What's new
Van's Air Force

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

New builder's perspective on the plans

bertschb

bertschb

Well Known Member
Friend
As a new builder of an RV-14A, I'm happy to have plans that are the most detailed of any RV model to date. I know many experienced builders consider the RV-14 as easy to put together as legos. A child could do it, right? I get it.

Having said that, I'm surprised by some of the things I've learned while building the RV-14 empennage kit because it would take so little effort to make the plans REALLY good.

For example - I've found part numbers that were incorrect. I've also found inconsistencies in references to hole sizes (e.g Page 9-13 - "Dimple the .098 holes..."). Huh? What happened to #40 or 3/32"??? Not a big deal but where did .098 come from? But the part that is most frustrating at times are areas that leave out just enough information that I spend 30 minutes reading, re-reading, looking ahead and backwards, carefully looking at the diagrams, partially assembling parts etc, just to figure out what I'm being asked to do. Once I figure it out I realize that if the plans had included just one more sentence or a couple words with an arrow on the diagram, the instructions would have been clear! Such an easy change!

I know others have the same issue because I see people struggle with the same issues in the WIKI plans. I know it would cost money to have a staff person make these changes but it would take so little time and effort. A couple days maybe to clarify sections of the RV-14 plans?

Just some ramblings from a new builder getting ready to use tank sealant for the first time today...
 
That's part of the 51% - it's in the FAA rules for homebuilt aircraft: :D

  • "learn to find the critical missing elements in the plans"
  • "try to figure out what the engineer really wanted me to do"
  • "go back and re-read the plans after ruining a part"
  • "undrill a hole that the plans said to drill too large"

And other items required to prove that you built the aircraft. Your DAR will test you on these when you go through the registration process, right Mel? :D
 
...and

The plans will get more vague the further you go...they are expecting you to learn.

I see a lot of new builders that think it is going to be like an erector set (dating myself); it isn't...
 
Oh, The Plans.....The Plans...

bertschb said:
......But the part that is most frustrating at times are areas that leave out just enough information that I spend 30 minutes reading, re-reading, looking ahead and backwards, carefully looking at the diagrams, partially assembling parts etc, just to figure out what I'm being asked to do. Once I figure it out I realize that if the plans had included just one more sentence or a couple words with an arrow on the diagram, the instructions would have been clear! Such an easy change!

Just some ramblings from a new builder getting ready to use tank sealant for the first time today...
Click to expand...

My build time with the plans that were cuneiform, carved into clay tablets: 1/3 of the time looking at the plans trying to figure out WHAT they are trying to tell me; 1/3 of the time building; 1/3 of the time looking for tools, including the one I just had in my hand!! I have been recently looking at my RV-4 plans (on a thumb drive!! No more unrolling huge sheets of paper to try and find what I am looking for!) and had to laugh at the brevity of what was being shown. Mickey: you are exactly right!:D

Good luck with the ProSeal! That will take your expressed vocabulary to a completely different level!
 
rocketman1988 said:
The plans will get more vague the further you go...they are expecting you to learn.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've already seen that progression. I am learning. I have no problem with them not mentioning the basics like deburring after match drilling, etc.

But, IMO, there is no reason to force a builder to spend thirty minutes or an hour figuring something out when one additional sentence in the plans would have clarified things. I shouldn't have to bring my wife out to the hangar and describe the issue to her to see what her opinion is plus review wiki plans, search VAF, watch YouTube videos and search builder blogs for clarification.

These are build instructions. It's not a test to see if you can figure something out. Wouldn't Vans want us to have clear plans???

And by the way, 95% of the plans are excellent. There are just a few parts here and there that could EASILY be improved with simple changes! The savings in customer service calls would pay for the plan updates many times over.
 
Just so that you know, if you don't already.... a #40 hole is .098 diameter.

A drill chart on the wall comes in handy.

Dave
 
Relative excellence…..

You are correct of course, there are areas where a few precise words would add clarity. After a little while, I think most builders start to see how the designer and plans writer think about building and that makes it much more clear….. I personally think that the RV-14 Wiki is the perfect solution to this. Where there is room for more clarity, the wiki explores it, and updates nearly as fast as discussions occur on VAF.

Although it’s been said before, the 14 plans really are MILES ahead of other plans that I have built with. In some plans I have seen entire methods and structures were absent…. It was just up to you to sort it out. Kit manufacturers just said “you’re the builder….. figure out what you want to do and do it”. Further request for guidance were generally sent to AC43-13b….. comprehensive, but non specific. These sort of answers and plans become more reasonable as you gain experience. But it is much MORE overwhelming for fist time builders.
 
