What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Building in Lightness

islandmonkey

Well Known Member
I am looking for areas where I can save weight and so far, I can see that by careful choice of products and not over equipping the plane, I can do a lot to build in lightness.
I have given serious thought to this over the last six months about what I want to put into my RV-3 or more importantly what to leave out and I am actively looking at all components (engine, prop, avionics etc) and investigating the lightest products available. The reason for this is to end up with an empty weight that is as low as possible, because, here in Europe the RV-3B is limited to a max weight of 1175lbs. Initially, I had thought about an injected engine with a VP prop but this notion has faded as quickly as the sun sets in the tropics. Just to say that I will not be straying into the area of changing any part of the structural flight load bearing components of the airframe.

So, doing the sums:

My weight 200
Fuel 180
Baggage 50

Total 430


Max Weight 1175
Max Load 430

Empty Weight 745

Looking at Randy Levold?s RV-3 Registry, the lightest 3B comes in at 738lbs. This aircraft is fitted with a Lycoming O235. The next lightest weighs in at 755lbs and has a Lycoming O320 installed. Okay, so if I want an O320, then I am going to have to take a subscription to Weight Watchers. However there are areas of the build that I have not considered yet such as moulded part weights (cowling, fairings, canopy), brakes and wheels, so I would be grateful for any comments and suggestions in this area.

So far, it looks as if I may go with a Lycoming O320 fitted with a lightweight starter, alternator and Pmags. A Catto propeller. Dynon D180. Microair M760 radio. Trig TT21 transponder. Steam ASI and Altimeter because that is what?s required. A Garmin 496. An Odyssey battery.

Paint is another area that needs looking at and the paint job will be the lightest available.

So any comments and suggestion would be really helpful.
 
Here a few ideas

I was looking into this prior to selling my 3 project and here are a couple ideas.

Narrow Deck 0320 fitted with tapered intake tube sump. I am told this sump and engine combination can save about 18 lbs over a wide deck regular sump. You should verify this. Bart at Aerosport Power in Kamloops BC stockpiles these kinds of parts for Super Cub enthusiasts.
If you want a really light weight sump, see if Cubcrafters will sell you theirs. It is reported to save 10 pounds over the normal cast sump. Not sure what it saves over the tapered intake tube sump.

A B&C alternator driven off of the accessory drive will save you some weight and no need for a drive belt. The output is limited, but no problem if you dont have a lot of avionics. I have one on my Bucker.

Composite prop.

Although I am a manual trim fan, there might be a bit of savings going with electric trim.

You could invest in Carbon Fiber copies of the cowl and other glass parts. They will cost you a fortune and you may or may not see any significant wieght savings as the design is not optimized for Carbon Fiber and whoever you hired to fabricate the parts might make them out of heavier fabric than necessary to CYA. I have actually seen this happen and the weight savings was not realized but the wallet was a lot lighter.

I dont think you can achieve the weights of the older 3's. Although I have not verified this, I believe the wing structure to be significantly heavier with the wing tanks vs fuselage tank. Just a guess on my part from looking at the construction of both.

There is not a lot of fat in any of Van's products. People make them fat with all their "must have" added goodies. If you take a minimalistic approach and keep that mind set, you will do well.
 
Anthony,

My RV-9 came in at 990 lbs (It had gained some pounds since then, just like its builder.) and here are some of the things I did to limit that weight:

1) Only paint the Fiberglass parts, polish the rest. However, I did have primer on every internal part.
2) Dual P-mags (they are lighter than regular mags, don't require a 2nd battery, etc.
3) Small engine (My O-290-D2 was 264 lbs)
4) SkyTec Flyweight starter
5) Van's 60 amp alternator (overkill for my VFR ship)
6) Catto two bladed prop (9 lbs - I weighed it before installation)
7) Dynon D100 EFIS & D10 EMS (In your -3, go with the D180 or SkyView)
8) Nav was simply a Garmin 496
9) Interior by Rustoleum
10) Van's seat cushions covered in leather, they are very comfortable.
11) Keep the Doug Bell tail wheel fork. This weighs a little more but is well worth it.
12) Use pull-rivets where Van's calls for them on the seat pan (and other places). Do not replace them with platenuts. However, due to the lights in the wing tips, I used platenuts there and on the rudder bottom.
13) Do not fiberglass in the fiberglass fairings on the tail. This only adds weight and IMHO, it doesn't improve the look of the machine and makes future maintenance more difficult.

