What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Is A/C Spruce selling bogus fittings?

What's bizaare is the mix. I have to think that something like this is going on:

The manufacturer makes the parts in batches. Each batch gets run through and stamped at the same time. When ACS or Vans calls with an order, they just ship out what they have. Sometime's they've made it through the stamping process and other times they haven't but they just ship out what the have. That's the only scenario that makes sense to me.

The troubling part, though, is wondering what else they're skipping. Nobody (i.e. Vans or ACS) has yet to explain WHY the things are coming unstamped. That leaves a big question mark and erodes trust. It's probably not a big deal but how can anyone know that? How do we know we're not getting a rejected lot that failed QC and therefore they never bothered stamping them? It's really difficult to regain this kind of trust. The fact that this is a simple question that's dragged on for weeks makes it 10 times worse and makes it look as though there IS something to hide.

Not a biggie, though. Just keep sending them back. If we just refuse to accept them, one of them will eventually take the time to call their suppliers and get a straight story.
 
John, the only problem I have with your scenario is that I believe that the stamp comes before the anodize. Otherwise the stamp would show bare metal. Does this make sense?
 
Mel said:
John, the only problem I have with your scenario is that I believe that the stamp comes before the anodize. Otherwise the stamp would show bare metal. Does this make sense?
Click to expand...

Yes, you're absolutely right. At a minimum, you'd have little fissures in the anodizing and it'd look awful.
 
I still find it hard to believe (I know it's happening, I just can't believe it) that these fittings are being sold as aircraft parts without adhering to the specification. I would think that the liability exposure would scare the supply companies silly...
 
Batches...

Originally Posted by Mel
John, the only problem I have with your scenario is that I believe that the stamp comes before the anodize. Otherwise the stamp would show bare metal. Does this make sense?
jcoloccia said:
Yes, you're absolutely right. At a minimum, you'd have little fissures in the anodizing and it'd look awful.
Click to expand...

Then they were never planned to be a part of a Mil-Spec batch... even worse...

gil in Tucson
 
jcoloccia said:
What's bizaare is the mix. I have to think that something like this is going on:

The manufacturer makes the parts in batches. Each batch gets run through and stamped at the same time. When ACS or Vans calls with an order, they just ship out what they have. Sometime's they've made it through the stamping process and other times they haven't but they just ship out what the have. That's the only scenario that makes sense to me.

The troubling part, though, is wondering what else they're skipping. Nobody (i.e. Vans or ACS) has yet to explain WHY the things are coming unstamped. That leaves a big question mark and erodes trust. It's probably not a big deal but how can anyone know that? How do we know we're not getting a rejected lot that failed QC and therefore they never bothered stamping them? It's really difficult to regain this kind of trust. The fact that this is a simple question that's dragged on for weeks makes it 10 times worse and makes it look as though there IS something to hide.

Not a biggie, though. Just keep sending them back. If we just refuse to accept them, one of them will eventually take the time to call their suppliers and get a straight story.
Click to expand...

You bring up an interesting point, John. I recall at least 3 occasions when I was in the Corps that I had opened up a sealed bag of hardware, fresh off the truck from Supply, and found an AN3-series bolt with everything but the threads, mixed in with the other 99 good bolts. Cad plating, head markings, QA/QC stamp on the bag label, etc... but there's that one bolt with no threads on the shank.

You'd think it would be glaringly obvious to someone inspecting this stuff, but apparently some "bad apples" are slipping by the inspection process. I'm personally getting more concerned about this the more I think about it - the number of people speaking up about fittings that are being represented as meeting a specification, and clearly are not in compliance with said spec, tells me there's a BIG problem with quality control at some manufacturer.
 
ACS

FWIW,
The last two orders I got from ACS were misleading.
One, I ordered Nyo-Seal tubing which I believe has been bought by Parker and so maybe no longer available, and I got Parker nylon tubing.
The second order was for Poly-Flo tubing and I got a brand name that I couldn't find anything about on the web. The tubing was actually tagged as Poly-Flo but it wasn't. The AN bolts I got looked like they had trace brands on the heads, and some came packaged with lot identification numbers so who knows. No explanations were given for the substitutions.
Also, the front of the ACS catalog has some disturbing liability waivers and the notice on the AN bolt page states that "most cases we receive our hardware certified to applicable AN, MS or NAS specifications..". I am reconsidering where I buy my stuff, since I also own a certified aircraft.
Dave A.
 