David Paule said:
Just so that you know, if you don't already.... a #40 hole is .098 diameter.
Click to expand...

I figured it was a #40 hole right away. That wasn't my point.

My point is every reference up until then was #40 or 3/32". Why randomly throw in .098? Why make a builder look that up just to make sure it's #40?

I'm expecting to see 2.49 soon...
 
I understand your frustrations. Rest assured that it does get better as you move on. The learning curve can be steep and unforgiving at times. One thing that helped me tremendously was to find three or four really good online builders logs. Whenever I can't figure something out, I'll take five minutes and pull up a few pictures. If that doesn't work, then a post on the forums or FB groups will usually suffice. After that, a call or text to my tech advisor usually sorts it out. Last effort is a call to the mothership if the other things don't work. It's a community and most are more than willing to help and offer advice.
 
bertschb said:
Yes, I've already seen that progression. I am learning. I have no problem with them not mentioning the basics like deburring after match drilling, etc.

But, IMO, there is no reason to force a builder to spend thirty minutes or an hour figuring something out when one additional sentence in the plans would have clarified things. I shouldn't have to bring my wife out to the hangar and describe the issue to her to see what her opinion is plus review wiki plans, search VAF, watch YouTube videos and search builder blogs for clarification.

These are build instructions. It's not a test to see if you can figure something out. Wouldn't Vans want us to have clear plans???

And by the way, 95% of the plans are excellent. There are just a few parts here and there that could EASILY be improved with simple changes! The savings in customer service calls would pay for the plan updates many times over.
Click to expand...

My guess is that you haven't looked at the original RV-6 "Instructions"...:eek:
 
Just to be clear - I have plenty of online resources to fall back on to figure things out. Not worried about that at all and that is not the point of my post (which seems to have been lost based on comments here). And, the issues I've run into that required clarification have nothing to do with builder experience.
 
rocketman1988 said:
My guess is that you haven't looked at the original RV-6 "Instructions"...:eek:
Click to expand...

Hah! Yes, I have seen some plans for the older models! My suggestion about updating the -14 plans wouldn't apply to the older models because it would basically take a complete re-write of the plans. For the RV-14, it would take just an extra sentence once every 10 or 15 pages or whatever. Simple!

I've completed the HS, VS and rudder. Part way done with the elevator. In all that, I've only run into maybe 3 or 4 places that needed the clarifications I'm talking about.
 
First instruction of the RV-8 empennage:
“Use a file or Scotchbrite wheel to "break" the edges of the HS-609PP“
WTF does that even mean?

Maybe it was just lost in translation.

But you’re right, the plans could be much clearer.
 
One thing you'll find about this website is that any complaint about deficiencies in the current plans will instantly be met with an impromptu performance of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch from the builders who were forced to use worse plans, and so on and so on.
 
There you go for good plans.
I've did the original 1990 RV-6 plans and I thought then that the plans were fine.
I got it built and yes I made a mistake or two.
My luck varies Fixit
 
Improving the plans....

bertschb said:
Hah! Yes, I have seen some plans for the older models! My suggestion about updating the -14 plans wouldn't apply to the older models because it would basically take a complete re-write of the plans. For the RV-14, it would take just an extra sentence once every 10 or 15 pages or whatever. Simple!
Click to expand...

Many of the changes in the old plans (and current plans) were from input from us builders. Some of them might have been from "caller fatigue" where the same questions were asked repeatedly. Suggest: take all those areas of confusion and write them down. When you are done with a section, either post those Helpful Hints in the RV-14-specific section on this site and/or send them to the Mother Ship so they can incorporate them into the next plans changes. I see changes in the plans from my thumb drive compared to the paper plans. Wait......whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? Oh: that is not on this page; it's detailed on page 56. That is what that little note on page 18 meant..... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Oh: I will not comment on the "construction manual"....:D:D:D


It is supposed to be a learning experience. When they were still available, I ordered plans for a Mooney Mite. (What was I thinking?) It was a massive, heavy 10 inch thick roll of factory plans in great detail with a construction manual that was "somewhat lacking". The LongEZ plans and manual were a step up! Things have improved greatly since the days of the Flybaby! Count your blessings!

Great Yorkshiremen sketch, BTW!!:D:D:D
 
Tech Editor

You are absolutely correct. They desperately need a Tech Editor and CAD Editor and ... However, that comes at a cost. I think we all learned recently how close they operate to profit margins.

One of the best forum threads on each model here on VAF is the "Gotchas" thread. I tried to post everything I found along the way on my 7. If you find something, share it.

