[dforgerson]

This is great advice.

For those that are drawing a 'no laser cut part' line for your build, this is your choice. However consider that all of the data, engineering and testing shows (so far) that this is an extreme stance and not based in the facts.

-G

As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no testing data that shows that the laser cut parts that Van's shipped are reliable. I questioned their entire testing strategy in post #465. So far, there has been no response from Van's.

Note that the same company that is doing the reliability testing is the company that screwed up in the first place. So, IMO they should put their reliability testing up to intense scrutiny from their customers.

I am perfectly willing to concede that it is technically possible to produce perfectly reliable laser cut parts. However, that is not the question. The question is: Are all of the laser cut parts that Van's shipped perfectly reliable? The only way that this question can be answered is through worst case testing.

------------------------------------

Since no one seems to have read my previous comment, I will post it again here:

I watched the video of Van's presentation at Oshkosh. The quality of the audio and video was not very good, but it was much better than nothing and many thanks to whoever recorded it. I agree with everyone else that thinks that Van's could have done a better job in making this video. After watching the video, I am not convinced that Van's is doing their reliability testing properly. Here are my thoughts:

* Van's should have done more to investigate and confirm their theories about the cause of the problem. Show that if you rotate the start/stop point for the hole 90 degrees, the problem moves by 90 degrees. Show that if you increase the time at the start/stop point, the problem gets worse. Show that if you increase/decrease the laser power, the problem gets worse/better. Show that if you decrease/increase the speed of the laser travel, the problem gets worse/better.

* Once you have a pretty good understanding of what is going on, you should do all of your reliability testing on parts where every single hole is about 25% worse than any hole that ever got shipped. Only then will all of your reliability testing be truly worst case. If you are not testing the absolute worst possible case, then people will never know for sure if their parts are definitely OK or not.

It is quite possible that Van's has done this work, and they just did not have enough time at Oshkosh to talk about it. If so, they need to more thoroughly and clearly communicate the extent of their reliability testing.

What we all experienced here is a QA failure, not an engineering failure.

I do not believe that that statement is true. IMO it was engineering's responsibility to specify all of the cutting parameters to be used by their laser cut parts vandors. This includes laser type, laser power, cutting speed, etc. If Van's vendors did not follow the engineering specifications, then Van's has a very good case for reclaiming their losses from their vendors. It would be nice to get a clear statement from Van's on this matter.

 

[georgemohr]

I do not believe that that statement is true. IMO it was engineering's responsibility to specify all of the cutting parameters to be used by their laser cut parts vandors. This includes laser type, laser power, cutting speed, etc. If Van's vendors did not follow the engineering specifications, then Van's has a very good case for reclaiming their losses from their vendors. It would be nice to get a clear statement from Van's on this matter.

As per Rian, that is exactly what has happened. That is why there are large numbers of good quality laser cut parts, and also large numbers of bad ones. Van's QA failed to catch this.

 

[Tlrguy]

I have skin in the game. My empennage was built last year and I got a wing kit with a bunch of laser cut parts.

I am curious to know how the given information lead you to the position that you need to start over? Did your inspection show you have cracked dimples all over the place?

Well then I apologize for my comment. Gotta admit, I’m kinda getting sick of people not immersed in this situation telling us to calm down. I’ve personally seen enough of this issue in my build to know that this cannot continue forward.

You might want to check your parts with some magnification, say 2-4 X should be sufficient. All my laser cut parts(and there are a lot of them) looked very good compared to what others have posted. I had no reason to believe my parts to be faulty. I’m building a -10 and have the Emp and Wing kit pretty much done.

Here are just a few examples:

F1009 has 18 of 23 dimpled holes cracked
F1008 has 56 of 80 dimpled holes cracked
F1007 has 90 of 107 dimpled holes cracked

All my laser cut holes looked pretty darn good with no reason to believe they were bad. And the list goes on and on. My wing ribs, leading edge ribs, all control surface stiffeners and a multitude of other parts including spars are laser cut. I too have been experimenting with cutoffs and unbuilt laser cut parts and they all crack, as in a minimum of 50% of the holes and more. Based on the parts I can see, one can only conclude that the parts I can’t see have all suffered the same fate.

All you folks that have these parts installed but don’t think you have a problem, Dig into a little closer. My laser cut parts all looked great initially to the naked eye.

 

[dforgerson]

I do not believe that that statement is true. IMO it was engineering's responsibility to specify all of the cutting parameters to be used by their laser cut parts vandors. This includes laser type, laser power, cutting speed, etc. If Van's vendors did not follow the engineering specifications, then Van's has a very good case for reclaiming their losses from their vendors. It would be nice to get a clear statement from Van's on this matter.

As per Rian, that is exactly what has happened. That is why there are large numbers of good quality laser cut parts, and also large numbers of bad ones. Van's QA failed to catch this.

That is not what I would call a "clear statement from Van's on the matter", but I appreciate the comment and info. It is most unfortunate that Van's seems to expect us to go to Oshkosh, WI to get a halfway decent update on this problem.

If they only had one vendor producing laser cut parts that went rogue for a period of time, that should limit the number of affected parts massively. Did Rian say when Rev. 4 of their affected parts list was going to be coming out specifying which part numbers and during which time periods these rogue parts were produced? Or was there only one vendor for all of the laser cut parts? Even if there was only one vendor, presumably the bad parts were only produced over a more limited time range. Presumably the vendor could provide this info and the number of affected kits could be greatly reduced. Or was the vendor so incompetent that they did not even keep track of when they made changes to to their cutting process?

 

[bkc3921]

High Noon.....

That is not what I would call a "clear statement from Van's on the matter", but I appreciate the comment and info. It is most unfortunate that Van's seems to expect us to go to Oshkosh, WI to get a halfway decent update on this problem.

Disclaimer: No skin (7A and 12is)..anyway..

After 85K views here and 51 pages of comments, I do think it IS time for one thing:

Van's needs to step up to the plate, and make a REGULAR update on this situation so everyone knows when to expect further information. I would suggest they issue a press release every Friday at noon. Come H-E-Double Hockey Sticks or High Water.....Even if the statement is "We haven't discovered anything new this week..."

This will keep people from checking this site 20 times a day to see if they missed anything....

Regularity is good for airplane builders...and digestion. Just my 0.02.

 

[ryane67]

Here are just a few examples:

F1009 has 18 of 23 dimpled holes cracked
F1008 has 56 of 80 dimpled holes cracked
F1007 has 90 of 107 dimpled holes cracked

This right here is my concern.

