FA Ebay: EVANS VOLKSPLANE VP1 "A REAL BEAUTY"

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Interesting. It does not have the "jury strut" between the front spar and
the front strut brace (which is called out on the plans). I wonder what
else was skipped.

"JR" wrote in message
...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Hello-Why not ask me the seller? Duh

"Harry O" wrote in message
...
Interesting. It does not have the "jury strut" between the front spar and
the front strut brace (which is called out on the plans). I wonder what
else was skipped.

"JR" wrote in message
...


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Actually, I wouldn't touch any airplane that left out structural parts. I
was pointing it out for those who might not be as familiar with the
airplane. But, since you are here, why were the jury struts (which keep the
wing struts from buckling under compression load) left off? This is
particularly important with the VP-1 since the wing struts are almost always
under compression.

"JR" wrote in message
om...
Hello-Why not ask me the seller? Duh

"Harry O" wrote in message
...
Interesting. It does not have the "jury strut" between the front spar
and
the front strut brace (which is called out on the plans). I wonder what
else was skipped.

"JR" wrote in message
...



http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Listen up Mr. HARRY O

Your remark to make the aircraft sound unsafe was a fruitless attempt to
keep the plane from selling.

If you would had read the eBay listing it states I would prefer someone who
is familiar with the VP1 and plans to make corrections if desired on such
things. The jury struts can be easily installed by anyone who can drill two
holes.

Furthermore if you look at the pictures of the VP1
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/volksplane/lst
you would notice more than half of the planes don't have them.

Lastly, over the hundreds of hours documented in the plane's log book I
would say its safe to fly as is.
And to be exact The drawing for the jury struts is on page 48a and is dated
9-7-71 so plans prior to that DID NOT USE THEM.

The ad states this is a homebuilt and buyer should be aware.

If you wouldn't touch it,then move on and quit publicly bad mouthing my
airplane and quit trying to get others to jump on the bandwagon with you,
your not that convincing.

"Harry O" wrote in message
...
Actually, I wouldn't touch any airplane that left out structural parts. I
was pointing it out for those who might not be as familiar with the
airplane. But, since you are here, why were the jury struts (which keep
the
wing struts from buckling under compression load) left off? This is
particularly important with the VP-1 since the wing struts are almost
always
under compression.

"JR" wrote in message
om...
Hello-Why not ask me the seller? Duh

"Harry O" wrote in message
...
Interesting. It does not have the "jury strut" between the front spar
and
the front strut brace (which is called out on the plans). I wonder
what
else was skipped.

"JR" wrote in message
...




http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

It was a legitimate 'buyer beware' question...


JR wrote:

Listen up Mr. HARRY O

Your remark to make the aircraft sound unsafe was a fruitless attempt to
keep the plane from selling.

If you would had read the eBay listing it states I would prefer someone who
is familiar with the VP1 and plans to make corrections if desired on such
things. The jury struts can be easily installed by anyone who can drill two
holes.

Furthermore if you look at the pictures of the VP1
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/volksplane/lst
you would notice more than half of the planes don't have them.

Lastly, over the hundreds of hours documented in the plane's log book I
would say its safe to fly as is.
And to be exact The drawing for the jury struts is on page 48a and is dated
9-7-71 so plans prior to that DID NOT USE THEM.

The ad states this is a homebuilt and buyer should be aware.

If you wouldn't touch it,then move on and quit publicly bad mouthing my
airplane and quit trying to get others to jump on the bandwagon with you,
your not that convincing.

"Harry O" wrote in message
...
Actually, I wouldn't touch any airplane that left out structural parts. I
was pointing it out for those who might not be as familiar with the
airplane. But, since you are here, why were the jury struts (which keep
the
wing struts from buckling under compression load) left off? This is
particularly important with the VP-1 since the wing struts are almost
always
under compression.

"JR" wrote in message
om...
Hello-Why not ask me the seller? Duh

"Harry O" wrote in message
...
Interesting. It does not have the "jury strut" between the front spar
and
the front strut brace (which is called out on the plans). I wonder
what
else was skipped.

"JR" wrote in message
...




http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

I wpould not buy anything from someone with feedback as low as the sellers.
Les

On 10-Jun-2004, "JR" wrote:

Listen up Mr. HARRY O

Your remark to make the aircraft sound unsafe was a fruitless attempt to
keep the plane from selling.

