What kit aircraft have you built?

[kgwilson]

I'd like to build again but age and bodily flexibility is telling me No. If I did build again I don't know what I'd do with 2 aircraft. I love flying my Sierra and of course I maintain it to my exacting standards. As a retired Engineer I am probably overly fussy about things but my aircraft has no trim tabs whatsoever. Initially I was dubious about the 4 deg off set of the engine but it has paid dividends as it flies straight hands off and I use very little rudder except in a good crosswind landing and taxiing.

 

After just completing a 100 hourly I was a bit sore after crawling under the fuselage and trying to be a contortionist to get to things under the panel etc.

[rgmwa]

1 hour ago, planedriver said:

And if the wife suddenly finds you constantly under her feet after your completion, rather than you being in the shed, they may even suggest a new build for you 😄

More likely to remind you of all the household maintenance jobs still not done because you’ve been too busy in the shed.

[spacesailor]

Sitting in your aircraft !.

But

Without the last bit of paper ( pilot certificate  ), you just have to prtend to " soar like an eagle " .

spacesailor

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 22/4/2022 at 10:31 PM, rgmwa said:

I think the real builders are the scratch builders who start with a few drawings and sheets of aluminium or a load of timber. They're the ones I really admire! 

 

Kit builders are essentially aircraft assemblers rather than builders. Putting a kit together is certainly a big project that requires a fair degree of determination and some skill, but it's not particularly difficult if you choose a high quality kit, like a Vans. Good kits are certainly not cheap, but the saving in time is very substantial. We have one builder at Serpentine who fairly recently completed a superb scratch-built Piel Super Diamant, but it took him 38 years!

One of the main reasons I chose the RV-12 was that it came complete with engine, prop, avionics, wiring, hardware etc. I also knew up-front what it was going to cost, which was another big advantage. A further consideration was that it could be registered either VH or RAA, so if I couldn't maintain a CASA medical, there was still an opportunity to keep flying it. Also a bigger market if I ever sold it.

 

Building taught me a lot about aircraft, and I also made new friends along the way which was a bonus. I was also fortunate to buy when the dollar was high. Now it would cost me at least another $30-$40k to finish one.

Consequently I consider myself lucky to have a relatively high performance, relatively cheap and very economical aircraft that looks good and flies superbly. Vans like to claim their planes have `total performance', but however you do it, building and flying your own aircraft gives you a `total experience'.

 

This reminds me of an article by an economist that appeared in about 1970. He pointed out that it is not really possible for someone to make a pencil. Between getting the wood and the graphite, and making the rubber and the metal for the tip, there would be too much to do. I suppose that if someone learnt enough about chemistry, economics and cultural anthropology, it would be possible to understand a pencil. That contrasts with an iPhone. It is impossible for anyone to understand more than a small fraction of an iPhone. 

 

Scratch build? Nah. There is no point unless you design the aircraft yourself. And, guess what? You can't design an aircraft yourself. If you designed a good one, it would be an iteration and slight change on others' designs, and you couldn't design a new engine or avionics or even a new way of operating flaps or a new type of rivet. And, as for scratch building, if you were skilled enough to "assemble" a kit, you would then be able to learn in an afternoon how to operate a computer-controlled laser cutter. I dips my lid to you all, having myself built a tree house. 

 

Reminds me of (so-called) primitive cultures like the traditional one of the Australian Aboriginal. Western people probably do have a wider world view, but are not more sophisticated in their skills, just more specialised and dependent on others and technology. The flip-side of the wider world view is the specialised knowledge of a small part of the world, and the intricate religious beliefs and cultural practices.  

 

 

[danny_galaga]

Something to consider is that some off the waiting times for kit delivery have blown out considerably. If you aren't in a rush go with exactly what appeals to you if you want to get your teeth stick in, start sniffing out which kits are taking how long to deliver. 