Can I stomach a 5% or 10% crack rate? yeah probably.. can I tolerate more than 20% per part? That's going to be very hard to swallow. Can I tolerate 50% or more? no friggin way.

No matter what the testing shows, having parts that are cracked is going to be very difficult for a builder, or someone doing an inspection to ignore. It would nag at me and always be in the back of my mind.. "oh be sure to look for smoking rivets all over every part of the plane every pre-flight.. ugh.

 

[2theskyy]

This was one bullet point in my vans email. I have my stack of parts set aside and the list ready to submit as soon as they get the order form online. I consider myself the lucky ones with no installed parts on my slow build fuse kit. Luckily I have 2012 wing and empennage. They say they will replace every dimpled laser cut part and that’s what I plan on doing. Just a matter of waiting. I’ve waited 6 months and longer for back orders so I’m guessing a year or 2 for these, hope not!
Good luck to all. We want vans to succeed in this and that will take our patience, something I was not born with.

Van’s will replace any laser-cut parts which are dimpled by the builder during the construction process, upon request, as soon as we are able to do so based on parts availability. We will provide information about availability of replacement parts, as well as a formal process for requesting replacement parts, as we develop and confirm our plans for manufacturing. Note that not all parts are in stock at this time, regardless of the availability status displayed on our online store. Our online store inventory status will be updated soon to reflect the removal of laser-cut part counts from our inventory. Please do not place an online store order or a call-in order for parts at this time, as we need to establish a standard process to help ensure we can serve each customer smoothly. We will communicate the details of that process as soon as it is ready to go

 

[FarrellDiesel1]

This was one bullet point in my vans email. I have my stack of parts set aside and the list ready to submit as soon as they get the order form online. I consider myself the lucky ones with no installed parts on my slow build fuse kit. Luckily I have 2012 wing and empennage. They say they will replace every dimpled laser cut part and that’s what I plan on doing. Just a matter of waiting. I’ve waited 6 months and longer for back orders so I’m guessing a year or 2 for these, hope not!
Good luck to all. We want vans to succeed in this and that will take our patience, something I was not born with.

+1

For the folks at Vans monitoring this thread, this is also my situation and plan. Luckily I drug my feet starting my rv10 emp kit because 90-95% of the parts on the rev 3 part list are laser cut and very poor quality cuts in my kit (burn marks, oblong holes, oversize holes, etc). I will have to repair/ rebuild my VS and Rudder, but I'm considering myself incredibly lucky for that small amount of work.

 

[lr172]

Well then I apologize for my comment. Gotta admit, I’m kinda getting sick of people not immersed in this situation telling us to calm down. I’ve personally seen enough of this issue in my build to know that this cannot continue forward.

You might want to check your parts with some magnification, say 2-4 X should be sufficient. All my laser cut parts(and there are a lot of them) looked very good compared to what others have posted. I had no reason to believe my parts to be faulty. I’m building a -10 and have the Emp and Wing kit pretty much done.

Here are just a few examples:

F1009 has 18 of 23 dimpled holes cracked
F1008 has 56 of 80 dimpled holes cracked
F1007 has 90 of 107 dimpled holes cracked

All my laser cut holes looked pretty darn good with no reason to believe they were bad. And the list goes on and on. My wing ribs, leading edge ribs, all control surface stiffeners and a multitude of other parts including spars are laser cut. I too have been experimenting with cutoffs and unbuilt laser cut parts and they all crack, as in a minimum of 50% of the holes and more. Based on the parts I can see, one can only conclude that the parts I can’t see have all suffered the same fate.

All you folks that have these parts installed but don’t think you have a problem, Dig into a little closer. My laser cut parts all looked great initially to the naked eye.

We all feel your pain and not asking you to calm down. However, we know that the laser cutting was done wrong and the small edge of the hole has been hardened by the heat from the laser and this creates a small crack in that area during the dimpling operation. HOWEVER, the remainder of the dimple area is NOT hardened. Just because you have a tiny crack in this area does not necessarily mean the crack will propagate and create issues later and or reduce the strength of the joint. Remember that there is a large surface area in the dimple to do it's job and the edge of the circle is not critical with dimple joints, like it is in a non-dimpled attachments. I feel confident that some of the testing being done is whether or not fatigue and stress will cause that small crack to propagate inside the dimple. My thought is that is it quite likely that it does not, but obviously only scientific testing can tell us that. We need to wait for that testing result before running around saying that a microscopic crack at the center of a dimple is definitively bad and dangerous. Only an engineer with testing data in hand can make that call and have all confidence that Van's will not mislead us.

 

[2theskyy]

We all feel your pain and not asking you to calm down. However, we know that the laser cutting was done wrong and the small edge of the hole has been hardened by the heat from the laser and this creates a small crack in that area during the dimpling operation. HOWEVER, the remainder of the dimple area is NOT hardened. Just because you have a tiny crack in this area does not necessarily mean the crack will propagate and create issues later and or reduce the strength of the joint. Remember that there is a large surface area in the dimple to do it's job and the edge of the circle is not critical with dimple joints, like it is in a non-dimpled attachments. I feel confident that some of the testing being done is whether or not fatigue and stress will cause that small crack to propagate inside the dimple. My thought is that is it quite likely that it does not, but obviously only scientific testing can tell us that. We need to wait for that testing result before running around saying that a microscopic crack at the center of a dimple is definitively bad and dangerous. Only an engineer with testing data in hand can make that call and have all confidence that Van's will not mislead us.

Just playing devils advocate.
Time for conditional inspection; inspector asks or doesn’t ask and finds a cracked dimple or two. Owner; oh, that’s ok because an engineer at vans says it was fine.
There’s threads on DAR’s not giving A/W for first and last names switched on data plates or having corporations as named as manufacture. Yet an engineer is going to tell builders having cracked dimples ok.
I’m an A&P, ATP, etc. and a builder. I can tell you no engineer is going to tell me a cracked dimple is good enough to go into my plane. I make enough mistakes on my own rather than to induce known issues. I’ll scrap the aluminum and move on to my next project and vans will not get one good word from me to any of the many pilots I fly with in the professional aviation world. Or, they make it right and the conversation goes more like; hey, everyone makes mistakes and I’m glad vans stepped up, communicated on a regular basis and made it right.

