What's new
Van's Air Force

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

sliding canopy track fore-aft positioning

A

alpinelakespilot2000

Well Known Member
See edit at end of message...

If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it. It's really hard to visualize how all the parts of the slider canopy mechanism will fit together until you actually do it...

Does anyone know of where there might be an specific indication re: where the aft end of canopy tracks should rest?

I can't find any reference on the drawings. Currently the fwd end of my tracks are resting up against the rollbar, and my rollbar is (as best I can measure) exactly 2-5/8" aft of the center section bulkhead rivet per View C-C, Dwg 42. The length of my canopy track is the 24-13/16" per Dwg 41. One would think this would give me the proper aft location. However, when visually compared to the scaled drawings of the plans, the aft end of my slider track seems to be about 1/8" farther aft than shown in detail B of dwg 42. (I'm basing this 1/8" estimate on the locations of those rivets that hold the F-757-s plate down on the top of the F705 bulkhead.) Re-positioning the aft screw that holds the canopy track to the canopy deck is no big deal, if necessary, but I suspect there is a specific place the track has to end since the rear pin mount will need to be mounted in exactly the right fore-aft position to hold the canopy down in the back.

I realize I may be worrying about nothing, and maybe it doesn't really matter that much, but I definitely would like to be as sure as possible. Thanks for any help.

Edit-I mis-typed the above post. After checking it appears that the aft end of my canopy TRACK is fine, it is the aft canopy DECK that I must have mis-positioned slightly forward. This seems kind of strange since my forward canopy deck fit quite well once the subpanel when on, but maybe I trimmed that aft edge of the fwd canopy deck a little to make it fit. Can't remember. Hopefully having the aft canopy deck about 3/32-1/8" fwd won't cause any issues but I don't think it will. Still, does everyone else's canopy track end up positioned about the same as the scaled drawings seem to show? Anything I should be watching out for given this? Thanks again
 
Last edited:
Fitment

Hi Steve,
On our 6A, we held the tracks down with double-sided tape temporarily, with the canopy rollers installed. Then mount the frame and slide it forward and aft to see if your tracks are really parallel. With the frame forward, you can then hold the blocks in place and compare their location to the relationship of the pins. If you need to trim the rails a little, this will show you how much.

Regards,
 
Thanks Pierre. That's exactly the type of help I was hoping to get--it really clears up this canopy frame fitting process (... or at least this one little aspect of a process that becomes more frightening each day I look at it! :eek: ) Much appreciated.
 
Careful

Hi Steve,
I noticed that you're in Washington where it's pretty cold right now. Be very careful with cold plexiglass unless you're in a heated shop. Be sure and buy the special plexiglass drills and don't use regular bits or you could split that $800 canopy.

This canopy step is a sore subject for a lot of guys but take your time, fit the pieces loosely. The entire process is not that well detailed but as you fit everything it'll make more and more sense. We had to bend our frame several times to fit the rear fuselage. The rear lip of our canopy also had a "Ski jump" ramp, as I called it, because it pointed up a little and we had to grind it down so that the skirts would lay flat. We made them three times (from aluminum) :eek: until the last pair suited us. Many of the guys lay glass there instead.....heck, it's Experimental...roll your own. ;)

Regards,
 
Parts don't fit.

That's part of the "magic" of assembling a kit. The parts in Van's bags are usually incorrect or incomplete, the manual is all but useless, the plans might just as well be hieroglyphics, none of the parts fit, items as simple as an air box take weeks to assemble, everything needs to be adjusted endlessly, Vans has no website to speak of with extensive photos & directions, and you have to rely on other people who may or may not have done it right.

Those who have built an airplane before seem to succeed in 2 or 3 years cause they're used to fabricating everything, but if you really want to fly in this lifetime, Oshkosh made it clear that future kit builders will have choices that are far superior to Vans and still adhere to the 51% rule.

Unless Vans makes some serious modifications to its operation including an extensive rewrite of their plans, development of a website with lots of photos, a help desk that operates 8 hours per day, a manual which lays out the sequence to be followed so you (for example) install the rivets on the front of the fuse before the engine mount goes on making it much more difficult, Vans market share will surely decrease.