<<I am reconsidering where I buy my stuff...>>

The whole thing is nearly a business textbook case on how to squander customer goodwill. No question that it wll cost them money. The only question is how much.

The flip side? This is exactly how the system should work.

My own recent orders have gone elsewhere.
 
More bogus fittings !

Ok, earlier in the week I put in an order to ACS. Which included an order for two AN822 fittings. (I figured that things had gotten ironed out, and that I?d actually get AN fittings). Guess not, because I got the substitute (aka ? bogus? fittings), if I had ordered the substitute fittings,,, OK,, but I ordered AN fitting, and I expected to get AN fittings. :mad:

Anyone else ordered recently, and got the ?bogus? fittings as well ?

an822bg2.jpg
 
While at S&F, we spent some time in the FAA area... I know scary stuff! Anyways, after taking care of some paperwork, we asked the "suspected part" department about the fitting and if they're legal if they have the paperwork trail behind them but not the stamp and the answer is NO, but that in experimental it doesn't matter.
They wanted to know the source of the bad part, but I couldn't bring myself to rat anyone out.
 
Wow, all these post about a part that is exactly like the parts on my airplane and they all have come from the exact same suppliers that supplied parts for all of your airplanes.

I had a problem a few years ago with ACS, I emailed Mr Irwin about it and got a reply from him right away and he fixed it, on the spot. Kinda like ACS did in this case. No, they didn't send the paper that was requested but they did replace the part, I'm sure they would have given a refund if that had been requested instead. Would a piece of paper really have solved this?

Next week, I'm ordering a Matco parking brake valve and two ACS brake fluid reservoirs from ACS. Both items are in use on hundreds of airplanes (some of them are RVs too) and they aren't certified in any way, shape or form that I know of. Oh yea, need to order that ACS ignition switch as well.

My electrical system will be using "automotive" fuses and fuse boxes. The boost pump could very well be "automotive" as well. Hmm, I think my master and starter contactors are automotive too, not really sure, they may be marine or agricultural. A portable GPS connected to an un-certified autopilot. My engine will be an aircraft engine, sorta. I mean it won't be "certified" with a piece of paper or anything and I pray the guy that builds it is having a good day but in the end that's about all I can do, trust and pray.

I know it all comes back to my airplane and my decision. If it were I and I didn't want that part on my airplane, I wouldn't have started a thread here implying ACS is selling "bogus" parts". Instead, I would have asked for a replacement or a refund. ACS has done that and more, replaced the fitting, opened lines of communication with all of the RV community here and even the president of the company has emailed Doug trying to rectify this. What more can they do? Post a copy of a piece of paper here for all to see when ACS can't even prove that the fitting in question even came from their stock?

At some point this just becomes (or has become) vendor bashing. Mr Irwin and ACS has always been very good to me in providing great service even when things went wrong. I trust ACS and the rest of my suppliers (with my life) to provide to me what they claim to provide..... just like the rest of you trust your suppliers to provide what they claim. Paper or no paper, marking or no marking, it's the people in the process that I trust.
 
Last edited:
RatMan said:
...I trust ACS and the rest of my suppliers (with my life) to provide to me what they claim to provide..... just like the rest of you trust your suppliers to provide what they claim. Paper or no paper, marking or no marking, it's the people in the process that I trust.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is a matter of trust or not, it is a matter of getting what you ordered. The AN fitting will have the markings by definition. If you order an AN fitting and you don't get one, I think there is a problem.
 
Sure Larry, I agree and that illustrates my point. He ordered an "AN" part and he claimed that part was suspect (actually he implied "bogus"). When ACS wouldn't provide him with paperwork (for a part that would be impossible for them to identify) he said the conversation ended. Since then he has received replacement parts without even shipping the suspect parts back. Not really sure he even requested replacement parts even.