 

[rocketman1988]

Just playing devils advocate.
Time for conditional inspection; inspector asks or doesn’t ask and finds a cracked dimple or two. Owner; oh, that’s ok because an engineer at vans says it was fine.
There’s threads on DAR’s not giving A/W for first and last names switched on data plates or having corporations as named as manufacture. Yet an engineer is going to tell builders having cracked dimples ok.
I’m an A&P, ATP, etc. and a builder. I can tell you no engineer is going to tell me a cracked dimple is good enough to go into my plane. I make enough mistakes on my own rather than to induce known issues. I’ll scrap the aluminum and move on to my next project and vans will not get one good word from me to any of the many pilots I fly with in the professional aviation world. Or, they make it right and the conversation goes more like; hey, everyone makes mistakes and I’m glad vans stepped up, communicated on a regular basis and made it right.

So, to play the "devil's advocate's", devil's advocate, What you are saying is that no matter WHAT the engineers at Vans say, it will NOT be good enough for you?

"...I can tell you no engineer is going to tell me a cracked dimple is good enough to go into my plane..."

Your words. Using your logic, the ONLY solution is to start again with punched parts. Kind of makes the ongoing engineering analysis irrelevant, doesn't it?

 

[lr172]

Just playing devils advocate.
Time for conditional inspection; inspector asks or doesn’t ask and finds a cracked dimple or two. Owner; oh, that’s ok because an engineer at vans says it was fine.
There’s threads on DAR’s not giving A/W for first and last names switched on data plates or having corporations as named as manufacture. Yet an engineer is going to tell builders having cracked dimples ok.
I’m an A&P, ATP, etc. and a builder. I can tell you no engineer is going to tell me a cracked dimple is good enough to go into my plane. I make enough mistakes on my own rather than to induce known issues. I’ll scrap the aluminum and move on to my next project and vans will not get one good word from me to any of the many pilots I fly with in the professional aviation world. Or, they make it right and the conversation goes more like; hey, everyone makes mistakes and I’m glad vans stepped up, communicated on a regular basis and made it right.

All that is true, but the post I responded to said he had cracks that could only be seen under magnification. Cracks not visible to the naked eye would escape even the most cautious inspector, not to mention that these cracks to not typically extend beyond the rivet head. Not saying it is not a problem, only that scientific analysis is required to determine whether or not a microscopic crack at the holes edge inside of a dimple is truly a risk. I suspect that any airplane inspected literally under a microscope would reveal all sorts of things that seem scary but are not to those trained in metallurgy or stress testing.

I don't know what I don't know, so not playing mech eng here. But I have seen enough to know not to trust those with opinions based upon TLAR engineering versus those with deep science and testing backinp up their theories. Vans has aleady seen these cracks on the 12 and did testing all the way to destruction and saw only a negligable difference in fatigue life. Those are not dimples, so not applicable here, but does support the theory that not all cracks result in compromised structure. We really need to wait and see the testing results before making claims that this is universally an accident waiting to happen.

Vans has already agreed to replace ANY nad ALL laser cut parts, see the jury is already out on whether on not Vans will step up. I have inspected 10+ RVs and all but two had blown edge distance in the longeron holes where the the front H stab spar attaches (IMHO the most common serious builder error on RVs). I am here to tell you that there are plenty of gremlins out there much worse than microscopic cracks in the dimple that go unoticed by A&Ps for decades. When I sold my friends RV-9 the buyer brought an A&P for pre-buy and CI. Guy did a compression test, then sat in a lawn chair and started signing the log books. There is some scary stuff out there. I refuse to consider this a scary problem until Vans tells me that it is and I have all confidence that we will get truthful information based upon scientific test results. Many may not accept and replace ALL of the parts and that is OK. But we shouldn't condemn all of the parts until the testing is done.

 

[Tlrguy]

However, we know that the laser cutting was done wrong and the small edge of the hole has been hardened by the heat from the laser and this creates a small crack in that area during the dimpling operation. HOWEVER, the remainder of the dimple area is NOT hardened. Just because you have a tiny crack in this area does not necessarily mean the crack will propagate and create issues later and or reduce the strength of the joint. Remember that there is a large surface area in the dimple to do its job and the edge of the circle is not critical with dimple joints, like it is in a non-dimpled attachments. I feel confident that some of the testing being done is whether or not fatigue and stress will cause that small crack to propagate inside the dimple. My thought is that is it quite likely that it does not, but obviously only scientific testing can tell us that. We need to wait for that testing result before running around saying that a microscopic crack at the center of a dimple is definitively bad and dangerous. Only an engineer with testing data in hand can make that call and have all confidence that Van's will not mislead us.

Well, for the last 75 years we’ve been told cracks are bad. The FAA, A&P/IA’s, and even Vans Aircraft themselves (up to 6months ago)haven’t accepted cracks as the normal and almost always results in a repair or replace.

It’s going to take something short of a miracle to convince me that parts with a 75% crack rate are airworthy and should be built into a brand new airplane, but I’m all ears and open to hearing the results. Heck, maybe this new “feature” we all get in our laser cut parts turns out to be better than the old way and all the manufacturers adopt said practices? My guess is anyone in the know would laugh at the thought, but I’m no engineer so…

Last but not least, I don’t necessarily trust Vans to not mislead us as it’s already happened collectively to the group twice. First time was upon initial delivery(and unbeknownst to Van’s through mismanagement). Second time was when we were told to continue on(multiple times unfortunately) and this is where I struggle to find sympathy.

Shame on me. As the builder, I am required to identify the extent of the problem and establish a concise plan to move forward with as little impact to the end product as possible. For me it’s time, for Van’s it’s money. Plain and simple.

 

[2theskyy]

All that is true, but the post I responded to said he had cracks that could only be seen under magnification. Cracks not visible to the naked eye would escape even the most cautious inspector, not to mention that these cracks to not typically extend beyond the rivet head. Not saying it is not a problem, only that scientific analysis is required to determine whether or not a microscopic crack at the holes edge inside of a dimple is truly a risk. I suspect that any airplane inspected literally under a microscope would reveal all sorts of things that seem scary but are not to those trained in metallurgy or stress testing.

I don't know what I don't know, so not playing mech eng here. But I have seen enough to know not to trust those with opinions based upon TLAR engineering versus those with deep science and testing backinp up their theories. Vans has aleady seen these cracks on the 12 and did testing all the way to destruction and saw only a negligable difference in fatigue life. Those are not dimples, so not applicable here, but does support the theory that not all cracks result in compromised structure. We really need to wait and see the testing results before making claims that this is universally an accident waiting to happen.

Vans has already agreed to replace ANY nad ALL laser cut parts, see the jury is already out on whether on not Vans will step up. I have inspected 10+ RVs and all but two had blown edge distance in the longeron holes where the the front H stab spar attaches. I am here to tell you that there are plenty of gremlins out there much worse than microscopic cracks in the dimple that go unoticed by A&Ps for decades.

