This might be a bit long, so get your sandwiches and coffee ready :lol:
Only the names have been changed to protect the innocent, and prevent lawsuits :shock:
Building a Slingsby Skylark
From an ABC plan and a kit of ready-cut formers and ribs from XYZ Kits.
The story so far...
Started assenbling the fuz on the plan.
First observation is that the kit is different from the plan in the area of the front skid.
This means the cutouts on the front formers are wrong and the method of assembly will need drastic changes due to the thickness of the kit skid.
Talking by email to the designer reveals that he has never seen the ABC plan.
A bit gob-smacked by this.
And the ABC plan is different to his original, due, it seems, to 'corrections' made by ABC.
They were not corrections, the original was correct, they were in themselves introduced errors.
Talking by email to XYZ, the kit manufacturers, reveals that they transfer the original plans from the designer into a computer, using Autocad, so that the kit can be cut on a laser cutter machine.
They had queries at that time, but did not check with the designer, so again errors were introduced.
Gob-smacked once again.
Many parts were wrong in size and even shape.
Some were missing completely.
The plan from ABC is an old 'blueprint'.
This is produced by taking the original paper drawn plan from the designer, laying a sheet of matte transparent film over it, and tracing the drawing in ink.
This transparency is then used as the 'master' fo contact prints onto ultraviolet sensitive paper, and developed in a machine that uses rollers to expose the paper and put it through a developer bath.
This, in itself, introduces dimensional errors due to the master and paper running around rollers and 'creeping', and also the paper changes slightly with the developing 'damp' process and subsequent drying and folding.
In the old drawing office days this did not matter as the drawing had accurate dimensions written on the drawing itself, and the chap doing the job would use him own measurement tools to get correct sizes.
So...
Now we have a drawing that has been incorrectly 'corrected' and not checked by the designer, made in a system that changes the drawn sizes, and is being used as a template for the finished job.
And...
We have a kit of parts made from data about which there were doubts and was never checked.
Is it any surprise then that the two don't match up?
Additional comments:
1. There was information totally missing from the plans, like no mention at all that the tailplane was to be sheeted over with 1/16" balsa.
That only became apparent when the designer supplied a CD of photographs of his build, and subsequent emails to/from him.
2. There was no list of parts supplied in the kit.
This meant that there was no way to decide what other materials would be needed.
3. There was no materials list with the drawing.
This is against all my engineering training and experience.
4. There are even spelling errors on the plan, like 'apature' instead of aperture, and 'toy' instead of top.
This shows a lack of checking which is evident from previous remarks.
Conclusions so far.
Would I buy another kit from XYZ - NO.
Would I buy another plan from ABC - maybe, perhaps, but still consider blueprints to be old-hat.
Where the plan is to be used as a template it should be drawn on a modern plotter.
This is an ongoing saga, and the nice chap at XYZ has said he wants to sort things out.
I haven't talked to ABC yet.
The designer is obviously concerned.
I get the impression that I'm the first person to make this using ABC plans and XYZ kit.
To be continued.....
