Problem with homebuild: the manual

[MINIWI]

Who has got problems with a homebuild caused by a bad or uncomplete manual?
I am going to attend the build of RV-7 and RV-9. During the work I'll take
pictures and write down tricks and hints, not found in the manual.
What's missing in a manual naturally, not just in van's?

Michael

[Rich S.]

"MINIWI" > wrote in message
...
> Who has got problems with a homebuild caused by a bad or uncomplete
manual?
> I am going to attend the build of RV-7 and RV-9. During the work I'll
take
> pictures and write down tricks and hints, not found in the manual.
> What's missing in a manual naturally, not just in van's?
>
> Michael

Mine didn't even come with the tube of plastic cement - and I even had to
cut the pieces apart myself!

Rich "grumble, grumble. . . darn 'Quickbuild' kitplanes" S.

[MINIWI]

"Rich S." > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> "MINIWI" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Who has got problems with a homebuild caused by a bad or uncomplete
> manual?
> > I am going to attend the build of RV-7 and RV-9. During the work I'll
> take
> > pictures and write down tricks and hints, not found in the manual.
> > What's missing in a manual naturally, not just in van's?
> >
> > Michael
>
> Mine didn't even come with the tube of plastic cement - and I even had to
> cut the pieces apart myself!
>
> Rich "grumble, grumble. . . darn 'Quickbuild' kitplanes" S.
>

Ok, so they didn't really tell you - what's "included" in the kit. Thanks
for the info.
This means, they need a list "what's included" and "What's to buy and where
to buy" BEFORE you buy the kit.
Quoted!

Michael



>

[Jay]

I visited an RV-8A (powered by Subaru) under construction and the 2
builders told me the tail section manual was more detailed than the
rest of the plane instruction. That seems a little weak/devious since
most people build the tail and use that as a measure of what the rest
of the kit difficulty will be like.

"MINIWI" > wrote in message >...
> Who has got problems with a homebuild caused by a bad or uncomplete manual?
> I am going to attend the build of RV-7 and RV-9. During the work I'll take
> pictures and write down tricks and hints, not found in the manual.
> What's missing in a manual naturally, not just in van's?
>
> Michael

[Ron Natalie]

"Jay" > wrote in message om...
> I visited an RV-8A (powered by Subaru) under construction and the 2
> builders told me the tail section manual was more detailed than the
> rest of the plane instruction. That seems a little weak/devious since
> most people build the tail and use that as a measure of what the rest
> of the kit difficulty will be like.

Either that or since the tail is the first thing built, it needs to be more
explicit about things that later sections can assume you've already
figured out in the tail.

[MINIWI]

And you won't go with tail in a prof. workshop, but with fuselage and wing.
So tail must be very exactly.


"Ron Natalie" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
>
> "Jay" > wrote in message
om...
> > I visited an RV-8A (powered by Subaru) under construction and the 2
> > builders told me the tail section manual was more detailed than the
> > rest of the plane instruction. That seems a little weak/devious since
> > most people build the tail and use that as a measure of what the rest
> > of the kit difficulty will be like.
>
> Either that or since the tail is the first thing built, it needs to be
more
> explicit about things that later sections can assume you've already
> figured out in the tail.
>

[Rich S.]

"MINIWI" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ok, so they didn't really tell you - what's "included" in the kit. Thanks
> for the info.
> This means, they need a list "what's included" and "What's to buy and
where
> to buy" BEFORE you buy the kit.
> Quoted!

I was turnin' your crank, Michael. :o) My plane was built from blueprints,
sans "instruction manual".

Oh - the prints are mostly in French, all in metric and are really blue.

Having *any* sort of manual probably would have eliminated six months of
headscratching.

Rich "Lessee......... do I build the fuselage or the wing first???" S.

[nauga]

"Jay" wrote

> I visited an RV-8A (powered by Subaru) under construction and the 2
> builders told me the tail section manual was more detailed than the
> rest of the plane instruction.

Manual? What manual? <g>

My RV-4 tail manual section was very detailed. The rest of
the manual was not. It didn't matter a bit. By the
time you finish the tail you *ought* to have a pretty
good understanding of how things go together. There's
also more than enough detail on the plans to build
without the manual - which is what I pretty much did.
My Skybolt plans/manual look to be pretty much the same way,
which is fine with me.

Dave 'by the book' Hyde

[Jerry Springer]

Not weak/devious at all, if you can build the tail you can build the rest of the
airframe just fine. With the new pre-punched kits you really don't even have to
measure anything.