I don’t disagree with anything you say. But no reason to add issues just because there’s other issues. That’s not how aviation safety works. It is data driven but as far as the vans engineer results. I guarantee you not one affected owner is going to receive an A/W certification for any part they are testing and I’m not asking for that. And I’m not saying any of those parts will cause accidents. It’s a chain of events that leads to accidents and it’s our job to break the chain to prevent accidents. I do that daily in aviation.
I just feel that if owners want to come on this thread and vent, by ****, they have every right to.
Vans screwed up here. I hope they are reading each post. I haven’t seen a post from Greg in awhile.

 

[2theskyy]

So, to play the "devil's advocate's", devil's advocate, What you are saying is that no matter WHAT the engineers at Vans say, it will NOT be good enough for you?

"...I can tell you no engineer is going to tell me a cracked dimple is good enough to go into my plane..."

Your words. Using your logic, the ONLY solution is to start again with punched parts. Kind of makes the ongoing engineering analysis irrelevant, doesn't it?

Absolutely my point.
I’m not sure who, other than the lawyers or FAA, that these tests are helping. But I’m not perfect and neither is anyone else. But no one can tell me to sign off or fly an airplane that I’m not comfortable with. Would I find these cracks, most likely not. But now they are highlighted, I sure the **** am not going to over look them.

I stand by my logic and words. This is any easy one. I have many stories of much more difficult decision than to install known cracked dimpled parts into a new airplane.

 

[lr172]

Well, for the last 75 years we’ve been told cracks are bad. The FAA, A&P/IA’s, and even Vans Aircraft themselves (up to 6months ago)haven’t accepted cracks as the normal and almost always results in a repair or replace.

Every Vans SB was based upon visible cracks extending outward from a rivet or other fastener. I am unaware of an SB's where Vans has found a crack UNDER a fastener that is not visible to the naked eye, with the exception of failed welds in 4130 parts. Your plane will have 10,000+ rivets and without an x ray machine, you will have no way to know whether or not any or all of them have cracks that do not extend beyond the rivet heads. This just something we accept (i.e. trust the design Engineers and the industry standard practices that they follow) and do not become concerned until a crack propagates to a point that it can be seen. This is one of the reasons that EVERYTHING on a component with safety issues has a 50% strength margin built in by the Engineers; Sometimes there are flaws that can't be seen and we need this margin to offset those flaws or failures.

Vans has been clear that high stress parts, like spars, MUST be replaced regardless of test results due to their critical nature. That should tell us that they are approaching this with a high dose of care and caution.

Again, not questioning anyone for exercising caution and replacing all of the laser cut parts. Just hate to see all of this gloom and doom that someday will spread to outsider and unfairly tarnish the good reputation these planes have.

 

[Tlrguy]

Every Vans SB was based upon visible cracks extending outward from a rivet or other fastener. I am unaware of an SB's where Vans has found a crack UNDER a fastener that is not visible to the naked eye. Your plane will have 10,000+ rivets and without an x ray machine, you will have no way to know whether or not any or all of them have cracks that do not extend beyond the rivet heads. This just something we accept (i.e. trust the design Engineers) and do not become concerned until a crack propagates to a point that it can be seen. This is one of the reasons that EVERYTHING on a component with safety issues has a 50% strength margin built in by the Engineers; Sometimes there are flaws that can't be seen and we need this margin to offset those flaws or failures.

Oh many of these cracks can be see by the naked eye now that I know what I’m looking for. Magnification just makes identification fast and without question. You should see my flap spar dimpled holes after riveting. There is no doubt that the rivet process “blows” open the crack to some extent.

I don’t think unaffected aircraft will ever be lumped into this issue but, you can be darn well sure the affected planes will have a tarnished reputation to the general flying public. This is how our world works and it’s up to me to insure I don’t get hammered by this again many years down the road. Future aircraft value has little bearing on my decisions as I plan to keep this plane until I can’t fly anymore. I need to provide a safe plane for my family and friends and if I don’t feel that’s possible, I want nothing to do with this build.

With that being said, I still think it’s possible to build my kit into a safe airplane. It’s just going to take more of my time and Van’s money.

 

[willscaringe]

Oh many of these cracks can be see by the naked eye now that I know what I’m looking for. Magnification just makes identification fast and without question. You should see my flap spar dimpled holes after riveting. There is no doubt that the rivet process “blows” open the crack to some extent.

Are you seeing the cracks on primed parts after dimpling and riveting? I think my rudder stiffeners may be laser cut, so I inspected every shop head using a flexible arm high-def borescope and did not see any cracks (https://eaabuilderslog.org/?blprojentry&proj=7xG4Zk036&e=87ECDjiw0). The caveat is that I prime my internal surfaces with EkoPoxy after dimpling which might have filled in any cracks. It's not clear to me if such cracks, if they exist, would "blow" open enough during riveting to be seen by this borescope inspection process, so I am left with the conundrum of whether this is a sufficient inspection process.

 

[TenJax]

For the engineer types, I have a question.

Would enlarging the holes and using NAS1097AD-4-4 rivets be a solution? Drilling out the laser cut area should solve cracking.

 

[bertschb]

Vans has been clear that high stress parts, like spars, MUST be replaced regardless of test results due to their critical nature. That should tell us that they are approaching this with a high dose of care and caution.

Again, not questioning anyone for exercising caution and replacing all of the laser cut parts. Just hate to see all of this gloom and doom that someday will spread to outsider and unfairly tarnish the good reputation these planes have.

Excellent post!

 

[rocketman1988]

No

For the engineer types, I have a question.

Would enlarging the holes and using NAS1097AD-4-4 rivets be a solution? Drilling out the laser cut area should solve cracking.

Enlarging the hole would likely remove the problem area, however, the 1097 oops rivets have a much smaller area available on the countersunk head due to the larger shank. Those rivets are meant to be used occasionally and not for every hole. The other issue that you need to consider is if you go to the next larger rivet, edge distances may become a factor.

 

[Michael Burbidge]

Pictures

Oh many of these cracks can be see by the naked eye now that I know what I’m looking for. Magnification just makes identification fast and without question. You should see my flap spar dimpled holes after riveting. There is no doubt that the rivet process “blows” open the crack to some extent.

I don’t think unaffected aircraft will ever be lumped into this issue but, you can be darn well sure the affected planes will have a tarnished reputation to the general flying public. This is how our world works and it’s up to me to insure I don’t get hammered by this again many years down the road. Future aircraft value has little bearing on my decisions as I plan to keep this plane until I can’t fly anymore. I need to provide a safe plane for my family and friends and if I don’t feel that’s possible, I want nothing to do with this build.

