Building from a kit - I need some feedback

[old man emu]

I looked up some information about the at KKS - Identification System for Power Plants

 

Without having any knowledge of the KKS system, it seems that the system I am employing is virtually the same.

 

First Number: Aircraft Model

 

Second Number: Major Assembly Group

 

Third Number: Major Assembly Sub-assembly

 

Fourth Number: Product Type (relates to the RAA registration type - 19,23 or 24)

 

Within the Third Number sub-assemblies, parts will be identified either by industry norms (AN, MS) or if the part is specifically manufactured (wing ribs etc) it will have an in-house ID.

 

The idea is to keep the plans, build instruction and parts identification as simple as possible. Luckily we are not building 747s, just puddle jumpers.

 

OME

 

 

[Geoff_H]

The KKS was developed for the power industry, but is most adaptable to any project, both large and small. The subtle advantages of the system is the ability to change a part and number and use it as an inventory control. It uses a plant based numbering system rather than a part based system, hence for a manufacturer the actual part ID can be hidden, a $2 part can easily be sold for a much larger value as its actual industry part number is hidden. Also rather than an "AN123456" the part would look like x3-u02, this seems impossible, however one quickly learns that it is a washer 3/16OD made of stainless steel etc. At first the system seems impossible but one quickly learns the numbering system and a bag full of 3/16 washers means little. But I found that outside of Europe it has resistance to implementation, the Americans would rather a complex number only based system. I found that the European Engineering to be far more organised than the rest of the world, they pay their engineers very well and expect them to do their job quickly and accurately. It seems like KKS is not for this job, but if you ever need any information on it let me know.

 

 

[old man emu]

Instead of the KKS system, I'd rather employ the KIS system. Why bother to re-invent the wheel when it's already bespoke? You have to remember that the hardware items in a plane are only part of the total component makeup. There will be many, many parts that are made uniquely for the planes, and it is for these parts that a variant of the KKS system can be used.

 

When I say that I'd rather employ the KIS system (Keep It Simple), it is not the object of the exercise to hide the identity of a component in order to put an outrageous price on it. I'm not involved with price setting of parts, but it should be a simple Cost + value. It's not as though these airplanes are being built for the Government.

 

OME

 

 

[Geoff_H]

I wonder how many aircraft kit manufacturers have gone out of business through less than astute business practices leaving many kit makers on their own and regretting buying the now orphan.

 

 

[djpacro]

Might be worth looking at how the Christen Eagle kits are put together

 

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pdf/FrankC.pdf

 

Been around for many years but a lot of effort was put into development of the kits. eg first step in the manual was to unpack the blade to enable you to open the first kit.

 

Still available but not cheap! Info on kits at

 

https://aviataircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Aviat_Eagle_Kit_Price_List_2015.pdf

 

Builders get comprehensive construction manuals instead of plans.