Jerry(built second customer built RV-6)Springer


Jay wrote:
> I visited an RV-8A (powered by Subaru) under construction and the 2
> builders told me the tail section manual was more detailed than the
> rest of the plane instruction. That seems a little weak/devious since
> most people build the tail and use that as a measure of what the rest
> of the kit difficulty will be like.
>
> "MINIWI" > wrote in message >...
>
>>Who has got problems with a homebuild caused by a bad or uncomplete manual?
>>I am going to attend the build of RV-7 and RV-9. During the work I'll take
>>pictures and write down tricks and hints, not found in the manual.
>>What's missing in a manual naturally, not just in van's?
>>
>>Michael

[Ernest Christley]

Rich S. wrote:
> "MINIWI" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ok, so they didn't really tell you - what's "included" in the kit. Thanks
>>for the info.
>>This means, they need a list "what's included" and "What's to buy and
>
> where
>
>>to buy" BEFORE you buy the kit.
>>Quoted!
>
>
> I was turnin' your crank, Michael. :o) My plane was built from blueprints,
> sans "instruction manual".
>
> Oh - the prints are mostly in French, all in metric and are really blue.
>
> Having *any* sort of manual probably would have eliminated six months of
> headscratching.
>
> Rich "Lessee......... do I build the fuselage or the wing first???" S.
>
>

Build a Dyke Delta, and you'll at least get English and inches.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

[MINIWI]

So a QB with ready wings, all holes drilled, ready punched, fully aluminium,
all done but wiring, canopy,cockpit ... needs not really a manual????
What's with documentation / log for the FAA?

Michael

"Jerry Springer" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
hlink.net...
> Not weak/devious at all, if you can build the tail you can build the rest
of the
> airframe just fine. With the new pre-punched kits you really don't even
have to
> measure anything.
>
> Jerry(built second customer built RV-6)Springer
>
>
> Jay wrote:
> > I visited an RV-8A (powered by Subaru) under construction and the 2
> > builders told me the tail section manual was more detailed than the
> > rest of the plane instruction. That seems a little weak/devious since
> > most people build the tail and use that as a measure of what the rest
> > of the kit difficulty will be like.
> >
> > "MINIWI" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> >>Who has got problems with a homebuild caused by a bad or uncomplete
manual?
> >>I am going to attend the build of RV-7 and RV-9. During the work I'll
take
> >>pictures and write down tricks and hints, not found in the manual.
> >>What's missing in a manual naturally, not just in van's?
> >>
> >>Michael
>

[nauga]

MINIWI wrote:

> So a QB with ready wings, all holes drilled,
> ready punched, fully aluminium, all done
> but wiring, canopy,cockpit ... needs not
> really a manual????

At least in my case the wiring, cockpit, FWF, etc.
were based on my personal preference, not on any
RV-specific set of instructions. I suspect most
kits are similar. I can't imagine any builders'
manual complete enough to cover all the permutations
in installed equipment, engine, and mission
(day/night, VFR/IFR) once the airframe is finished.

> What's with documentation / log for the FAA?

My inspector didn't care a whit about any manual
other than the operating manual and checklists(*),
which again gets back to the installed equipment,
which is not fixed in any homebuilt I'm aware of.
The log was just a notebook in which I recorded
what I worked on and for how long. I've seen
computer-based and other commercial logs, and
frankly I'd be hard pressed to spend any money on
them when a $2 notebook did everything I needed.
The remaining documentation was FAA-provided paperwork
and wiring diagrams that are readily available.

Dave 'manual labor' Hyde


(*) and he wasn't as interested in these as he
was in my workmanship and *why* I did things
a certain way...I got the impression that
"because the manual said so" would not have been
an adequate answer.

[MINIWI]

Wow and I thought the log has to show/proof
the steps descriped in the manual. So maybe
I think of providing a 2$ folder with preprinted
sheets...*smile*
But your (*) comment sounds like
the inspector was more interested if the work
was done by yourself or by a professional.
(sorry I bet you are professional ...better
...you got help by professional hands..)
So 49 rule counts more than quality and safety?

Michael


"nauga" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
link.net...
> MINIWI wrote:
>
> > So a QB with ready wings, all holes drilled,
> > ready punched, fully aluminium, all done
> > but wiring, canopy,cockpit ... needs not
> > really a manual????
>
> At least in my case the wiring, cockpit, FWF, etc.
> were based on my personal preference, not on any
> RV-specific set of instructions. I suspect most
> kits are similar. I can't imagine any builders'
> manual complete enough to cover all the permutations
> in installed equipment, engine, and mission
> (day/night, VFR/IFR) once the airframe is finished.
>
> > What's with documentation / log for the FAA?
>
> My inspector didn't care a whit about any manual
> other than the operating manual and checklists(*),
> which again gets back to the installed equipment,
> which is not fixed in any homebuilt I'm aware of.
> The log was just a notebook in which I recorded
> what I worked on and for how long. I've seen
> computer-based and other commercial logs, and
> frankly I'd be hard pressed to spend any money on
> them when a $2 notebook did everything I needed.
> The remaining documentation was FAA-provided paperwork
> and wiring diagrams that are readily available.
>
> Dave 'manual labor' Hyde
>
>
> (*) and he wasn't as interested in these as he
> was in my workmanship and *why* I did things
> a certain way...I got the impression that
> "because the manual said so" would not have been
> an adequate answer.
>
>

