LeSving wrote:
Russian aircraft used lots of wood in the construction. American aircraft were all aluminium. The reason the Russian used wood was logistics. Wood was readily available there and then.
True. You work with what you have.
Vans make reference to the US wartime experience in the intro to their build paperwork. The gist is that riveted aluminium construction during the war produced thousands upon thousands of airworthy aeroplanes built by people without any special skills. Cutting, drilling, deburring and riveting aluminium are skills that most people can learn during their first day on the job. Some become total masters and produce beautiful work, but most people can do it to the standard required for airworthiness with only a little guidance.
It’s not unusual for parts to be “made to fit”.
When the Brazilian Tucano was built in N Ireland (a former shipyard!) under license, no two were the same size, with reported overall airframe length variations up to 20cm! As a result, according to soneone flight testing these, was that the handling varied from sample to sample 
The phrase “made to fit” must have acquired a whole new meaning.
How one orders spare parts for that sort of aircraft, must be interesting… Windshields are enough work, having to have a good number of cm trimmed off all around. Those sliding doors will be more work.
Peter wrote:
When the Brazilian Tucano was built in N Ireland (a former shipyard!) under license, no two were the same size, with reported overall airframe length variations up to 20cm!
I’m not sure if 20cm is accurate (that part may just be an old wives tale) however they were indeed built by Shorts using wooden jigs, so they would change size slightly with different temperature and humidity levels. Inspection panels etc… would be unique to each airframe.
Quite a few of the ex-RAF Shorts Tucanos are now flying privately in the US – the going rate seems to be about $1M.
That reminds me, the aéroclub had a Robin DR.221 and would borrow a DR.250. Identical airframes built a year apart, but the Capitaine was ~10cm longer. The owner thought it was down to the larger engine, but went all over both planes with a tape measure and couldn’t find exactly where the ±10cm was. This supports the theory that Robin airframes were manufactured singly.
Capitaine wrote:
That reminds me, the aéroclub had a Robin DR.221 and would borrow a DR.250. Identical airframes built a year apart, but the Capitaine was ~10cm longer.
Please pay attention that
So there are possible more differences then the overallfuselage lengt between DR-250’s
* this source says that only 21 aircraft had been built btwn 1965 – 1967 at Robin (including 1 prototype)
** here you can find a offer for a Swiss-built DR-250 (the company in Basel building this Robin’s under license closed long ago)
cosy
Peter wrote:
It’s not unusual for parts to be “made to fit”.
With the RVs only the -14 and in the immediate future, the -15 have the refined CNC machinery all around to enable interchangeable parts. Perhaps the -12? I’m not sure. Even the -4 has some interchangeable parts, but with some level of tweaking. IcP (Savannah) has all interchangeable parts. You can order any structural piece and just rivet it on. Pipistrel also has fully interchangeable parts. Damage a wing, just order a new one, and it will “bolt” right in with “1/100 mm” precision (there is only one bolt, or two depending how you look at it).
I higher level of manufacturing makes it easier, but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t make all that much difference.
While I would agree that production of Jodels / Robins was de-centralized, I struggle to understand how that would explain differences in airframes dimensions? Jodel D11 manufactured in California should be an exact copy of D11 manufactured in France, because both were build to the same plans.
Robin_253 wrote:
Jodel D11 manufactured in California should be an exact copy of D11 manufactured in France, because both were build to the same plans.
Inches vs cm. Perhaps the Californian Jodels are huge? 
The Falconar F11 may be of interest here?
It is BTW common for non-kit-built Experimental Amateur Built aircraft to be modified from their original configuration (in fact almost universal) when constructed in the US. No design approval is required.
There were differences in the 3 Jodel DR1050 planes I’ve part-owned. Cockpit width differed. One was CEA built, one was SAN built, and the third, which was several centimetres shorter between rear of wing and front of tailplane, was rebuilt from crashed 1960? and a 1964 models.
She had the best balanced controls and stall characteristics of the three, until her wing was recovered just before we sold her.