At what point is enough, enough?

Was there enough communication? No. Did ACS refuse to replace or refund? No. Did ACS do anything in bad faith? I don't think so.

C'mon, ACS is a great company, well they have treated me pretty good anyway. What is the solution here? I would suggest to anyone, if you get a part that's not up to your standards, ask for either a replacement or a refund. At least give them a chance to make it right!

You can bring up all the regs you like but ACS didn't produce the part they only sold it. Is that illegal? Probably not, since they are willing to replace the part. A mistake was made, blown out of proportion and they still made it right. Classy, I think.
 
This is vendor bashing?? It's simply stating facts. If the facts make the vendor look bad, and the vendor would rather look good, then the vendor should get their act together. It's totally relevant and on-topic that there's suspect hardware floating around, and it's also relevant and on-topic that this came up over a month ago and it's still happening. The way to "make it right" is to stop shipping junk.

That said, I still order plenty from ACS and they're also always been very nice and helpful to me, and I'll continue to order from them and others. Nobody's bashing anyone.
 
Certified Planes...

RatMan said:
....
You can bring up all the regs you like but ACS didn't produce the part they only sold it. Is that illegal? Probably not, since they are willing to replace the part. A mistake was made, blown out of proportion and they still made it right. Classy, I think.
Click to expand...

John... the trouble is that ACS is selling AN parts to FAA mechanics for use in certified planes as well as Experimentals.

This problem does not seem to be a one off mistake, but a wholesale mislabeling of what should be Mil-Spec parts.

As an Airframe Mechanic, I buy "standard hardware" from ACS, and it has to be to some "standard" to be legal on my Tiger.... that "standard" is usually a Mil-Spec (or AN...AS...MS...) of some sort.

This goes beyond supplying parts for Experimentals...

My opinion is that it is less than "classy"...

gil in Tucson
 
John,
Just calling it as I see it. When members keep piling on and on, that's bashing. As I said before, ACS has done all they can to resolve this. What else?

Gil,
As an aircraft mechanic it's your responsibility to determine the part is correct, no? If a certified aircraft goes down, can an A&P just say "they sent me the wrong part?

As I see it, ACS shares no more responsibility to provide correct "AN" hardware than does Summit Racing. They sell it too but if the same thing happened with an order from Summit every one would just blow it off.

Just my opinion
 
...ACS has done all they can to resolve this. What else?
Click to expand...
What else? Stop shipping the mis-identified parts. If they want to offer a similar part to AN that is not AN, then label it and sell it as such. e.g. for Corvettes you can look in a catalog and find the same part listed twice: one a "correct" restoration part, right next to a "replacement" part. Each so labeled so the buyer knows what he is getting.

...can an A&P just say "they sent me the wrong part?
Click to expand...
No more than you can say poor ACS is just selling the part, not manufacturing it. It is incumbent upon them to ship what they describe.
 
ACS has not done everything they could. They could check the parts before shipping them since they know they have a received a bad batch. Knowingly shipping questionable parts is NOT classy. A letter to people who had purshased fittings recently to remind them to check that they got good fittings would have also been welcomed. ACS dropped the ball on this one and got called out on it.

I don't think we're bashing the company, and they're not the only one who've shipped questionable fitting as much as we're discussing the issues related to these fittings. If I wanted to bash ACS, we'd complain about price, shipping delays, cutomer service...
 
Paul Thomas said:
ACS has not done everything they could. They could check the parts before shipping them since they know they have a received a bad batch. Knowingly shipping questionable parts is NOT classy. A letter to people who had purshased fittings recently to remind them to check that they got good fittings would have also been welcomed. ACS dropped the ball on this one and got called out on it.
Click to expand...

Besides that fact, that these parts are not stamped....

Are, they actually a "bad" batch, or inferior?

I have both examples, and really don't see anything inferior about them. The inside machining looks rather identical, and of good quality. I can easily photograph a less than great looking stamped part, to present it as inferior too.

My point has nothing to do with being officially stamped and legal; but just due to the fact of being inferior or not.