Things I would do differently to reduce weight even more:
1) Install Dayton's tail wheel, it is lighter than stock.
2) Use auto fuses, where they make sense. (I was surprised at how much all those breakers and breaker/switches weighed.)
3) Skip the landing & taxi lights, position lights, strobes, etc.
4) Skip the interior lights
5) Skip the two steam gauges (Airspeed and Altimeter)
6) Skip the primmer, alodine should be good enough.

That's about all I can think of right now.
 
Last edited:
Jon,
Thanks for the suggestions with the narrow deck O-320 I will send Bart an email and see what he can do. I will also give Cub Crafters a call on sump weights. I have dealt with Cub Crafters in the past and found them very helpful.

B & C is another company I have dealt with in the past when I had my Cub. Their products are very well engineered and they are also very helpful. The SD-20 alternator will provide enough juice to cover what I need.

I suspect manual trim will be lighter but confirmation on this point would be helpful.

I will consider carbon fibre alternatives to the GRP components and I realise that these will cost and arm and a leg to produce as one offs. I am investigating with a good friend who has contacts in the automotive industry potential weight savings. I will need and use the GRP originals to use as plugs if I go down this route.

Changing the subject for a moment, the B?cker Jungmann is a lovely sweet handling aeroplane who's only drawback is that narrow undercarriage. I do envy you. Is yours a CASA model?
________________________________


Bill,

Many thanks for your reply.

Question to anybody who knows, which starter is the lightest, B & C or SkyTec?

I do intend just to alodine internal parts as you would do next. I will also, I suspect, have to fit some sort of strobe light to comply with German regulations.

One advantage of not painting but just polishing is that it is impossible to get tank blisters. Bill how often do you clean and polish your 9 and do you have any problems with dazzle from reflected sunlight?

Good luck with your rebuild.
 
Look in the mirror...

The easiest pounds to remove from the plane are usually on the pilot...most of us could stand to let go of a few kilos around our waistline. Your plane and your spouse will love you for it!
 
....One advantage of not painting but just polishing is that it is impossible to get tank blisters. Bill how often do you clean and polish your 9 and do you have any problems with dazzle from reflected sunlight?

Good luck with your rebuild.
I was mid way through my first polish when I had my taxi incident. But from what I have read, expect to do it about once every six months.

If you have to put lights on it to comply with German regulations, check out the [http://www.airplanegear.com/skybright.htm]SkyBright Stropes & Position Lights[/url]. I used them on my -9 and am very happy with them. Granted, some of the LED strobes might be lighter as these use LED position lights and regular strobes, which require "heavy" wire.
 
Hi Anthony,
I know you have my PM that describes how I ended up with 760lbs painted but based on your latest query...do you really need 50lbs of baggage in an RV-3 ?
 
Can't emphize enough Don's comments. Finding 20 pounds on the airplane might be fairly difficult, but 20 pounds off the pilot is a bit easier if you plug away at it during the course of the build. It doesn't help with the local aviation authorities, but it will sure help the flight performance as well as provide a little more room in the cockpit.
 
An OLD retired Lockheed Engineer told me to cut a LARGE radius on all corners as it saves weight. (This includes ribs and bulkheads.) Everywhere in the structure that calls out for OPTIONAL lightening holes should have the holes put in. Lightening holes in wing ribs should be cut out on the larger size that is acceptable. AN960 steel washers can be replaced with AN960PD aluminum washers. AN365 lock nuts can be replaced with lighter MS21042 all metal lock nuts. All these items incorporated into an RV airframe could save about 8 pounds. It is a lot of work and extra money to save a few pounds.

I once heard Burt Rutan say: "There is one test that everything that goes into an airplane must pass that is not required by regulation. Take the item, toss it up in the air, if it comes down, it is too heavy to go in the airplane."

The late John Thorpe said: "Only make it as strong as necessary and as light as possible."

Saving weight in the airplane is difficult. Saving weight on the pilot is easier. I lost 31 pounds in 28 months following Doctor McDougall's program without ever being hungry. Cholesterol, Triglycerides, and Blood Pressure all dropped plus I felt 15-years younger with a much higher energy level.
 