I know I'm inviting the wrath of the loyalists but let's call it what it is. When it takes 12 years for people to assemble a simple airplane, something has to be basically wrong.

Great airplanes. Lousy kit.
 
It's a great kit!

Great airplanes. Great kits. The fit of Van's pre-punched parts allows even novice builders to produice a quality product.
 
Legal Eagle said:
Great airplanes. Lousy kit.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this assessment. This is my second airplane build. My first airplane was a tube and fabric kit that had one spiral bound manual that had less than 100 pages devoted to the instructions on the build. Instructions on covering the wing were "detailed" in one short paragraph that basically said: "Ok, now it is time to cover the wings. Place the frame on a table and get started." The drawings that were available were hand drawn with limited scalability at best. Any pictures included were photocopies of photocopies that had to have been taken 20 some odd years ago.

After my experience with those instructions I am not going to complain about Van's instructions. Yes there are some things that could be improved upon but considering that there are far worse out there I will deal with the frustrations associated with trying to understand something in these plans. I have found that by studying every detail in the instructions and on the drawings as closely as possible and asking other knowledgeable builders lots of questions I can grasp what is being said. I may be slow but I eventually do figure out what I am supposed to do.

We all want everything to fit perfectly with little or no effort. The reality is that we are building a powerful substantial machine that has a great many complicated parts associated with them. There will be set backs and struggles in the process. This just adds to my character and allows me to expand my knowledge base more.

Just my .02 worth.

By the way, Legal Eagle I noticed your username. I have a very close friend building a Legal Eagle ultralight. It is a fabric covered wood plane with hundreds of small wood gussetts, ribs, etc. My friend is a meticulous builder who is doing a wonderful job with this project. As intricate as all the wood structure is on this airplane you should see the instructions, or perhaps I should say the lack of instructions, for this plane.
 
Last edited:
Legal Eagle said:
That's part of the "magic" of assembling a kit. The parts in Van's bags are usually incorrect or incomplete, the manual is all but useless, the plans might just as well be hieroglyphics, none of the parts fit, items as simple as an air box take weeks to assemble, everything needs to be adjusted endlessly, Vans has no website to speak of with extensive photos & directions, and you have to rely on other people who may or may not have done it right.

Those who have built an airplane before seem to succeed in 2 or 3 years cause they're used to fabricating everything, but if you really want to fly in this lifetime, Oshkosh made it clear that future kit builders will have choices that are far superior to Vans and still adhere to the 51% rule.

Unless Vans makes some serious modifications to its operation including an extensive rewrite of their plans, development of a website with lots of photos, a help desk that operates 8 hours per day, a manual which lays out the sequence to be followed so you (for example) install the rivets on the front of the fuse before the engine mount goes on making it much more difficult, Vans market share will surely decrease.

I know I'm inviting the wrath of the loyalists but let's call it what it is. When it takes 12 years for people to assemble a simple airplane, something has to be basically wrong.

Great airplanes. Lousy kit.
Click to expand...


Ms. Eagle,

Building an airplane is a learning process. You are learning to read blueprints, use tools, work metal. As you gain experience, you will have quicker successes. Be patient, and try to enjoy the creative process.

Having said this, I agree the plans need some work. Are you doing the quick build? I have found the QB workmanship to be extrordinary. Haven't had much trouble with the parts bags, other than misplacing parts.

I built a Long-Eze years ago, and find the Van's experience so much superior.
Have patience and your plane will fly!

John
RV-9 QB
 
pierre smith said:
Hi Steve, I noticed that you're in Washington where it's pretty cold right now. Be very careful with cold plexiglass unless you're in a heated shop. Be sure and buy the special plexiglass drills and don't use regular bits or you could split that $800 canopy.
Click to expand...
$800, is that all?! :eek: Seriously, I've gone nowhere near my canopy with any cutting tool because I had for some reason thought it was something like $1600! Heck, now I can just get out the chainsaw and not worry about it! Seriously, though, I do agree that I need to wait a while on the cutting. I'm thinking that it will probably be April or May before I can get an almost-hot week. Just trying to have everything on the frame as far along as possible before I shift to other tasks while I wait for warmth. Thanks again for your help.
 
