Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:48 AM - Re: Re: doors & insulation (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
2. 07:03 AM - Re: Re: doors & insulation (Seano)
3. 07:03 AM - Re: Re: doors & insulation (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
4. 07:13 AM - Re: Floating Skybolts (Pascal)
5. 07:53 AM - Re: Floating Skybolts (AirMike)
6. 08:19 AM - Re: From Van's on the door SB (AirMike)
7. 09:53 AM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Jack Phillips)
8. 10:25 AM - Re: From Van's on the door SB (Bob Turner)
9. 10:57 AM - Re: Floating Skybolts (Lenny Iszak)
10. 11:13 AM - Re: Re: Floating Skybolts (Rick)
11. 11:58 AM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Pascal)
12. 12:54 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
13. 12:54 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Bill Mauledriver Watson)
14. 12:54 PM - Re: From Van's on the door SB (Tim Olson)
15. 12:58 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Perry, Phil)
16. 12:58 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (John Gonzalez)
17. 01:11 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Jack Phillips)
18. 01:54 PM - Quick Build Wing Kit FOR SALE (Paul Grimstad)
19. 02:03 PM - Re: From Van's on the door SB (Scott Schmidt)
20. 02:22 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (DLM)
21. 02:49 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
22. 03:17 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Deems Davis)
23. 03:24 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Tim Olson)
24. 04:59 PM - Re: Quick Build Wing Kit FOR SALE (Jack Phillips)
25. 05:25 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Kelly McMullen)
26. 05:58 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Jack Phillips)
27. 06:13 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Kelly McMullen)
28. 06:27 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
29. 06:51 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Kelly McMullen)
30. 06:52 PM - Re: Re: From Van's on the door SB (Kelly McMullen)
31. 07:57 PM - Re: From Van's on the door SB (Bob Turner)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: doors & insulation |
So, did you use the same McMaster seals I'm getting ready to use?
1 1120A411
<http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=1120A411&sesnextrep=589606556598957&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
30 Ft. Edge-grip Rubber Seal, Bulb Opposite Grabber, 1/4" Edge, 3/8"
Bulb Width
And if so, can you help me understand what is 'flat on the outside'?
I've heard various things about how the door gutter should be trimmed.
Right now, I have them trimmed in a way that these seals work quite well:
2 93745K23
<http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=93745K23&sesnextrep=589606556598957&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
1 Each Oil-and Water-resistant Vinyl/buna-n Foam, Adhesive-back,
Extra-soft, 1/8" Thk, 3/4"w, 50'l
3 93745K43
<http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=93745K43&sesnextrep=589606556598957&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
1 Each Oil-and Water-resistant Vinyl/buna-n Foam, Adhesive-back,
Extra-soft, 1/4" Thk, 3/4"w, 50'l
But this material simply sticks to the door and compresses very easily
with a lot of memory. Same stuff I have on my Maule. Very easy to fit
and would look OK if I was painting my door. But it won't work if
covering the door with headliner material as I'm planning to do.
So my door/gutter joint has a gap of between 1/8" (very narrow) and 3/8"
around the edges. And the gutter edge/face itself varies from being
almost parallel to the door at the top near the hinges to being
perpendicular to the door at the bottom edge. Not very consistent.
It looks like I will have to widen the gap along the top and in a few
places along the side to accomodate the 3/8" bulb so it doesn't change
the exterior fit of the door (which is quite nice now after much filling
per Deem's technique). I will also have to thin the edge down in places
where it's too fat to take the 1/4" edged grip.
In doing all that, I'm guessing that there is some end state that I
should be working towards that is not obvious to me yet. I'm wondering
if you can help steer me towards that since you were once "lost" but now
found, so to speak.
Isn't it amazing how much you know AFTER you climb the learning curve
and finish one of the thousand tasks on this project.... almost makes
you want to start another.
Thanks for the reply.
Bill
Seano wrote:
>
> Hey Bill,
>
> I don't know if the pink canopy is any better in the edges, they are
> very inconsistent but then again I am using an aftermarket seal. I
> have been building the "gutter" up with thin strips of fiberglass
> until it is flat on the outside. When it got close I filled it flat
> with epoxy and milled glass. You have to use something like glass
> strips because it has to be structural, you end up trimming so much
> down on the other side. I was lost for a while and finally started
> seeing the light at the end of the tunnel when taking off the door a
> million times and touching up each spot that looked too close or
> filling anything with a gap too wide. I'm sure a lot of people are
> much faster at this. I know if I had to do another RV-10 I would do
> the same seal and it would go a lot faster knowing what I know now.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Mauledriver Watson"
> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:32 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: doors & insulation
>
>
>> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>>
>> Interesting. Someone else had mentioned using 1120A311 which I
>> purchased. I have the older green top and find that most of the edges
>> are 1/4" or better. The only section that is consistently less than
>> 1/4" is the bottom sill.
>>
>> I'm guessing that the newer pink top is a bit thinner and more
>> consistent in edge thickness if you had to build them up. I've been
>> trying to figure out how to grind much of my edges down to 3/16" to
>> fit the A311.
>>
>> So, I think I'm going to get 30' of the A411. Given the added
>> thickness of the headliner abric that will be underneath it, I think
>> that will be easier to work with.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bill
>>
>> Geoff Combs wrote:
>>> This is what I used Danny. I used the 1/4" edge. I built all my
>>> edges up with fiberglass to put some strength back in the door frame
>>> area and it made the
>>> edge trim fit much better. It was a ton of work as Michael said but
>>> good results.
>>> 11 1120A411
>>> <http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=1120A411&sesnextrep=859151940559946&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
>>> 50 Ft. Edge-grip Rubber Seal, Bulb Opposite Grabber, 1/4" Edge, 3/8"
>>> Bulb Width
>>>
>>> Geoff
>>>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: doors & insulation |
Bill,
Call me
801-580-3737
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Mauledriver Watson" <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:44 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: doors & insulation
> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>
> So, did you use the same McMaster seals I'm getting ready to use?
> 1 1120A411
> <http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=1120A411&sesnextrep=589606556598957&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
> 30 Ft. Edge-grip Rubber Seal, Bulb Opposite Grabber, 1/4" Edge, 3/8" Bulb
> Width
>
> And if so, can you help me understand what is 'flat on the outside'?
>
> I've heard various things about how the door gutter should be trimmed.
> Right now, I have them trimmed in a way that these seals work quite well:
> 2 93745K23
> <http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=93745K23&sesnextrep=589606556598957&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
> 1 Each Oil-and Water-resistant Vinyl/buna-n Foam, Adhesive-back,
> Extra-soft, 1/8" Thk, 3/4"w, 50'l
> 3 93745K43
> <http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=93745K43&sesnextrep=589606556598957&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
> 1 Each Oil-and Water-resistant Vinyl/buna-n Foam, Adhesive-back,
> Extra-soft, 1/4" Thk, 3/4"w, 50'l
>
> But this material simply sticks to the door and compresses very easily
> with a lot of memory. Same stuff I have on my Maule. Very easy to fit
> and would look OK if I was painting my door. But it won't work if
> covering the door with headliner material as I'm planning to do.
>
> So my door/gutter joint has a gap of between 1/8" (very narrow) and 3/8"
> around the edges. And the gutter edge/face itself varies from being
> almost parallel to the door at the top near the hinges to being
> perpendicular to the door at the bottom edge. Not very consistent.
>
> It looks like I will have to widen the gap along the top and in a few
> places along the side to accomodate the 3/8" bulb so it doesn't change the
> exterior fit of the door (which is quite nice now after much filling per
> Deem's technique). I will also have to thin the edge down in places where
> it's too fat to take the 1/4" edged grip.
> In doing all that, I'm guessing that there is some end state that I should
> be working towards that is not obvious to me yet. I'm wondering if you
> can help steer me towards that since you were once "lost" but now found,
> so to speak.
>
> Isn't it amazing how much you know AFTER you climb the learning curve and
> finish one of the thousand tasks on this project.... almost makes you want
> to start another.
