Are composite homebuilts dying out?

[rich[_2_]]

I'm just finishing mine, it's in the paint shop finally, but after 18
years fo work. (Glasair) I keep up with another homebuilder friend of
mine out on the west coast in Stockton, which is a good GA airport.
Lots of homebuilts under construction, good infastructure for GA on
the field, etc. He told me no one is building composite planes out
there anymore. It's like the word is out on how much work and how long
it takes to build the things, and it's becoming a thing of the past. I
just wonder if that trend is just in that area, or nationwide? I know
in the present economy, homebuilts are probably down anyway, but what
he said about that trend started before the economy tanked.
If not many are building composite planes, then the only other ones I
would think are being built are metal (RV designs) and tube and
fabric. I doubt wood designs will come back, they're just as much work
as composite designes are, or more. (I've got one of those too :)
Rich

[Peter Dohm]

"rich" > wrote in message
...
> I'm just finishing mine, it's in the paint shop finally, but after 18
> years fo work. (Glasair) I keep up with another homebuilder friend of
> mine out on the west coast in Stockton, which is a good GA airport.
> Lots of homebuilts under construction, good infastructure for GA on
> the field, etc. He told me no one is building composite planes out
> there anymore. It's like the word is out on how much work and how long
> it takes to build the things, and it's becoming a thing of the past. I
> just wonder if that trend is just in that area, or nationwide? I know
> in the present economy, homebuilts are probably down anyway, but what
> he said about that trend started before the economy tanked.
> If not many are building composite planes, then the only other ones I
> would think are being built are metal (RV designs) and tube and
> fabric. I doubt wood designs will come back, they're just as much work
> as composite designes are, or more. (I've got one of those too :)
> Rich

Just as one person's observation as an onlooker--since I have yet to embark
on on my own airplane building project--composite kits never really provided
their anticipated advantage over plans.

From what I have observed from a short distance, the composite kits that
were popular in my local area required nearly as much work to build as a
comparable built aircraft. They appear to be a little lighter, and to fly a
little faster, but the advantage would not justify the price if I was the
builder. Therefore, if I chose to built a composite aircraft, I would build
it from plans (or even as a custom built) rather than purchasing a kit.

Meanwhile, the metal kits manufactured with their stamped ribs, spars and
stringers--and precision drilled rivet holes--provide a TRULY DRAMATIC
improvement and plenty of real value for the money spent. You also end up
with an aircraft with which most mechanics will feel comfortable and
familiar--which could be an advantage if you grow weary of performing your
own maintenance or decide to sell the aircraft.

I can offer little opinion regarding wood or cloth, except to say that there
are still some that I might consider. Most of a wood and/or fabric project
involves far less fumes to breath than composites!

Just my $0.02
Peter

[Robert Barker]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> "rich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm just finishing mine, it's in the paint shop finally, but after 18
>> years fo work. (Glasair) I keep up with another homebuilder friend of
>> mine out on the west coast in Stockton, which is a good GA airport.
>> Lots of homebuilts under construction, good infastructure for GA on
>> the field, etc. He told me no one is building composite planes out
>> there anymore. It's like the word is out on how much work and how long
>> it takes to build the things, and it's becoming a thing of the past. I
>> just wonder if that trend is just in that area, or nationwide? I know
>> in the present economy, homebuilts are probably down anyway, but what
>> he said about that trend started before the economy tanked.
>> If not many are building composite planes, then the only other ones I
>> would think are being built are metal (RV designs) and tube and
>> fabric. I doubt wood designs will come back, they're just as much work
>> as composite designes are, or more. (I've got one of those too :)
>> Rich
>
> Just as one person's observation as an onlooker--since I have yet to
> embark on on my own airplane building project--composite kits never really
> provided their anticipated advantage over plans.
>
> From what I have observed from a short distance, the composite kits that
> were popular in my local area required nearly as much work to build as a
> comparable built aircraft. They appear to be a little lighter, and to fly
> a little faster, but the advantage would not justify the price if I was
> the builder. Therefore, if I chose to built a composite aircraft, I would
> build it from plans (or even as a custom built) rather than purchasing a
> kit.
>
> Meanwhile, the metal kits manufactured with their stamped ribs, spars and
> stringers--and precision drilled rivet holes--provide a TRULY DRAMATIC
> improvement and plenty of real value for the money spent. You also end up
> with an aircraft with which most mechanics will feel comfortable and
> familiar--which could be an advantage if you grow weary of performing your
> own maintenance or decide to sell the aircraft.
>
> I can offer little opinion regarding wood or cloth, except to say that
> there are still some that I might consider. Most of a wood and/or fabric
> project involves far less fumes to breath than composites!
>
> Just my $0.02
> Peter

Our club has both composite and aluminum. Frankly, the composites get more
air time. A lot of our members have built and bought planes. At least the
consensus of our membership is this... It seems to take about the same
amount of time to complete either type of aircraft. With the composites,
you get the advantage of getting to a point more quickly where you can sit
in something that resembles an airplane and make plane noises but it will
take you longer to do the finish work. With the aluminum planes, it takes
you longer to make plane noises, but the finish work doesn't take as long.
Finished price seems to be fairly equivalent for similar capacity and
performance. You might see more aluminum planes because there are a lot
more aluminum companies. I would also guess that, from a manufacturing
standpoint, it would be less expensive to set up shop to produce aluminum
kits than composite kits. Having never bought equipment for either, that's
just a guess. But metal working machinery has been around for a long time
and you can get some good deals on used equipment. You can also produce a
lot of different designs with the same equipment. For composites, there are
the autoclaves and forms, and all the other stuff. The material handling
needs are a lot more exacting with composites and quality control may be an
issue that adds expense.

