Connie is a registered nurse.  She's doing contingent home care these days which gives her more control over her schedule.  A 14 year stint as a CCRN (critical care) at Harper Hospital ended when administrators demurred about the length of our nearly month-long honeymoon a little over 4 years ago.  I'm sure they knew what a good nurse they had on staff and foolishly chose to play their poker hand to the end.  This is not simply a prideful husband's idle boasting.  You'd want her keeping an eye on your condition, meds,... everything, if you were under the weather.

As I've said above, she's also a great cook , and that's no idle boast either!  She doesn't just follow recipes, can't really, it's not in her character.  She embellishes. Try her 'Veal Constance' some day:

Connie also reads quite a lot.  She'd love to work in a book store.  She tries to alternate between fiction and non-fiction.  She's read 53 books this year, a little over 16,000 pages, and has November and December yet to go!  Her favorite books so far this year are: Bel Canto by Ann Patchett, Ava's Man by Rick Bragg, Tender at the Bone by Ruth Reichl, and Looking for Alaska by Peter Jenkins; all having earned a 10.

Connie also likes to quilt and sew, garden (tomatoes canned for soups and sauces this year, so she had to 'buy' zucchini to make zucchini bread this fall), and keep track of the flower beds all around the house in addition to her collection of Orchids.

And lastly, she is being patient while I build this plane.  Because when it's finished, that's when we start decorating the house in a serious way.  We both like wallpaper and I like hanging it.  The garage will be turned back into a mostly wood-working shop to work up a new fireplace mantle and a new stereo cabinet.  Next time I go to my sister's I'll take a picture of the mantle I made for her family a few years ago.  It's pretty massive. 

From the beginning she wanted to be my 'bucking bar babe'.  Our initial practice sessions back when I started the empennage proved frustrating.  But that was before Bob came over and told I had the gun pressure set much too high.  We haven't tried it since then because much of the riveting thus far has been with 1/8" rivets, which I don't think she has the strength to buck or with 3/32" rivets where the bucking position has been mostly blind.  When I got to the top main skins of the wing, I felt I had a large expanse of rivets that she could get her licks in on.  My original plan was to use the back riveting technique that has been widely reported as being easy for less experienced buckers and produces very nice results.  What better place for very nice results other than the top main wing skins?  I set up a little practice session and we had a go at it.  Two things proved less than very nice.  First, I couldn't seem to get to tail to set straight down.  With that little bend to allow for rib clearance, the 'thrust' of the hit was off center.  I'm sure it was me, but when combined with the second 'less that very nice' item, I decided to forego this technique.  My concern, which manifest itself, was that unlike 'traditional' riveting where each hit with the gun drives the manufactured head flush with the skin, each hit of the gun with this back riveting technique was trying to drive the manufactured head out of the hole.  Even though Connie was holding the bucking bar against the countersunk head, too many of the rivets ended up 'flush' with the skin surface, but not flush in the dimple - you could feel the edge with your finger.  So, we switched back to the traditional setup at the practice bench and shot six.  It turned out to be easy for Connie to get the tails to set straight and we went to work on the right wing.  

Working out from the center of the inboard panel, everything was going fine until I said "Shit!".  This coincided exactly with when I realized I had just set ten AN426AD3-3.5 rivets in the outboard wing walk rib where AN426AD3-4s were required.  Time for a 'break', so I'll update the web site with the new portraits before I drill those ten rivets out - but we're making progress!  

I finally asked Harv for some help and together we riveted the firewall with firewall sealant as required to keep fumes and the hope-it-never-happens fire out. 

ü       2 people (you caught that right away didn’t you!)

ü       Baggage capacity – 100#

ü       Empty Weight ~1114#

ü       Gross Weight – 1800#

ü       Fuel Capacity – 42 gallons

ü       Engine – 160 hp AeroSport Power IO-320  

See 9/24/03 Equipment page for latest update.... As of 4/1/03, I'm almost committed to a new O-320-D1A 160 hp Lyc from Van's and a three-blade MT prop.  Here's why in an email I sent a friend:  