Legal Eagle said:
Oshkosh made it clear that future kit builders will have choices that are far superior to Vans and still adhere to the 51% rule.
Click to expand...
Or, Oshkosh made it clear that some kit manufacturers have found every possible loophole in the 51% rule to allow someone to leave a build facility after two weeks with a completed airplane (just to pick one of the more egregious examples in my opinion). Should this be the norm or does this violate the spirit of the original 51% rule? Further, will lawmakers use this type of example, as it becomes more common, to further restrict the special privileges the rest of us have? I think the jury's still out on one or more of these questions.

I too periodically gripe about the lack of updates in the plans. But heck, if I can muddle through (and 5000 before me have), there must not be too much wrong with Van's approach.
 
Wrong

Legal Eagle said:
I know I'm inviting the wrath of the loyalists but let's call it what it is. When it takes 12 years for people to assemble a simple airplane, something has to be basically wrong.

.
Click to expand...

You reckon that just maybe there's a reason why there are almost 5000 RV's flying and no other brand is close? We built ours in 1 year and 10 months. Others have built their's in 6 months!! :eek:

Could it be the workman just maybe blaming the tools? :cool:

Patience Dahlin', it'll be flyin' before ya know it...... ;)

Regards,
 
Building an airplane is not a right of passage, gentlemen

It was not unexpected to receive harsh comments after publishing my thought provoking assessment of Van's kit. Conspicuously absent from all comments was a rebuttal of the fact that Vans offers no website with pictures and assembly progress, that the parts arrive in little paper bags and the contents may or may not be correct, that seemingly simple parts such as an air box require many hours of fabrication. Knowing that other kits are even worse hardly defends these problems.

Know that this old gal at 61 has probably built more race cars and dragsters than most of y?all. Unlike Van?s cowl, when we ordered a fiberglass spoiler for our 67 Camaro it didn?t need hundreds of hours of mods like the cowl for our RV7.

When we order engine parts from Summit or Jegs, they fit properly the first time which is quite different from Van?s canopy. Given that this is the 21st century, our quick build fuse should be the same dimension as EVERY quick build fuse. Our canopy frame should be identical to every other frame for this fuse meaning the two parts ought to mate without endless bending and welding.

Finally, as reported on this website by Jon Baker concerning brake lines: ??. certified planes use 5052 (aluminum), not cheapo 3003 like Van's puts in the kits. It's very difficult to get a good flare in 3003 because it's too soft. Then, when the flare leaks, you tighten the nut until it quits. But 3003 is so soft that you can squash it paper thin just by over-tightening the nut. Ask me how I know. I had exactly the same type of failure as Ted, with my first passenger in the plane. Replacing part of the system with flex hose is not going to help if there is still 3003 tubing with bad flares in the system. I say rip it all out and replace it with 5052.?

How much extra would it cost if Vans shipped lines made from 5052 versus the ?cheapo? 3003? Three dollars? Listen to your own.

Pierre said: ?This canopy step is a sore subject for a lot of guys but take your time, fit the pieces loosely. The entire process is not that well detailed but as you fit everything it'll make more and more sense. We had to bend our frame several times to fit the rear fuselage.?

What would it take to provide those missing details? An hour of html and a couple of pictures? Wouldn?t better quality control avoid bending the frame several times?

Note that insurance rates for RVs is double 172s which are 40 years old. Rates are based on the # of accidents and only two underwriters are even willing insure RVs. What should that tell us?

Instead of bashing this old woman, you might direct your anxiety to Van and ask him to improve his product, standardize parts so each phase is not an adventure, drop the surcharges, and build a website with photos and examples to help builders get it right the first time. If Van doesn?t have time, he should contract Dan, Jeff or one of the many other people who built their own website to compensate for Van?s deficiency. Perhaps more people will then be able to get into the air in a reasonable amount of time.