[Kyle Communications]

If you want a RANS S-21 kit well pay the deposit and the current wait time until shipping is 16 months

 

 

[Marty_d]

On 22/04/2022 at 7:30 PM, derekliston said:

I built and fly a Zenith CH701, I was a LAME and still found it problematic because of erroneous plans. Took longer than it should because it sat untouched for two years due to utter frustration. However, at the end of the day I am glad I persevered because it does the job it was designed for brilliantly and I really love flying it.

Hi Derek,

 

I'm interested in which bit of the plans you found erroneous.  I picked up a 20mm difference in where the plans showed the slat holder slots to be and where they actually should be, but that's the only thing.  (So far - still have to do the struts and mount the wings!)

[derekliston]

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Hi Derek,

 

I'm interested in which bit of the plans you found erroneous.  I picked up a 20mm difference in where the plans showed the slat holder slots to be and where they actually should be, but that's the only thing.  (So far - still have to do the struts and mount the wings!)

I can only tell you that it sat untouched for two years because I was so frustrated. I printed out the photo guides which I found helpful. I was a LAME and so shouldn’t have had a problem but right back to the start, reading on the list of tools ‘and an 8ft metric rule’???? I changed a couple of things which Zenith have also now done. I fitted streamlined struts and I also fitted a Savannah style tailplane instead of the inverted airfoil one, which I think they have done with the Cruzer? I also made the mistake of fitting the wing fold kit which was a total waste of effort and I removed it again! Just persevere and if you have any questions I may be able to answer them. It will be worth it, it does the job it is designed to do exceedingly well, even with the 80hp Jabiru which I have.

[spacesailor]

Keil-Kraft !.

spacesailor

[derekliston]

1 minute ago, spacesailor said:

Keil-Kraft !.

spacesailor

Built a couple of those back in the day. A rubber powered Lysander was one! The other was a free flight model with a Frog (I think?) diesel. Neither of them ever flew because I grew up in a council flat in Edinburgh with absolutely nowhere to fly them!

[walrus]

Zenith CH750. The kit was virtually perfect. I think James at Swish projects may even have a kit or two in stock. Rotax 912 iS, Airmaster propeller and Dynon Avionics. Sweet to fly and almost Walrus proof.

 

Just back from  Arkaroola via YBHI to YBLA.  Trip cut short by flooding further north. 83 knots TAS at 17 l/H, 86 at 20 l/h. It jumps off the ground. Landed  on the numbers at YWTO 35 and made the first  turnoff.

 

...And design MTOW is 650 kg for a sweetener.

[spacesailor]

Nowhere to fly models in the UK !.

Theres always the Golf course  !!!  .LoL

My K,K, Ladybird flew ' slow & low ',  Mills .75 & single channel with ' blip throttle control.

spacesailor

 

[derekliston]

1 minute ago, spacesailor said:

Nowhere to fly models in the UK !.

Theres always the Golf course  !!!  .LoL

My K,K, Ladybird flew ' slow & low ',  Mills .75 & single channel with ' blip throttle control.

spacesailor

 

No golf course in our council estate, no parks, no playgrounds!

[sfGnome]

On 29/4/2022 at 8:24 AM, walrus said:

Zenith CH750…

 

...And design MTOW is 650 kg for a sweetener.

I’m confused. The Zenith website gives the MTOW for the 750 (& the 650 for that matter) as 1320lbs (600kg). Is there something that I’m missing.

[walrus]

2 hours ago, sfGnome said:

I’m confused. The Zenith website gives the MTOW for the 750 (& the 650 for that matter) as 1320lbs (600kg). Is there something that I’m missing.

 

The website is not complete. The weight is indeed 600kg for LSA purposes, that's why it says 1320 lbs (LSA). Edition 1 of the design was indeed limited to 600 kg.