In other words, is the part really of less quality, and will it have a much better chance of failing early? From looking at both stamped and unstamped products, I'd say no.

L.Adamson
 
In context, as I think I mentioned earlier in this thread, ACS does NOT provide tracability (and they have a posted notice that states such) and therefore, A&P mechanics technically SHOULD NOT be using any parts from there on certfied aircraft. In the real world, that happens all the time, but...

They started as a company to provide experimental aviation products, and their roots still show as such.
 
Parts is not Parts....

L.Adamson said:
Besides that fact, that these parts are not stamped....

Are, they actually a "bad" batch, or inferior?

I have both examples, and really don't see anything inferior about them. The inside machining looks rather identical, and of good quality. I can easily photograph a less than great looking stamped part, to present it as inferior too.

My point has nothing to do with being officially stamped and legal; but just due to the fact of being inferior or not.

In other words, is the part really of less quality, and will it have a much better chance of failing early? From looking at both stamped and unstamped products, I'd say no.

L.Adamson
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter... they are "bad" if you want to put them on a certified plane, and ACS sells to mechanics that work on certified planes, and sells the parts as "AN hardware".

ACS could easily solve the problem if they sold the parts as "AN-equivalent" and only to the Experimental market.

I've bought fittings from Earls Racing in the past (for the RV) and they came stamped with "AN" - they used to advertise AeroQuip hardware...

gil in Tucson
 
az_gila said:
Doesn't matter... they are "bad" if you want to put them on a certified plane, and ACS sells to mechanics that work on certified planes, and sells the parts as "AN hardware".
Click to expand...

No, they're "bad" on a certified aircraft if they can't be traced. Having the stamp doesn't make the part legit. It could be stamped and cracked, threads missing or a number of other things that would make the part unusable. One of the reasons aircraft parts and aircraft mechanics are so expensive is maintaining this traceability. Years and years after the part is manufactured. Sure ACS sells to aircraft mechanics but it's the A&Ps responsibility to determine if the part is correct, not ACS or any other vendor for that matter.

az_gila said:
ACS could easily solve the problem if they sold the parts as "AN-equivalent" and only to the Experimental market.
Click to expand...

ACS solved the problem by replacing the part, not because the part was bad or even came from them, but because they're a stand up company. As far as how to get a replacement part, it's all over their site and in there printed catalog for all to see. They tell you up front what to do if you get a part that is damaged, wrong or missing. Even if there was a yellow tag attached to the fitting it would STILL be the mechanics responsibility to determine the suitability of the part. If you require a Certificate of Conformance that information is there as well.

az_gila said:
I've bought fittings from Earls Racing in the past (for the RV) and they came stamped with "AN" - they used to advertise AeroQuip hardware...
Click to expand...

OK, Earl has parts marked AN, does that in fact make them a part that can be used on a certified aircraft? Not necessarily. If Earls Racing doesn't maintain traceability you still couldn't use the part. But that part, like this one would be perfectly acceptable on a homebuilt.
 
Update....

Upon further thought.... I think an update to my previous ACS suggestion is needed....

Some time back, Wag-Aero got into trouble selling non-certified parts (a radio, IIRC) and part of the penance/fine was to implement a labeling system showing acceptable usage of all of their catalog items.

http://store.wagaero.com/product_info.php?products_id=5061

Code 5 is a "standard part" to the FAA's definition...

A typical AN fitting is here, with a code 5 label....

http://store.wagaero.com/product_info.php?products_id=13328

Perhaps ACS should be encouraged to have a similar coding system so you know what you are getting, and where it can be used.... :)

This could keep both an FAA mechanic and the Experimental builder happy... :)

gil in Tucson
 
But see above. ACS doesn't REALLY target the certified market, it just so happens that they provide products to experimetal builders/owners that cross over to the certfied market. Thats why they can be cheaper, because they don't worry about tracability!
 
Bottom Line

Do you remember this post from Jim Irwin?