For a builder, it all comes down to preference on airplane style you prefer
and the materials you're comfortable working with. Personally, I've always
been intrigued with flowing lines and compound curves - they just seem more
organic to me - which makes me lean to composites. I've also spent a lot of
time in my youth working on the family boats. I got really tired of
hammering rivets after a long day of skiing. And when we made the switch to
fiberglas boats, I learned other lessons. For instance, I learned that you
don't want to try to lay fiberglas when you're swimming in the water and the
boat is suspended over the boat well in a sling. Resin floats and WILL
harden while floating on the water...DAMHIKT... ;-)

[Jim Logajan]

rich > wrote:
> I'm just finishing mine, it's in the paint shop finally, but after 18
> years fo work. (Glasair) I keep up with another homebuilder friend of
> mine out on the west coast in Stockton, which is a good GA airport.
> Lots of homebuilts under construction, good infastructure for GA on
> the field, etc. He told me no one is building composite planes out
> there anymore. It's like the word is out on how much work and how long
> it takes to build the things, and it's becoming a thing of the past. I
> just wonder if that trend is just in that area, or nationwide?

The observation may only apply locally.

Here's a different observation:
I notice that a newer composite design like the Arion Lightning appears to
be enjoying very fast builds (relatively speaking.)

They also appear to have a fairly high fraction of completions (44 flying
of 78 kits delivered, as of August 6. For perspective, the prototype first
flew in March 2006. So no one has struggled for years - yet.)

[Philippe[_2_]]

rich a écrit:

> I'm just finishing mine, it's in the paint shop finally, but after 18
> years fo work. (Glasair) I keep up with another homebuilder friend of
> mine out on the west coast in Stockton, which is a good GA airport.
> Lots of homebuilts under construction, good infastructure for GA on
> the field, etc. He told me no one is building composite planes out
> there anymore.

For me, composites are the best for homebuilt .
When a part is completed, , no corosion protection needed, no more
moisture protection. No special storage requirement too for resin and
fabrics.


by
--
« Si tous les poètes voulaient se donner la main, ils toucheraient enfin
des doigts d'auteur! »
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

[BobR]

On Aug 12, 5:57*pm, rich > wrote:
> I'm just finishing mine, it's in the paint shop finally, but after 18
> years fo work. (Glasair) I keep up with another homebuilder friend of
> mine out on the west coast in Stockton, which is a good GA airport.
> Lots of homebuilts under construction, good infastructure for GA on
> the field, etc. He told me no one is building composite planes out
> there anymore. It's like the word is out on how much work and how long
> it takes to build the things, and it's becoming a thing of the past. I
> just wonder if that trend is just in that area, or nationwide? I know
> in the present economy, homebuilts are probably down anyway, but what
> he said about that trend started before the economy tanked.
> If not many are building composite planes, then the only other ones I
> would think are being built are metal (RV designs) and tube and
> fabric. I doubt wood designs will come back, they're just as much work
> as composite designes are, or more. (I've got one of those too :)
> Rich

Rich,

First I would like to congratulate you on finishing your plane. I am
also building a KIS Cruiser and have been working on it for almost 14
calendar years. I suspect that life has gotten in the way of your
completing your project earlier as it has with my project. The fact
that you continued to completion says a lot about you and your
dedication to seeing it through.

There are several issues that I have repeatedly seen with composite
aircraft that I have not seen as frequently with the RV's which seem
to be the dominate kit on the market.

The first has to do with quality of the supplied molded parts.
Because of the low volumes most kit manufacturers have to deal with,
they have little incentive to invest in the best quality molds and the
refinements needed to make parts that require little additional work
prior to assembly. This means that the builder must spend substantial
time in cleanup, fit and finish. Every composite kit company that I
know of still has extensive labor involved and can not automate their
processes like Van's has done with much of his fabrication process.

The second is builder enhancements (modifications) to the original
design. These changes can be anything from a minor change to some
major redesign to the entire airframe. I have seen hundreds of RV's
over the years and few of them make anything beyond cosmetic changes
and those that do are usually experience builders on their n'th
build. I know in my own case that I have made dozens of changes,
mostly minor, that have cumulatively added several hundred hours to my
build time. If I had exactly followed the original plans...I would
have been flying already.