With that being said, I still think it’s possible to build my kit into a safe airplane. It’s just going to take more of my time and Van’s money.

@Tlrguy, can you post a few pictures of "blown open" cracks after riveting?

Thanks!

 

[Tlrguy]

@Tlrguy, can you post a few pictures of "blown open" cracks after riveting?

Thanks!

I did my best to take a picture but the camera on my phone struggles to focus on exactly what I need it to. I’ll be having a photographer come over to document my issues with a very high quality camera so perhaps I’ll post those at some point. What I’ve come to find is most of the dimpled holes I’ve inspected that are NOT assembled yet tend to have a crack originating from the “feature” radiating out to the convex edge of the hole (not all the way through the face of the hole). It appears that on many dimples holes where a rivet WAS installed, the crack is full span of the material thickness and noticeably wider.

My flaps are 100% complete. There are only 2 total rivets on each flap spar that are accessible to drill out and replace with relative ease. I was able to remove said rivets without touching the outlying hole whatsoever and pull the shop head and shank straight out with little effort and no twist.

These dimpled holes I examined in the flap spar have cracks that are noticeably more opened up than all the laser cut parts I’ve prepped but not assembled yet.

Experimentation on all sorts of laser cut parts has yielded very inconsistent results.

 

[BMallory]

A mil spec does exist that defines requirments for laser cut production aircraft parts. I don't recall the spec number.

Along with a semi jagged edge the edge also has a small heat affected zone. The spec requires proof the the heat affected zone has been removed or material along the laser cut edge has been removed to a certain dimension. This dimension was very minimal, like .002 of an inch. I am just shooting from memory over 10 years ago so don't quote me.
Having been involved in destructive testing of aluminum structure, polishing edges with 400 + grit and step reaming holes to full size makes a substantial difference the strength and life of highly loaded aluminum structure.

 

[Michael Burbidge]

I did my best to take a picture but the camera on my phone struggles to focus on exactly what I need it to. I’ll be having a photographer come over to document my issues with a very high quality camera so perhaps I’ll post those at some point. What I’ve come to find is most of the dimpled holes I’ve inspected that are NOT assembled yet tend to have a crack originating from the “feature” radiating out to the convex edge of the hole (not all the way through the face of the hole). It appears that on many dimples holes where a rivet WAS installed, the crack is full span of the material thickness and noticeably wider.

My flaps are 100% complete. There are only 2 total rivets on each flap spar that are accessible to drill out and replace with relative ease. I was able to remove said rivets without touching the outlying hole whatsoever and pull the shop head and shank straight out with little effort and no twist.

These dimpled holes I examined in the flap spar have cracks that are noticeably more opened up than all the laser cut parts I’ve prepped but not assembled yet.

Experimentation on all sorts of laser cut parts has yielded very inconsistent results.

Thanks for that. To the lay person, that looks like a significant crack.

 

[ryane67]

So, to play the "devil's advocate's", devil's advocate, What you are saying is that no matter WHAT the engineers at Vans say, it will NOT be good enough for you?

"...I can tell you no engineer is going to tell me a cracked dimple is good enough to go into my plane..."

Your words. Using your logic, the ONLY solution is to start again with punched parts. Kind of makes the ongoing engineering analysis irrelevant, doesn't it?

As they say.. we are the builders, our name goes on the a/w cert.. the final call is in our hands, and each of us can choose to do what we think is the best path for our individual aircraft.

 

[ryane67]

For the engineer types, I have a question.

Would enlarging the holes and using NAS1097AD-4-4 rivets be a solution? Drilling out the laser cut area should solve cracking.

In many cases you end up with edge distance issues if you upsize to a 4-4.

 

[deMan]

NAS1241AD

NAS1241AD might be an option here. They are slightly larger than AN426ADs but only a few thousands larger than the typical dimpled hole. This could allow reaming away a few thousands of heat affected area while leaving a hole that’s still undersized for NAS1241AD. Once dimpling enlarges the hole the NAS1241AD could then fit perfectly.
That should avoid the edge distance issues. The manufactured head is also slightly larger. So strongly should also be better than with NAS1097AD.

Here is a tread with more information: https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=155433&page=3

 

[Lucmac]

As they say.. we are the builders, our name goes on the a/w cert.. the final call is in our hands, and each of us can choose to do what we think is the best path for our individual aircraft.

You may be making a possibly bad assumption you would find a DAR willing to also accept what you might think is 'OK or works best for you'. They may not agree with you. For their own reputation, I doubt Van's is ever going to eventually put out a SB/SL/Notification that says it's OK to use a part as is with a visible crack in a riveted assembly without some caveat. They 'may' say something to the affect that if there's enough material on either side of a low stress load part with a crack you can add a couple of rivets to either side, etc. Any DAR worthy of being assigned for that role is going to be very familiar with any final guidance Van's puts out and will ask you to prove you complied, IMHO. I wouldn't assume any of us will have much negotiation room with a DAR at that point.

I am directly impacted and feel everyone else's pain that's in the same boat but I am coming to grips with the fact I'll probably be requiring Van's to send me a replacement for every single laser cut part they supplied and totally taking apart my fuselage and removing every piece and replacing it, documenting carefully in my builder's log. I don't care what their eventual opinion is going to be on a part by part based on the stress analysis. In my opinion, if you don't replace every piece and show that in your build log, you may be fine for as long as you own the plane but have fun on the used plane market down the road. I plan on building a 15 and I don't plan on keeping both the 14 and the 15 so yes, I am letting resale play a large factor in my decisions.

 

[Walt]

I would likely look at/consider an airframe that had been "repaired" by replacing numerous LC parts like I would an airplane with a "damage history".
There is basically no way to take out as many rivets as you're talking about here to replace parts without creating some damaged/oversized holes.
In reality, once a rivet is driven in thin sheet the hole becomes oversized.

 

[KatanaPilot]

Catch 22?

I would likely look at/consider an airframe that had been "repaired" by replacing numerous LC parts like I would an airplane with a "damage history".
There is basically no way to take out as many rivets as you're talking about here to replace parts without creating some damaged/oversized holes.
In reality, once a rivet is driven in thin sheet the hole becomes oversized.

So what is a builder to do? Van's has indicated replacement of certain LC parts is required (tank baffles, spars, etc.). No choice but to disassemble for replacement.

Looks like complete component rebuild might be the only choice. Not palatable or affordable for some I assume.