?...As our Customer Service Department stated before, we did receive some fittings that were not stamped, and we have requested that the supplier exchage them for stamped fittings...
Jim Irwin
President, Aircraft Spruce"

Since they are still selling the unstamped fittings, evidently the supplier declined to replace them.

In my opinion this is the bottom line: If you advertise them as AN fittings then supply AN fittings.
 
Equivalent..

osxuser said:
But see above. ACS doesn't REALLY target the certified market, it just so happens that they provide products to experimetal builders/owners that cross over to the certfied market. Thats why they can be cheaper, because they don't worry about tracability!
Click to expand...
Then they should not sell the parts as "AN Hardware"... just call it "AN Equivalent Hardware".... :rolleyes:

gil in Tucson
 
So should Jeggs, Summit Racing, JC Whitney, Autozone and many many other suppliers be forced to follow suit or would they be exmpt because they sell "car parts" to auto mechanics?
 
Last edited:
advertise as AN, sell AN

this is a truth in advertising thing.

Nobody is arguing that they might not be as good as the real thing.

BUT, if you're buying with the expectation that they are AN, they better be stamped.

This thread has gone on far too long. ACS (belatedly) related that they have inadvertently shipped non-AN stamped fittings. The latest batch suggests that their quality/shipment department didn't get the message to double and triple check their shipments.

They've done a good job by me in the past, but this is a PR nightmare. If they would have rapidly acknowledged the problem, fixed it, and made sure it never happened again, they would gain more/ keep the respect of homebuilders. I'll still use them, but if i order AN and don't get it, you can be sure Jim will hear about it and be expected to fix it at his expense. I don't believe anything malicious is going on, but keep them honest!

phil
KSLC
-10 slow build wings
 
I live about 20 minutes from Spruce and have been going there about twice a month for several years. They have always treated me great and have on several occasions gone above and beyond what would be considered normal customer service. However, to say that they don't make their living selling to the certified market is just not accurate. Each time I visit, I typically wait in line behind several other customers and would say that usually it is someone buying something for a non-homebuilt aircraft. For anyone to pretend that a company called AIRCRAFT Spruce belongs in the same box with companies like Jeggs and Summit seems like a big stretch. The fact is that when you walk into such a store (with two airplanes hanging form the ceiling) and purchase something listed as AN, then you are being reasonable when you assume that it is AN.

Yes, they replaced the part, said they were sorry, and then apparently kept sending them out. If I buy (and pay for) aircraft quality, I expect to receive it. This seems like a pretty straightforward requirement and is anything but vendor bashing.
 
Summit Racing - quick check...

RatMan said:
So should Jeggs, Summit Racing, JC Whitney, Autozone and many many other suppliers be forced to follow suit or would they be exmpt because they sell "car parts" to auto mechanics?
Click to expand...

Actually... first check... Summit Racing.

Does not use AN part numbers... they seem to use the term "AN" as a style... which makes sense to differentiate 37 degree fittings from the automotive 45 degree fittings.

Example...

http://store.summitracing.com/partd...924496+4294839052+4294849624+115&autoview=sku

So, no AN part numbers involved... no attempt to be Mil Spec. or aircraft quality... just good Aeroquip parts for auto mechanics... :rolleyes:

Sounds reasonable to me....

But check out this catalog of "Aircraft Parts" for auto racers...

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/rcatorder.php

gil in Tucson

UPDATE - for Jegs

http://www.jegs.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10001_10002_752558_-1_10019

Same as above - no AN part numbers involved...
 
Last edited:
Earls

RatMan said:
Try searching for "Earls" or "Russell".
Click to expand...

Don't need to for Earl's, I have a copy of their 100+ page catalog in front of me.... :)

They use their own part numbers for AN type fittings...

An AN-816-4 equivalent part (my look-up) is called a 986144 in their catalog... no attempt at AN numbers or Mil-Specs.

Just AN Equivalent parts with a 37 degree fitting to auto mechanics....

gil in Tucson
 
RatMan said:
You can bring up all the regs you like but ACS didn't produce the part they only sold it. Is that illegal? Probably not, since they are willing to replace the part. A mistake was made, blown out of proportion and they still made it right. Classy, I think.
Click to expand...
John, the point is that Aircraft Spruce was/is shipping fittings that DO NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATION they are being advertised as meeting. This is fact, as supported by the links to the applicable specifications. It can't be argued. Whether this is happening by accident or by design, is a question I don't have the answer to. I would certainly hope it's accidental...