 

Edition 2 issued July 20 2010 and subsequent editions have a design MTOW of 650 kg (1440 lb)

 

Here is a list of the parts that were beefed up or added by edition 2:

 

 

Model: STOL CH 750 “GROSS WEIGHT INCREASE” KIT PARTS LIST
Parts List: 08/10
Revised Pick-List:
Page 1of 1
PART NO: DESCRIPTION QTY
WING KIT
75W2-6/1 WING SPAR WEB DOUBLER t=.063 l-650mm 1R+1L
75W2-5/1 WING SPAR UPPER STRUT FITTING t=.25 2
75W4-7 I/B REAR CHANNEL ANGLE t=.040 2
75W8-1/1 FRONT LOWER STRUT FITTING WELDED ASSEMBLY 2
75W8-2/1 FRONT UPPER STRUT FITTING WELDED ASSEMBLY 2
L L ANGLE 20
AN3-5A BOLT, SL NUT, WASHER (2@75W3-3) 4
AN3-7A BOLT, NUT, WASHER (75W2-7) 2
AN4-5A BOLT, SL NUT, WASHER (2 75W2-7) 4
AN4-7A BOLT, NUT, WASHER (75W2-7) 2
FUSELAGE KIT
75F3-4/1 UPRIGHT PRE-DRILLED l=983mm t=.025” 1L + 1R
75F3-7/1 REAR TOP CHANNEL PRE-DRILLED l=1009mm t=.063” 1
75F3-9 REAR TOP CHANNEL ANGLE t=.063 l=1019mm PRE-DRILL 1
75F4-2/1 SIDE CHANNEL COVER PRE-DRILLED l=1011mm t=.040” 1L + 1R
75F4-4/1 REAR WING ATTACHMENT PRE-DRILLED t=0.1875” 2
75F4-7 SIDE SKIN GUSSET t=.063 2
75F4-8 BOTTOM SKIN GUSSET t=.063 2
75F4-9 LONGERON GUSSET t=.025” PRE-DRILLED 2
75F12-2/1 FORWARD SIDE SKIN PRE-DRILLED t=.025 1L+1R
75F12-7/1 FORWARD ANGLES l=450mm t=.025” 6
75F14-1/1 LOWER ENGINE MOUNT FITTING WELDED ASSEMBLY 1L+1R
75F14-3/1 GEAR STRUT FITTING WELDED ASSEMBLY 1L+1R
75F15-1/1 CABIN FRAME WELDED ASSEMBLY PRE-DRILLED 1
75FA10-1 BAGGAGE BACK CHANNEL t=.032 2
75FA10-2 SIDE SKIN DOUBLER PRE-DRILLED t=.032 2
75FA10-3 SIDE SKIN ANGLE t=.032 2
A6 3/16 RIVETS 45
AN3-5A BOLT, SL NUT, WASHER (6@75F4-4/1) 18
AN3-3A BOLT, SL NUT, WASHER (4@75A10-2) 8
AN4-5A BOLT, SL NUT, WASHER (2@75F4-1) 4

 

[danny_galaga]

On 28/04/2022 at 8:35 PM, derekliston said:

I can only tell you that it sat untouched for two years because I was so frustrated. I printed out the photo guides which I found helpful. I was a LAME and so shouldn’t have had a problem but right back to the start, reading on the list of tools ‘and an 8ft metric rule’???? I changed a couple of things which Zenith have also now done. I fitted streamlined struts and I also fitted a Savannah style tailplane instead of the inverted airfoil one, which I think they have done with the Cruzer? I also made the mistake of fitting the wing fold kit which was a total waste of effort and I removed it again! Just persevere and if you have any questions I may be able to answer them. It will be worth it, it does the job it is designed to do exceedingly well, even with the 80hp Jabiru which I have.

I think we talked about this on another thread, but it sounds like we both ended up with 'Friday arvo' kits. You know, where the workers rush things through as beer O clock nears 😄

[eightyknots]

I am currently building an ICP Savannah S.

 

The main problem is the construction manual. It was originally written in Italian and then (so it seems) the text was put into Google Translate or similar. As a result, the instructions in English are not good and leads to quite a bit of head scratching. Thankfully, there are some good build threads with valuable photos and a better interpretation than ICP's attempt at English. Mark Kyle and iBob's threads are really useful. 