There are many more differences but the last that I will hit on is
Finish. That is where almost every time gain a composite builder may
have achieved in the construction process is wiped out. The standards
for finishing a composite aircraft are unreal and really totally
unnecessary. With a few notable exceptions the builders of the RV's
will complete and fly their planes with no paint or will spend little
time and effort beyond having a paint shop spray them. That's not
saying they aren't great looking planes but they don't get anal about
a rivet showing or a slight ripple in the wing or fuselage surface.
That is expected when working with metal. The glass builders seem
obsessed with producing a finish that has the quality of a fine
mirror. Gawd forbid that the fabric weave should happen to show
through.

Having said that, I must admit that I have already got a couple
hundred hours into the fill and sand process that preceeds the primer
and more fill and sand. I just can't help myself.

Finally, there are still a lot of composite kits being built.
Lancair, Glassair, Velocity, TeamTango, CompAir, and a host of others
come to mind. They will continue to be a major player in the market
but lets also admit that when it comes to great, affordable, and
buildable aircraft...Van's Aircraft are the dominate company as of
now.

[rich[_2_]]

I agree with all you said. And I didn't enjoy breathing the fumes
myself all those years. Plus, after a few years of building, I
realized how little work the kit maker did compared to what I was
doing. Making the big parts in molds is easy. The builder does all the
hard work.
Rich

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:20:24 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:

>
>Just as one person's observation as an onlooker--since I have yet to embark
>on on my own airplane building project--composite kits never really provided
>their anticipated advantage over plans.
>
>From what I have observed from a short distance, the composite kits that
>were popular in my local area required nearly as much work to build as a
>comparable built aircraft. They appear to be a little lighter, and to fly a
>little faster, but the advantage would not justify the price if I was the
>builder. Therefore, if I chose to built a composite aircraft, I would build
>it from plans (or even as a custom built) rather than purchasing a kit.
>
>Meanwhile, the metal kits manufactured with their stamped ribs, spars and
>stringers--and precision drilled rivet holes--provide a TRULY DRAMATIC
>improvement and plenty of real value for the money spent. You also end up
>with an aircraft with which most mechanics will feel comfortable and
>familiar--which could be an advantage if you grow weary of performing your
>own maintenance or decide to sell the aircraft.
>
>I can offer little opinion regarding wood or cloth, except to say that there
>are still some that I might consider. Most of a wood and/or fabric project
>involves far less fumes to breath than composites!
>
>Just my $0.02
>Peter
>
>
>

[rich[_2_]]

Good observation. I also realized that the Glasair 3 I built was a
"first generation" composite kit, with later labor saving ideas mostly
developed by other kit companies. I also bought a Glasair TD kit back
in the early 80's and they were even more work, but not by that much.
Now I could build another one in a fraction of the time it took me to
do the -3. But I've only got so many years left, and starting a
project that size again isn't in the cards for me.
Now, if I had unlimited money, I'd order AeroSupercharger Solutions
$16K bolt on supercharger kit for the Glasair 3 and take out to Reno
for a run around the pylons. But I'm spent, so that ain't gonna
happen. :)
Rich

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:24:34 -0500, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>
>The observation may only apply locally.
>
>Here's a different observation:
>I notice that a newer composite design like the Arion Lightning appears to
>be enjoying very fast builds (relatively speaking.)
>
>They also appear to have a fairly high fraction of completions (44 flying
>of 78 kits delivered, as of August 6. For perspective, the prototype first
>flew in March 2006. So no one has struggled for years - yet.)

[rich[_2_]]

I did some of the body work myself as I built, and when the parts were
all done, I took it to a body shop. The guy's painting it complete for
$4K. And I'm real happy with that. He's done a great job of doing the
finish work, and it's ready for paint now. At first, they sanded right
through my wing fillets. But I took some of the cloth out there and
showed them how thin it was and from then on they did good work. And
one nice thing about composites is they repair easily. I started
building the 3 in 1991, afterwards the kids came into my life, plus
working full time, but I kept at it. But one thing I did find kind of
strange is with the parts all out at the paint shop, I've been so used
to being able to walk out to my shop and work on the plane, it's
strange having no project to work on. I'm sure once it's flying, going
out to the airport and tinkering with it will keep me busy.
I know what you mean about the mods, I've done some of those too.
Most from the advise of other builders I'd talk to at LAL and OSH.
The thing is with a Glasair, the final assembly can't be completed
until the thing is painted. Unless it's put together complete, then
taken to an aircraft painter. And they all charge $12K to paint a
composite plane. Good luck finishing your KIS Cruiser....
You know, when I started the Glasair 3, I thought it would take me 5
years to build. Now 18 years later I see I made a big miscalculation!
Rich




On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:35:50 -0700 (PDT), BobR
> wrote:


>
>Rich,
>
>First I would like to congratulate you on finishing your plane. I am
>also building a KIS Cruiser and have been working on it for almost 14
>calendar years. I suspect that life has gotten in the way of your
>completing your project earlier as it has with my project. The fact
>that you continued to completion says a lot about you and your
>dedication to seeing it through.
>
>There are several issues that I have repeatedly seen with composite
>aircraft that I have not seen as frequently with the RV's which seem
>to be the dominate kit on the market.
>
>The first has to do with quality of the supplied molded parts.
>Because of the low volumes most kit manufacturers have to deal with,
>they have little incentive to invest in the best quality molds and the
>refinements needed to make parts that require little additional work
>prior to assembly. This means that the builder must spend substantial
>time in cleanup, fit and finish. Every composite kit company that I
>know of still has extensive labor involved and can not automate their
>processes like Van's has done with much of his fabrication process.
>
>The second is builder enhancements (modifications) to the original
>design. These changes can be anything from a minor change to some
>major redesign to the entire airframe. I have seen hundreds of RV's
>over the years and few of them make anything beyond cosmetic changes
>and those that do are usually experience builders on their n'th
>build. I know in my own case that I have made dozens of changes,
>mostly minor, that have cumulatively added several hundred hours to my
>build time. If I had exactly followed the original plans...I would
>have been flying already.
>
>There are many more differences but the last that I will hit on is
>Finish. That is where almost every time gain a composite builder may
>have achieved in the construction process is wiped out. The standards
>for finishing a composite aircraft are unreal and really totally
>unnecessary. With a few notable exceptions the builders of the RV's
>will complete and fly their planes with no paint or will spend little
>time and effort beyond having a paint shop spray them. That's not
>saying they aren't great looking planes but they don't get anal about
>a rivet showing or a slight ripple in the wing or fuselage surface.
>That is expected when working with metal. The glass builders seem
>obsessed with producing a finish that has the quality of a fine
>mirror. Gawd forbid that the fabric weave should happen to show
>through.
>
>Having said that, I must admit that I have already got a couple
>hundred hours into the fill and sand process that preceeds the primer
>and more fill and sand. I just can't help myself.
>
>Finally, there are still a lot of composite kits being built.
>Lancair, Glassair, Velocity, TeamTango, CompAir, and a host of others
>come to mind. They will continue to be a major player in the market
>but lets also admit that when it comes to great, affordable, and
>buildable aircraft...Van's Aircraft are the dominate company as of
>now.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

rich wrote:
> Good observation. I also realized that the Glasair 3 I built was a
> "first generation" composite kit, with later labor saving ideas mostly
> developed by other kit companies. I also bought a Glasair TD kit back
> in the early 80's and they were even more work, but not by that much.
> Now I could build another one in a fraction of the time it took me to
> do the -3. But I've only got so many years left, and starting a
> project that size again isn't in the cards for me.
> Now, if I had unlimited money, I'd order AeroSupercharger Solutions
> $16K bolt on supercharger kit for the Glasair 3 and take out to Reno
> for a run around the pylons. But I'm spent, so that ain't gonna
> happen. :)
> Rich
>
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:24:34 -0500, Jim Logajan >
> wrote:
>
>> The observation may only apply locally.
>>
>> Here's a different observation:
>> I notice that a newer composite design like the Arion Lightning appears to
>> be enjoying very fast builds (relatively speaking.)
>>
>> They also appear to have a fairly high fraction of completions (44 flying
>> of 78 kits delivered, as of August 6. For perspective, the prototype first
>> flew in March 2006. So no one has struggled for years - yet.)
>

Building an airplane involves many different kinds of jobs and develops a
whole host of new skills.

But the last job is the funnest one...

The job now, rich, is to fly your beautiful new airplane!


Enjoy


Richard

[rich[_2_]]

Yes, I'm really looking forward to that! I just wish the fuel hadn't
gotten so expensive since I started the thing. That big 6 Lycoming is
a thirsty animal. But if I look at it a different way, it doesn't seem
as bad. I'll be out there moving along at Warbird speeds and burning
only a fraction of the fuel they burn. But it's still expensive. I
just hope the engine doesn't give me problems after sitting for years.
It would be a shame to have to re-overhaul an overhauled engine.
One of the things I'm concerned with is the rubbers inside the fuel
injector and the Romec fuel pump. I don't know if there are any fuel
experts reading these threads, but from what I've been told, the Romec
fuel pump is a gear type, like an engine oil pump. So I can't
understand what rubber seals inside it could go bad, if any. But when
I spoke with Don George down in LAL this year, he said he'd be more
worried about the romec fuel pump than the Bendix fuel injector. That
Romec fuel pump is about half the size of a pack of cigarettes and
cost $600 to overhaul. And that was years ago. Now, who knows...
But that's airplanes...
Rich

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 23:19:12 -0500, cavelamb >
wrote:


>
>Building an airplane involves many different kinds of jobs and develops a
>whole host of new skills.
>
>But the last job is the funnest one...
>
>The job now, rich, is to fly your beautiful new airplane!
>
>
>Enjoy
>
>
>Richard

[BobR]

