Tailcone Discrepancies

[Brandi]

We purchased our empennage kit about 95% complete. This week, I began reviewing the build in preparation of attaching it to the fuselage. I've discovered a few discrepancies between the plans and the build and I'd like opinions on whether or not they should be redone and how to go about it.


Problem 1: Short J-Stiffeners
There are a couple of instances where the stiffeners were cut too short and a smaller piece was riveted to the skins to complete the length but it does not overlap the other stiffener. I'm thinking that I should probably drill out the small piece and make it long enough to overlap the other stiffener. It's only the length of 4 rivet holes.

Problem 2: F-1055 R&L Rudder Stop Skin Stiffeners & F-1056 Stop Brace are upside down
They're attached with the open angle facing down instead of up. The skin stiffeners are also attached to the brace with small screws instead of the 470 4-4's that it calls for.

Problem 3: F-1011D Attachment Bar Support Angle
Page 10-13 tells you how to fabricate this angle and place the bolt/rivet holes. What we have is an angle that is 6 1/2" long instead of 7" and contains 7 holes instead of the 8 properly spaced ones that it spells out in the plans. The worst part of this is, if it does have to come off, these 7 bad holes are drilled through the stop doubler and the aft deck with the two end holes also going through the longerons.

We'd appreciate any advice anybody has.

 

[flion]

Problem 1: do not overlap a longer stiffener there. Instead, make a patch piece from some scrap stiffener that overlaps both sections by a couple of rivets + edge distance. That way the surface presented to the skin will be flat.

Problem 2: possibly not an issue but won't you feel better if you rework it? Definitely should at least replace the screws with rivets. If the screws are larger than AD4 rivets then that should give you the excuse to rework the whole thing.

Problem 3: replace the F-1011D for edge distance at the end. If the bolt holes are in the right place, use the old part you drilled off as a drilling guide for the new part on the holes into the deck and structure beneath. Then put in place and drill the vertical part using the uprights as your guide. The one missing rivet won't be a problem. However, if it worries you, then you'll have to drill off the deck to get the F-1011B off. Use the old part to match-drill the bolt holes and then lay out your rivet spacing on the F-1011D, put your new F-1011B and the deck in place and re-rivet, and then put the angle in place with the bolts and match-drill back through. You could replace the deck after you drill it off but since it gets sandwiched in, the extra holes will not be a problem. If it were me, I'd go with the simpler fix; one less rivet versus the chances of messing things up by drilling off the entire deck makes that the more attractive option.

 

[Wayne Gillispie]

Good reason for one to get a pre-buy inspection

by a qualified builder/a&p before purchasing a partially completed kit. Most only think of pre-buys before buying a flying plane. Good they did not go any further on the build, because it only gets more critical/difficult as time goes on.

I agree with flion on all three issues.

 

[Bill.Peyton]

1. I agree with Flion

2. I would replace F-1056 as the holes are match drilled and when you put it back in correctly probably will not line up.

3. I agree with Flion. You could also upsize the rivets, but probably not required.

 

[rv6rick]

Fix 'em.

Of course the seller told you about these things....right ??

I don't care for patches and repairs when you can just replace the parts.....to each his own. That said, if you decide to 'repair/splice' the short J channel I'd also dimple the 'J' (vertical section) of the 'added' stiffener and put a couple rivets in there as well.

Sounds like you're on you way and doing a good job of reviewing the plans and comparing them with your purchase. If you haven't already done so, you might verify that the tailcone and vertical stab SB's were completed as well.

 

[paul330]

What a nightmare story The advice given by Flion appears sound to me.

There is much I like about the US Experimental category as opposed to the much more controlled UK environment but it requires a high degree of integrity which the previous builder obviously lacked. Don't get me wrong - people still botch things over here but the mandatory inspections have a much better chance of catching it. I (unwittingly, I might add) made some errors with my first VS spar. The inspector put me right and told me to do it again. The second one, I wasn't happy with so I scrappped it. By the time I did it for the third time, all was well. That first part taught me some valuable (and not TOO expensive) lessons about standards and approach which have stood me in good stead for the rest of the build.