By the way, under the FAA's Suspected Unapproved Parts program, it IS illegal for a vendor to sell non-compliant items that they are advertising as being compliant with a specification. It's just as illegal for the vendor to sell them, as it would be for me to install them on a certificated aircraft as an A&P.

Now, if ACS was selling these unstamped fittings as "equivalents", "not to be used on certificated aircraft", and were priced accordingly, this would be a non-issue. As you and others have said, what goes on your experimental airplane is up to you, the builder/manufacturer. If you or anyone else wants to use AN-equivalent fittings that don't meet the AN specification 100%, go for it. But you shouldn't pay specification price for non-specification hardware/fittings, and your chosen vendor shouldn't advertise and charge specification prices but ship non-specification hardware/fittings.




***EDIT***
Just realized there was more to this thread than what I replied to...

I agree, this thread is beginning to spiral away from it's original theme. I'm finished here.
 
Last edited:
Can we kill this thread?

Sorry to chime in here with such a negative tone, but this thread should be taken out to pasture and shot (then buried 12 feet deep).

We all know that ACS should not advertise for an AN part and then ship a non-AN part. I don't get why some of the folks here don't get that. I love car analogies, so lets use one for those of you who don't get it: I go to a dealership and buy a brand new Ford Fiesta (Ha!)...what they hand me are the keys to a non-Ford product (say a Yugo) that looks similar but has no labels. Do I really need to go into detail as to why this is wrong?

Like the other guys have said, if you want to use the non-AN parts in your airplane that's just fine...but for the rest of us who are purchasing AN parts, we would like to get the AN stamp on them when we pay for them. That stamp is expensive!

Move on...next topic.
 
az_gila said:
Searches on "Russell" seem to give me Jim Russell racing schools, not parts....

gil in Tucson
Click to expand...

Actually Gil, I meant try searching "Summit" for Earls or Russell but dont bother now. I have their latest printed catalog right in front of me and there are several pages of AN hardware available from them. Believe it or not, they actually sell the stuff.

I'm done here. Like others have said this thread has gone on far too long. If you feel ACS has broken the law there are ways to report them.
 
Last edited:
Done too...

RatMan said:
Actually Gil, I meant try searching "Summit" for Earls or Russell but dont bother now. I have their latest printed catalog right in front of me and there are several pages of AN hardware available from them. Believe it or not, they actually sell the stuff.

I'm done here. Like others have said this thread has gone on far too long. If you feel ACS has broken the law there are ways to report them.
Click to expand...

I'm done too.... but I'm confused over your Summit catalog comment.

http://store.summitracing.com/partd...400041+4294906726+4294906747+115&autoview=sku

They do sell Earl's stuff, but no AN part numbers are involved.

And yes... if ACS sends me an unlabelled AN fitting, I'll fill out the FAA bogus part form...

gil in Tucson - last post here....
 
Last edited:
This thread should not be deleted. Someone else might receive "bogus" fittings and I'm sure they'd apreciate reading this thread as it contains valuable information.
 
What I learned.

Definitely should not be deleted. The fact that it remains open to posting is making me think my $25 should be on it's way to D.R. post-haste. Open dialog is what the 'net is all about, censorship is so newspaper-like.

I learned a lot from this thread. I found a "parts guy" I hadn't seen before, realized Yukon was a troll, ACS replaced a part someone made a stink about yet continued to ship them, those stamps on the pretty parts mean something important and I need to learn the language...

Most importantly it was driven home that, "Everything on my experimental aircraft is my responsibility. No one else's."

I reinforced my opinion, "I will never own a certified aircraft."

I learned ACS needs some PR adjustment. They botched this big time. This is not vendor bashing. They should respond here or set a hard and fast policy of, "email us and we'll deal with everyone's concerns on a case by case basis." Leaving this particular elephant in the room is sure to cost business and reputation.