On Aug 13, 11:18*pm, rich > wrote:
> I did some of the body work myself as I built, and when the parts were
> all done, I took it to a body shop. The guy's painting it complete for
> $4K. And I'm real happy with that. He's done a great job of doing the
> finish work, and it's ready for paint now. At first, they sanded right
> through my wing fillets. But I took some of the cloth out there and
> showed them how thin it was and from then on they did good work. And
> one nice thing about composites is they repair easily. I started
> building the 3 in 1991, afterwards the kids came into my life, plus
> working full time, but I kept at it. But one thing I did find kind of
> strange is with the parts all out at the paint shop, I've been so used
> to being able to walk out to my shop and work on the plane, it's
> strange having no project to work on. I'm sure once it's flying, going
> out to the airport and tinkering with it will keep me busy.
> I know what you mean about the mods, I've done some of those too.
> Most from the advise of other builders I'd talk to at LAL and OSH.
> The thing is with a Glasair, the final assembly can't be completed
> until the thing is painted. Unless it's put together complete, then
> taken to an aircraft painter. And they all charge $12K to paint a
> composite plane. Good luck finishing your KIS Cruiser....
> You know, when I started the Glasair 3, I thought it would take me 5
> years to build. Now 18 years later I see I made a big miscalculation!
> Rich
>
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:35:50 -0700 (PDT), BobR
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >Rich,
>
> >First I would like to congratulate you on finishing your plane. *I am
> >also building a KIS Cruiser and have been working on it for almost 14
> >calendar years. *I suspect that life has gotten in the way of your
> >completing your project earlier as it has with my project. *The fact
> >that you continued to completion says a lot about you and your
> >dedication to seeing it through.
>
> >There are several issues that I have repeatedly seen with composite
> >aircraft that I have not seen as frequently with the RV's which seem
> >to be the dominate kit on the market.
>
> >The first has to do with quality of the supplied molded parts.
> >Because of the low volumes most kit manufacturers have to deal with,
> >they have little incentive to invest in the best quality molds and the
> >refinements needed to make parts that require little additional work
> >prior to assembly. *This means that the builder must spend substantial
> >time in cleanup, fit and finish. *Every composite kit company that I
> >know of still has extensive labor involved and can not automate their
> >processes like Van's has done with much of his fabrication process.
>
> >The second is builder enhancements (modifications) to the original
> >design. *These changes can be anything from a minor change to some
> >major redesign to the entire airframe. *I have seen hundreds of RV's
> >over the years and few of them make anything beyond cosmetic changes
> >and those that do are usually experience builders on their n'th
> >build. *I know in my own case that I have made dozens of changes,
> >mostly minor, that have cumulatively added several hundred hours to my
> >build time. *If I had exactly followed the original plans...I would
> >have been flying already.
>
> >There are many more differences but the last that I will hit on is
> >Finish. *That is where almost every time gain a composite builder may
> >have achieved in the construction process is wiped out. *The standards
> >for finishing a composite aircraft are unreal and really totally
> >unnecessary. *With a few notable exceptions the builders of the RV's
> >will complete and fly their planes with no paint or will spend little
> >time and effort beyond having a paint shop spray them. *That's not
> >saying they aren't great looking planes but they don't get anal about
> >a rivet showing or a slight ripple in the wing or fuselage surface.
> >That is expected when working with metal. *The glass builders seem
> >obsessed with producing a finish that has the quality of a fine
> >mirror. *Gawd forbid that the fabric weave should happen to show
> >through.
>
> >Having said that, I must admit that I have already got a couple
> >hundred hours into the fill and sand process that preceeds the primer
> >and more fill and sand. *I just can't help myself.
>
> >Finally, there are still a lot of composite kits being built.
> >Lancair, Glassair, Velocity, TeamTango, CompAir, and a host of others
> >come to mind. *They will continue to be a major player in the market
> >but lets also admit that when it comes to great, affordable, and
> >buildable aircraft...Van's Aircraft are the dominate company as of
> >now.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yep, when I started my goal was "Oshkosh 2000 by Gosh". Now my goal
is simply to finish and I no longer try to project a date. There are
just too many things that get in the way. Right now, the project is
in a hangar that is an hours drive from my house. I can work on some
things at the house but most of the work is at the hangar now and I
can only get down there on some weekends. When I started, all the
work was done in a nice large garage with my airport less than five
minutes away. A job change and relocation put the project in storage
for almost five years and financial problems with some family members
ment another two years of inactivity. I am limping along now making
progress as the money becomes available but it remains a slow
process.

Enjoy your new plane when you finally get it flying and keep us up on
how the flights are going.

Bob

[cavelamb[_2_]]

rich wrote:
> Yes, I'm really looking forward to that! I just wish the fuel hadn't
> gotten so expensive since I started the thing. That big 6 Lycoming is
> a thirsty animal. But if I look at it a different way, it doesn't seem
> as bad. I'll be out there moving along at Warbird speeds and burning
> only a fraction of the fuel they burn. But it's still expensive. I
> just hope the engine doesn't give me problems after sitting for years.
> It would be a shame to have to re-overhaul an overhauled engine.
> One of the things I'm concerned with is the rubbers inside the fuel
> injector and the Romec fuel pump. I don't know if there are any fuel
> experts reading these threads, but from what I've been told, the Romec
> fuel pump is a gear type, like an engine oil pump. So I can't
> understand what rubber seals inside it could go bad, if any. But when
> I spoke with Don George down in LAL this year, he said he'd be more
> worried about the romec fuel pump than the Bendix fuel injector. That
> Romec fuel pump is about half the size of a pack of cigarettes and
> cost $600 to overhaul. And that was years ago. Now, who knows...
> But that's airplanes...
> Rich
>

That would, of course, suck big time.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Aug 13, 8:50*pm, rich > wrote:
> ...Making the big parts in molds is easy...