[nauga]

MINIWI wrote:

> Wow and I thought the log has to show/proof
> the steps descriped in the manual.

What steps? What manual? In the US there's no requirement
to show compliance with any manual. It's a good idea
to document where you followed the plans (if any <g>)
and where you deviated from them, but there's no
requirement or need to show that you followed a manual.
1000+ RV-4's flying and none had a step-by-step
construction manual provided by Van's. Seems like
it's buildable without one, if you ask me.

In general terms, the builder has to convince
the inspector that an amateur built the majority
of the airplane. Most people use a builder's
log as evidence.

> But your (*) comment sounds like the
> inspector was more interested if the work
> was done by yourself or by a professional...

That's a valid interpretation, I suppose,
and I couldn't read his mind, but I'm certain
he was more interested in whether or not I
had the skills and knowlege to build a complex
system and operate it safely. Not whether or
not I could follow written instructions.

> So 49 rule counts more than quality and safety?

You sound like you're looking for a particular
answer but not getting it here. Are you interested
in selling manuals or in evaluating them to decide
on an airplane to build?

Dave 'transmission' Hyde

[Bob Martin]

"MINIWI" > wrote in message >...
> Who has got problems with a homebuild caused by a bad or uncomplete manual?
> I am going to attend the build of RV-7 and RV-9. During the work I'll take
> pictures and write down tricks and hints, not found in the manual.
> What's missing in a manual naturally, not just in van's?
>
> Michael

Well, whenever we got stuck on something building our -6, we either
talked to some guys nearby that had built RV's, or just emailed Van's.
They were always helpful and willing to explain things when we did
that.

I think it would be interesting to see them compile a manual written
by customers and such. You could throw in all your little tricks and
such then. I'm sure you would need an editor for that though (they
..can't just blindly trust some random guy from the internet).

[nauga]

Bob Martin wrote:

> I think it would be interesting to see them compile
> a manual written by customers and such.

Frank Justice put together a pretty good
sort-of-manual as he was building an RV-6.
I don't know if he ever finished it or not. I seem to
recall several years ago there was some discussion
here about kit makers compiling manuals based
on customer input or just republishing a customer-
written manual outright. I don't recall what the general
consensus was, but seems to me it would open up
the makers to a ton of liability for little added
benefit. And as it is now the support from Van's
and the builders network support is phenomenal.

> (they .can't just blindly trust some random guy
> from the internet).

Hehe...you think?

Dave 'FOAF' Hyde

[Morgans]

"nauga" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Bob Martin wrote:
>
> > I think it would be interesting to see them compile
> > a manual written by customers and such.
>
> snip
I don't recall what the general
> consensus was, but seems to me it would open up
> the makers to a ton of liability for little added
> benefit. And as it is now the support from Van's
> and the builders network support is phenomenal.
>
> > (they .can't just blindly trust some random guy
> > from the internet).
>
> Hehe...you think?
>
> Dave 'FOAF' Hyde

Besides that, what "real" man follows a manual. First thing "I" do, is
throw away the manual. <g>
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.580 / Virus Database: 367 - Release Date: 2/6/04

[MINIWI]

Well while discussing, I got in contact with a
kit manufactor.(not Vans) They are quite
interested in the idea to rebuild a manual
with builders help. Hey as long as I get
the kit cheaper ... <g> I get along with
this idea..