Yes, Casa Bu1. 131E

Jon,

Changing the subject for a moment, the B?cker Jungmann is a lovely sweet handling aeroplane who's only drawback is that narrow undercarriage. I do envy you. Is yours a CASA model?

1961 Spanish. Might be the latest imported into the States. I thought its only drawback was the absolute zero visibility on the ground! I love it, so well balanced and smooth. It is a great compliment to my 6 and the only Biplane I have ever flown that comes close to that RV feel. I also feel safer throwing myself around with more advanced aerobatics. It is very forgiving and you simply can not tear it apart. The 6 rolls quicker and is great for loops and basic stuff, but go inverted with the Bucker and stay there all day just for fun. There are four Buckers at the airpark here, unusual in itself. Three of them also own RV's. RV pilots now a good thing when they see it I guess. Ha!
Glad you know Bart and the Cubcrafters folks. Randy L. gave me the tour last summer and the things they have done to save wieght is extraordinary. Very smart folks.
 
I was looking into this prior to selling my 3 project and here are a couple ideas.

Narrow Deck 0320 fitted with tapered intake tube sump. I am told this sump and engine combination can save about 18 lbs over a wide deck regular sump. You should verify this. Bart at Aerosport Power in Kamloops BC stockpiles these kinds of parts for Super Cub enthusiasts.
If you want a really light weight sump, see if Cubcrafters will sell you theirs. It is reported to save 10 pounds over the normal cast sump. Not sure what it saves over the tapered intake tube sump.

A B&C alternator driven off of the accessory drive will save you some weight and no need for a drive belt. The output is limited, but no problem if you dont have a lot of avionics. I have one on my Bucker.

Composite prop.

Although I am a manual trim fan, there might be a bit of savings going with electric trim.

You could invest in Carbon Fiber copies of the cowl and other glass parts. They will cost you a fortune and you may or may not see any significant wieght savings as the design is not optimized for Carbon Fiber and whoever you hired to fabricate the parts might make them out of heavier fabric than necessary to CYA. I have actually seen this happen and the weight savings was not realized but the wallet was a lot lighter.

I dont think you can achieve the weights of the older 3's. Although I have not verified this, I believe the wing structure to be significantly heavier with the wing tanks vs fuselage tank. Just a guess on my part from looking at the construction of both.

There is not a lot of fat in any of Van's products. People make them fat with all their "must have" added goodies. If you take a minimalistic approach and keep that mind set, you will do well.

Check for clearance on this. May depend on type of engine mount.
 
It's just math, but...

So, doing the sums:

My weight 200
Fuel 180
Baggage 50

Total 430


Max Weight 1175
Max Load 430

Empty Weight 745

Anthony,
A quick look at Van's website shows the baggage weight for the 3 at 30 pounds rather than the 50 you show (and 30 pounds of stuff is an awful lot for one guy). I'm not an expert, and haven't seen the inside of a Holiday Inn recently, but I would be concerned with that much extra weight in the back of the 3. Where did you come up with the 50 pound figure?
 
Anthony,
A quick look at Van's website shows the baggage weight for the 3 at 30 pounds rather than the 50 you show (and 30 pounds of stuff is an awful lot for one guy). I'm not an expert, and haven't seen the inside of a Holiday Inn recently, but I would be concerned with that much extra weight in the back of the 3. Where did you come up with the 50 pound figure?

Hi Michael,

One of my passions is flying somewhere, especially to a fly in and camping beside the plane. With this in mind, 50lbs is not a lot of weight.

I got the 50lbs weight limit from Randy Levold's RV-3Works website, here is an extract:

NOTES:
-All models of the RV-3 wing have a 54" chord.
-The manual erroneously specifies the baggage compartment weight limit on page 14-4 as 100 lbs, Van's web site erroneously lists it at 30 lbs. Both are incorrect, the correct weight is 50 lbs.
 
I will be working on reducing the amount of "Lard" that is currently around my waist. I reckon 20lbs lighter would be good for me.

I also think there is some weight saving to be had by using lighter wheels and brake components. Does anyone know the weights of the Vans supplied wheel hubs and brake components. I would like to compare this with what is available from Grove.

Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
I will be working on reducing the amount of "Lard" that is currently around my waist. I reckon 20lbs lighter would be good for me.

I also think there is some weight saving to be had by using lighter wheels and brake components. Does anyone know the weights of the Vans supplied wheel hubs and brake components. I would like to compare this with what is available from Grove.