According to Steve Logue, the OEM sales manager at Lycoming, fuel injection on an aircraft engine in reality only buys you piece of mind with respect the carb icing. There are no real performance improvements from it. The deal is - 'people (customers) want it', so Lycoming supplies it, for about $6K+! The performance improvement on the M1B comes from the tuned induction system, which gives you a smoother running engine and about 5 more ponies, although Lycoming markets it as a 180 HP engine, which is what the A1A gets on a dyno, while the M1B puts out about 185 HP. Thing is they're within FAA tolerances for certification so if they market at 180 HP they avoid mountains of paperwork. So for $6K+ you get 5 more HP, which I don't need - about 9 extra pounds of engine mass, and no fuel efficiency gains (more ponies - more fuel).  What I can do though is use the low drag cowl, which is what I really want. And while I get a smoother running engine, it's not smooth enough to eliminate the constant speed prop RPM restrictions, which happens to be in the economy cruise range. Van's says it's not an issue, so they must run their engines at 75% all the time (Hey, they gotta be making money!). I went flying with Harv the other night and watched his fuel flow meter show 16.9 gallons used in an hour and 50 minutes of practicing IMC approaches, which was a little sobering money-wise, so I'm thinking I'll probably trade a little speed for less fuel burn when Connie and I are going places. So, how to deal with the prop? Turns out Lycoming is building a IO-360-M1B6, with the 6 meaning sixth order counterweights, as an experimental engine for a customer right now. And while it's not a 'front burner' project, it seems a logical step to take for the engine (Steve says), so it'll probably be available, maybe late this year - at about $1000-$1500 over the M1B and with 8# of pivoting, vibration absorbing steel bolted to the rear of the crank. So, I can either use an O-320-D1A, or to be able to use the prop I want in the power settings I want and USE THE LOW DRAG COWL, I could wait for and buy an IO-360-M1B6 which has the following plusses and minuses:

PLUS:

 1) 25 HP - actually the 160 HP of the 320 is fine for the plane - the 180 would just be macho need.

2) no carb icing concerns - I build the carb heat box in the firewall forward kit and keep my nose clean on the known icing conditions issue.

3) smoother running engine - but not smooth enough without counterweights.

4) low drag cowl - this is what I REALLY want!

MINUS:

1) 17# of extra weight from the engine and counterweights.

2) thirstier engine.

 3) $7,300-$7,800 MORE - yikes!!!

So, a low drag cowl is not worth almost $8,000 coupled with 17# of weight.

ü       Top speed – 208 mph (200 mph)

ü       Cruise (75% @ 8000 ft) – 198 mph (190 mph)

ü       Range (75% @ 8000 ft) – 765 sm (825 sm)

The tools that I have found to be very nice to have around:

ü      Drill Press

ü      1" bench-top belt sander

ü       Band Saw with metal cutting blade & reduced speed via pulleys

ü       6" Scotch Brite Wheel on bench grinder

ü       Often enough the rivet specification called out for in the plans is not of sufficient length (given the variations in construction) to form a good shop head.  On the other hand, if the rivet is too long, there will be a greater tendency to cleat the head.  So, the tool to have is a rivet cutter.  I chose this one (2nd picture) even though it was damned expensive I thought at $126.  But it does a good job (the cut rivets have always easily gone in the hole) and it's easy and quick to work with.  Easy, because it is screwed to your bench so it's solid and with the long handle you can exert a large quick force.  Quick, because you don't have to adjust length guides.  Most options you will need are built right into the stepped cutter as different holes.  (The pliers-type has a set of length stops built in that are like a set of feeler gages.)

I bought the 1/2" x 36" model.  According to the Spruce catalog: "10.6mm (1/2" - Tom) scopes have memory. The 5.8mm scopes are smaller with more light & heavier density, but don't have memory."  If you check out these scopes elsewhere on the internet, I don't think you'll find a better price than Spruce - I didn't.  But you find out that "memory" does not mean you can sight something and then save for later viewing or anything like that.  They mean that the flexible bundle of fiber optic cables is suppose to stay in the position you set it to i.e. not droop once released.  That's somewhat true.  The actual manufacturer calls this characteristic "obedient" - sounds S&M to me.  The lower picture is what you actually see, but it was a challenge taking a picture with the eyepiece up to the lens of the camera!  What you see with your eye is considerable sharper than I was able to capture, but it is NOT so sharp that you detect the beginnings of a smaller than hairline crack - at least I don't think so.  Sounds like an opportunity to do some testing - later.

I think the reason I cleated five in a row may have had something to do with my technique as bucker and with the technique of my buddy on the gun. and with the slight misalignment of the skin to rib rivet holes.  Clecoed and riveted to the rear spar the holes were perfectly aligned, but moving to the main spar the skin seemed to have shrunk a tad and so the holes were offset.  I think he wasn't maintaining enough.  I think if the shooter maintains good pressure on the gun, it'll hold the rivet seated straight.  Naturally the bucker can't be pressing hard because in between hits of the piston, because the hole is misaligned, any pressure on the bar can push the rivet off perpendicular.  On other bays going out to the wing tip, good technique was used and the skin did was is more normal when driving a line of rivets from one end to the other, the skin stretched and by the main spar, the holes were in alignment.