 

[rocketman1988]

You may be making a possibly bad assumption you would find a DAR willing to also accept what you might think is 'OK or works best for you'. They may not agree with you. For their own reputation, I doubt Van's is ever going to eventually put out a SB/SL/Notification that says it's OK to use a part as is with a visible crack in a riveted assembly without some caveat. They 'may' say something to the affect that if there's enough material on either side of a low stress load part with a crack you can add a couple of rivets to either side, etc. Any DAR worthy of being assigned for that role is going to be very familiar with any final guidance Van's puts out and will ask you to prove you complied, IMHO. I wouldn't assume any of us will have much negotiation room with a DAR at that point.

I am directly impacted and feel everyone else's pain that's in the same boat but I am coming to grips with the fact I'll probably be requiring Van's to send me a replacement for every single laser cut part they supplied and totally taking apart my fuselage and removing every piece and replacing it, documenting carefully in my builder's log. I don't care what their eventual opinion is going to be on a part by part based on the stress analysis. In my opinion, if you don't replace every piece and show that in your build log, you may be fine for as long as you own the plane but have fun on the used plane market down the road. I plan on building a 15 and I don't plan on keeping both the 14 and the 15 so yes, I am letting resale play a large factor in my decisions.

I think if you were to conduct a poll on the A/W inspection by the DAR, you would find that the majority of the DARs give nothing more than a cursory glance, mostly at the flight controls, and then move on to the paperwork.

As has been stated many times in this thread, not every laser cut part is bad; there are many that are fine. The issue becomes which ones are good and which are bad. I think when this all shakes out, vans will likely implement a part code on each kit part so they can track which parts went where, and when.

Once again, you have already made up your mind that the engineer's decision isn't good enough for you, so your path has been chosen. Not trusting the engineers is certainly your prerogative but how can you trust the design itself, then?

I agree with Walt, too. Drilling out that number of rivets will be an issue for the reasons he stated.

 

[KatanaPilot]

I think if you were to conduct a poll on the A/W inspection by the DAR, you would find that the majority of the DARs give nothing more than a cursory glance, mostly at the flight controls, and then move on to the paperwork.

As has been stated many times in this thread, not every laser cut part is bad; there are many that are fine. The issue becomes which ones are good and which are bad. I think when this all shakes out, vans will likely implement a part code on each kit part so they can track which parts went where, and when.

Once again, you have already made up your mind that the engineer's decision isn't good enough for you, so your path has been chosen. Not trusting the engineers is certainly your prerogative but how can you trust the design itself, then?

I agree with Walt, too. Drilling out that number of rivets will be an issue for the reasons he stated.

Doubt if Van's has the ability to track that to the required level of granularity.

If a component hasn't been assembled, the choice is pretty easy. Much more difficult when you have a completed stabilizer, flight control or fuel tank with all the rivets and dimples covered in proseal.

Given that Van's initially said "build on" and now they have reversed that decision - plus now told builders that certain components need to be replaced - the problem has gotten an order of magnitude bigger.

What about the builder that used build assist to build their tail feathers and now have to replace the spars in the stabilizers and flight controls? Who is going to pick up the tab to do that rework?

 

[Tlrguy]

So what is a builder to do?

Looks like complete component rebuild might be the only choice. Not palatable or affordable for some I assume.

Pending Van’s coming up with some earth shattering new revelation around how we as an industry move forward with all metal aircraft, this is the only option I see. We as builders have an obligation to everyone on the ground, not just our beloved family and friends.

I wish I would have stopped building after month three of my year to date project. Time is so valuable to us all and to now know what I missed on account of building an airplane with fruitless results really hurts. If this was any other hobby I would be moving on from a company whom would put their customers in such a situation. There were many balls dropped here folks, and I thank the persistent builders out there for breaking this chain.

After spending countless hours over the last month re-inventorying for what’s confirmed good or bad, I’m coming to grips with moving forward, but it has to be done in a reasonable way and without pushback. For me and my RV10 project, that’s a rebuild of the rudder, ailerons, flaps, trim tabs, spar boxes, leading edges, some tailcone formers, and thank goodness, only partial rebuild of the ER fuel tanks. From a monitory perspective this sounds expensive for Vans but reality is, their wholesale price is going to be less than what I paid for the Emp kit.


The only component I’m willing to salvage are the wing spars. I believe if a guy/gal were to remove the row of rivets connecting the wing skin to the spar, then cut every wing rib close to where the front flange butts up to the spar, then the spar could be removed from the assembly and all the AN4 rivets could be easily accessed for proper and undamaged removal of the rib flange from the wing spar.

A heartbreaking procedure no doubt.

 

[KatanaPilot]

Pending Van’s coming up with some earth shattering new revelation around how we as an industry move forward with all metal aircraft, this is the only option I see. We as builders have an obligation to everyone on the ground, not just our beloved family and friends.

I wish I would have stopped building after month three of my year to date project. Time is so valuable to us all and to now know what I missed on account of building an airplane with fruitless results really hurts. If this was any other hobby I would be moving on from a company whom would put their customers in such a situation. There were many balls dropped here folks, and I thank the persistent builders out there for breaking this chain.

After spending countless hours over the last month re-inventorying for what’s confirmed good or bad, I’m coming to grips with moving forward, but it has to be done in a reasonable way and without pushback. For me and my RV10 project, that’s a rebuild of the rudder, ailerons, flaps, trim tabs, spar boxes, leading edges, some tailcone formers, and thank goodness, only partial rebuild of the ER fuel tanks. From a monitory perspective this sounds expensive for Vans but reality is, their wholesale price is going to be less than what I paid for the Emp kit.


The only component I’m willing to salvage are the wing spars. I believe if a guy/gal were to remove the row of rivets connecting the wing skin to the spar, then cut every wing rib close to where the front flange butt up to the spar, then all the AN4 rivets could be easily accessed for proper and undamaged removal of the rib flange from the wing spar.

A heartbreaking procedure no doubt.

A couple of things you may want to consider if you haven't already - the Sky Designs tank skins and baffles for the RV10 were all CNC punched. Even if the ribs were laser cut, Rian showed an FEA of a (edit) leading edge rib and the stress levels were well below design limits, with the aft most rivets being the highest stress (going off memory from the presentation). What I don't know (and would be curious to know) is if the proseal adds some strength to the tank that is not accounted for in the design. If so, I would guess the margins would be even higher. I realize a tank rib will likely have different stresses than a leading edge rib.

Also - drilling out ribs from the spar web is pretty easy to do without damage to the spar. This was a necessary part of the process when modifying a completed wing for the ER tanks. The method I was taught was a #40 drill bit all the way through the center of the rivet, then a #30 to pop off the rivet head. Center punch the rivet tail out of the web with some backup on the opposite side.