In the end, you end up just where you are. Reading forward, backward and studying plans over and over.
It does help to search VAF. Often, someone found the same error and posted.
 
rv8ch said:
That's part of the 51% - it's in the FAA rules for homebuilt aircraft: :D

  • "learn to find the critical missing elements in the plans"
  • "try to figure out what the engineer really wanted me to do"
  • "go back and re-read the plans after ruining a part"
  • "undrill a hole that the plans said to drill too large"

And other items required to prove that you built the aircraft. Your DAR will test you on these when you go through the registration process, right Mel? :D
Click to expand...

Don’t forget fretting. I found that a certain amount of fretting was required before completing some tasks . . . :rolleyes:
 
The RV6 plans were, and still are, excellent. They are scaled and delineated with all of the dimensions. You can scratch build any part from them. They are probably better than any of the newer models, as far as plans go.

The build manual and instructions are a total different discussion. They get you going and then expect you to fill in the blanks as you learn and get further along.
 
Fretting, or I call it 'wrapped around the axle'. Sometimes I was just too close to it to see the obvious. A lot of times I just needed to come back to it the next day, think about it overnight. Then there it was - "why didn't I see that yesterday??". Happened a lot at work, too.

Yes, the plans are lacking in some spots. Sometimes maybe on purpose. Even with a -9 kit, I referred to myself as the assembler, not the builder. I thought the plans were just that good. Not perfect, but very good. And as discussed here, it sounds like the -14 plans are much better.

While building, I just needed to NOT forget the advise I often received: "Just build on." So I did. Now I'm flying my assembled airplane (after way too many years of 'building').
 
It's not really that hard nor does it require rework or reprint of manuals and drawings in the immediate future. Pubs receive changes all the time. The change is made separately and added to the front of the book with a new table of contents that reflects tracked changes. Mark the affected pages with a note that says see change 123xyz, put the change 123xyz in the front of the book. When you see a note that says see change you flip to the front, find it and read it. Easy.

*
One day eventually you incorporate all the changes into a revision if and when it makes sense to re-write/re-print.

They easily could type these up and provide them as opposed the current method of having people continually repeat the same errors/and or call tech support to ask a question that's been answered a thousand times. :rolleyes:
 
rocketman1988 said:
The plans will get more vague the further you go...they are expecting you to learn.

I see a lot of new builders that think it is going to be like an erector set (dating myself); it isn't...
Click to expand...
The problem is that Van’s hints and old VAF’ers outright state that the new plans are as easy as IKEA furniture. When the new builder has trouble, he figures he just must not have what it takes to do this Van’s/IKEA thing.

Javron Cub, interestingly, takes the opposite approach. They sell plans and materials without a manual (though there are some unofficial forum threads and YouTube videos). The builder is left to do what he thinks is best to make the parts resemble the plans. In contrast to Van’s, it carries the advantage of reduced expectations.


Plans are like hardware; if you sell a kit and claim “includes all necessary hardware,” it’s disingenuous to leave the builder with too few Nylock nuts. Similarly, if you’re going to claim the airplane can be built by anyone with a simple knowledge of hand tools, using only the plans and the manual, then the manual should include everything that needs to be said to such a novice builder.

There’s a reason that most of the successful builders I know have been engineers, tool and die makers, or things like that. Your average accountant, who has enough hand tool knowledge to build a bench, needs more guidance than the manuals provide. In fact, it requires the amount of guidance the sales information promises!

Disclaimer: I’ve spent a lot of time in the RV6 and RV8 manuals, a little in the RV7 manual, but none at all in the 14. It’s entirely possible that everything I’ve said is wrong in that context.
 
dwollen89 said:
It's a community and most are more than willing to help and offer advice.
Click to expand...

Ditto! Definitely work with your local EAA chapter, so you aren't figuring out things all by yourself. Even if the instructions were "perfect", there is still an immense value in discussing with someone who's done it before.
 
N82VM said:
It's not really that hard nor does it require rework or reprint of manuals and drawings in the immediate future. Pubs receive changes all the time. The change is made separately and added to the front of the book with a new table of contents that reflects tracked changes. Mark the affected pages with a note that says see change 123xyz, put the change 123xyz in the front of the book. When you see a note that says see change you flip to the front, find it and read it. Easy.

*
One day eventually you incorporate all the changes into a revision if and when it makes sense to re-write/re-print.
Click to expand...
You don't even have to note the change on the affected page. Just include the front matter with all the change notes.