Building an airplane is not a right of passage, gentlemen. It is way to fly a great product for fewer dollars than 40 year old Cessnas.
:)
 
Always Room for Improvement

Legal Eagle has some good points- the anthropological scavenger hunt of of going through all those little paper bags to transfer everything into clear tackle boxes from Walmart was not necessary. Co-mingling rivets in bags is not helpful, when you are just learning which is which. We found the initial instructions very clear, but less so toward the end of construction, when we actually start to "intuit" our progress, go on line to visit other sites THANK YOU NTERPRISE !! Some of the finish kits need more instructions (ie the baffle kit has incorrect plans for installation at the front due to the fiberglass ramps -it would have been a kindness to have sketched something to note the change). Timely intervention by folks at the airport helped us avoid misinterpretation of the plans-God is good. Overall, I found the staff at Vans very helpful- good advice. With a bit of improvement in the directions, I would have had to call them less. We built a STOL airplane before this one, and have cultivated the art of patience, but still had many "what the heck?" head-scratching days. The good thing is that once the plane is done, and flying, there is NOTHING on the planet that is an insurmountable challenge.
 
Did I hear my name called?

If that NTERPRISE was directed at me "n2prise" at www.n2prise.org, then I step up to remind us that the reason these RV-s cost so much less than the factory built models is partly because some parts have to be modified by the builder to fit their specific airplane. The cowling is made to fit most popular Lycoming engine (and clones) and propeller combinations.

As for the later bags with mixed rivet sizes (FAB kit), part of the description of the FAA Experimental category is for "educational purposes" and I really got an education building my RV-9A. The clear plastic boxes of parts was always the ritual when I would receive a new kit. I was so "green" when I started my empennage, I drew pictures with dimensions of each rivet size and type to put on the labels on the bins. With micrometer in hand, I have had to pick up some spilled rivets and put them back in the correct bins on more than one occasion.

As many have said, RV-s go fast, they go slow, but they do it better than any Cessna 152 or 172 I have ever flown. Then again they cost less than a new factory version with litigation expenses added.

Jerry K. Thorne
East Ridge, TN
RV-9A -- N2PZ
Hobbs = 212.5 hours.
 
Van runs his business with a strong leaning toward restraining costs, therefore price. We all like that end result. Is there any other kit on the planet that gives you so much bang for the buck? But it's also the source of much Vanophobia which would be curtailed if he, and we, did two things:

Van's: Publish an errata sheet for each kit instructions/plans. That's a lot cheaper than configuration management or revising plans. It also hits at the worst aspect of his data: retaining bad information, which is far worse than no information.

Builders: recognize that making things bone-headed simple for you makes Van's activities more complex, therefore costly.

Consider the bags. They are used across many RV types, and they mix almost identical parts (like rivets) to keep inventory costs down.

Parts get multiple useage. That can result in really ugly human factors and weird applications. My favorite nit in this regard is the jungle-gym, trip-and-fall, mess underfoot in the side-by-side "-A"s just so the same gear leg can be used in both nose and tail draggers.

Web sites aren't free, nor is content creation. (I prefer no-electricity-required paper for immediate consultation.) Then, who's to determine what aspects of building require vast exposition and photos elaborating on what's already in the plans? Our abilities, insights, skill, and ham-handedness vary greatly; I can't imagine an egalitarian set of instructions.

I would love to see Van's fix what's obviously broken, and fixes and improvements do come along from time to time. At the end of the process, though, you wind up with an excellent airplane for cheap, not a ground-bound race car or a Lego toy. Maybe the biggest problem is that the RVs are too easy and we're on the cusp of a new airworthiness category: RV Kit type, amateur built.

John Siebold
 
Take it a step further.

When I posted my earlier comments decrying the lack of a Van?s website to augment the plans plus various other issues, I wasn?t sure how the community would respond to criticism. I was pleasantly surprised to receive the following.

Naked Lady said: ?Legal Eagle has some good points- the anthropological scavenger hunt of of going through all those little paper bags to transfer everything into clear tackle boxes from Walmart was not necessary. Co-mingling rivets in bags is not helpful, when you are just learning which is which.?