I *will* use ACS when I start building, I'm sure. I'll use all the vendors.

I *will* carefully inventory and inspect anything I'm about to include in my experimental aircraft. This will be my first hard and fast rule, "I trust no one."

Not even YOU! ;)
 
Not only ACS...

Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated incident. Realizing that I too had received suspicious fittings from ACS, I placed a new order for the same fittings from Van's. I was quite surprised when I opened the package to find similar fittings.

This sort of thing happens because we, the consumer, allow it. The more we refuse it and hold the suppliers accountable for delivering what they advertise, the less it will happen... period.
 
FlyerJumper said:
Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated incident. Realizing that I too had received suspicious fittings from ACS, I placed a new order for the same fittings from Van's. I was quite surprised when I opened the package to find similar fittings.

This sort of thing happens because we, the consumer, allow it. The more we refuse it and hold the suppliers accountable for delivering what they advertise, the less it will happen... period.
Click to expand...

So....................what if these parts are actually of higher quality, considering we won't get fractures due to stressed metal, where the "AN" product was stamped.... :D

Just asking ;)

In reality, some of the unstamped parts that I have, actually look as good or better, than some stamped parts; so I don't know whether I'm actually getting less value, or more.

L.Adamson --- an uncertified homebuilt RV6A

edit: The bottom line,

Aside from the stampings, and legalities; are we getting a product of equal, better, or less value, structural wise?

Is it a case, where we'll have to start paying more for certified parts with a paper trail, because of general price increases?
 
Last edited:
L.Adamson said:
So....................what if these parts are actually of higher quality, considering we won't get fractures due to stressed metal, where the "AN" product was stamped.... :D
Click to expand...

They may very well be. Or are cheap imports of poor material and bad machining tolerances. Often companys like KHF or Goodridge will do everying to spec in a particular production run but stamp and sell half the batch as AN parts, and sell the other unstamped half to the non aviation market. Same quality. The key point is non stamped parts is there is no way to tell who made it, what specs it was made to, or what it is made of.

L.Adamson said:
Aside from the stampings, and legalities; are we getting a product of equal, better, or less value, structural wise?
Click to expand...

Thats the problem, nobody can answer that question. Some are the same or better, some are worse. Its not a gamble I would take on my aircraft.

I think the basic jist of this thread is ACS states they only sell AN fittings, which means ZERO AN fittings should ever be sold by them that do not have marking on them. This has happend, and appears may still be happening. How ACS deals with this is important, but just as important is them finding out why they accepted lots of incorrect fitting. Why they indivudaly bagged them in incorreectaly labled plastic bags, put them in stock, and sold them. This has happend, and appears may still be happening. People are not getting the product they paid for, and people may be exposing themselves to more risk or legal ramifications by installing incorrect parts on aircraft.
 
Heck, I got the same fittings from Van's, let's beat up on them too! If you don't like what Spruce is selling you and you're not happy with their policy, then don't buy from Spruce. If you don't like what Van's is selling, don't buy from them either. Go somewhere else!

PJ Seipel
RV-10 #40032
 
Markings aside, Spruce says the fittings meet AN spec. They've been repeatedly asked to prove it, but that hasn't happened. There are only two possibilities. Either they do not have proof that the parts meet spec, or they have proof but refuse to provide it. The first means fraud, a repeated misrepresentation made recklessly without knowledge. The second would indicate a certain attitude about customer relations and service.

Neither possibility is very flattering, but my own concern centers on "representation without knowledge". The market is full of cheap knockoff components. I'd like to be able to depend on my vendor to exercise care in supplying the real deal. Put another way, I expect some expertise from a old-line, full price aviation supplier. I want to be able to trust them.

Trust is a serious issue. Unmarked fittings are obvious, but I also buy 4130 sheet and tube, a variety of aluminum alloy products, and other airframe components that may not necessarily have markings. In the past, for example, I've accepted structural tube and sheet with obscured or missing mill marks....on trust.