They could hire that documentarian at the same time they hire some QC personnel. :rolleyes:
 
Great opportunity here!!

bertschb said:
Hah! Yes, I have seen some plans for the older models! My suggestion about updating the -14 plans wouldn't apply to the older models because it would basically take a complete re-write of the plans. For the RV-14, it would take just an extra sentence once every 10 or 15 pages or whatever. Simple!

I've completed the HS, VS and rudder. Part way done with the elevator. In all that, I've only run into maybe 3 or 4 places that needed the clarifications I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Why not just start a small notebook and every time you notice a place jot down the section number and make the note. In about 2,000 hours you’ll have an indexed supplement to the plans that you can market.

After that you’ll have a finished airplane, have helped numerous other builders and be a published author.
 
I built a -8 from kit/plans delivered in 2019, the RV8’s 24th year. There are one or two heartbreaking dimensional errors on the drawings that I think everybody knows about. The drawing set I have was last updated in 2005 except for SB’s

You get what you get in the kit and plans. But you get an RV8 when your done!
 
Last edited:
RV8iator said:
Why not just start a small notebook and every time you notice a place jot down the section number and make the note. In about 2,000 hours you’ll have an indexed supplement to the plans that you can market.

After that you’ll have a finished airplane, have helped numerous other builders and be a published author.
Click to expand...

Hah! As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I've only run into 3 or 4 areas that needed a sentence our two added. I doubt if I'll have enough to fill two pages when I'm done building.
 
bertschb said:
For example - I've found part numbers that were incorrect. I've also found inconsistencies in references to hole sizes (e.g Page 9-13 - "Dimple the .098 holes..."). Huh? What happened to #40 or 3/32"??? Not a big deal but where did .098 come from?.
Click to expand...

It is quite simple. A 3/32 rivet is to be set in a .098” diameter hole, which is made by a number 40 drill. 😁 My non-builder partner has trouble with this also.
 
I think the best thing Van's could do to the plans is have an comprehensive list of which parts are in which bag. The packing list works, but you have to look through the entire list (sometimes several times) to locate the part you need. It would be helpful if the list showed part number in alpha order, then which bag it is in. The other issue I have is the numbering system we use in this hobby: you drill a #40 hole for a #3 rivet and you drill a #30 hole for a #4 rivet. No chance of getting these confused when you first start your project!
 
RVDan said:
It is quite simple. A 3/32 rivet is to be set in a .098” diameter hole, which is made by a number 40 drill. �� My non-builder partner has trouble with this also.
Click to expand...

Hah! When I started researching tools to build my airplane I saw references to drill bits sizes #40, #30, etc. I had never heard of this sizing scheme before. I soon learned #40 was for 3/32" rivets, etc. OK, no problem. I didn't know why we had two different ways to describe a drill bit but no biggie. Probably another U.S. measurement thing. When I saw the .098 I was thinking "C'mon", a THIRD unit of measurement??? Really??? Are they intentionally trying to throw me off?"
 
Last edited:
Wire sizes

bertschb said:
Hah! When I started researching tools to build my airplane I saw references to drill bits sizes #40, #30, etc. I had never heard of this sizing scheme before. I soon learned #40 was 3/32", etc. OK, no problem. I didn't know why we had two different ways to describe a drill bit but no biggie. Probably another U.S. measurement thing. When I saw the .098 I was thinking "C'mon", a THIRD unit of measurement??? Really??? Are they intentionally trying to throw me off?"
Click to expand...

Actually no. 3/32" is .0937" #40 is .098"
There is also "Letter" gauge.
Minor difference but important.

The inventory is simple. I have the entire 7(A) inventory in a spreadsheet. Including every item in every bag. I moved everything to 40 drawer bins. If I need a bolt, nut, whatever, I just go to the drawers. I added many of the in between sizes too. I can't imagine anyone building with bags.

The issue that makes me insane, is why we have to switch from logical part numbers that actually mean something to those ridiculous MS part numbers.
 
Last edited:
wirejock said:
There is also "Letter" gauge.
Minor difference but important.
Click to expand...

Lettered drill sizes pick up where numbered drills end, on the large end...A = 0.234, and on up from there.

I doubt anyone who ever worked on any RV anywhere used a lettered drill to make a hole :). At least, not according to the plans...
 
Letter

RV7A Flyer said:
Lettered drill sizes pick up where numbered drills end, on the large end...A = 0.234, and on up from there.

I doubt anyone who ever worked on any RV anywhere used a lettered drill to make a hole :). At least, not according to the plans...
Click to expand...