Michael

"nauga" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
link.net...
> MINIWI wrote:
>
> > Wow and I thought the log has to show/proof
> > the steps descriped in the manual.
>
> What steps? What manual? In the US there's no requirement
> to show compliance with any manual. It's a good idea
> to document where you followed the plans (if any <g>)
> and where you deviated from them, but there's no
> requirement or need to show that you followed a manual.
> 1000+ RV-4's flying and none had a step-by-step
> construction manual provided by Van's. Seems like
> it's buildable without one, if you ask me.
>
> In general terms, the builder has to convince
> the inspector that an amateur built the majority
> of the airplane. Most people use a builder's
> log as evidence.
>
> > But your (*) comment sounds like the
> > inspector was more interested if the work
> > was done by yourself or by a professional...
>
> That's a valid interpretation, I suppose,
> and I couldn't read his mind, but I'm certain
> he was more interested in whether or not I
> had the skills and knowlege to build a complex
> system and operate it safely. Not whether or
> not I could follow written instructions.
>
> > So 49 rule counts more than quality and safety?
>
> You sound like you're looking for a particular
> answer but not getting it here. Are you interested
> in selling manuals or in evaluating them to decide
> on an airplane to build?
>
> Dave 'transmission' Hyde
>
>
>

[Jerry Springer]

Excuse me for mentioning this but from your post it appears English is not
your first language, at least US English. :-) My question is how do
you plan to improve a manual sold in the US?




MINIWI wrote:
> Well while discussing, I got in contact with a
> kit manufactor.(not Vans) They are quite
> interested in the idea to rebuild a manual
> with builders help. Hey as long as I get
> the kit cheaper ... <g> I get along with
> this idea..
>
> Michael
>
> "nauga" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> link.net...
>
>>MINIWI wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Wow and I thought the log has to show/proof
>>>the steps descriped in the manual.
>>
>>What steps? What manual? In the US there's no requirement
>>to show compliance with any manual. It's a good idea
>>to document where you followed the plans (if any <g>)
>>and where you deviated from them, but there's no
>>requirement or need to show that you followed a manual.
>>1000+ RV-4's flying and none had a step-by-step
>>construction manual provided by Van's. Seems like
>>it's buildable without one, if you ask me.
>>
>>In general terms, the builder has to convince
>>the inspector that an amateur built the majority
>>of the airplane. Most people use a builder's
>>log as evidence.
>>
>>


>>>But your (*) comment sounds like the
>>>inspector was more interested if the work
>>>was done by yourself or by a professional...
>>
>>That's a valid interpretation, I suppose,
>>and I couldn't read his mind, but I'm certain
>>he was more interested in whether or not I
>>had the skills and knowlege to build a complex
>>system and operate it safely. Not whether or
>>not I could follow written instructions.
>>
>>
>>>So 49 rule counts more than quality and safety?
>>
>>You sound like you're looking for a particular
>>answer but not getting it here. Are you interested
>>in selling manuals or in evaluating them to decide
>>on an airplane to build?
>>
>>Dave 'transmission' Hyde

>>
>>
>
>
>

[MINIWI]

Sorry for my bad English, although my post was late at night..
(well no excuse) Anyhow at least you understood me!

Serious: my improvements are in design and completeness.
The written paragraphs are done by an author for sure.
BUT: if you compare to hifi electronics manuals from asia...
what an english! We do not want this.

Michael


"Jerry Springer" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
link.net...
>
> Excuse me for mentioning this but from your post it appears English is not
> your first language, at least US English. :-) My question is how do
> you plan to improve a manual sold in the US?
>
>
>
>
> MINIWI wrote:
> > Well while discussing, I got in contact with a
> > kit manufactor.(not Vans) They are quite
> > interested in the idea to rebuild a manual
> > with builders help. Hey as long as I get
> > the kit cheaper ... <g> I get along with
> > this idea..
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > "nauga" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > link.net...
> >
> >>MINIWI wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Wow and I thought the log has to show/proof
> >>>the steps descriped in the manual.
> >>
> >>What steps? What manual? In the US there's no requirement
> >>to show compliance with any manual. It's a good idea
> >>to document where you followed the plans (if any <g>)
> >>and where you deviated from them, but there's no
> >>requirement or need to show that you followed a manual.
> >>1000+ RV-4's flying and none had a step-by-step
> >>construction manual provided by Van's. Seems like
> >>it's buildable without one, if you ask me.
> >>
> >>In general terms, the builder has to convince
> >>the inspector that an amateur built the majority
> >>of the airplane. Most people use a builder's
> >>log as evidence.
> >>
> >>
>
>
> >>>But your (*) comment sounds like the
> >>>inspector was more interested if the work
> >>>was done by yourself or by a professional...
> >>
> >>That's a valid interpretation, I suppose,
> >>and I couldn't read his mind, but I'm certain
> >>he was more interested in whether or not I
> >>had the skills and knowlege to build a complex
> >>system and operate it safely. Not whether or
> >>not I could follow written instructions.
> >>
> >>
> >>>So 49 rule counts more than quality and safety?
> >>
> >>You sound like you're looking for a particular
> >>answer but not getting it here. Are you interested
> >>in selling manuals or in evaluating them to decide
> >>on an airplane to build?
> >>
> >>Dave 'transmission' Hyde
>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"MINIWI" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry for my bad English, although my post was late at night..
> (well no excuse) Anyhow at least you understood me!
>
> Serious: my improvements are in design and completeness.
> The written paragraphs are done by an author for sure.
> BUT: if you compare to hifi electronics manuals from asia...
> what an english! We do not want this.

