What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Time for an RV consturction wiki?

Paul Eastham

Well Known Member
The Problem

There are so many places where it seems like a few extra words in the construction manual would make things so much easier. And places where if you build something a little bit different, things will be much easier down the road.

Problem is, I often don't find out about these gotchas until it's too late. If I'm lucky, maybe I saw a clue on one of the 200 great build logs out there, or I thought to do a search on VAF ahead of time, but it's still not foolproof enough for my taste.

In an ideal world, Van's would update the docs with all the questions, complaints and flame-mails they get, giving newer builders the benefit of experience from those who built before them. However, they have clearly shown that they are not interested in doing so. Even simple advice like "build the (rv-9) VS before the HS" is apparently too much trouble for them to include. But I'm primarily thinking about critical dimensions, incorrect dimensions or callouts, and areas where many people make mistakes. For example, the HS attach (rv-9 at least) could be made much less difficult if you make the cross-angle slightly longer than specified, reducing the likelihood of edge-distance problems.

The Solution?

I'm wondering if it's time to solve this problem for ourselves and for future builders. But it's too big a task for any one person. The solution could be a wiki. If you haven't seen one before, it is simply a web document that anyone can edit. It would be organized just like the current builder's manual, with all the section and subsection headers copied over.

The idea is that once any builder realizes a big gotcha or improvement, they could deposit a note in the wiki in the appropriate spot. Hopefully this will be less work, and more productive, than sending off an angry email to the black hole at [email protected] :) Then future builders can follow along in the wiki just like they do in the build manual, hopefully avoiding all the annoying gotchas. (I'd like to keep it factual and based on improving the provided documentation, so no long rants about priming or canopy types -- the community message boards are better for that.)

I'm willing to set it up, if others think it would be useful and would be willing to contribute to the content. It'll only be as good as we make it. What do you all think?
 
Cool. Too bad there is little construction-oriented content....it doesn't seem to be positioned as a construction errata. There are also 2 problems that currently prevent it from being used for that purpose:
- no directory structure that distinguishes among models
- no directory structure more specific than "fuselage", etc.
 
Last edited:
I just changed the link. Apparently that one had been closed and merged with the Matronics one.

As with all Wikis, it depends on the user to keep it up. The infrastructure is certainly there, it just needs more user input.
 
Aloha All

Putting the word out so you might see this reply in multiple threads.

I tried paying someone to produce a wiki that is PDF/builder plan friendly and so far have not found any software that works the way I want it to.

BUT....TADA......I have taken the RV-14 plans and using Adobe added hyperlinks and notes to most of the threads from the RV14 pages on to it. It resides on a dropbox account.

I just discovered that I can send a read only access link so am enclosing .

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xu5p6f4l7...bU0ck0pJa?dl=0

BUT....... a wiki works best with folks inputting into it. So if you would like Edit access I will need your email in a PM. I know some of you do not want to put your email out there so feel free to make a disposable one that forwards to your main account.
 
Why do you want to fragment the Van's knowledge base?

Granted posting pictures on this site is a pain and there is no index, but the Advanced search function does work well, if it is used.

With over 1,000,000 posts, this site is invaluable!
 
Reality: There is no level of self-serve support at which all builders will be sure of what to do. Vans could ship a fully functional robotic assistant with every kit, and somebody would request help with the charging cord.

You're supposed to figure it out.

Personally I doubt a wiki is an appropriate media for "how to build". The wiki system does well with facts (2+2=4). It is not so good with methods, or opinions, or advice contrary to the manufacturer. And it will never make up for poor shop skills. They require practice, and foundation knowledge way deeper than airframe build guidance.

A forum offers direct peer review. Sometimes it is messy, or even brutal, but it works.
 
Last edited:
Reality: There is no level of self-serve support at which all builders will be sure of what to do. Vans could ship a fully functional robotic assistant with every kit, and somebody would request help with the charging cord.

You're supposed to figure it out.

Personally I doubt a wiki is an appropriate media for "how to build". The wiki system does well with facts (2+2=4). It is not so good with methods, or opinions, or advice contrary to the manufacturer. And it will never make up for poor shop skills. They require practice, and foundation knowledge way deeper than airframe build guidance.

A forum offers direct peer review. Sometimes it is messy, or even brutal, but it works.