I use them. Great way to make a starter hole and save some wear on the final bits.
 
bertschb said:
When I started researching tools to build my airplane I saw references to drill bits sizes #40, #30, etc. I had never heard of this sizing scheme before. I soon learned #40 was 3/32", etc. OK, no problem. I didn't know why we had two different ways to describe a drill bit but no biggie. Probably another U.S. measurement thing. When I saw the .098 I was thinking "C'mon", a THIRD unit of measurement??? Really??? Are they intentionally trying to throw me off?"
Click to expand...

Numbered drills are based on some British (I think) wire gauge standard (Stubs Iron Wire Gauge, it looks like). And as noted, the #40 is NOT 3/32". It's #40 size, which is approximately .098". That is, it's either a 3/32" drill, or a #40 drill, but it's not both...they aren't two names for one thing.

Hey, at least we're not working on British motorcars...where you can get the most amazing assortment of fastener standards. Imperial, metric, maybe some British Standard Whitworth? LOL.
 
RV7A Flyer said:
I doubt anyone who ever worked on any RV anywhere used a lettered drill to make a hole
Click to expand...

Not to drag this farther off topic, but there are several places in the build where a letter drill bit is needed. C, D, N, and U are all useful at various times.
 
wirejock said:
I use them. Great way to make a starter hole and save some wear on the final bits.
Click to expand...

Starter hole for *what*? :) The smallest letter bit is just under 1/4". I usually think of starter holes as a lot tinier than that. At least on things like sheet aluminum, etc.

For what it's worth, anyway, my point was that there's really nothing on an RV that needs a specific lettered bit to ensure the proper size for fitting something (other than perhaps things like the spar bolts which were drilled by the manufacturer, and I have no idea what size bit they actually used for the close tolerance light drive fit).
 
mburch said:
Not to drag this farther off topic, but there are several places in the build where a letter drill bit is needed. C, D, N, and U are all useful at various times.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll admit I could be wrong...it's been over 12 years now since I finished my 7, and I was racking my brain to try and think if I ever used one, and couldn't think of anyplace.

Not the first time I've been wrong :). Just ask anyone who knows me LOL!
 
Letter size

RV7A Flyer said:
OK, I'll admit I could be wrong...it's been over 12 years now since I finished my 7, and I was racking my brain to try and think if I ever used one, and couldn't think of anyplace.

Not the first time I've been wrong :). Just ask anyone who knows me LOL!
Click to expand...

On the airplane, seldom. Last time it was to drill a hole for the step drill for a snap bushing. They are always sharp because they don't get much use.
To be fair, I use them mainly on wood and steel projects to save my other bits.
 
There is a reason we use a #40 drill for 3/32" rivets. The extra clearance allows the rivet to be inserted easily. You would have to drive a rivet into the hole if it was a line-line fit, especially if there were more than two layers. This topic comes under the heading of "education" for Experimental aircraft building.
 
Doug Rohrer said:
There is a reason we use a #40 drill for 3/32" rivets. The extra clearance allows the rivet to be inserted easily. You would have to drive a rivet into the hole if it was a line-line fit, especially if there were more than two layers. This topic comes under the heading of "education" for Experimental aircraft building.
Click to expand...

Completely correct.

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), part 21, section 21.191(g), defines an amateur-built aircraft as an aircraft "the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by person(s) who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation."

Bottom line - if you are not having fun, you are being educated - by definition! :D

Build on, and enjoy it!

When you fly that aircraft you built in your garage, you won't even remember these little frustrations.
 
rv8ch said:
Bottom line - if you are not having fun, you are being educated - by definition! :D
Click to expand...

Man! This is truly an adult philosophy on education. Step into an elementary classroom of 6-8 year old kids and see if they are having ‘fun’ learning, or not. An adult sees ‘learning’ something new a chore, because they have engrained themselves into a ‘normal’ way of doing things that does NOT involve change.

Learning something new means moving outside of our comfort zone. It means not being very good at the task. It can be difficult, it can be confusing, it can be frustrating! It can mean FAILING! Something we adults are adamant about avoiding at all costs. The truth is failure is the most valuable tool for education we humans have. It really does provide the greatest impetus for learning.

As for the OP, I agree. There are several areas in the instructions that those in the front office cannot explain as to why the instructions state what they do. Making the change should be an easy change for a person to do. Evidently not so easy for a large group of people.

(Watch out for those rubber baffle seal labels that are reversed from the labels that are actually on the baffle seals, oh, and the “renaming” of wire connectors. WHY? Or the callout for canopy seals that are labeled differently than what they are labeled in the parts list. Or. . .?)
 
Last edited:
Anytime I run across a confusing part of the plans I just post a photo of the steps I’m on to the RV slack group and the brain trust usually shows me photos of what they’re trying to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top