And as I posted last time, you need to hire a PE to avoid liability.

> "Jerry Springer" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> link.net...
> >
> > Excuse me for mentioning this but from your post it appears English is
not
> > your first language, at least US English. :-) My question is how do
> > you plan to improve a manual sold in the US?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > MINIWI wrote:
> > > Well while discussing, I got in contact with a
> > > kit manufactor.(not Vans) They are quite
> > > interested in the idea to rebuild a manual
> > > with builders help. Hey as long as I get
> > > the kit cheaper ... <g> I get along with
> > > this idea..
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > "nauga" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > link.net...
> > >
> > >>MINIWI wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>Wow and I thought the log has to show/proof
> > >>>the steps descriped in the manual.
> > >>
> > >>What steps? What manual? In the US there's no requirement
> > >>to show compliance with any manual. It's a good idea
> > >>to document where you followed the plans (if any <g>)
> > >>and where you deviated from them, but there's no
> > >>requirement or need to show that you followed a manual.
> > >>1000+ RV-4's flying and none had a step-by-step
> > >>construction manual provided by Van's. Seems like
> > >>it's buildable without one, if you ask me.
> > >>
> > >>In general terms, the builder has to convince
> > >>the inspector that an amateur built the majority
> > >>of the airplane. Most people use a builder's
> > >>log as evidence.
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> > >>>But your (*) comment sounds like the
> > >>>inspector was more interested if the work
> > >>>was done by yourself or by a professional...
> > >>
> > >>That's a valid interpretation, I suppose,
> > >>and I couldn't read his mind, but I'm certain
> > >>he was more interested in whether or not I
> > >>had the skills and knowlege to build a complex
> > >>system and operate it safely. Not whether or
> > >>not I could follow written instructions.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>So 49 rule counts more than quality and safety?
> > >>
> > >>You sound like you're looking for a particular
> > >>answer but not getting it here. Are you interested
> > >>in selling manuals or in evaluating them to decide
> > >>on an airplane to build?
> > >>
> > >>Dave 'transmission' Hyde
> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

[plasticguy]

The guy that started this said he wanted to do it to get his kit cheaper.
I seriously doubt that a first time builder will have the forsight
to see real problems in the structure/instructions that would be
meaningful to the kit manufacturer. In fact his narrow minded
thoughts are the very reason Vans has excellent advice available.
IF THEY HEARD THE SAME QUESTIONS ALL THE TIME
THEY WOULD BE ANSWERED IN THE MANUAL. The fact
is that every individual approaches their project with a different
personal skillset, this makes them look at the problems from their
individual perspective and makes for new and unique questions.
The manual isn't the problem, the problem is the necessary
dumbing down of the process to make it repeatable for unskilled
workers. It is a very difficult and complex task.

A manual does 2 things. It gives you an order of tasks
to accomplish and it also limits the knowlege base of the
first time builder. I have listened to a friend of mine say
"thats how Vans says to do it", with the implication that
its the ONLY way to get the task accomplished. I've also
walked him thru areas where the plans were ABSOLUTELY
correct but the written discription of the task was not explicit
in the work instructions. The manual is a 2 edged sword. Its'
nice, but it can get inexperienced people chasing their tails.

Prepunched kits IMHO limit the learning experience, but they
get much higher completion rates than plans only a/p's. The
joke around these places is that if you shake the box long enough,
it falls out built. No welding, limited tooling needed, artistic
skills not really needed, just grunt assembly work. I've been
around metal structures long enough that I know there
is more than one way to get a task accomplished.

Personally I find the Rans S7 manual very well done, but then
it needs to be in that I never saw a complete set of drawings.
The Vans drawings are very very good and I have no trouble
figuring them out, but I do have to look twice sometimes........

Scott.

[Rob]

On 5 Feb 2004 09:38:35 -0800, (Jay) wrote:

>I visited an RV-8A (powered by Subaru) under construction and the 2
>builders told me the tail section manual was more detailed than the
>rest of the plane instruction. That seems a little weak/devious since
>most people build the tail and use that as a measure of what the rest
>of the kit difficulty will be like.

If that's where most people start, that's where they will need the
most guidance. Presumeably they can apply what they have learned there
to the sparser instructions for the rest of the plane. You would
probably get pretty irritated by the end of the project if you had to
wade through beginner level instructions for all of it.

Rob