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> Bill
>
>
> Seano wrote:
>>
>> Hey Bill,
>>
>> I don't know if the pink canopy is any better in the edges, they are very
>> inconsistent but then again I am using an aftermarket seal. I have been
>> building the "gutter" up with thin strips of fiberglass until it is flat
>> on the outside. When it got close I filled it flat with epoxy and milled
>> glass. You have to use something like glass strips because it has to be
>> structural, you end up trimming so much down on the other side. I was
>> lost for a while and finally started seeing the light at the end of the
>> tunnel when taking off the door a million times and touching up each spot
>> that looked too close or filling anything with a gap too wide. I'm sure
>> a lot of people are much faster at this. I know if I had to do another
>> RV-10 I would do the same seal and it would go a lot faster knowing what
>> I know now.
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Mauledriver Watson"
>> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:32 AM
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: doors & insulation
>>
>>
>>> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>>>
>>> Interesting. Someone else had mentioned using 1120A311 which I
>>> purchased. I have the older green top and find that most of the edges
>>> are 1/4" or better. The only section that is consistently less than
>>> 1/4" is the bottom sill.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that the newer pink top is a bit thinner and more
>>> consistent in edge thickness if you had to build them up. I've been
>>> trying to figure out how to grind much of my edges down to 3/16" to fit
>>> the A311.
>>>
>>> So, I think I'm going to get 30' of the A411. Given the added thickness
>>> of the headliner abric that will be underneath it, I think that will be
>>> easier to work with.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> Geoff Combs wrote:
>>>> This is what I used Danny. I used the 1/4" edge. I built all my edges
>>>> up with fiberglass to put some strength back in the door frame area and
>>>> it made the
>>>> edge trim fit much better. It was a ton of work as Michael said but
>>>> good results.
>>>> 11 1120A411
>>>> <http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=1120A411&sesnextrep=859151940559946&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
>>>> 50 Ft. Edge-grip Rubber Seal, Bulb Opposite Grabber, 1/4" Edge, 3/8"
>>>> Bulb Width
>>>>
>>>> Geoff
>>>>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: doors & insulation |
I used the edge grip stuff as most others have. This has the added nicety of trimming
the gutter edge and making it look very finished. My process went something
like this:
- Fit the door
- Adjust the door to gutter gap to about 3/8" all the way around using whatever
method ( a surform, aka cheese grater, works well for this and the following
work)
- Build up the gutter edge on whichever side with flox to make it more perpendicular
to the door
- rough finish, check edge, attack with surform, repeat
- once "close" I cut strips of the edging to check rough fit and filled in or removed
material as necessary
- once that was close I installed the seal all the way and checked fit and adjusted
until the door could be closed AND locked without a great deal of force
- Once that was complete I removed the seal and proceeded with the finish work
of the gutters to make sure everything blended in nicely
Wash, rinse, repeat for the other side. I also used the 100 MPH release tape
method of creating covers for the door hinges which I then permanently attached
by bedding in with flox and using nutplates to attach. Once Abby covered my
doors they look very nice.
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Mauledriver Watson
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: doors & insulation
So, did you use the same McMaster seals I'm getting ready to use?
1 1120A411
<http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=1120A411&sesnextrep=589606556598957&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
30 Ft. Edge-grip Rubber Seal, Bulb Opposite Grabber, 1/4" Edge, 3/8"
Bulb Width
And if so, can you help me understand what is 'flat on the outside'?
I've heard various things about how the door gutter should be trimmed.
Right now, I have them trimmed in a way that these seals work quite well:
2 93745K23
<http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=93745K23&sesnextrep=589606556598957&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
1 Each Oil-and Water-resistant Vinyl/buna-n Foam, Adhesive-back,
Extra-soft, 1/8" Thk, 3/4"w, 50'l
3 93745K43
<http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=93745K43&sesnextrep=589606556598957&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
1 Each Oil-and Water-resistant Vinyl/buna-n Foam, Adhesive-back,
Extra-soft, 1/4" Thk, 3/4"w, 50'l
But this material simply sticks to the door and compresses very easily
with a lot of memory. Same stuff I have on my Maule. Very easy to fit
and would look OK if I was painting my door. But it won't work if
covering the door with headliner material as I'm planning to do.
So my door/gutter joint has a gap of between 1/8" (very narrow) and 3/8"
around the edges. And the gutter edge/face itself varies from being
almost parallel to the door at the top near the hinges to being
perpendicular to the door at the bottom edge. Not very consistent.
It looks like I will have to widen the gap along the top and in a few
places along the side to accomodate the 3/8" bulb so it doesn't change
the exterior fit of the door (which is quite nice now after much filling
per Deem's technique). I will also have to thin the edge down in places
where it's too fat to take the 1/4" edged grip.
In doing all that, I'm guessing that there is some end state that I
should be working towards that is not obvious to me yet. I'm wondering
if you can help steer me towards that since you were once "lost" but now
found, so to speak.
Isn't it amazing how much you know AFTER you climb the learning curve
and finish one of the thousand tasks on this project.... almost makes
you want to start another.
Thanks for the reply.
Bill
Seano wrote:
>
> Hey Bill,
>
> I don't know if the pink canopy is any better in the edges, they are
> very inconsistent but then again I am using an aftermarket seal. I
> have been building the "gutter" up with thin strips of fiberglass
> until it is flat on the outside. When it got close I filled it flat
> with epoxy and milled glass. You have to use something like glass
> strips because it has to be structural, you end up trimming so much
> down on the other side. I was lost for a while and finally started
> seeing the light at the end of the tunnel when taking off the door a
> million times and touching up each spot that looked too close or
> filling anything with a gap too wide. I'm sure a lot of people are
> much faster at this. I know if I had to do another RV-10 I would do
> the same seal and it would go a lot faster knowing what I know now.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Mauledriver Watson"
> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
> To: <rv10-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:32 AM
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: doors & insulation
>
>
>> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>>
>> Interesting. Someone else had mentioned using 1120A311 which I
>> purchased. I have the older green top and find that most of the edges
>> are 1/4" or better. The only section that is consistently less than
>> 1/4" is the bottom sill.
>>
>> I'm guessing that the newer pink top is a bit thinner and more
>> consistent in edge thickness if you had to build them up. I've been
>> trying to figure out how to grind much of my edges down to 3/16" to
>> fit the A311.
>>
>> So, I think I'm going to get 30' of the A411. Given the added
>> thickness of the headliner abric that will be underneath it, I think
>> that will be easier to work with.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bill
>>
>> Geoff Combs wrote:
>>> This is what I used Danny. I used the 1/4" edge. I built all my
>>> edges up with fiberglass to put some strength back in the door frame
>>> area and it made the
>>> edge trim fit much better. It was a ton of work as Michael said but
>>> good results.
>>> 11 1120A411
>>> <http://www.mcmaster.com/itm/find.asp?searchstring=1120A411&sesnextrep=859151940559946&tab=find&FastTrack=False&WRCntxt=OrdHist>
>>> 50 Ft. Edge-grip Rubber Seal, Bulb Opposite Grabber, 1/4" Edge, 3/8"
>>> Bulb Width
>>>
>>> Geoff
>>>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Floating Skybolts |
My understanding is the floating is for giving a larger area to align the
bolt initially, once you tighten it down it wont "float".
Pascal
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Lenny Iszak" <lenard@rapiddecision.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:16 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Floating Skybolts
>
> I just realized the SkyBolts I ordered for the firewall are the floating
> type.
> I'm using hinges on the cowl split line.
>
> Would the floating type allow the cowling to move away from the firewall
> creating a bigger gap than what i've been crafting so carefully? Or should
> I just order the fixed receptacles?
>
>
> Lenny
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282374#282374
>
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Floating Skybolts |
I have them and they are great. No discernible separation. Makes a nice tight fit
and the floaters give you an extra bit of wiggle space to fit the cowl. Happy
to have them on the top of the cowl. Note: If you use their suggested spacing,
the "kit" leaves you two fastenings short. I had to order two extra pieces
and they screwed up the order. The kit is made for RV7/8/9's and the IO-540 has
a bigger cowl. The Skybolt people are not the easiest to deal with. Contact
me off line if desired.