Please come to my shop and help lay up a set of wing or fuselage
skins. I'd like to see what makes it easy.

Thanks, Bob K.

[BobR]

On Aug 14, 3:05*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Aug 13, 8:50*pm, rich > wrote:
>
> > ...Making the big parts in molds is easy...
>
> Please come to my shop and help lay up a set of wing or fuselage
> skins. I'd like to see what makes it easy.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

If you have good molds, the right tools, the right materials, and
enough people it is easy. I watched a video that showed the workers
doing the layups for Cirrus parts and it was both easy and efficient.
That doesn't translate to a one off builder working on their own
though.

[rich[_2_]]

I'm sure it's intense while it's going on, but the process is done
fairly quick, compared to building the plane. Do you vacuum bag the
parts in stages, or just once at the end of the molding process?
A friend of mine is building a Glasair 2s, and I went by his shop and
I told him his molded parts looked different than mine on the inside.
I found out the later kits' molded parts were vacuum bagged to save a
little weight. Mine were just wet layed up in the molds. I'm not sure
how they got the foam cores to stay in the mold without vacuuming them
down somehow, They must have used a male plug to just push them into
position.


On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:12:14 -0700 (PDT), BobR
> wrote:

>On Aug 14, 3:05*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 8:50*pm, rich > wrote:
>>
>> > ...Making the big parts in molds is easy...
>>
>> Please come to my shop and help lay up a set of wing or fuselage
>> skins. I'd like to see what makes it easy.
>>
>> Thanks, Bob K.
>
>If you have good molds, the right tools, the right materials, and
>enough people it is easy. I watched a video that showed the workers
>doing the layups for Cirrus parts and it was both easy and efficient.
>That doesn't translate to a one off builder working on their own
>though.

[BobR]

On Aug 14, 5:38*pm, rich > wrote:
> I'm sure it's intense while it's going on, but the process is done
> fairly quick, compared to building the plane. Do you vacuum bag the
> parts in stages, or just once at the end of the molding process?
> A friend of mine is building a Glasair 2s, and I went by his shop and
> I told him his molded parts looked different than mine on the inside.
> I found out the later kits' molded parts were vacuum bagged to save a
> little weight. Mine were just wet layed up in the molds. I'm not sure
> how they got the foam cores to stay in the mold without vacuuming them
> down somehow, They must have used a male plug to just push them into
> position.
>
> On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:12:14 -0700 (PDT), BobR
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Aug 14, 3:05*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> >> On Aug 13, 8:50*pm, rich > wrote:
>
> >> > ...Making the big parts in molds is easy...
>
> >> Please come to my shop and help lay up a set of wing or fuselage
> >> skins. I'd like to see what makes it easy.
>
> >> Thanks, Bob K.
>
> >If you have good molds, the right tools, the right materials, and
> >enough people it is easy. *I watched a video that showed the workers
> >doing the layups for Cirrus parts and it was both easy and efficient.
> >That doesn't translate to a one off builder working on their own
> >though.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The parts were only vacuum bagged after everything for the completed
part was in place. They had it down to a very efficient though still
messy process that went quickly (out of necessity). I have seen
several videos of various fiberglass molding operations and most start
with coating of the inside of a female mold with a release agent.
This is followed by a gel-coat iif it is being used and the initial
glass layups. They may use pre-preg glass or not, it seems to vary
but they will be applying liberal amounts of epoxy as they proceed
using it to lay the glass down and hold any foam / nomex and other
parts in place. Next the inside skin goes down followed by peelply
and bleeder cloth. Finally the put the plastic covering and seal the
edges before pulling the vacuum. The final element may be the most
important, they move it into an enclave to cure.

[Robert Barker]

"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 13, 8:50 pm, rich > wrote:
> ...Making the big parts in molds is easy...

Please come to my shop and help lay up a set of wing or fuselage
skins. I'd like to see what makes it easy.

Thanks, Bob K.

And I posit that defects frequently result in trash where with aluminum, you
can frequently use the material to make something else. But, then again,
you can recycle the stuff from aluminum...

[rich[_2_]]

That sounds like the way Lancair parts are made. The Glasair, with
it's vinyl ester resin is just room temp. cured. I've done some work
wtih epoxy, and although I can tell it's a bit tougher, it's slower to
work with. It's cure time is a lot slower. I've had batches that will
gel pretty quick, but the time it takes before it can be sanded is a
lot longer. So it would have slowed me down if I had been doing my
project in epoxy. But epoxy is the dominate resin it seems, more so
than vinyl ester. If I ever were to build another composite, I'd still
prefer to do it in vinyl ester. Plus, I like the smell of it a lot
better. It's similar to polyester resin. It has kind of a sweet smell.
Some epoxy's stink, while others have almost no odor at all. Aeropoxy
is nasty smelling stuff. Whew, I'll never forget that smell.