N2prise said: ?The clear plastic boxes of parts was always the ritual when I would receive a new kit. I was so "green" when I started my empennage, I drew pictures with dimensions of each rivet size and type to put on the labels on the bins.?

How difficult would it be to have pictures and dimensions of the 10 most common rivets, AN bolts, washers, lock nuts, and ADELS used in the production of an airplane on a website? My shop walls are also plastered with pictures I cobbled together off the internet.

RV7ator suggested: ?Van's: Publish an errata sheet for each kit instructions/plans. That's a lot cheaper than configuration management or revising plans. It also hits at the worst aspect of his data: retaining bad information, which is far worse than no information.?

Another builder said that a website might add to the cost of the airplane. Has Van?s approached Jeff or Dan or any of the other builders who have methodically assembled great websites, are publishing them for free, and asked what they?d charge for their existing work?

Are we creating a marketplace for Doug to expand this website and add a FEE based website of each airplane? A low annual fee would be worth its weight in gold when you consider any one of the mistakes requiring replacement parts.

Every successful endeavor starts by identifying the problem then moves towards resolution. Perhaps one way to solve the problem(s) is as follows:

1) Maybe Doug would be so kind as to expand his website a little further and add a POLL. List the major problems people seem to have with the process (not just the plans) and ask builders to vote on each of the topics Doug identifies as well as their own experience building airplanes. I may be a ?10? on cars but only a ?1? on airplanes. Where does the rest of the community fall, therefore, what will they need?

2) Approach Van?s with the results of the poll. See what Van is willing to do, has plans in the works, or would like help with. Publish the results.

3) Volunteers: Various builders from the RV community could decide if they want to volunteer their services to assist Van. For example, one volunteer could assist in rewriting text for web pages and make the pages grammatically correct. You don?t have to be an expert builder to compose grammatically correct sentences.

In essence, collectively address and solve the problems. Pictures are worth a thousand words whether identifying a rivet, learning what a properly installed flush rivet looks like, the steps used to cut a canopy, or glass a cowl.

Assemble an overall building sequence that people could examine and check off as they progressed with each phase. If each phase began with a REMINDER CHECK LIST that reminded people to (for example) rivet the bottom of the fuse before mounting the engine mount, that would avoid lots of struggling later on.

How far should it go? Does it need to be perfect? Will the lawyers sue the editors? These are definitely issues and I may not know the answer but Doug has taken an enormous first step with this website and all I?m suggesting is that we pool our resources, cooperate with Van, and take it a step further.

:)
 
Building an RV

I understand and agree with all the comments posted on this subject but, and there is always a BIG but. You are the manufacture of an airplane not Van. It is to be a learning process. If you can't learn what a AN bolt or washer and the other terms are and are not willing to build your own aircraft without someone holding your hand then maybe a spam can is for you. Van furnishes the raw material for YOU to build a plane. It is not a snap together put tab A in slot B type thing. Granted the canopy frame may (does) not fit like it should, it is the same one for the 6, 7, 9, both TD's and A's. I put a lot of time in on mine and called Vans several times. They were helpful but I still had to make it fit my RV-9A. There are about 5000 of these planes flying and I figured if all these other people could build a RV I should also should be able to as I just couldn't be the dumbest person to try. maybe close though. Mine flies fine and I used the instruction that came with the kit. I also did not screw up any parts so I had to reorder them, lucked out there.
I have seen the plans that come with the 10 and they are far better than the ones that come with the earler RVs. They tell you step by step what to do. It could be that Van will rewrite the plans for the earler planes but I doubt it.
Rants over, everything is the same
RV-9A in phase one. Snow storm today and colder than *^%&^ outside. I need another project. :)
 
I would have said, "Great kit, lousy instructions."

But then again...I haven't started the canopy yet!

I, as a computer professional, and instructor, have had some experience reading and writing instructional material. It is not a widely held skill. Engineers seem to be terrible at it. But there are people who have that skill. Many who frequent this site make that obvious.

C'mon Van. You're 99% of the way there.

Respectfully,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top