--------
OSH '10 or Bust
Q/B - testing phase 1
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282476#282476
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B. Unfortunately,
we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem and the potential
liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some non-builder user sued
Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit, essentially putting them out of
business (like what happened to Piper a few years back). I know because I lost
about $5000 on my deposit with Piper. Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse
chasing lawyers in this country we are all screwed.
We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country where we
are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as we see fit regardless
of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are free to do as
you see fit. Despite all complaints, I will bet that 90% of us will fit the
Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this Summer.
As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built and well
engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a delight to fly.
--------
OSH '10 or Bust
Q/B - testing phase 1
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282481#282481
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes on
with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't like
the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a
HOMEBUILT. That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything you
like.
I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the
changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many
feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage
bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the
case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and
make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of
some of the other kits out there?
OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.
Jack Phillips
#40610
Raleigh, NC
Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting
adventures with Pro-Seal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B.
Unfortunately, we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem and
the potential liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some
non-builder user sued Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit,
essentially putting them out of business (like what happened to Piper a few
years back). I know because I lost about $5000 on my deposit with Piper.
Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse chasing lawyers in this country
we are all screwed.
We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country where
we are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as we see
fit regardless of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are free
to do as you see fit. Despite all complaints, I will bet that 90% of us will
fit the Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this
Summer.
As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built and
well engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a delight
to fly.
--------
OSH '10 or Bust
Q/B - testing phase 1
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282481#282481
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
Of course this is CYA. But it's nothing like the certified world. A year ago or
so I got a letter from Airborn, saying that they had established a service life
of 5 years for vacuum pumps. And since they hadn't made any for five years,
all Airborn pumps were now unairworthy and had to be removed from service. Of
course, this had no authority of law behind it (at least in the US part 91) but
was just CYA. Poor guys in part 135, some other countries, however, were out
of luck.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282506#282506
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Floating Skybolts |
Thanks guys, i'll go for it then.
It looks as if they float only about 1/16 fwd/aft, and more sideways.
Lenny
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282520#282520
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Floating Skybolts |
Lenny,
The floating ones are actually better than the fixed when you are using many
of them in a cowl. Temperature changes make the cowl dimensions change
slightly. With the floating socket you will have easier engagement and allow
for minor changes due to climate. Once the fastener is engaged the pressure
keeps them from moving.
Rick Sked
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lenny Iszak
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:55 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: Floating Skybolts
Thanks guys, i'll go for it then.
It looks as if they float only about 1/16 fwd/aft, and more sideways.
Lenny
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282520#282520
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue is the
solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could have been a
better option than a hook that should have been considered, like improving
the door, better system of locking, etc.
I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at the
time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime without issue
or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane, Vans knows planes
significantly better than I so why not get their doors to close correctly to
start with versus putting out a SB that I think avoids the issue to start
with.
So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook that
brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.
Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with Dick
flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better solution.
Pascal
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
> I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes
> on
> with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't
> like
> the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a
> HOMEBUILT. That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything
> you
> like.
>
> I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the
> changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many
> feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage
> bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the
> case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and
> make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of
> some of the other kits out there?
>
> OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.
>
> Jack Phillips
> #40610
> Raleigh, NC
> Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting
> adventures with Pro-Seal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:17 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
>
> I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B.
> Unfortunately, we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem and
> the potential liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some
> non-builder user sued Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit,
> essentially putting them out of business (like what happened to Piper a
> few
> years back). I know because I lost about $5000 on my deposit with Piper.
> Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse chasing lawyers in this
> country
> we are all screwed.
>
> We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country
> where
> we are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as we
> see
> fit regardless of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are
> free
> to do as you see fit. Despite all complaints, I will bet that 90% of us
> will
> fit the Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this
> Summer.
>
> As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built and
> well engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a delight
> to fly.
>
> --------
> OSH '10 or Bust
> Q/B - testing phase 1
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282481#282481
>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
This builder is thinking the solution is already out there - the
aftermarket blocks combined with the light system seems positive enough
and sturdy enough to me. Nothing else need be done in my opinion. I'm
guessing that Van may think so too when he has builder/flyer hat on.
But there's a business involved...
From a CYA perspective, I can see how the blocks and lights may not be
enough for a factory supplied solution, even if they'd like to think
so. All a litigant would have to do is pull the threads on door
latching. So they've put out a very positive, perhaps crude, probably
low cost but liability avoiding solution to CYA. And left it up the
flexibility of the builder and the rules surrounding homebuilding to
chose the right solutions.
I'm comfortable and perhaps even impressed.
Bill "can't wait for the SB but can't figure out where to store it" Watson
Pascal wrote:
>
> I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue
> is the solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could
> have been a better option than a hook that should have been
> considered, like improving the door, better system of locking, etc.
> I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at
> the time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime
> without issue or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane,
> Vans knows planes significantly better than I so why not get their
> doors to close correctly to start with versus putting out a SB that I
> think avoids the issue to start with.
> So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook
> that brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.
> Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with
> Dick flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better
> solution.
> Pascal
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
Total agreement here too. It's easy to lose sight of the whole
homebuilt concept when building one of these modern kits.
Jack Phillips wrote:
>
> I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes on
> with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't like
> the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a
> HOMEBUILT. That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything you
> like.
>
> I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the
> changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many
> feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage
> bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the
> case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and
> make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of
> some of the other kits out there?
>
> OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.
>
> Jack Phillips
> #40610
> Raleigh, NC
> Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting
> adventures with Pro-Seal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:17 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
>
> I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B.
> Unfortunately, we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem and
> the potential liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some
> non-builder user sued Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit,
> essentially putting them out of business (like what happened to Piper a few
> years back). I know because I lost about $5000 on my deposit with Piper.
> Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse chasing lawyers in this country
> we are all screwed.
>
> We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country where
> we are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as we see
> fit regardless of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are free
> to do as you see fit. Despite all complaints, I will bet that 90% of us will
> fit the Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this
> Summer.
>
> As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built and
> well engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a delight
> to fly.
>
> --------
> OSH '10 or Bust
> Q/B - testing phase 1
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
I don't really mind the response Van's gave for the SB.
I do wish they wouldn't have made it mandatory, but in todays
world I think that every company does the CYA dance whenever
they can. We should be glad it isn't an AD and that
experimentals don't have to comply with AD's. We built these
planes ourselves for a reason...so that we could have the
freedom to experiment and modify. If Van's wants to
cover their butt, so be it. When it comes to a structural
fix, like the bulkhead patch, I don't think that we need to
question it much...if there is a structural problem, we
can just gladly obey and do the fix...because we can't really
prove the design as-is is faulty. When it comes to this
SB, we all know that doors flying off can be a problem...but
it's our job to find a way around that happening to us.
Good thing we're free to choose our methods.
One plug for the internet age... I really think that
the honest "I built it myself" builder, who participates
in a list such as this, will be a far "safer" RV-10 pilot.
Some of that comes from the care they take in building,
some comes from the knowledge of how it's built, but,
a LOT OF BENEFIT will come to those who built it themselves
and through the learning process decided to take part in
a list like this. On a list like this, you get to hear
about the good and the bad....like doors flying off. I
don't remember the count or know the current count, but
I think, if I remember right, that I'm personally aware of
about 5 or 6 door-off incidents. That's not a small number
for this size fleet, and ESPECIALLY since Van's had it
happen to THEM before, they probably understand that it's
time to do something about it. So they provided parts,
and guidance, to fix their little doormonster.
Where it is sad, but not unexpected, is that after it
happened to them and a few other people, if Van's had
participated more in the online discussions, and taken
things to heart, perhaps sooner into the kit sales
cycle they could have improved the latch design, and
maybe by kit 300 or something, they could have had a
better door latch mechanism as standard production.
But, we all know that once Van's has finished a kit and
started selling all kit sections, they're DONE with it.
They don't improve it unless they have a major issue.
Not even for a major MINOR issue. Look at the axle
extensions that we all used to know about. We heard
about many people breaking axle extensions...high rates
of failure. But that's minor to them, so they don't
even re-issue those parts. They just simply do not
go back and revise much unless they personally see many
problems with it. I'm not ranting about it...it's
just the way they are. They went on and focused on the
RV-12 project. There ARE no major improvements coming
for any section of the RV-10, I'd be willing to bet.