I'm with Dan on this one. We're building airplanes here, it's not a place for "kinder and gentler." It's time to put on your big-girl panties and figure it out.
 
You don't know what you don't know.

I get it. I like the idea. If it was organized well by model and had the latest build manuals. Users should not be able to alter original instructions BUT merely put notes,highlights, videos, hyperlinks, etc. to the original instructions.

For example, I trimmed the R-710 Rudder Brace exactly per the plans and found out it compromised edge distance on a subsequent hole and had to order a new one. If a builder were to skim through a WIKI manual during their plans study they would have noticed a caution by other builders that have had similar issues with that part...

Sure you could have searched through VAF and found the same information if you knew what you didn't know....
 
I get it. I like the idea. If it was organized well by model and had the latest build manuals. Users should not be able to alter original instructions BUT merely put notes,highlights, videos, hyperlinks, etc. to the original instructions.

For example, I trimmed the R-710 Rudder Brace exactly per the plans and found out it compromised edge distance on a subsequent hole and had to order a new one. If a builder were to skim through a WIKI manual during their plans study they would have noticed a caution by other builders that have had similar issues with that part...

Sure you could have searched through VAF and found the same information if you knew what you didn't know....

How would you know the Wiki suggestion is correct?
 
Perhaps it's time to merely recommend that people go through the VAF section for their airplane, with an eye out for construction comments. The serious ones will have multiple postings. Bear in mind that Van's might have changed the plans or even the design to make some of these issues go away.

Beyond that, have a look at the Tools section and the Tips section.

Then find a mentor in your area, preferably someone building the same design.

That said, if you want it simple: buy an airplane that someone is selling.

Respectfully,
Dave
 
How would you know the Wiki suggestion is correct?

You wouldn't. It is merely peer to peer suggestions/notes. Same as VAF. How do you know what is correct on VAF? They should be taken as builder notes and not as Vans instructions. As always it would be up to the builder to determine the best course for him/her.
 
Hey all thanks for your thoughts.

The issue with VAF is that you would have to in effect read every post on a particular aircraft type to see that someone had an issue at a certain point along construction. whether that was an oops or Gotcha. My intent when I built this for myself is to have all of that discussions on the VAF site reside on the appropriate section of the plans so that as you are getting ready to build that part you can see very easily what issues there are directly relating to it. your don't have to rely on memory or try to do searches to see if there is an issue on something.

This is set up to work as a front page visual index for all the stuff that is going on with a particular aircraft type that currently is only word searchable.

I DO NOT want to take anything away from VAF in fact I rely on it for this functionality. If DR wants to take over hosting this option the offer is out there but so far not accepted I really do think it helps. Check out the link and see how it works.

BTW I have had some feed back that the links on the pdf's are not working, I just checked and they seem to be for me so not sure what the issue is. I am in the process of switching the original format where the links were inside notes where you had to physically cut and past the link into your browser over to a true hyperlink that looks like a shaded text box.

As to how would you know the wiki suggestion is correct, how would you know the VAF suggestion is correct? All I am doing is visually linking the VAF threads to the particular page that it belongs with on the plans. I think this type of visual set up would actually make it easier on Vans Aircraft tech support cause official reoccurring questions and answers can reside on the page and I have set up the template so they can make additions that are official VAF answers thereby making them "Correct"

LOL as far as big girl panties, why have VAF then? Just read the manual right? ;-)

N941WR said "Why do you want to fragment the Van's knowledge base?

Granted posting pictures on this site is a pain and there is no index, but the Advanced search function does work well, if it is used.

With over 1,000,000 posts, this site is invaluable!


I do not want to fragment VAF I am actually creating that missing index you mentioned does not exist. This only works with VAF inputs and in my mind should actually be a part of VAF but for now am happy to help grow.

Check out the page and let me know what you think.
 
Last edited:
Reality: There is no level of self-serve support at which all builders will be sure of what to do. Vans could ship a fully functional robotic assistant with every kit, and somebody would request help with the charging cord.

You're supposed to figure it out.

Personally I doubt a wiki is an appropriate media for "how to build". The wiki system does well with facts (2+2=4). It is not so good with methods, or opinions, or advice contrary to the manufacturer. And it will never make up for poor shop skills. They require practice, and foundation knowledge way deeper than airframe build guidance.