It would be crazy for Spruce to risk loss of trust over a certification request for a fitting if they in fact have the proof. I don't think they have any proof. That's why this mess is so disturbing. The fitting itself is no big deal. The issue is what it indicates about the supplier.
 
DanH said:
Markings aside, Spruce says the fittings meet AN spec. They've been repeatedly asked to prove it, but that hasn't happened. There are only two possibilities. Either they do not have proof that the parts meet spec, or they have proof but refuse to provide it. The first means fraud, a repeated misrepresentation made recklessly without knowledge. The second would indicate a certain attitude about customer relations and service.

Neither possibility is very flattering, but my own concern centers on "representation without knowledge". The market is full of cheap knockoff components. I'd like to be able to depend on my vendor to exercise care in supplying the real deal. Put another way, I expect some expertise from a old-line, full price aviation supplier. I want to be able to trust them.

Trust is a serious issue. Unmarked fittings are obvious, but I also buy 4130 sheet and tube, a variety of aluminum alloy products, and other airframe components that may not necessarily have markings. In the past, for example, I've accepted structural tube and sheet with obscured or missing mill marks....on trust.

It would be crazy for Spruce to risk loss of trust over a certification request for a fitting if they in fact have the proof. I don't think they have any proof. That's why this mess is so disturbing. The fitting itself is no big deal. The issue is what it indicates about the supplier.
Click to expand...
I have read through this thread, and as some already have remarked, this is BIG DEAL. If this has happened in more industrial circumstances, there would have been lawsuits en mass by now. Fittings (or any other things for that matter) that do not in some way confirm to the specs, are NOT within specs - period. When the stamps, that should be there according to the specs (if that is the case for the particular spec on the particular item) are lacking, then that is the (non)written physical proof that they are not within specs. This is indisputable, there really is nothing to discuss.

High quality hardware that are produced within some specs (not neccesarily aircraft specs) typically have twice the strength of standard similar looking, similar sized hardware from the local hardware store. But that is not the important thing. The important thing is that if produced within specs, you can be 99.99 % certain, could be 99.9 or 99.9999 depending on the actual specs, that the item can hold an ultimate maximum pressure for instance of 50 bar. The similar looking ordinary hardware can ON AVERAGE only hold 25 bar, meaning that there is a good chance, maybe 1-2% that the item cannot even hold 5 bar due to imperfections in material and poor production processes. The possibility of the spec'ed item not being able to hold 5 bar is for most practical applications non-existent. This is just a typical example, the actual specs can also include corrosion, fattigue, temperature variations etc with similar or much worse relations.
 
And my point is that if you don't like what ACS is selling you, go somewhere else. They'll get the message. It's apparent that they aren't interested in changing their policy at this point in time, so why waste your time trying to force them?

They have the disclaimer in their catalog and on their website; if buying parts that can't be traced makes you uncomfortable, then buy them from a company that's willing to provide the paperwork for you.

And if it really, really bothers you that much, then report them to the FAA and the situation will work itself out one way or another.

PJ Seipel
RV-10 #40032
 
I have learned

-Non Professional opinion and general statement-

With almost everything;

You get what you pay for, or less than what you paid for.

Almost never, will you actually get more than what you paid for. When you do, that is what is called from the sellers end, "a mistake"

Good quality costs,
Poor quality costs more, that is why so many organizations have
"Quality departments"

-Non Professional opinion and general statement-
 
This is a joke, right?

I think the OP is someone's idea of a joke. Then other's get NASA involved? What, are they going to ask questions about pressurizing their cabin with 100% O2? How about how to dismiss a manufacturer's concern that the temperature at launch is outside the design specifications of the part they manufactured?

What's a mouse click take? 1/16th of a second to click the box for the 8130?
 
DTARM1 said:
I think the OP is someone's idea of a joke. Then other's get NASA involved? What, are they going to ask questions about pressurizing their cabin with 100% O2? How about how to dismiss a manufacturer's concern that the temperature at launch is outside the design specifications of the part they manufactured?

What's a mouse click take? 1/16th of a second to click the box for the 8130?
Click to expand...

If so, It's a 14 year old joke ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top