It would be more likely that there would be an RV-13
in the makings (or maybe RV-14 to avoid losing sales
to superstitious folk). Maybe the RV-14 will be a new
design of a nice 4-seater...who knows. Maybe they'll
learn some things from the -10 and it'll have new
doors. But I just think it's unrealistic to expect
major changes to their RV-10 design....even if it's
something they could make much nicer like the door
latching.
Also, for their fix, they needed to come up with
something that could be an easy bolt-in fix for
already flying planes. They realize that fixing
the entire latching mechanism isn't really very
easy on a finished plane....so I'm sure they came
up with what they did because it was something that
anyone could add, pre or post construction.
So, while I think the SB fix is ugly and not what
I plan to do, I really can't hold them in poor
regard for how they did it or what they did.
They really should "cover their asses". It wouldn't
make good business sense not to. It would be nice
to not see the word "mandatory" there, but in the end,
it need not worry us anyway. We can comply as we
wish.
Tim
Miller John wrote:
> FYI. I was hoping for a better understanding on this issue.......
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>>
>> Thanks for your email regarding the recent RV-10 SB.
>>
>> The point of any SB is to benefit both RV builders/pilots AND Van's
>> Aircraft with increased safety and reduced costs. Most of the
>> complaints we get about SBs list only the builder's personal concerns
>> about difficulty/cost of compliance, or their belief that there is a
>> "better way".
>>
>> We always consider those issues, but we also have to balance them with
>> broader concerns; to maintain Van's Aircraft as a viable company, and
>> to protect it against future liability. There will always be potential
>> for some conflict between these two points of view, which we hope that
>> our customers will understand.
>>
>> As with all Service Bulletins in the certified and experimental world,
>> it is not mandatory that owner/operators comply with them. It is up
>> to the owner to comply or not, at their sole discretion. By issuing
>> this service bulletin, Van's is recommending that it be complied with.
>>
>> Fly Safe,
>>
>> Vans
>
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
The issue is Service Bulletins are not intended to be a redesign of the
airplane. They're intended to provide a retrofit solution to a known
problem in a current design. Anyone who thinks Vans is going to
redesign the doors and write a SB against it will always be
disappointed.
I stand by Vans on this one. They have a right to recognize a problem
and offer a fix for it. Think of the alternative.
Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: Pascal [mailto:rv10builder@verizon.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue is
the
solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could have been
a
better option than a hook that should have been considered, like
improving
the door, better system of locking, etc.
I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at
the
time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime without
issue
or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane, Vans knows planes
significantly better than I so why not get their doors to close
correctly to
start with versus putting out a SB that I think avoids the issue to
start
with.
So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook
that
brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.
Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with Dick
flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better
solution.
Pascal
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:52 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
<pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
>
> I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that
goes
> on
> with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible.
Don't
> like
> the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's
a
> HOMEBUILT. That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do
anything
> you
> like.
>
> I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made
the
> changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience.
Many
> feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the
empennage
> bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is
the
> case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes
and
> make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality
of
> some of the other kits out there?
>
> OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.
>
> Jack Phillips
> #40610
> Raleigh, NC
> Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting
> adventures with Pro-Seal
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:17 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
>
> I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B.
> Unfortunately, we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem
and
> the potential liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some
> non-builder user sued Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit,
> essentially putting them out of business (like what happened to Piper
a
> few
> years back). I know because I lost about $5000 on my deposit with
Piper.
> Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse chasing lawyers in this
> country
> we are all screwed.
>
> We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country
> where
> we are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as
we
> see
> fit regardless of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are
> free
> to do as you see fit. Despite all complaints, I will bet that 90% of
us
> will
> fit the Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this
> Summer.
>
> As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built
and
> well engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a
delight
> to fly.
>
> --------
> OSH '10 or Bust
> Q/B - testing phase 1
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282481#282481
>
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
Jack Phillips...you forgot to say something. Just build the plane better=2C
never settle for=2C "Good Enough!" You and your family are going to be in
the dam thing. Van's is doing what they need to do in this litigious=2C gr
eed driven society.
> From: pietflyr@bellsouth.net
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
> Date: Wed=2C 20 Jan 2010 12:52:11 -0500
>
>
> I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes
on
> with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't lik
e
> the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a
> HOMEBUILT. That means you=2C as the manufacturer=2C are free to do anythi
ng you
> like.
>
> I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit=2C and has made the
> changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many
> feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage
> bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype)=2C or ugly=2C as is
the
> case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and
> make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of
> some of the other kits out there?
>
> OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.
>
> Jack Phillips
> #40610
> Raleigh=2C NC
> Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting
> adventures with Pro-Seal
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
> Sent: Wednesday=2C January 20=2C 2010 11:17 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
>
> I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B.
> Unfortunately=2C we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem
and
> the potential liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some
> non-builder user sued Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit=2C
> essentially putting them out of business (like what happened to Piper a f
ew
> years back). I know because I lost about $5000 on my deposit with Piper.
> Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse chasing lawyers in this count
ry
> we are all screwed.
>
> We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country whe
re
> we are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as we s
ee
> fit regardless of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are fr
ee
> to do as you see fit. Despite all complaints=2C I will bet that 90% of us
will
> fit the Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this
> Summer.
>
> As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built an
d
> well engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a deligh
t
> to fly.
>
> --------
> OSH '10 or Bust
> Q/B - testing phase 1
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282481#282481
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
Agreed, John. I don't know what I'll do when I get to the latch
installation. I'm still working on the fuel tanks and trying to figure out
how to beef up the fuel tanks so when a passenger steps forward of the spar
they don't cause leaks around the rivets. Here's a case where this list has
given me a heads up on a potential problem, at a point where I might be able
to do something about it. I'll probably run my potential solution past
Van's, with the understanding that they will almost certainly not approve of
it due to legal concerns. I'm considering adding a doubler sheet under the
skin as they did in the wingwalk area.
But I understand that they have a business to run and that whatever I do as
the manufacturer is strictly up to me.
Jack Phillips
#40610
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:07 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
Jack Phillips...you forgot to say something. Just build the plane better,
never settle for, "Good Enough!" You and your family are going to be in the
dam thing. Van's is doing what they need to do in this litigious, greed
driven society.
> From: pietflyr@bellsouth.net
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:52:11 -0500
>
>
> I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes
on
> with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't like
> the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a
> HOMEBUILT. That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything
you
> like.
>
> I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the
> changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many
> feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage
> bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the
> case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and
> make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of
> some of the other kits out there?
>
> OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.
>
> Jack Phillips
> #40610
> Raleigh, NC
> Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting
> adventures with Pro-Seal
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:17 AM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
>
> I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B.
> Unfortunately, we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem and
> the potential liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some
> non-builder user sued Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit,
> essentially putting them out of business (like what happened to Piper a
few
> years back). I know because I lost about $5000 on my deposit with Piper.
> Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse chasing lawyers in this
country
> we are all screwed.
>
> We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country
where
> we are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as we
see
> fit regardless of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are
free
> to do as you see fit. Despite all complaints, I will bet that 90% of us
will
> fit the Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this
> Summer.
>
> As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built and
> well engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a delight
> to fly.
>
> --------
> OSH '10 or Bust
> Q/B - testing phase 1
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282481#282481
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
&=============
>
>
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Quick Build Wing Kit FOR SALE |
Complete quick build wing kit For Sale. Delivery options available.
Inventory complete without stall warning system.
Includes wing storage cart on casters.
Paul Grimstad,
Portland, Or.
503-849-2123
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
I agree Jack, quit complaining and get out there and fly the plane!
It is always easy to complain when you are not flying and you have time building
and absorbing all the comments from a site like this. You can really work yourself
up.
At our company we preach "GO TO GEMBA", which means "go to the actual place" before
you start complaining and coming up with solutions, go to where the problem
is and use it, learn it and get to know everything you can about it. Then
you can really identify the issues, the root cause and test proposed countermeasures
and possible solutions.
I have spent my last two weeks praying to the weather gods and I have not had the
answer I am looking for.