Thanks in advance.

Careful going with lighter wheels, if you want to go into strips where you can camp/hike. Lighter wheels usually means smaller and the RV 5 x 500 tires are marginal at best for some of the rougher strips.
 
It occurs to me that any weight saved in the elevator structure would pay off double, since the counterweights (lead!) could be reduced in kind. Of course reducing weight in the already light elevator might be tough. Maybe some lightening holes in the stiffeners?
 
Steve...
It occurs to me that any weight saved in the elevator structure would pay off double, since the counterweights (lead!) could be reduced in kind. Of course reducing weight in the already light elevator might be tough. Maybe some lightening holes in the stiffeners?
Maybe even more than "double".. since the arm of the weight would be less than the elevator... Until of course you look at the RV-3 and realise there are no elevator couterweights :)

NB from the past as well (and see Randy's and Steve's websites) there are cracking "issues" with the thin skins, which some deal with via ProSeal (Randy) or thicker skins (Steve). My opinion would be the elevator seems one area to consider adding weight.

Now, if we move to the ailerons, they are counterweighted. Can anyone confirm to me the exact principle required here? Is it as per the (RV-8) elevators where you want neutral balance about the hingeline? i.e. is there potential to reduce the counterweight weight (drill holes in it?) if it turns out to be "over balanced"?

Overall comments
I have been speaking with Anthony over various aspects, and going through the same questions. My conclusion is that you cannot "plan" on a specific (final) weight - just build as light as possible, do not fit heavy items you do not really need, and see where you end up. If you need 50lbs of baggage (and if you conclude it is allowed?), do you need full fuel that day?

I am also researching the lighter wheels - I am not sure there is anything there? The Van's ones are the Magnesium... Lighter tyres is an option, but not for us (as per Steve) - with small / light tyres, I think (some) grass strips would become off limits.

Andy
RV-3 various bits in build...
 
Wheels/tires-

I asked Van about going to smaller/lighter tires when I was building my -3B. He said not to do it. Small tires will run at higher pressures than the 500-5. That will only make the gear shake problem worse. I'm running mine at 20 psi and still have an occasional shake issue.

Baggage-

If you weigh 200 lbs and have a light airframe with FP prop and O-320, 50 lbs in the baggage compartment will put you aft of rear CG limit depending on fuel situation.

Empty weight-

I built my -3B as light as I knew how. Areas that added a few pounds over stock were the fiberglass canopy skirt, RV-4 cheek cowls, Conforfoam in the seat and steel tube roll bar. It came in at 792 lbs weighed on certified digital scales. My hat is off to anybody that is able to knock a big chunk off that weight.

Tony
 
.016 skins, and tailwheel

There are a bunch of us with the thin skins and no cracks. However, Randy's method makes a lot of sense and the proseal adds a few ounces back there.
Someone suggested the Dayton Tailwheel. I tried one on my 6 and moved back to the stock wheel as the lighter Dayton wheel took me in the wrong direction. You want the extra weight back there on the 3 with an 0320.
 
Narrow Deck 0320 fitted with tapered intake tube sump. I am told this sump and engine combination can save about 18 lbs over a wide deck regular sump. You should verify this. Bart at Aerosport Power in Kamloops BC stockpiles these kinds of parts for Super Cub enthusiasts.
If you want a really light weight sump, see if Cubcrafters will sell you theirs. It is reported to save 10 pounds over the normal cast sump. Not sure what it saves over the tapered intake tube sump.

That is facinating! Where can I find out more? Is there an on-line source where I can learn to compare the wide and narrow deck engines across all parameters, not just weight? Any links/references would be great as I am just beginning to learn about engines.
 
Not that I am aware of.

That is facinating! Where can I find out more? Is there an on-line source where I can learn to compare the wide and narrow deck engines across all parameters, not just weight? Any links/references would be great as I am just beginning to learn about engines.

My info came from Bart at Aerosport for the consideration of building my engine and others word of mouth. The Super Cub forums might be a good place to poke around in. If you think RV folks are fanatical about weight, you have no idea what lengths this group will go to.
 
More on the engine........

