rgmwa Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 where has the time gone? Good question. I decided to prep and prime all the interior surfaces, whereas Vans assumes all bare aluminium parts assembled straight out of the box. That alone accounts for a lot of the missing hours. In fact the basic airframe does go together quite quickly, so you initially think you're making good progress. And you are too, but then comes the avionics, running wires, crimping terminals, looking for lost tools, firewall forward installation, engine installation, hoses and engine controls, fuel and brake lines, more wiring, radiators, rigging flying controls, putting extra instruments in the panel, lights, canopy, trial fitting parts, fibreglass work, wheel fairngs, looking for more lost tools, moving stuff around, re-working parts that you messed up, doing up nuts and bolts in impossible places, adjusting stuff you thought was right first time, puzzling over the plans, etc. etc. Not saying it isn't good fun, because I've really enjoyed it and probably wouldn't mind doing it again one day. And to be fair, a few builders claim to have done it in about the estimated hours, but most are well and truly over - and that is for a kit and plans that are probably the best in the business. Building an aircraft is a big job! rgmwa 1
Tucano Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Fully agree - I would say 600 hours will do the structure but you can double that to fit the electrics panel and engine. Its the small jobs that eat the all the time, just chasing the right part takes enough. Having been in the engineering game in a previous life in any project there is no unimportant fitting when its the last one regardless of the total price of the project. 1 1
Tucano Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I have to add the Tucano air frame is alodined and power-coated etc out of the factory - that is in the price and will save a LOT of time as I can go stright to assembly and only need to prime a few small parts in the build. 2
bexrbetter Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Van's say the average builder should be able to put an RV-12 together in 700-900 hours. I'm pleased to say that it's taken me about twice that, so I must be well above average. rgmwa I have read a number of Vans builds and not many beat 1000 hours for the first 90% ... and then they start on the last 90%. I keep seeing the Tuccy on the right in the sales advert on the main page when i open the forum, what a stunning looking plane.
rgmwa Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I have read a number of Vans builds and not many beat 1000 hours for the first 90% ... and then they start on the last 90%.. For the traditional RV kits, 100o hours only gets you to 50% although you think you've reached the first 90%. I keep seeing the Tuccy on the right in the sales advert on the main page when i open the forum, what a stunning looking plane. Agreed. When I order one (just after winning Lotto), it will have to be the retractable gear version with the hotted up Rotax. The raised rear seat is a great idea for a tandem. rgmwa 1
Downunder Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 Found this on another thread here.......looks good in desert camo? http://globalaviationresource.com/v2/2013/03/27/2013-raf-tucano-display-roll-out/
bexrbetter Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 Found this on another thread here.......looks good in desert camo?http://globalaviationresource.com/v2/2013/03/27/2013-raf-tucano-display-roll-out/ Hell yeah, you wouldn't want to be seen near Ukraine though .... 1 1
dlegg Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 Van's say the average builder should be able to put an RV-12 together in 700-900 hours. I'm pleased to say that it's taken me about twice that, so I must be well above average. rgmwa Bit like golfing really. Why do people try and get a hole in one or go around 9 holes trying to hit the ball the least? Where's the value in that? You pay big money in fees, clubs, balls etc, I reckon you should take at least 10 swings per hole to get your moneys worth...... Thats why my plane took me 6 yrs and 900hrs to build:pizza: 1
bexrbetter Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 Thats why my plane took me 6 yrs and 900hrs to build:pizza: And now you have finished your Airfix model, you can now start on the real thing! 1
rgmwa Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 Bit like golfing really. Why do people try and get a hole in one or go around 9 holes trying to hit the ball the least? Where's the value in that? You pay big money in fees, clubs, balls etc, I reckon you should take at least 10 swings per hole to get your moneys worth......Thats why my plane took me 6 yrs and 900hrs to build:pizza: As a fellow builder, I like your attitude. Assembling every part 10 times over in 6 years to make sure you get your moneys worth shows real dedication. rgmwa 1
Downunder Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 Wasn't there a bloke in the states that spent 15 years scratch building a full size P-51B with Allison engine from original plans. Apparently he also made enough parts to build 10 or so more aircraft. Wouldn't have needed to work again........just unfortunate he was killed in the original one......
rgmwa Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 Jack Kearby spent just under 12 years building this from scratch. Not a bad effort! http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=115492848001 rgmwa
rankamateur Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 At an empty weight of 371 Kg ans MTOW of 600Kg, Does it really need two seats?
rankamateur Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 where has the time gone? Most of it goes on improvements, Everybody who has pointed a rivet gun at an airframe has come up with better ways to do things. Pity is they take a while to develop. 1
bexrbetter Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Most of it goes on improvements, Everybody who has pointed a rivet gun at an airframe has come up with better ways to do things. Pity is they take a while to develop. "Paralysis by Analysis" is the correct term.
bexrbetter Posted September 6, 2014 Posted September 6, 2014 Interesting how each colour scheme gives each plane such an individual look. I am refering to the emphasis of the various shapes of the plane and how the general impression of size changes.
Tucano Posted September 8, 2014 Posted September 8, 2014 This particular aircraft flew from Brazil to Oshkosh and then return. See: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Flying-Legend/562135597150287?ref=hl
Ada Elle Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 At an empty weight of 371 Kg ans MTOW of 600Kg, Does it really need two seats? 229kg payload, 2x70kg adults and 110L of fuel. or are you admitting to being on the portly side?
Kyle Communications Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 Yeah well I dont know too many pilots that weigh 70 kg .......85 to 100 kg is the norm here 1
Kyle Communications Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 Yeah well I dont know too many pilots that weigh 70 kg .......85 to 100 kg is the norm here
Kiwi303 Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 110 for me once dressed... a bit less starkers... Most people tend to well underestimate my weight tho since my build actually fits my weight. I was 85Kg once after my first year of flatting alone at uni. bad cooking and unhealthy diet meant I lost weight, and while I was down to a so-called "healthy" weight, I looked bloody gaunt. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now