Scott Schmidt
scottmschmidt@yahoo.com
________________________________
From: Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 10:52:11 AM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes on
with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't like
the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a
HOMEBUILT. That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything you
like.
I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the
changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many
feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage
bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the
case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and
make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of
some of the other kits out there?
OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.
Jack Phillips
#40610
Raleigh, NC
Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting
adventures with Pro-Seal
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:17 AM
Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B.
Unfortunately, we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem and
the potential liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some
non-builder user sued Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit,
essentially putting them out of business (like what happened to Piper a few
years back). I know because I lost about $5000 on my deposit with Piper.
Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse chasing lawyers in this country
we are all screwed.
We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country where
we are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as we see
fit regardless of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are free
to do as you see fit. Despite all complaints, I will bet that 90% of us will
fit the Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this
Summer.
As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built and
well engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a delight
to fly.
--------
OSH '10 or Bust
Q/B - testing phase 1
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282481#282481
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
The problem is not the builder but the purchased (second owner) aircraft. We
have one here that was purchased by a businessman who according to my
sources has already lost the same door twice. No record on any FAA database
have I found. In addition his aircraft was annualed and the shop left the
nose wheel flopping side to side by 20 degrees. I talked to the second shop
who was asked to fix the nose wheel and pointed them to the MATCO axle
solution. The problem is not we builders who own and fly but the hired guns
and other sellers that build an aircraft to Vans specifications and sell it.
Since we either do not have deep pockets or are adequately liability proof,
the litigant will try and sue Vans. For me, I already have an adequate
solution to the door and will not implement the SB. Now for space to store
another box.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Mauledriver
Watson
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
--> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
This builder is thinking the solution is already out there - the aftermarket
blocks combined with the light system seems positive enough and sturdy
enough to me. Nothing else need be done in my opinion. I'm guessing that
Van may think so too when he has builder/flyer hat on.
But there's a business involved...
From a CYA perspective, I can see how the blocks and lights may not be
enough for a factory supplied solution, even if they'd like to think so.
All a litigant would have to do is pull the threads on door latching. So
they've put out a very positive, perhaps crude, probably low cost but
liability avoiding solution to CYA. And left it up the flexibility of the
builder and the rules surrounding homebuilding to chose the right solutions.
I'm comfortable and perhaps even impressed.
Bill "can't wait for the SB but can't figure out where to store it" Watson
Pascal wrote:
>
> I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue
> is the solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could
> have been a better option than a hook that should have been
> considered, like improving the door, better system of locking, etc.
> I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at
> the time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime
> without issue or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane,
> Vans knows planes significantly better than I so why not get their
> doors to close correctly to start with versus putting out a SB that I
> think avoids the issue to start with.
> So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook
> that brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.
> Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with
> Dick flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better
> solution.
> Pascal
>
>
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
Well that opens a whole other problem area. If you don't implement the S
B, and the aircraft is sold to someone else who then looses the door, you a
re also potentially liable. Call the aircraft Bob's Toy in the paperwork i
f you want, the insurance company won't care when they are looking for a wa
y to offset the costs.
Michael
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of DLM
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
The problem is not the builder but the purchased (second owner) aircraft. W
e have one here that was purchased by a businessman who according to my sou
rces has already lost the same door twice. No record on any FAA database ha
ve I found. In addition his aircraft was annualed and the shop left the nos
e wheel flopping side to side by 20 degrees. I talked to the second shop wh
o was asked to fix the nose wheel and pointed them to the MATCO axle soluti
on. The problem is not we builders who own and fly but the hired guns and o
ther sellers that build an aircraft to Vans specifications and sell it. Sin
ce we either do not have deep pockets or are adequately liability proof, th
e litigant will try and sue Vans. For me, I already have an adequate soluti
on to the door and will not implement the SB. Now for space to store anothe
r box.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@m
atronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Mauledriver Watson
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
--> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
This builder is thinking the solution is already out there - the aftermarke
t blocks combined with the light system seems positive enough and sturdy en
ough to me. Nothing else need be done in my opinion. I'm guessing that Va
n may think so too when he has builder/flyer hat on.
But there's a business involved...
From a CYA perspective, I can see how the blocks and lights may not be eno
ugh for a factory supplied solution, even if they'd like to think so. All
a litigant would have to do is pull the threads on door latching. So they'
ve put out a very positive, perhaps crude, probably low cost but liability
avoiding solution to CYA. And left it up the flexibility of the builder an
d the rules surrounding homebuilding to chose the right solutions.
I'm comfortable and perhaps even impressed.
Bill "can't wait for the SB but can't figure out where to store it" Watson
Pascal wrote:
>
> I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue
> is the solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could
> have been a better option than a hook that should have been
> considered, like improving the door, better system of locking, etc.
> I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at
> the time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime
> without issue or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane,
> Vans knows planes significantly better than I so why not get their
> doors to close correctly to start with versus putting out a SB that I
> think avoids the issue to start with.
> So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook
> that brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.
> Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with
> Dick flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better
> solution.
> Pascal
>
>
more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
content also available via the Web Forums!
http://forums.matronics.com
you for your generous support!
--> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
I'm not sure I understand or agree with the statement/s, about the
original builder's liability increasing in the event of an accident
after resale. If that's true, then any modification other than paint
scheme carries the same potential. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not aware
of any successful lawsuit on an experimental builder following an
accident, by either an insurance company or a plaintif. Maybe I'm just
ignorant ( OK let the comments rain!).
Deems Davis
N519PJ
www.deemsrv10.com
On 1/20/2010 3:38 PM, RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>
> Well that opens a whole other problem area. If you don't implement
> the SB, and the aircraft is sold to someone else who then looses the
> door, you are also potentially liable. Call the aircraft Bob's Toy in
> the paperwork if you want, the insurance company won't care when they
> are looking for a way to offset the costs.
>
> Michael
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *DLM
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:21 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
> The problem is not the builder but the purchased (second owner)
> aircraft. We have one here that was purchased by a businessman who
> according to my sources has already lost the same door twice. No
> record on any FAA database have I found. In addition his aircraft was
> annualed and the shop left the nose wheel flopping side to side by 20
> degrees. I talked to the second shop who was asked to fix the nose
> wheel and pointed them to the MATCO axle solution. The problem is not
> we builders who own and fly but the hired guns and other sellers that
> build an aircraft to Vans specifications and sell it. Since we either
> do not have deep pockets or are adequately liability proof, the
> litigant will try and sue Vans. For me, I already have an adequate
> solution to the door and will not implement the SB. Now for space to
> store another box.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Mauledriver Watson
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:46 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
> --> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>
> This builder is thinking the solution is already out there - the
> aftermarket blocks combined with the light system seems positive
> enough and sturdy enough to me. Nothing else need be done in my
> opinion. I'm guessing that Van may think so too when he has
> builder/flyer hat on.
>
> But there's a business involved...
>
> >From a CYA perspective, I can see how the blocks and lights may not be
> enough for a factory supplied solution, even if they'd like to think
> so. All a litigant would have to do is pull the threads on door
> latching. So they've put out a very positive, perhaps crude, probably
> low cost but liability avoiding solution to CYA. And left it up the
> flexibility of the builder and the rules surrounding homebuilding to
> chose the right solutions.
>
> I'm comfortable and perhaps even impressed.
>
> Bill "can't wait for the SB but can't figure out where to store it"
> Watson
>
> Pascal wrote:
> >
> > I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue
> > is the solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could
> > have been a better option than a hook that should have been
> > considered, like improving the door, better system of locking, etc.
> > I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at
> > the time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime
> > without issue or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane,
> > Vans knows planes significantly better than I so why not get their
> > doors to close correctly to start with versus putting out a SB that I
> > think avoids the issue to start with.
> > So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook
> > that brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.
> > Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with
> > Dick flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better
> > solution.
> > Pascal
> >
> >
>
>
> more:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
> content also available via the Web Forums!
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> you for your generous support!
> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
> **
> **
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> **
> * *
> *
>
>
> *
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
So give them the parts, and make them sign a statement
saying they understand that the SB was not complied with,
and that any and all liabilities resulting from operation
of the aircraft are not yours. Then, sign your logbook
off as the repair person as "unairworthy" due to the
non-compliance with the SB, and tell them that now, in
order to fly it home, they need to get a ferry permit
and sign-off from an A&P. ;) You can't get rid of
all liability ANY time you are going to sell that plane,
but you can minimize your liability if you try.
If you have a seriously interested buyer, they'd probably
be fine jumping through that hoop just to buy your plane.
Or, option 2....just build the dang plane to FLY it,
not to sell it. :)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
> Well that opens a whole other problem area. If you dont implement
> the SB, and the aircraft is sold to someone else who then looses the
> door, you are also potentially liable. Call the aircraft Bobs Toy in
> the paperwork if you want, the insurance company wont care when they
> are looking for a way to offset the costs.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *DLM
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:21 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
>
>
> The problem is not the builder but the purchased (second owner)
> aircraft. We have one here that was purchased by a businessman who
> according to my sources has already lost the same door twice. No record
> on any FAA database have I found. In addition his aircraft was annualed
> and the shop left the nose wheel flopping side to side by 20 degrees. I
> talked to the second shop who was asked to fix the nose wheel and
> pointed them to the MATCO axle solution. The problem is not we builders
> who own and fly but the hired guns and other sellers that build an
> aircraft to Vans specifications and sell it. Since we either do not have
> deep pockets or are adequately liability proof, the litigant will try
> and sue Vans. For me, I already have an adequate solution to the door
> and will not implement the SB. Now for space to store another box.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Mauledriver Watson
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:46 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
> --> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>
> This builder is thinking the solution is already out there - the
> aftermarket blocks combined with the light system seems positive enough
> and sturdy enough to me. Nothing else need be done in my opinion. I'm
> guessing that Van may think so too when he has builder/flyer hat on.
>
> But there's a business involved...
>
> >From a CYA perspective, I can see how the blocks and lights may not be
> enough for a factory supplied solution, even if they'd like to think
> so. All a litigant would have to do is pull the threads on door
> latching. So they've put out a very positive, perhaps crude, probably
> low cost but liability avoiding solution to CYA. And left it up the
> flexibility of the builder and the rules surrounding homebuilding to
> chose the right solutions.
>
> I'm comfortable and perhaps even impressed.
>
> Bill "can't wait for the SB but can't figure out where to store it" Watson
>
>
>
> Pascal wrote:
>>
>> I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue
>> is the solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could
>> have been a better option than a hook that should have been
>> considered, like improving the door, better system of locking, etc.
>> I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at
>> the time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime
>> without issue or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane,
>> Vans knows planes significantly better than I so why not get their
>> doors to close correctly to start with versus putting out a SB that I
>> think avoids the issue to start with.
>> So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook
>> that brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.
>> Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with
>> Dick flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better
>> solution.
>> Pascal
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> more:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
> content also available via the Web Forums!
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> you for your generous support!
> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Quick Build Wing Kit FOR SALE |
Paul are you giving up on your -10?
Jack Phillips
#40610
Raleigh, NC
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Grimstad
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:35 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Quick Build Wing Kit FOR SALE
Complete quick build wing kit For Sale. Delivery options available.
Inventory complete without stall warning system.
Includes wing storage cart on casters.
Paul Grimstad,
Portland, Or.
503-849-2123
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
If you want to improve on Van's seal method, add a coat of CS3204
A-2(PR 1422 A-2) over the original B-2 sealant, before you install the
back baffle. It is a brushing compound intended to cover rivet heads
and fill any gaps in the B-2. Then put a coat of CS3600 (PR1005L)
sloshing compound over that. Every Mooney wet wing tank is sealed that
way. A belt and suspenders approach.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Agreed, John. I dont know what Ill do when I get to the latch
> installation. Im still working on the fuel tanks and trying to figure out
> how to beef up the fuel tanks so when a passenger steps forward of the spar
> they dont cause leaks around the rivets. Heres a case where this list has
> given me a heads up on a potential problem, at a point where I might be able
> to do something about it. Ill probably run my potential solution past
> Vans, with the understanding that they will almost certainly not approve of
> it due to legal concerns. Im considering adding a doubler sheet under the
> skin as they did in the wingwalk area.
>
>
> But I understand that they have a business to run and that whatever I do as
> the manufacturer is strictly up to me.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> #40610
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:07 PM
> To: RV 10 group
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
>
> Jack Phillips...you forgotto say something. Just build the plane better,
> never settle for, "Good Enough!" You and your family are going to be in the
> dam thing.Van's is doing what they need to do in this litigious, greed
> driven society.
>
>
>> From: pietflyr@bellsouth.net
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:52:11 -0500
>>
>>
>> I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes
>> on
>> with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't like
>> the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a
>> HOMEBUILT. That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything
>> you
>> like.
>>
>> I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the
>> changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many
>> feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage
>> bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the
>> case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and
>> make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of
>> some of the other kits out there?
>>
>> OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.
>>
>> Jack Phillips
>> #40610
>> Raleigh, NC
>> Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting
>> adventures with Pro-Seal
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:17 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>>
>>
>> I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B.
>> Unfortunately, we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem and
>> the potential liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some
>> non-builder user sued Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit,
>> essentially putting them out of business (like what happened to Piper a
>> few
>> years back). I know because I lost about $5000 on my deposit with Piper.
>> Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse chasing lawyers in this
>> country
>> we are all screwed.
>>
>> We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country
>> where
>> we are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as we
>> see
>> fit regardless of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are
>> free
>> to do as you see fit. Despite all complaints, I will bet that 90% of us
>> will
>> fit the Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this
>> Summer.
>>
>> As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built and
>> well engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a delight
>> to fly.
>>
>> --------
>> OSH '10 or Bust
>> Q/B - testing phase 1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282481#282481
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> &=============
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
Thanks, Kelly. Where can I find that CS3204 A-2?
Jack Phillips
#40610
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
If you want to improve on Van's seal method, add a coat of CS3204
A-2(PR 1422 A-2) over the original B-2 sealant, before you install the
back baffle. It is a brushing compound intended to cover rivet heads
and fill any gaps in the B-2. Then put a coat of CS3600 (PR1005L)
sloshing compound over that. Every Mooney wet wing tank is sealed that
way. A belt and suspenders approach.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> Agreed, John. I dont know what Ill do when I get to the latch
> installation. Im still working on the fuel tanks and trying to figure
out
> how to beef up the fuel tanks so when a passenger steps forward of the
spar
> they dont cause leaks around the rivets. Heres a case where this list
has
> given me a heads up on a potential problem, at a point where I might be
able
> to do something about it. Ill probably run my potential solution past
> Vans, with the understanding that they will almost certainly not approve
of
> it due to legal concerns. Im considering adding a doubler sheet under
the
> skin as they did in the wingwalk area.
>
>
> But I understand that they have a business to run and that whatever I do
as
> the manufacturer is strictly up to me.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> #40610
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:07 PM
> To: RV 10 group
> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
>
> Jack Phillips...you forgotto say something. Just build the plane better,
> never settle for, "Good Enough!" You and your family are going to be in
the
> dam thing.Van's is doing what they need to do in this litigious, greed
> driven society.
>
>
>> From: pietflyr@bellsouth.net
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:52:11 -0500
>>
>>
>> I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes
>> on
>> with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't
like
>> the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a
>> HOMEBUILT. That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything
>> you
>> like.
>>
>> I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the
>> changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many
>> feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage
>> bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the
>> case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and
>> make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of
>> some of the other kits out there?
>>
>> OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.
>>
>> Jack Phillips
>> #40610
>> Raleigh, NC
>> Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting
>> adventures with Pro-Seal
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:17 AM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>>
>>
>> I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B.
>> Unfortunately, we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem
and
>> the potential liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some
>> non-builder user sued Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit,
>> essentially putting them out of business (like what happened to Piper a
>> few
>> years back). I know because I lost about $5000 on my deposit with Piper.
>> Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse chasing lawyers in this
>> country
>> we are all screwed.
>>
>> We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country
>> where
>> we are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as we
>> see
>> fit regardless of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are
>> free
>> to do as you see fit. Despite all complaints, I will bet that 90% of us
>> will
>> fit the Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this
>> Summer.