Good job picking up the errors, Brandi. The kit seems to have gone to a much better home

 

[Bill.Peyton]

Not to hijack the thread, but I truly believe we could reduce the phase 1 accident rate by in process inspections. It amazes me some of the construction I have seen around our local area. Accidents wainting to happen IMHO. Brandi, you have done a great job of inspecting and catching the errors of a not-so-competent builder!

 

[N941WR]

Drifting a little more...

Not to hijack the thread, but I truly believe we could reduce the phase 1 accident rate by in process inspections. It amazes me some of the construction I have seen around our local area. Accidents wainting to happen IMHO. Brandi, you have done a great job of inspecting and catching the errors of a not-so-competent builder!

We already have those, it is called EAA tech inspectors. However, it still surprises me every time a new airplane shows up in our area that no one in our EAA chapter knows about.

To mandate an "in process inspection" would only raise the cost and isn't that something we got away from some time back?

 

[Bill.Peyton]

While the builder is allowed to do whatever he or she wants in terms of construction and inspection, and as a result they get hurt in their aircraft so be it. It's when the plane is sold or they are carring a passenger that this becomes an issue. I am new to the uncertified environment, been flying and working on Cert airplanes for 18 years. It scares me when I see some of what either gets past the tech counselors, or more likley, they never get invited to see! It is not mandatory to use a tech counselor, and judging from some of the posts on this forum, some of the final inspections don't amount to much. Maybe the answer is to require tech counselor or A/P periodic inspections. We all must realize that there are a lot of varying degrees of experience and capability out there. I agree with you, but it's tough to put a price on safety.

 

[Phil]

I agree with Flion (and Rick's suggestion too about adding a few rivets in the vertical part of the J-Channel 'just because').

Nice job on catching these errors.

I'd suggest getting someone who knows the RV-10 to come take a very close look at the rest of the airplane. If you found these 3 errors as an inexperienced 10 builder I'm positive there are others that are lurking elsewhere in the airframe that a trained eye would pick up on.

I know two in the Atlanta area that would probably be willing to fly in and take a look at it if you're willing to pickup lunch.

Phil

 

[flion]

The only problem with putting rivets in the vertical flange of the J-stiffeners is there's not much room to work next to the skin like that. You can probably do a fair job of drilling with an angle drive but riveting may be another matter. If you try it, I'd say practice with some stiffener on the bench first.

As for the thread drift about inspections, we are not 'Tech Inspectors', we are 'Tech Advisers' (Ok, 'Counselors'). We have no power and EAA is not likely to take the liability risk to grant us such.

That said, my RV-6A went for years with no one looking over my shoulder except the IA who taught me to rivet on the HS. After that it was all me until I got to the airport. Frankly, I was pretty intimidated and half afraid that when someone took a look at it, I'd be told to scrap it and start over. (In fact, that's exactly what happened but it turned out I got one of the few bad apples in Tech Counselors.) But I found that having others look at my work was not as horrible as I expected. Quite the opposite, in fact. I got good ideas when I was stuck and errors found usually came with easy fixes and often a helping hand. Now I can't get enough lookers.

But the fact remains that it's intimidating to have someone else judge your work the first time or two. Perhaps it's the inspection thing, a holdover from the days when you could get an insurance break by having them. If, instead, the mentor role was played up we'd be invited to look in more often. Honestly, I don't really have a good answer; I just know that once upon a time I was building in what felt like a vacuum.

 

[Brandi]

Thanks for all of the advice, guys! We'll get it all fixed up.

Of course the seller told you about these things....right ??

The seller was not the builder of this kit. I don't fault him for it at all. I'm quite sure he would have told us of these issues if he had known about them.

If you haven't already done so, you might verify that the tailcone and vertical stab SB's were completed as well.

Thanks! We have completed both SB's.

I'd suggest getting someone who knows the RV-10 to come take a very close look at the rest of the airplane. If you found these 3 errors as an inexperienced 10 builder I'm positive there are others that are lurking elsewhere in the airframe that a trained eye would pick up on.

I know two in the Atlanta area that would probably be willing to fly in and take a look at it if you're willing to pickup lunch.

We're always open to another set of eyes. We had a tech counselor come by and check out our wing build about half way through and we have a few local builders that pop in here and there.