On Aug 12, 8:23 am, cavelamb himself wrote:

Did you happen to notice the date on the rant you referenced up-thread?
This referenced stuff from five years ago.

Yes.

Did you notice that I participated in it, in a very minor way?



Intentional or not, you are perpetuating an old and very tired vendetta.


Actually, you posted the link to the aformentioned rant first. I just
copied it from your article. Further, I would like to help resolve
the
issue, not perpetuate it.

Regardless of all the noise you have heard here, (and will continue to
hear) there really aren't any serious corrections to be made.


But wouldn't making thos less serious corrections be helpful
to future builders? Would it not save them the trouble of re-
making a couple of parts after finding that they don't fit?

That is all that Mr Hoover is talking about here, he's not
making any accusations of inadequacy in the design,
he wants to resolve what the design is, for the common
meaning of 'is'.

...
There was one incorrect dimension of a vertical member back in the aft
fuselage. That was corrected years ago also. It was really obvious if
you actually laid the fuselage truss out on a table to build it.

That is the sort of thing being discussed.

This is not intended to be a high tech, close tolerance, aero-space
structure. It's basically South Texas farm technology.
...

So help me out here, Fred.

What's my motivation for making a bunch of untested changes????

If I understand the issue correctly the motivation to
changing the plans is to correct errors in the drawings,
not in the design. IIUC the design in the published
plans is untested and untestable because a discrepency
in the dimensions makes it unbuildable to the plans.

These sound to be mostly minor changes in dimensions,
possibly due to typos

As you will recall, back in
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...n&dmode=source
You wrote, regarding how your planes were built:

" Because no two have been exactly alike"

Which kind of implies that the _exact_ design has never been built by
you. I never build anything exactly to plans nor any two exactly a
like either. That is not really a criticism. But it certainly can
explain
why on the plans the dimensions for two different sub-assemblies
don't match. IF it is true that they do not.

But back to the issue of dimensional discrepencies:

That is a situation that is frequently encountered in the
field or during assembly. Whenever possible the
drawings are revised to reflect the as-built condition.

As you know, the major nagging issue is the claim that
the dimensions for the carry through do not match the
dimensions for the fuselage so that if both are fabricated
according to the plans they won't fit together.

As you also know, this is entirely independent of the
claims from up North regarding the wing.

Perhaps a photo of that area would help?

Or would it be that hard to check the drawings for that
area against at least one (1) of the planes you built?

--

FF