>>
>> As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built
and
>> well engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a
delight
>> to fly.
>>
>> --------
>> OSH '10 or Bust
>> Q/B - testing phase 1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Read this topic online here:
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282481#282481
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> &=============
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
Sealpak is one vendor. I don't recall if Sacramento Sky Ranch or
Spruce had it. Be prepared for hazmat fee, as it contains enough
Toluene to have flash point around 90.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Kelly. Where can I find that CS3204 A-2?
>
> Jack Phillips
> #40610
> Raleigh, NC
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kelly McMullen
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:23 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
>
> If you want to improve on Van's seal method, add a coat of CS3204
> A-2(PR 1422 A-2) over the original B-2 sealant, before you install the
> back baffle. It is a brushing compound intended to cover rivet heads
> and fill any gaps in the B-2. Then put a coat of CS3600 (PR1005L)
> sloshing compound over that. Every Mooney wet wing tank is sealed that
> way. A belt and suspenders approach.
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Jack Phillips <pietflyr@bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
>> Agreed, John. I dont know what Ill do when I get to the latch
>> installation. Im still working on the fuel tanks and trying to figure
> out
>> how to beef up the fuel tanks so when a passenger steps forward of the
> spar
>> they dont cause leaks around the rivets. Heres a case where this list
> has
>> given me a heads up on a potential problem, at a point where I might be
> able
>> to do something about it. Ill probably run my potential solution past
>> Vans, with the understanding that they will almost certainly not approve
> of
>> it due to legal concerns. Im considering adding a doubler sheet under
> the
>> skin as they did in the wingwalk area.
>>
>>
>>
>> But I understand that they have a business to run and that whatever I do
> as
>> the manufacturer is strictly up to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack Phillips
>>
>> #40610
>>
>> Raleigh, NC
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Gonzalez
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:07 PM
>> To: RV 10 group
>> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack Phillips...you forgotto say something. Just build the plane better,
>> never settle for, "Good Enough!" You and your family are going to be in
> the
>> dam thing.Van's is doing what they need to do in this litigious, greed
>> driven society.
>>
>>
>>
>>> From: pietflyr@bellsouth.net
>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>>> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:52:11 -0500
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree Mike. I am continually amazed at the amount of whining that goes
>>> on
>>> with this list. I think the quality of Van's kit is incredible. Don't
> like
>>> the door latching mechanism? Fine - you are free to change it. It's a
>>> HOMEBUILT. That means you, as the manufacturer, are free to do anything
>>> you
>>> like.
>>>
>>> I think Van's has done an excellent job with this kit, and has made the
>>> changes they felt necessary based on real world flight experience. Many
>>> feel the changes are un-necessary (particularly the SB on the empennage
>>> bulkhead to prevent the crack found on the prototype), or ugly, as is the
>>> case with this one. Every builder is free to evaluate these changes and
>>> make their own decisions for incorporation. Ever look at the quality of
>>> some of the other kits out there?
>>>
>>> OK - off the soapbox and preparing for the flames.
>>>
>>> Jack Phillips
>>> #40610
>>> Raleigh, NC
>>> Slo-Build Wings - assembling the fuel tanks and eagerly awaiting
>>> adventures with Pro-Seal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of AirMike
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:17 AM
>>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>>> Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to give my kiddos to Van's for coming out with this S/B.
>>> Unfortunately, we all live in a CYA world. They recognized the problem
> and
>>> the potential liability and acted. Would any of us rather that some
>>> non-builder user sued Van's and won a big (say $30 million) lawsuit,
>>> essentially putting them out of business (like what happened to Piper a
>>> few
>>> years back). I know because I lost about $5000 on my deposit with Piper.
>>> Until we get rid of the ambulance or hearse chasing lawyers in this
>>> country
>>> we are all screwed.
>>>
>>> We are still (at least for a while) lucky enough to live in a country
>>> where
>>> we are free to build and modify these amazing experimental planes as we
>>> see
>>> fit regardless of any S/B. Use the S/B - ignore it - modify it you are
>>> free
>>> to do as you see fit. Despite all complaints, I will bet that 90% of us
>>> will
>>> fit the Van's S/B (or some mutation of it) when we show up at OSH this
>>> Summer.
>>>
>>> As we all know Van's philosophy is to build a light - adequately built
> and
>>> well engineered aircraft that flies fast - turns easily - and is a
> delight
>>> to fly.
>>>
>>> --------
>>> OSH '10 or Bust
>>> Q/B - testing phase 1
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Read this topic online here:
>>>
>>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282481#282481
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> &=============
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
Build it to fly it is my first goal but I'm not going to forsake resale value
in the event of (insert personal disaster here) because I built it to fly myself.
That would be a bit silly on a 150k+ asset.
To your point, worrying about these types of things can drive you nuts with different
possibilities and bottom feeders will always go after anyone they can
anyway. Limit of liability paperwork has been thrown out of court on many occasions
and I consider protecting my family's legal and financial future nearly
as important and as their safety and well being. If it was just me I wouldn't
care much but I'm not going to risk my family's future because of my hobby.
Making a buyer jump through hoops was much more likely 2 years ago than it is
today.
The reality is regardless if you comply with it or not, you are always open to
said bottom feeders in anything that is considered a "rich man's" hobby, at
least as USA Crapday would have you believe thanks to the loss of objectivity
in the media. But I digress.
My $0.002
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
So give them the parts, and make them sign a statement
saying they understand that the SB was not complied with,
and that any and all liabilities resulting from operation
of the aircraft are not yours. Then, sign your logbook
off as the repair person as "unairworthy" due to the
non-compliance with the SB, and tell them that now, in
order to fly it home, they need to get a ferry permit
and sign-off from an A&P. ;) You can't get rid of
all liability ANY time you are going to sell that plane,
but you can minimize your liability if you try.
If you have a seriously interested buyer, they'd probably
be fine jumping through that hoop just to buy your plane.
Or, option 2....just build the dang plane to FLY it,
not to sell it. :)
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
do not archive
RV Builder (MichaelSausen) wrote:
> Well that opens a whole other problem area. If you don't implement
> the SB, and the aircraft is sold to someone else who then looses the
> door, you are also potentially liable. Call the aircraft Bob's Toy in
> the paperwork if you want, the insurance company won't care when they
> are looking for a way to offset the costs.
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *DLM
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:21 PM
> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
>
>
> The problem is not the builder but the purchased (second owner)
> aircraft. We have one here that was purchased by a businessman who
> according to my sources has already lost the same door twice. No record
> on any FAA database have I found. In addition his aircraft was annualed
> and the shop left the nose wheel flopping side to side by 20 degrees. I
> talked to the second shop who was asked to fix the nose wheel and
> pointed them to the MATCO axle solution. The problem is not we builders
> who own and fly but the hired guns and other sellers that build an
> aircraft to Vans specifications and sell it. Since we either do not have
> deep pockets or are adequately liability proof, the litigant will try
> and sue Vans. For me, I already have an adequate solution to the door
> and will not implement the SB. Now for space to store another box.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Mauledriver Watson
>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:46 PM
> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>
> --> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>
> This builder is thinking the solution is already out there - the
> aftermarket blocks combined with the light system seems positive enough
> and sturdy enough to me. Nothing else need be done in my opinion. I'm
> guessing that Van may think so too when he has builder/flyer hat on.
>
> But there's a business involved...
>
> >From a CYA perspective, I can see how the blocks and lights may not be
> enough for a factory supplied solution, even if they'd like to think
> so. All a litigant would have to do is pull the threads on door
> latching. So they've put out a very positive, perhaps crude, probably
> low cost but liability avoiding solution to CYA. And left it up the
> flexibility of the builder and the rules surrounding homebuilding to
> chose the right solutions.
>
> I'm comfortable and perhaps even impressed.
>
> Bill "can't wait for the SB but can't figure out where to store it" Watson
>
>
>
> Pascal wrote:
>>
>> I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue
>> is the solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could
>> have been a better option than a hook that should have been
>> considered, like improving the door, better system of locking, etc.