 

Despite the not so great manual, the design is great and the rivet holes fit together well. I am enjoying the build and look forward to the day it will be complete.

[danny_galaga]

Best way to translate, always, is a native speaker of language A who also knows language B working with a native speaker of language B who also knows language A. If it's a technical subject then they should also be familiar with the subject.

[onetrack]

One of the greatest single problems with translation into or from the European "Romance" languages, that all descend from Vulgar Latin, is that there are rarely any specific technical equivalent words between them and the English language.

The English language is the language of technology, science, engineering and construction. It has the ability to provide highly specific words and terminology, for very specific technological items - whereas the Romance languages only offer generalised descriptions.

 

A friend who was Italian used to convert English vehicle service manuals into the Romance languages, such as Italian - so, for example, she would get a job translating the Rolls-Royce car service manual, from English into Italian.

But she'd be stumped in the translation by finding RR descriptions such as "castellated nut" or "keyed lock washer", or some other highly specific technical term in English, that had no exact translation into Italian.

 

As a result, you can end up with the choice of several generalised descriptions of a part or component in a Romance language - as compared to one specific technical term in English.

This is the reason why anyone from a country outside the English-speaking Western world is advised to become fluent in English, before they attempt to obtain tertiary qualifications in the STEM fields.

 

This is also the reason why many specific English technological terms find their way directly into the Romance languages, making the educators in those languages grimace, as they come across them.

Nothing represents this more, than specific IT terms in English, that simply have no equivalent in the Romance languages - so the English IT term is blended into that Romance language.

 

There is also typically, the French language purists anger over "Franglais", where modern English words in common use, with no direct equivalent, are transferred directly into French - "weekend", "email", "marketing", etc.

English has been subject in its development from the influence of a multitude of European languages, so I guess it's only fair we now repay the debt!

The beauty of the English language is its ability to constantly produce new, highly specific, dedicated technological terms, with every new technological development.

[kgwilson]

I have noticed this trend not just with European languages but also others around the world when someone is being interviewed and there is a translator. You will hear the foreign language and in the middle a few English technical words pop up in the middle of the conversation with the translator not missing a beat.

[Marty_d]

Castellated nut:

 

German:  Kronenmutter

French:  écrou crénelé

Italian:  noce castellata

 

 

Looks like they got it sorted!

[derekliston]

5 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Castellated nut:

 

German:  Kronenmutter

French:  écrou crénelé

Italian:  noce castellata

 

 

Looks like they got it sorted!

My French is schoolboy stuff but isn’t ecrou a screw rather than a nut?

[Marty_d]

5 minutes ago, derekliston said:

My French is schoolboy stuff but isn’t ecrou a screw rather than a nut?

Collins says that "vis" is the French for screw, "écrou" is definitely nut.

[derekliston]

13 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

Collins says that "vis" is the French for screw, "écrou" is definitely nut.

Thankyou! Like I said, schoolboy French!

[onetrack]

2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Castellated nut:

 

German:  Kronenmutter

French:  écrou crénelé

Italian:  noce castellata

 

 

Looks like they got it sorted!

But "noce" in Italian can cover a range of descriptions. Google translate tells me that "noce castellata" is a "castellate walnut" (not that Google is all that good on translation, of course!).

 

However, "una noce di burro" is "one pad (or serve) of butter", where "noce" simply refers to, or describes "a small piece". Thus we have the exactitude of English technical terms being reduced in the Italian translation, to a description of possibly more than one item or article.

The term "il dado" can also be used for "nut", although its commonly used to describe the gambling dice. If you try "il dado castellata", you'll find it can translate as "castellated nut".

However, the word "castellated" doesn't translate easily into Italian as "castellata" is feminine, and "castellato" is masculine, and this adds confusion. So, was that a male nut, or a female nut?