I've been around Super Cubs since I was two years old and own one, so I have a bit of experience with this engine issue.
1. Yes, I understand the narrow deck is lighter than the wide deck, but unless you have narrow deck stuff lying around I'm not sure I'd bother. They are a real pain. The narrow deck is an old superseded model and most of the stuff you find will be just that, old. Some of the weight saving will be negative things like the crankshaft with the thin flanges and holes. Might not be a big deal if your aerobatics are mild and your prop is light, but still a negative.
2. Just as much weight can be saved by using a wide-deck conical mount engine with low compression pistons. The engine mount and the rubber mounts will be a lot lighter with the conical mount over the dynafocal mount. 3. Stick with the low compression pistons. The difference in weight with the gudgeon pins and lower height pistons is (from memory) four pounds. Surely 150 hp is enough for an RV3.:D If it isn't have the engine flow balanced, that has to be good for 5 hp.
4. The model engine you want is the O-320-A2B. Yep, a Cub engine. From memory it has the plunger for the fuel pump (some O-320's don't) and that is the low compression one. A Robinson engine (O-320-B2C) will have the heavier pistons and gudgeon pins and it has the shower of sparks mags which are bigger/heavier.
5. If you're feeling rich, try and get Cub Crafters to sell you their Super Sport Cub O-340, which must be the lightest O-320 derivative around.

Some other ideas:
1. Go non-electric. I do with my Super Cub. You save save save. No battery, no generator, no starter, no wiring, less cost!;)
2. Take a close look at the RV12. There are a lot of weigth saving ideas there. For example, most of the fibreglass is gone. So why not close out the tips on the tailplane with something simple from aluminum, or turn the tip rib around the other way?
3. Thought of using the 120hp Jabiru engine? This has been discussed here.

All but one of the RV3s flying in New Zealand are flying as microlights with a 1200lb max weight. So you are in good company!

Cheers,
Andrew.
 
CC340 engine

I'm kind of in a unique position to know something about both RV-3s and what CubCrafters is doing with the CC340, here's some info...

It weighs 245 lbs (+/- a couple of lbs.) and I'm told it's around 40 lbs lighter than a stock O-320 D1A. The weight saving measures we use include:
-Eliminate both magnetos (replace with dual LSE)
-No prop governor
-No air pump
-No oil filter adapter or oil filter (old fashioned screen)
-No fuel pump (or aux pump)
-One gear in the accessory case omitted
-Proprietary lightweight intake tubes
-Proprietary lightweight sump

Then we also use light weight alternators, starters, oil lines, and oil coolers. Those familiar with what the back of a typical Lycoming looks like are shocked when they look at the back of our engine and there's essentially nothing there. We use conical mount engines both because it is traditional Super Cub technique, but it is also lighter than Dynafocal.

Regarding the lightweight sump, we fabricate that in-house and it is hideously expensive so we have no interest in selling it separately, nor would you want to pay what we'd have to charge.

We do offer the CC340 to our kit builders at $27,500 (including ignitions) but are not offering it to the public presently. The reason is that we don't really want to be in the engine business but are because we needed to be the ASTM manufacturer of record to make the Carbon Cub SS happen.
 
Many thanks everyone!

Looking back over the responses to my post, I have had answers that I already knew about but also replies that have brought food for further thought. I want to thank everyone who has replied so far for their contribution to this thread.

I banged off a couple of emails earlier this week, one to Craig Catto and the other to Bart at Aero Sport Power. Here are the mails and the responses:

Hello Craig,

I am getting information on component weights for an RV-3B which I am building. I want to build this machine as light as possible, but I also want to use good components. I have read good reports about your propellers on VAF.

I would like to know what is the weight of one of your props. Engine would be an 0-320 150hp. I realise each prop may vary in weight so if you could give me a good approximation then that would be great.

Many thanks in advance.


Craig Catto to me:

Hello,
The 2 bladed propeller for this is 12.5 pounds.

You will also need the 4" extension I believe from Saber mnfg. The weight of this is 5.62 pounds.
The 7" diameter x 3/8" thick crush plate you need is 1.2 pounds
They have good weights on their parts if you wish to contact them directly. www.sabermfg.com

The Vans 13" spinner kit weight is 3.3 pounds with bulkheads and hardware.