Not trying to take away any of the heartbreak of dealing with this, but maybe some of the angst.

 

[Tlrguy]

A couple of things you may want to consider if you haven't already - the Sky Designs tank skins and baffles for the RV10 were all CNC punched. Even if the ribs were laser cut, Rian showed an FEA of a (edit) leading edge rib and the stress levels were well below design limits, with the aft most rivets being the highest stress (going off memory from the presentation). What I don't know (and would be curious to know) is if the proseal adds some strength to the tank that is not accounted for in the design. If so, I would guess the margins would be even higher. I realize a tank rib will likely have different stresses than a leading edge rib.

Also - drilling out ribs from the spar web is pretty easy to do without damage to the spar. This was a necessary part of the process when modifying a completed wing for the ER tanks. The method I was taught was a #40 drill bit all the way through the center of the rivet, then a #30 to pop off the rivet head. Center punch the rivet tail out of the web with some backup on the opposite side.

Not trying to take away any of the heartbreak of dealing with this, but maybe some of the angst.

Thanks for the response Krea. Fact of the matter is I’ve seen more than enough issue throughout my build now to come to the conclusion that I can’t move forward with ANY of these laser cut parts. The chain of poor decisions stops right here, right now.

I would consider myself a professional when it comes to drilling out rivets, even before starting this build. There just isn’t anything worth saving by not cutting the wings ribs for easy access. Easy, straight on access with a regular drill motor will insure a 100% success rate.

 

[N82VM]

Vans on the hook for YOUR choice to build assist? I can sympathize but that’s a YOU problem. That’s something that the builder opted to do. Vans has no input or control over that decision.
What if I bought a new truck and had it custom painted, then Ford came back and recalled the truck bed but will replace it free of charge including FACTORY paint the way it left when it was sold. Is Ford on the hook for your custom paint job? No way. They are trying to put things back just the way it was sold. What you did aftermarket with it is not their problem.

I do think it would be great if they would replace associated parts that were riveted to the laser parts. A lot of folks may damage those pieces or make holes worse trying to reuse them. Do they have to do this? Of course not. I won’t be upset if they don’t. Pleased if they do.

If you paid for a QB you bought labor directly from Vans. That should be replaced by Vans. I believe they are definitely on the hook for that labor purchase. In that case, here’s the bad QB back please send a good one. Yes you’ll have to wait for it.

 

[CizzoPilot]

Vans on the hook for YOUR choice to build assist? I can sympathize but that’s a YOU problem. That’s something that the builder opted to do. Vans has no input or control over that decision.

I'm not sure anyone is saying that Vans or even the assist program would be on the hook for it. I recognize that the $7000 for the class, $1500 for hotels, $400 for uhaul, and 2 weeks of leave is time and money that I will not be getting back since it was my choice to get some help on my first build.

One thing to ask would be whether Vans' "build on" guidance was something that influenced builder assist programs to continue selling seats for customers. If they did, that does muddy the waters a bit since the builder assist programs are stamping their name on components/builds after they inspect parts before closing them up.

 

[lr172]

I'm not sure anyone is saying that Vans or even the assist program would be on the hook for it. I recognize that the $7000 for the class, $1500 for hotels, $400 for uhaul, and 2 weeks of leave is time and money that I will not be getting back since it was my choice to get some help on my first build.

One thing to ask would be whether Vans' "build on" guidance was something that influenced builder assist programs to continue selling seats for customers. If they did, that does muddy the waters a bit since the builder assist programs are stamping their name on components/builds after they inspect parts before closing them up.

Everyone who buys a kit or even registers a plane that they purchased must sign a release with Vans. It has been a while since I signed mine and can't recall what was in it, but would be shocked if it did not include a limitation on consequential damages. Consequential damages are company killers (no need to prove negligence, just that part or service was faulty and that can happen to ANYONE - find me a person or a company that has never made a mistake) and most anybody selling anything that requires an agreement has them excluded or HEAVILY limited. A limitation like this means that the company is only liable for the faulty parts or services and NOT for losses that were a consequence of the faulty part or service, like the loss of $ paid to a build assist program.

This is all pretty standard in business today. If my ford pickup becomes inop from a failed fuel pump, even a recalled bad part, I cannot recovery the lost income from not having that truck for a week. Just imagine how expensive things would be if that were not the case. It is just a risk we all assume as a trade off for affordable things.

Larry

 

[KatanaPilot]

I'm not sure anyone is saying that Vans or even the assist program would be on the hook for it. I recognize that the $7000 for the class, $1500 for hotels, $400 for uhaul, and 2 weeks of leave is time and money that I will not be getting back since it was my choice to get some help on my first build.

One thing to ask would be whether Vans' "build on" guidance was something that influenced builder assist programs to continue selling seats for customers. If they did, that does muddy the waters a bit since the builder assist programs are stamping their name on components/builds after they inspect parts before closing them up.

Exactly this. If Van's had issued the "stop work" order immediately upon these bad parts being found, it would be one thing. They didn't and a lot of folks have been caught up in the meantime.

So I think there is some culpability on Van's for saying "build on". They still haven't really addressed what caused the change of direction.

As an aside - the build assist programs help Van's sell a lot of kits. There are a number of builders that wouldn't attempt this monumental task without these programs.

 

[rmarshall234]

What’s a builder to do?

So what is a builder to do?

Same thing a smart builder always does…go do something else that brings joy until the solution/answer reveals itself.

 

[Jonnyb]

I’m really not sure just how realistic some of the demands in this thread are.

I’m thinking there’s going to be a few angry/disappointed people. I hope I’m wrong.

 

[Walt D]

Replace Fuel Tank Baffles?

So what is a builder to do? Van's has indicated replacement of certain LC parts is required (tank baffles, spars, etc.). No choice but to disassemble for replacement.

Looks like complete component rebuild might be the only choice. Not palatable or affordable for some I assume.

Curious as to why Van's is recommending replacement of the baffles. There are no dimpled holes on the part. Also, my baffles may be (probably are) laser cut but the photos I have of the pieces prior to riveting are of reasonable resolution and the holes look quite clean, with no charring or obvious defects like the ones shown in the Van's Oshkosh presentation.

Maybe lot dependent? Vendor dependent?

 

[deMan]

Curious as to why Van's is recommending replacement of the baffles. There are no dimpled holes on the part. Also, my baffles may be (probably are) laser cut but the photos I have of the pieces prior to riveting are of reasonable resolution and the holes look quite clean, with no charring or obvious defects like the ones shown in the Van's Oshkosh presentation.

Maybe lot dependent? Vendor dependent?