>> I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at
>> the time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime
>> without issue or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane,
>> Vans knows planes significantly better than I so why not get their
>> doors to close correctly to start with versus putting out a SB that I
>> think avoids the issue to start with.
>> So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook
>> that brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.
>> Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with
>> Dick flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better
>> solution.
>> Pascal
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> more:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>
>
> content also available via the Web Forums!
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
>
> you for your generous support!
> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
An inspection is either signed as airworthy or unairworthy, with a
statement that a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items was
provided to the owner. It is not proper to state any discrepancies in
the logbook. See 43.11 (a)(5).
Kelly
40866
A&P?IA
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> So give them the parts, and make them sign a statement
> saying they understand that the SB was not complied with,
> and that any and all liabilities resulting from operation
> of the aircraft are not yours. Then, sign your logbook
> off as the repair person as "unairworthy" due to the
> non-compliance with the SB, and tell them that now, in
> order to fly it home, they need to get a ferry permit
> and sign-off from an A&P. ;) You can't get rid of
> all liability ANY time you are going to sell that plane,
> but you can minimize your liability if you try.
> If you have a seriously interested buyer, they'd probably
> be fine jumping through that hoop just to buy your plane.
>
> Or, option 2....just build the dang plane to FLY it,
> not to sell it. :)
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>> Well that opens a whole other problem area. If you dont implement
>> the SB, and the aircraft is sold to someone else who then looses the
>> door, you are also potentially liable. Call the aircraft Bobs Toy
>> in the paperwork if you want, the insurance company wont care when
>> they are looking for a way to offset the costs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *DLM
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:21 PM
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem is not the builder but the purchased (second owner)
>> aircraft. We have one here that was purchased by a businessman who
>> according to my sources has already lost the same door twice. No
>> record on any FAA database have I found. In addition his aircraft was
>> annualed and the shop left the nose wheel flopping side to side by 20
>> degrees. I talked to the second shop who was asked to fix the nose
>> wheel and pointed them to the MATCO axle solution. The problem is not
>> we builders who own and fly but the hired guns and other sellers that
>> build an aircraft to Vans specifications and sell it. Since we either
>> do not have deep pockets or are adequately liability proof, the
>> litigant will try and sue Vans. For me, I already have an adequate
>> solution to the door and will not implement the SB. Now for space to
>> store another box.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>> Mauledriver Watson
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:46 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>>
>> --> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>>
>> This builder is thinking the solution is already out there - the
>> aftermarket blocks combined with the light system seems positive
>> enough and sturdy enough to me. Nothing else need be done in my
>> opinion. I'm guessing that Van may think so too when he has
>> builder/flyer hat on.
>> But there's a business involved...
>>
>> >From a CYA perspective, I can see how the blocks and lights may not
>> be enough for a factory supplied solution, even if they'd like to
>> think so. All a litigant would have to do is pull the threads on
>> door latching. So they've put out a very positive, perhaps crude,
>> probably low cost but liability avoiding solution to CYA. And left
>> it up the flexibility of the builder and the rules surrounding
>> homebuilding to chose the right solutions.
>>
>> I'm comfortable and perhaps even impressed.
>>
>> Bill "can't wait for the SB but can't figure out where to store it"
>> Watson
>>
>>
>>
>> Pascal wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue
>>> is the solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could
>>> have been a better option than a hook that should have been
>>> considered, like improving the door, better system of locking, etc.
>>> I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at
>>> the time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime
>>> without issue or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane,
>>> Vans knows planes significantly better than I so why not get their
>>> doors to close correctly to start with versus putting out a SB that I
>>> think avoids the issue to start with.
>>> So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook
>>> that brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.
>>> Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with
>>> Dick flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better
>>> solution.
>>> Pascal
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> more:
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>>
>> content also available via the Web Forums!
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
>> you for your generous support!
>> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> **
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
An inspection is either signed as airworthy or unairworthy, with a
statement that a list of discrepancies and unairworthy items was
provided to the owner. It is not proper to state any discrepancies in
the logbook. See 43.11 (a)(5).
Kelly
40866
A&P/IA
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> So give them the parts, and make them sign a statement
> saying they understand that the SB was not complied with,
> and that any and all liabilities resulting from operation
> of the aircraft are not yours. Then, sign your logbook
> off as the repair person as "unairworthy" due to the
> non-compliance with the SB, and tell them that now, in
> order to fly it home, they need to get a ferry permit
> and sign-off from an A&P. ;) You can't get rid of
> all liability ANY time you are going to sell that plane,
> but you can minimize your liability if you try.
> If you have a seriously interested buyer, they'd probably
> be fine jumping through that hoop just to buy your plane.
>
> Or, option 2....just build the dang plane to FLY it,
> not to sell it. :)
>
> Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
> do not archive
>
>
> RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote:
>> Well that opens a whole other problem area. If you dont implement
>> the SB, and the aircraft is sold to someone else who then looses the
>> door, you are also potentially liable. Call the aircraft Bobs Toy
>> in the paperwork if you want, the insurance company wont care when
>> they are looking for a way to offset the costs.
>>
>>
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *DLM
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:21 PM
>> *To:* rv10-list@matronics.com
>> *Subject:* RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem is not the builder but the purchased (second owner)
>> aircraft. We have one here that was purchased by a businessman who
>> according to my sources has already lost the same door twice. No
>> record on any FAA database have I found. In addition his aircraft was
>> annualed and the shop left the nose wheel flopping side to side by 20
>> degrees. I talked to the second shop who was asked to fix the nose
>> wheel and pointed them to the MATCO axle solution. The problem is not
>> we builders who own and fly but the hired guns and other sellers that
>> build an aircraft to Vans specifications and sell it. Since we either
>> do not have deep pockets or are adequately liability proof, the
>> litigant will try and sue Vans. For me, I already have an adequate
>> solution to the door and will not implement the SB. Now for space to
>> store another box.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
>> [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>> Mauledriver Watson
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:46 PM
>> To: rv10-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB
>>
>> --> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
>>
>> This builder is thinking the solution is already out there - the
>> aftermarket blocks combined with the light system seems positive
>> enough and sturdy enough to me. Nothing else need be done in my
>> opinion. I'm guessing that Van may think so too when he has
>> builder/flyer hat on.
>> But there's a business involved...
>>
>> >From a CYA perspective, I can see how the blocks and lights may not
>> be enough for a factory supplied solution, even if they'd like to
>> think so. All a litigant would have to do is pull the threads on
>> door latching. So they've put out a very positive, perhaps crude,
>> probably low cost but liability avoiding solution to CYA. And left
>> it up the flexibility of the builder and the rules surrounding
>> homebuilding to chose the right solutions.
>>
>> I'm comfortable and perhaps even impressed.
>>
>> Bill "can't wait for the SB but can't figure out where to store it"
>> Watson
>>
>>
>>
>> Pascal wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree, as I gather most agree, Vans make a wonderful kit, the issue
>>> is the solution Vans came up with for the door. I believe there could
>>> have been a better option than a hook that should have been
>>> considered, like improving the door, better system of locking, etc.
>>> I built my door so they close correctly, rear first, my 5 year old (at
>>> the time) beta tested it for me and it closes each and everytime
>>> without issue or the rear not closing. I am just building a plane,
>>> Vans knows planes significantly better than I so why not get their
>>> doors to close correctly to start with versus putting out a SB that I
>>> think avoids the issue to start with.
>>> So my whining is- improve the issue before band aiding it with a hook
>>> that brings yet another issue, rain getting into the doors being one.
>>> Vans is a good company I think they thought this through, but with
>>> Dick flying his own plane one would think he would have found a better
>>> solution.
>>> Pascal
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> more:
>>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List
>>
>>
>> content also available via the Web Forums!
>> http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>>
>> you for your generous support!
>> --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>>
>>
>> * *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> **
>>
>> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>>
>> **
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: From Van's on the door SB |
I'd suggest that if you sell your aircraft, hand the new owner the parts and the
SB for the door. Now it's his choice. Lawyers may still come after you, but
at least you have a plausible defense.
--------
Bob Turner
RV-10 QB
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=282631#282631
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|