---------------------------------------------------------- RV10-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 01/20/10: 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:48:54 AM PST US From: Bill Mauledriver Watson Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: doors & insulation So, did you use the same McMaster seals I'm getting ready to use? 1 1120A411 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 1 Each Oil-and Water-resistant Vinyl/buna-n Foam, Adhesive-back, Extra-soft, 1/8" Thk, 3/4"w, 50'l 3 93745K43 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" > > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:32 AM > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: doors & insulation > > >> >> >> 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 >>> >>> 50 Ft. Edge-grip Rubber Seal, Bulb Opposite Grabber, 1/4" Edge, 3/8" >>> Bulb Width >>> >>> Geoff >>> ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:03:34 AM PST US From: "Seano" Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: doors & insulation Bill, Call me 801-580-3737 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Mauledriver Watson" Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:44 AM Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: doors & insulation > > > So, did you use the same McMaster seals I'm getting ready to use? > 1 1120A411 > > 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 > > 1 Each Oil-and Water-resistant Vinyl/buna-n Foam, Adhesive-back, > Extra-soft, 1/8" Thk, 3/4"w, 50'l > 3 93745K43 > > 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" >> >> To: >> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:32 AM >> Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: doors & insulation >> >> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>>> >>>> 50 Ft. Edge-grip Rubber Seal, Bulb Opposite Grabber, 1/4" Edge, 3/8" >>>> Bulb Width >>>> >>>> Geoff >>>> > > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:03:46 AM PST US From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 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 1 Each Oil-and Water-resistant Vinyl/buna-n Foam, Adhesive-back, Extra-soft, 1/8" Thk, 3/4"w, 50'l 3 93745K43 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" > > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:32 AM > Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: doors & insulation > > >> >> >> 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 >>> >>> 50 Ft. Edge-grip Rubber Seal, Bulb Opposite Grabber, 1/4" Edge, 3/8" >>> Bulb Width >>> >>> Geoff >>> ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:13:13 AM PST US From: "Pascal" Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:53:54 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: Floating Skybolts From: "AirMike" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:19:50 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB From: "AirMike" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:53:26 AM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" 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 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:25:31 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB From: "Bob Turner" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:57:26 AM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: Floating Skybolts From: "Lenny Iszak" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:13:03 AM PST US From: "Rick" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:58:57 AM PST US From: "Pascal" 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" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:54:28 PM PST US From: Bill Mauledriver Watson Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:54:28 PM PST US From: Bill Mauledriver Watson Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:54:48 PM PST US From: Tim Olson Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:58:24 PM PST US Subject: RE: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB From: "Perry, Phil" 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" 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 16 ____________________________________ Time: 12:58:52 PM PST US From: John Gonzalez Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:11:19 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:54:44 PM PST US From: "Paul Grimstad" 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 19 ____________________________________ Time: 02:03:46 PM PST US From: Scott Schmidt Subject: RV10-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:22:18 PM PST US From: "DLM" 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 Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 21 ____________________________________ Time: 02:49:29 PM PST US From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:17:01 PM PST US From: Deems Davis Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 > > --> > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:24:00 PM PST US From: Tim Olson 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 (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 > > --> > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:59:36 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:25:58 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB From: Kelly McMullen 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:58:43 PM PST US From: "Jack Phillips" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:13:09 PM PST US Subject: Re: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB From: Kelly McMullen 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 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 > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:27:46 PM PST US From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Subject: RE: RV10-List: 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 > > --> > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:51:52 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 >> >> --> >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:00 PM PST US From: Kelly McMullen Subject: Re: RV10-List: 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 >> >> --> >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:57:19 PM PST US Subject: RV10-List: Re: From Van's on the door SB From: "Bob Turner" 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message rv10-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV10-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv10-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv10-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.