I think the tank baffle replacement is based on “what happens if this has cracks”. If the baffle has cracks, fuel may leak which was where vans drew a line.

Personally I feel like the chance of cracks in the tank baffle are probably very low because no dimples plus most holes being countersunk. And even if there are cracks they are likely covered by Proseal.
So very little evidence that laser cut baffles are actually very likely to fail, it’s just that any fuel leak is considered as a very significant failure.

 

[Walt D]

Sounds reasonable to me, very conservative indeed. Of course, if you've sealed your tanks properly, the vast majority of these rivets are "dry", ie not exposed to fuel at all.

Hmm...

 

[ccarlson]

I’m really not sure just how realistic some of the demands in this thread are.

I’m thinking there’s going to be a few angry/disappointed people. I hope I’m wrong.

It goes without saying that there will always be some who are disappointed with any given solution.

I haven't seen any posts in here that I would categorize as "demands," but I have seen many opinions that I suspect are heavily influenced - mine included - by the deafening silence from Vans since their last update on July 21. I am doing my best to be patient, but I would like some indication or sign of life on a regular basis. Please.

I know AirVenture essentially put Vans' business on pause. I get it. AirVenture requires a huge amount of effort before, during, and after the show.

My situation: my RV-14A empennage kit was crated in December 2022 (delivered early Jan 2023), and my wing and fuselage kits were crated in March 2023 (delivered late April 2023). As one might expect given the dates, I have an example of every laser cut part on the affected parts list Vans provided. Yay me?

I started building my vertical stabilizer in late April. Almost immediately, I noticed cracks in dimpled holes in VS-702, VS-703, VS-704, VS-705, VS-706, and VS-707. After discussing with a tech counselor, I thought the issue was either my DRDT-2 setup or a bad dimple die. I adjusted my tooling, bought a new set of Cleaveland dimple dies, and ordered all new parts from Vans ($100+). When the new parts arrived, I got back to work. As soon as I began dimpling the new parts, the cracks appeared again. I called Vans support. Advice: file out the cracks (as long as they are less than 1/3 of the dimple height) and build on. I then found cracks in VS-803PP. At that point, angry and frustrated, I stopped working on my kit. That was May 25.

Now, one could say (and some have done so) I am a homebuilder and thus filing is just part of the journey. If I was building anything BUT an RV-14, I might agree with that; however, I paid for a premium kit punched with final sized holes because the product is expected to reduce build time. Having to file hundreds or thousands of holes to correct for a manufacturing defect is, under the circumstances, grossly unacceptable to me. Fortunately, Vans has since signaled intent to replace defective parts.

As for a proposed solution to address my situation: I would like Vans to replace all of my laser cut parts, and I would also like them to replace the very few parts attached to the affected parts as well. Specifically, VS-01401, VS-808PP, VS-412PP (x2), VS-411PP (x2), and VS-410PP (x2).

I have already paid for 2 sets of affected VS parts plus shipping, so I am not inclined to meet Vans part way on this except for maybe buying the required replacement rivets. That said, I suspect the cost of remediating my situation (all laser cut parts plus the few affected related parts listed) should be less than $3,000 with shipping. I am glad I stopped when I did, and I absolutely feel for those who have laser cut parts deeply embedded into their projects.

 

[CizzoPilot]

Everyone who buys a kit or even registers a plane that they purchased must sign a release with Vans. It has been a while since I signed mine and can't recall what was in it, but would be shocked if it did not include a limitation on consequential damages. Consequential damages are company killers (no need to prove negligence, just that part or service was faulty and that can happen to ANYONE - find me a person or a company that has never made a mistake) and most anybody selling anything that requires an agreement has them excluded or HEAVILY limited. A limitation like this means that the company is only liable for the faulty parts or services and NOT for losses that were a consequence of the faulty part or service, like the loss of $ paid to a build assist program.

This is all pretty standard in business today. If my ford pickup becomes inop from a failed fuel pump, even a recalled bad part, I cannot recovery the lost income from not having that truck for a week. Just imagine how expensive things would be if that were not the case. It is just a risk we all assume as a trade off for affordable things.

Larry

What it sounds like you are describing is Van's "WAIVER AND RELEASE OF LIABILITY AGREEMENT" which I am sure every builder who orders a kit from Vans will be sign. I am not a lawyer; however, after re-reading it, the document appears to be focused on lawsuits pertaining to death, injury, or property damage due to Vans products or services.

Again, I am not expecting build assist time or money to reimbursed to me, nor do I believe anyone on this thread is looking for losses that go beyond the scope of what Vans is responsible for. I simply stated my personal situation and am awaiting further guidance from Vans.

 

[airguy]

What about the builder that used build assist to build their tail feathers and now have to replace the spars in the stabilizers and flight controls? Who is going to pick up the tab to do that rework?

That answer is simple - the builder. Vans isn't going to pay a slow-build guy for labor hours, and it's the builders choice whether to use their own time or write a check. I don't doubt for a second that Vans will offer free replacement parts - nor do I doubt that the labor will be on us - the only question mark (to me) seems to be in the case of the QB components and assembled parts containing LC parts.

Let's keep a little perspective on this please. How many of us affected by the ECI cylinders or the Superior crankshaft would have been MORE than happy to just get free replacement parts, and forget the labor? We already know we are going to be a lot better off in this case.

 

[dmattmul]

Agreed

That answer is simple - the builder. Vans isn't going to pay a slow-build guy for labor hours, and it's the builders choice whether to use their own time or write a check. I don't doubt for a second that Vans will offer free replacement parts - nor do I doubt that the labor will be on us - the only question mark (to me) seems to be in the case of the QB components.

Greg, I think you answer will prove to be spot on. QB's will require additional time. Vans has said they will replace LCP's but yet to say all or just some that they feel this "feature" will not add value to the airframe. (I love they called it a "feature") My 2 questions for Vans:
1) If a builder does not want to use a LCP and Vans says no problem build on (again) does the builder have the right to return it?
2) And maybe most important for me if we have built a structure with LCP will we have the option to request parts that were riveted to the LCP (And these parts where punched) that has these features?

I think the vast majority of builders understand their labor (or labor they paid for) will not get reimbursed. That process would be almost impossible to administer but answering question 1 + 2 would not.

 

[rph142]

The timescale is another question I would like answered. Is vans going to prioritize making laser parts customers whole before shipping kits to new customers? A little transparency would be nice. We have x rv-9 tail kits that need replacement parts. Our batch process produces y parts a week so you’ll get you parts in this many months. If they’re going to sprinkle replacement parts in with new customers then this could take years for some people and they might want to punt altogether and build or buy something else.