If you would had read the eBay listing it states I would prefer someone
who
is familiar with the VP1 and plans to make corrections if desired on such
things. The jury struts can be easily installed by anyone who can drill
two
holes.

Furthermore if you look at the pictures of the VP1
http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/volksplane/lst
you would notice more than half of the planes don't have them.

Lastly, over the hundreds of hours documented in the plane's log book I
would say its safe to fly as is.
And to be exact The drawing for the jury struts is on page 48a and is
dated
9-7-71 so plans prior to that DID NOT USE THEM.

The ad states this is a homebuilt and buyer should be aware.

If you wouldn't touch it,then move on and quit publicly bad mouthing my
airplane and quit trying to get others to jump on the bandwagon with you,
your not that convincing.

"Harry O" wrote in message
...
Actually, I wouldn't touch any airplane that left out structural parts.
I
was pointing it out for those who might not be as familiar with the
airplane. But, since you are here, why were the jury struts (which keep
the
wing struts from buckling under compression load) left off? This is
particularly important with the VP-1 since the wing struts are almost
always
under compression.

"JR" wrote in message
om...
Hello-Why not ask me the seller? Duh

"Harry O" wrote in message
...
Interesting. It does not have the "jury strut" between the front
spar
and
the front strut brace (which is called out on the plans). I wonder
what
else was skipped.

"JR" wrote in message
...




http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

Nothing else was skiped, as you would like to have others believe-

The plane as documented in its logs flew hundreds of hours with out jury
struts.

You are trying to make a big deal over nothing. When in reality there isn't
much involved,drilling an extra hole in the strut and having a tube welded
in,cutting a piece of aluminum angle to shape, drilling a few holes and
cutting a piece of streamline tube. The drawback is a little more
drag but the extra strength in the strut offsets that.

"Harry O" wrote in message
...
Interesting. It does not have the "jury strut" between the front spar and
the front strut brace (which is called out on the plans). I wonder what
else was skipped.

"JR" wrote in message
...


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eB...MESE%3AIT&rd=1

"JR" wrote in message
om...
Nothing else was skiped, as you would like to have others believe-

The plane as documented in its logs flew hundreds of hours with out jury
struts.

You are trying to make a big deal over nothing. When in reality there
isn't
much involved,drilling an extra hole in the strut and having a tube welded
in,cutting a piece of aluminum angle to shape, drilling a few holes and
cutting a piece of streamline tube. The drawback is a little more
drag but the extra strength in the strut offsets that.

One does have to ask the question, WHY. Why don't you install them if the
designer says they are needed, and you acknowlege that it is no big deal??
It seems to me that you are not a believer in "full disclosure". I
personally
thought the a/p was worth a look, but my perception of your willingness to
hide things dictates I pass on it. Your loss for not being forthcoming with
all the facts......................... Scott

Scott-
I really don't care if you look or not............it's your lost at this
price. I am not hiding anything, I bought the plane like this and it will be
sold AS-IS. And if you can't catch things that are missed or the builder
is unaware of on an experimental/homebuilt then you
should buy a GA aircraft. And further more for the record in the listing"The
Ad states the plane needs an Annual Conditional Inspection", So if the A&P
who signs off the plane deems something is necessary you will
know..............the ad goes on further to say it needs registered which
means an FAA official would have to look over the plane.
So, Scott-I don't think I'll lose any sleep by you not looking at the A/P.
Later,
JR

"plasticguy" wrote in message
...

"JR" wrote in message
om...
Nothing else was skiped, as you would like to have others believe-

The plane as documented in its logs flew hundreds of hours with out jury
struts.

You are trying to make a big deal over nothing. When in reality there
isn't
much involved,drilling an extra hole in the strut and having a tube
welded
in,cutting a piece of aluminum angle to shape, drilling a few holes and
cutting a piece of streamline tube. The drawback is a little more
drag but the extra strength in the strut offsets that.

One does have to ask the question, WHY. Why don't you install them if the
designer says they are needed, and you acknowlege that it is no big deal??
It seems to me that you are not a believer in "full disclosure". I
personally
thought the a/p was worth a look, but my perception of your willingness to
hide things dictates I pass on it. Your loss for not being forthcoming
with
all the facts......................... Scott