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 16:07:26 -0700 (PDT), BobR
> wrote:


>
>The parts were only vacuum bagged after everything for the completed
>part was in place. They had it down to a very efficient though still
>messy process that went quickly (out of necessity). I have seen
>several videos of various fiberglass molding operations and most start
>with coating of the inside of a female mold with a release agent.
>This is followed by a gel-coat iif it is being used and the initial
>glass layups. They may use pre-preg glass or not, it seems to vary
>but they will be applying liberal amounts of epoxy as they proceed
>using it to lay the glass down and hold any foam / nomex and other
>parts in place. Next the inside skin goes down followed by peelply
>and bleeder cloth. Finally the put the plastic covering and seal the
>edges before pulling the vacuum. The final element may be the most
>important, they move it into an enclave to cure.

[Tim[_8_]]

"rich" > wrote in message
...
>I agree with all you said. And I didn't enjoy breathing the fumes
> myself all those years. Plus, after a few years of building, I
> realized how little work the kit maker did compared to what I was
> doing. Making the big parts in molds is easy. The builder does all the
> hard work.
> Rich
>

I think this is a common misconception. It's easy to look at a fuse half
section and think, gosh if I had a mold I could lay one of those suckers up
in a day, and you probably could with just a little practice. But all the
work spent shaping a plug, and/or building a substantial mold is ignored
with a single word.

Shaping and finishing a fuse, or a plug for a fuse, and/ constructing a mold
requires tons of labor. If you use a mold, your material costs alone would
likely triple.

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Tim wrote:
> "rich" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I agree with all you said. And I didn't enjoy breathing the fumes
>> myself all those years. Plus, after a few years of building, I
>> realized how little work the kit maker did compared to what I was
>> doing. Making the big parts in molds is easy. The builder does all the
>> hard work.
>> Rich
>>
>
> I think this is a common misconception. It's easy to look at a fuse half
> section and think, gosh if I had a mold I could lay one of those suckers up
> in a day, and you probably could with just a little practice. But all the
> work spent shaping a plug, and/or building a substantial mold is ignored
> with a single word.
>
> Shaping and finishing a fuse, or a plug for a fuse, and/ constructing a mold
> requires tons of labor. If you use a mold, your material costs alone would
> likely triple.
>
>
>
>

That was Burt Rutan's particular gift to the state of the art.

A soft foam piece that was easy to develop into complex shapes,
and stayed in the part as a stiffening core.

Or remove the foam completely after layup, if it's not needed.

"Mold-less" construction.

[Tim[_8_]]

"cavelamb" > wrote in message
...

>
> That was Burt Rutan's particular gift to the state of the art.
>
> A soft foam piece that was easy to develop into complex shapes,
> and stayed in the part as a stiffening core.
>
> Or remove the foam completely after layup, if it's not needed.
>
> "Mold-less" construction.

True, but in lies the rub. It's just as much work to build one aircraft, as
the plug for a mold that will build many. Large panels and even two piece
fuse sections save a lot of work, and can produce even lighter panels.

[Peter Dohm]

"Tim" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> That was Burt Rutan's particular gift to the state of the art.
>>
>> A soft foam piece that was easy to develop into complex shapes,
>> and stayed in the part as a stiffening core.
>>
>> Or remove the foam completely after layup, if it's not needed.
>>
>> "Mold-less" construction.
>
> True, but in lies the rub. It's just as much work to build one aircraft,
> as the plug for a mold that will build many. Large panels and even two
> piece fuse sections save a lot of work, and can produce even lighter
> panels.
>
>
I don't believe that it is even 20 percent of the work needed to build a
reusable plug--and it is certainly less than 10 percent of the work needed
to build a plug plus a reusable mold.

The real problem, from my point of view, is that the kit manufacturer
receives all of the benefit of series production, while the customer is left
with extraordinarily critical fitting and bonding steps and an unacceptably
high cost of scrapped parts. Those are processes which should be
accomplished by experienced labor using stable and accurate jigs--however,
that is exactly the service that is effectively prohibited under the 51
percent rule. The result is that the customer (builder) spends an
outrageous amount of time just puttering around and studying the next step
in the process, with the project occupying a lot of space in an expesive
final assembly area, in the fear of creating some very expensive scrap--or
even more time consuming repairs. In effect, when building a composite kit
and simply counting labor hours, the 51 percent rule has become a 91percent
rule.