Hope this helps.
Regards,
Craig Catto


Bart at Aero Sport Power:

Hello Bart,

I will, in Germany, be building an RV-3B very soon and one of my criteria is to build this plane as light as possible. I will use Pmags, a B & C vacuum pad mounted SD-20 alternator and the lightest
starter available. I have heard that an O-320 narrow deck fitted with a tube sump is lighter than the O-320 wide deck fitted with the normal sump. Can you confirm this? Can you also let me know how much extra weight fuel injection adds to a 320.

I would very much like to go down the fuel injection route but if extra weight is excessive then I will go with a carb.

I would eventually want to purchase a 150hp 320 that is as light as possible. Any suggestions and recommendations for saving weight from your side would also be welcome.

Many thanks in advance


Bart to me:

Anthony
The early narrow deck engines with lighting holes in the crankshaft are approximately 6 pounds lighter than the current production engine. *The injection adds about 2 to 3 pounds. *If going with fuel injection then a Sky Dynamics Maxi Sump and lightweight induction could be used.

Bart
Aero Sport Power


Going down the narrow deck route will save 6lbs or so but at the expense of a weaker crankshaft and an older design engine. I will continue my own personal weight loss program to include this. Injection adds 2-3lbs but arguably, also adds reliability, plus one does not have to install carb heat therefore saving the weight of a heat muff.

Steve Sampson's site has for a while proved a source of good ideas for me. A legacy of have owning a Super Cub, means, I much prefer landing tail draggers on grass. I managed to ground loop my Cub on a paved runway. There was no damage but the experience will always remain with me. I shall be looking to fit the 380-150-5 Aero Classic tyres which are 1.5” larger in diameter and another 1” wider in width. Steve managed to fit the standard Vans wheel spats with this tyre combination. The weight penalty here is just over 2lbs for both wheels, which as Steve says in his blog is acceptable for being safer on grass.

Randy Levold's reply was very timely and has explained Cub Crafters position. I still miss my Cub and maybe one day there will be a Carbon Cub flying in Germany and sharing a hangar with an RV-3B. However, the 3 will come come first.

Andy Hill has been a good source of ideas and common sense. Thanks Andy I will be contacting you again very soon.

Everyone else, please keep your ideas coming. The quest for lightness continues.

Cheers

Anthony
 
Last edited:
RV-3

My RV-3 was recently weighed and came in at 730.5 lbs. 0320, pacesetter prop, handheld radio and steam gauges. Fuselage tank. I added a Garmin 295 which weigh about 3 lbs installed. I weigh 215 with parachute and can meet the aerobatic weight of 1050 with 15 gallons of fuel.
Ed Hawkins
N272DR
 
Anthony,

Why not look at the Ellison throttle body injector?

That might be lighter than a regular FI setup as it can use the standard facet pump, low pressure engine driven pump, and eliminates a lot of plumbing.

Do your research on this product. I know two people who fly behind them and they LOVE them but I have read other comments that were not so complementary. (I have no first hand knowledge other than flying my friend's Acroduster II with one and it seemed very responsive, easy starting, and no issues when upside down.)

Just another option.
 
Saved A Few Grams

Thought it might be worth reopening this discussion in case anyone has any weight-savings ideas not previously mentioned.

I'll offer this one from my left elevator.

The inboard rib has a flange that locates the rib on the spar. Since that joint's rivets need to be flush, both the spar and the rib get dimpled and then riveted. I got to thinking about those rivets and finally realized that with the -4 rivets between the rib and the elevator horn, the flange rivets don't carry much load if any. I checked with Van's support and was told that I "could probably do away with it."

Here's what it looked like when I had it ready for riveting, but before I contacted Van's:

2drtmk4.jpg


Then I trimmed the flange off. Later, I removed the marks on the rib's web. I should have taken another photo then.

34s2vkk.jpg


Then I got to thinking that the part of the web in between the rows of rivets wasn't going to be doing much. That led to this:

msdp2o.jpg


And that's how I left it. And no, I hadn't bother to weigh it.

Why do all this? Partly it's to get into and maintain a habit of keeping the weight off the plane. It's all too easy to simply leave it on. I don't imagine this will make any noticeable difference, but it might, and it's best to have the habit.

Incidentally, the two rivet holes near the aft end of the rib are there for the shear clip which holds the rear spar. I realize the clip (which is shown elsewhere on VAF -- http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=85658, last photo in post #31) isn't necessary and adds weight, but I felt it was desirable from a stiffness point of view.

Dave
 
Back
Top