A forum offers direct peer review. Sometimes it is messy, or even brutal, but it works.
Come on, Dan; you never got assistance when learning what had to be a new skill, at some point? "You're supposed to figure it out," sounds like what Van's product support has said since the RV-3. But look at the instruction set for a -10, vs a -3. We both know which most builders prefer. Should you be the one that picks how much and what type of support is available?

The problem with the forum format is that it's highly DIS-organized. Searching *might* get quick results, but it's much more likely to result in frustration and/or wasted time, for both the searcher, and those he ultimately asks to repeat info that's been shared dozens or hundreds of times in the past. A well organized wiki would go a long way to help solving that.

One of the problems with this particular forum is the persistent refusal by its owner to host photos ...

[ed.

'DOUG'S LAW' for the win!!!!

Persistent? Well, if by persistent you mean I'd like to avoid bankruptcy, then yes, I am persistent in my wish to avoid that. Wonder why all the 'free' photo hosting sites are charging money now? 'Cuz they can't stay in business hosting pictures for free. Maybe consider giving http://www.vansairforce.net/articles/ImagesInForums/images.htm another read. Doug's Law explained top right corner of the link.

dr]
.​

Eventually, virtually every photo that has been linked here will be gone, and with that loss, the usefulness of the info shared. Again, a solvable problem.

Rather than fragmenting info, I see a wiki as a way to organize it. I know Wikipedia has become a go-to source for more general knowledge. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just post our corrections there, complete with photos...

Charlie
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I *shuddered* when I see the link to the Matronics site was a MediaWiki site. Back in my sysadmin days, I tried to use MediaWiki for our internal documentation, and it was.....well it was awful. I ended up standing up a Confluence site because our end-users (other sysadmins) found it easy to create structure and pages.

But, Confluence isn't free (well, for more than a few users at least). However, there are a ton of great other wiki frameworks, and many of them are LIGHTYEARS ahead of MediaWiki.

I'd be willing to stand up a few of the different frameworks on one of my webservers and let folks try it if its something people would be interested in.
 
CubedRoot

At this point I don't know what software has the functionality that Adobe offers with PDF other than maybe Powerpoint. I know they are not websites but that's basically what I think works. Take a look at some of the marked up page plans on the dropbox pdf's and let me know what you think. Link is in my signature.
 
CubedRoot

At this point I don't know what software has the functionality that Adobe offers with PDF other than maybe Powerpoint. I know they are not websites but that's basically what I think works. Take a look at some of the marked up page plans on the dropbox pdf's and let me know what you think. Link is in my signature.


Well, we are not 100% sure we are able to "share" the Van's plans in this manner, without their permission. It's also very hard to sort, link to specifics, and layout a directory structure using something like a shared Dropbox. Versioning could be a challenge (something that a wiki framework handles quite nicely). There's no way to embed videos, which is something I have been finding VERY VERY helpful lately, and more builders are sharing. The links to VAF and other places show up as generic comment boxes, with no context.

Let's also not forget that Dropbox isn't free, if you have enough contributors you will very quickly eat up the "free" tier that they offer. What happens if you decide to close out your account, or decide to not pay for your storage plan

Honestly, using some of the opensource tools I work with everyday, something like Git would be fantastic for documentation and collaboration. Contributors could fork the project, do pull requests for updates, which could be collectively reviewed. Version control would be baked in, and if someone wants to clone the entire thing, they could easily do so and manage contributions upstream without fear of anyone "closing out their accounts" or "deciding to stop paying for hosting".

It would allow folks to even clone a branch (branches could be something like RV-7 or RV-7A) to their local machines and modify and commit improvements back to the main project.

Now that I am typing this out, I think I will spin something like this up just for the fun of it.....heh.
 
Last edited:
Rather than a Wiki, I'm aware of another forum (the Cozy sub-forum in the Canard Zone) which organizes discussion by chapter. So, if you're building the strakes for your Cozy, you go to the sub-forum on the chapter on strakes and read away. That would be possible to do, by type, for the various RV's. It would be user friendly too, in comparison to playing word games in a search engine.
 
CubedRoot

I agree about the single owner problem and limited space. That's why I was trying to have Vans or VAF host it. Theoretically since Vans charges for the thumb drive that fee could go towards hosting space and then not have to deal with a thumb drive.

As far as permission to share the plans. I have that from Vans.
 
Back
Top