm currently working on the engine baffling and installation so I'm not done yet, but other than the personal frustration of not being able to afford to complete my plane, the hardest part of the kit has been the sliding canopy by far, and I still haven't done the rear skirts yet! But sometimes getting through the parts that irritate me the most are also the most satisfing. I also am not bashful about leaving the project for a few days if I'm frustrated, it can do wonders for my ambition. I'm about 2.5 years into a slow build 9A. I think I could finish in about 6 months if money wasn't holding me up, but I'm using the time to do many small details that get left behind when working on the major parts of the project. I use this website and the posts from all the great RVers to keep me motivated, I've also had 2 rides from guys with Rvs at Oswego NY and that keeps me going for the next year.