Peter

[rich[_2_]]

I can second that statement about the outrageous amount of time spent
puttering around! I've also had that feeling about my composite plane
complying with the 51% rule. It more than quailifies. Just barely
above the level of a plans only design. I saw the plugs for making the
molds when I visited the Glasair factory. They told me they keep them
around in case someone were to forget to put the mold release in the
mold and they needed to make a new mold. The persons that think making
parts from a mold are not so easy, should trying building the
completed plane from those parts from start to finish with no help
working alone and then look back and see if they still support that
statement.
Rich

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 09:53:25 -0400, "Peter Dohm"
> wrote:


>>
>>
>I don't believe that it is even 20 percent of the work needed to build a
>reusable plug--and it is certainly less than 10 percent of the work needed
>to build a plug plus a reusable mold.
>
>The real problem, from my point of view, is that the kit manufacturer
>receives all of the benefit of series production, while the customer is left
>with extraordinarily critical fitting and bonding steps and an unacceptably
>high cost of scrapped parts. Those are processes which should be
>accomplished by experienced labor using stable and accurate jigs--however,
>that is exactly the service that is effectively prohibited under the 51
>percent rule. The result is that the customer (builder) spends an
>outrageous amount of time just puttering around and studying the next step
>in the process, with the project occupying a lot of space in an expesive
>final assembly area, in the fear of creating some very expensive scrap--or
>even more time consuming repairs. In effect, when building a composite kit
>and simply counting labor hours, the 51 percent rule has become a 91percent
>rule.
>
>Peter
>
>

[RST Engineering - JIm]

>
> That was Burt Rutan's particular gift to the state of the art.
>
> A soft foam piece that was easy to develop into complex shapes,
> and stayed in the part as a stiffening core.
>
> Or remove the foam completely after layup, if it's not needed.
>
> "Mold-less" construction.

Forgive me for jumping in to a forum to which I have no first-hand
experience other than supplying parts to you all who are building these
things.

I've been around the Rutan brothers since the vari-viggen and you are
correct. That was Rutan's gift to the art. And, there were a HELL of a lot
of Vari-EZ and Long-EZ aircraft made in what appeared to be a very short
time ... months, not years.

And when Rutan stopped supplying plans for those easy to build aircraft
somehow the time to construct took a quantum jump. Don't know why, just
observed the phenomenon.

Jim

[Peter Dohm]

"RST Engineering - JIm" > wrote in message
m...
> >
>> That was Burt Rutan's particular gift to the state of the art.
>>
>> A soft foam piece that was easy to develop into complex shapes,
>> and stayed in the part as a stiffening core.
>>
>> Or remove the foam completely after layup, if it's not needed.
>>
>> "Mold-less" construction.
>
> Forgive me for jumping in to a forum to which I have no first-hand
> experience other than supplying parts to you all who are building these
> things.
>
> I've been around the Rutan brothers since the vari-viggen and you are
> correct. That was Rutan's gift to the art. And, there were a HELL of a
> lot of Vari-EZ and Long-EZ aircraft made in what appeared to be a very
> short time ... months, not years.
>
> And when Rutan stopped supplying plans for those easy to build aircraft
> somehow the time to construct took a quantum jump. Don't know why, just
> observed the phenomenon.
>
> Jim
>
I don't know why with any certainty; but, during the time that he was
supplying plans, Burt Rutan also went on tour and demonstrated his method of
rapid construction. It seems possible that his departure from the field
sinply allowed the preceding "dark age" to resume.

Peter

[RST Engineering - JIm]

Legal liability, plain and simple. He was sued multiple times for stupid
builder mistakes..

Jim



"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
I don't know why with any certainty; but, during the time that he was
> supplying plans, Burt Rutan also went on tour and demonstrated his method
> of rapid construction. It seems possible that his departure from the
> field sinply allowed the preceding "dark age" to resume.
>
> Peter
>
>
>

[Tim[_8_]]

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
...
> "Tim" > wrote in message
> m...
>>
>> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> That was Burt Rutan's particular gift to the state of the art.
>>>
>>> A soft foam piece that was easy to develop into complex shapes,
>>> and stayed in the part as a stiffening core.
>>>
>>> Or remove the foam completely after layup, if it's not needed.
>>>
>>> "Mold-less" construction.
>>
>> True, but in lies the rub. It's just as much work to build one aircraft,
>> as the plug for a mold that will build many. Large panels and even two
>> piece fuse sections save a lot of work, and can produce even lighter
>> panels.
>>
>>
> I don't believe that it is even 20 percent of the work needed to build a
> reusable plug--and it is certainly less than 10 percent of the work needed
> to build a plug plus a reusable mold.
>

Why do you feel it's more difficult to build a plug, than a fuse section?

[Peter Dohm]

"RST Engineering - JIm" > wrote in message
m...
> Legal liability, plain and simple. He was sued multiple times for stupid
> builder mistakes..
>
> Jim
>
>
Yes, I recalled that he was sued and, although he won, the experience and
expense left him thoroughly disgusted; and that, although he had set a
precident that served to protect plans suppliers, he then opted to leave the
plans business. I had forgotten, if I ever knew, that there had been
multiple suits.

However; my point was that, in Burt's absense, most of the time saving
portions of what he taught were almost immediately forgotten.

Actually, there is also reason to hypothesize that something similar may
have also occurred with other construction methods--or that a similar guru
never arived on the scene after some of the required skills ceased to be
commonplace in the population. As just one example: How do you justify a
"quick build kit" for a metal airplane when the standard kit already
includes the precision standing, bending and drilling? The answer is that
you don't--at least not after you read Bob (Veeduber) Hoover's blog treatise
on riveting and then really think about the implecations!

Peter