Problem with homebuild: the manual

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

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

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

"Jerry Springer" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
link.net...

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




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

Michael

"nauga" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
link.net...

MINIWI wrote:


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

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

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




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

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


So 49 rule counts more than quality and safety?

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

Dave 'transmission' Hyde

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

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

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

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

Scott.

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

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

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

Rob