[fl-mike]

Because there's a difference between drilling out a bad rivet due to an oopsie and drilling out every rivet. The quantity of oopsies is compounded by the quantity of operations multiplied by the relative risk of the operations.

Long story short - too much risk for me. We all determine our individual level of risk.

You'd better hope that Roadway doesn't run a forklift fork through your QB wing! That happened to my buddy and the wing went back to Van's, who replaced an entire leading edge and a few ribs. You cannot tell....at all.
Stuff happens.

As you said though, your choice.

 

[Mikeyb]

This thread is like a wreck I can’t stop looking at. Any of you first time builders who think you are going to produce a textbook build or are clinging to the hope there is something exceptional about QB quality are delusional. If you don’t trust Vans disposition of problems and expect an ideal outcome you might as well stop now. You won’t finish the plane before you time out.

 

[Bullpup]

This thread is like a wreck I can’t stop looking at. Any of you first time builders who think you are going to produce a textbook build or are clinging to the hope there is something exceptional about QB quality are delusional. If you don’t trust Vans disposition of problems and expect an ideal outcome you might as well stop now. You won’t finish the plane before you time out.

I chose Vans for my first build specifically because I trust them, their history, their reputation, and this community. I'm an engineer myself and appreciate design trades, margins, and "good enough".

That said, trust doesn't mean blind trust. Vans guidance and these forums are filled with decades of warnings about the risk of cracks radiating from holes and dimples. Regardless of the test results (which I'm sure will further illustrate that Vans designed an awesome and resilient airplane), that belief is common in the larger community and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary support".

Even going back to the video posted from early 2022 discussing the use of LCP, two things stand out, direct from Vans:

• "LCP aren't typically used in aviation" - but we did it anyway
• "the setup, toolpath, and process are critically important" - but our QC failed to catch changes to these "critically important" aspects for 16+ months

Of course I'm going to lose time to rework - I wouldn't have chosen to build if time was the key driver. I don't appreciate the strawman arguments painting us as unrealistic whiners. What I hope for, and am encouraged so far by the discount program, etc. is that we will be able to make reasonable accommodation for the affected non-LC parts. I'm going to be careful enough drilling out the main spar attachments (skins and ribs), but the odds that I won't want to replace my LE skin are slim. I'm not even sure how I'd fit undimpled ribs into a dimpled skin for match drilling.

The loyalty to Vans is awesome, and I share it, but suddenly accepting a new standard with respect to known or potential cracks is a tall ask, especially given over a year of missteps from Vans on this specific topic. It does none of us any good to minimize what is being discussed.

 

[Michael Burbidge]

Recalled or defective products are rarely caused by poor engineer designs. Rather caused by cost cutting measures in production from poor managerial decisions based on profit margins or timeline shortcuts.

Let’s put the blame where the blame is deserved. Not on kit owners!

I’m not sure this was about cost cutting. I think the decision to laser cut parts was a result of the increased demand, supply chain and shipping problems brought on by COVID. From what I understand laser cutting was one way to increase production during that period.

 

[rocketman1988]

Kind if

“…It does none of us any good to minimize what is being discussed...”

Very true, however, the same can be said of speculating a solution without all the data…

 

[Mikeyb]

I have no particular loyalty to Vans or did I particularly enjoy the process but I have a flying RV8 that is outrageous fun and a quarter the cost of the alternatives. I think EAB builders are by definition perfectionists. I knew otherwise but in the back of my mind thought mine would be perfect. Not. Not even close.

It’s an experimental airplane. Lots of things on mine are not typically done in aviation.

 

[2theskyy]

I’m not sure this was about cost cutting. I think the decision to laser cut parts was a result of the increased demand, supply chain and shipping problems brought on by COVID. From what I understand laser cutting was one way to increase production during that period.

More statement towards possibly why outsourced company(s) might have cut corners to create awful LCP’s.
Has really no significant help in this situation hindsight.

 

[2theskyy]

“…It does none of us any good to minimize what is being discussed...”

Very true, however, the same can be said of speculating a solution without all the data…

My solution has already been determined by Vans already, as many others have as well via the communication already put out. There are those that will be able to make decisions for themselves from the results of the tests.

No speculation from me. Vans is replacing all LCP’s. Just a waiting game for them to get ordering portal and punched parts going out.

I just empathize with those with kits and QB. Not that they should be or expect to be perfect, even if no lcp issue had arisen. But they each have a decision to make as a builder, just as every builder has had to make when faced with obstacles. Just the situation is tough to swallow so having the ability to use this thread to vent or to hear what others are doing might help.

 

[ccarlson]

Up-front: I am a fan of Vans, and I hope they get this straightened out with minimal damage to their brand and business.

This thread is like a wreck I can’t stop looking at. Any of you first time builders who think you are going to produce a textbook build or are clinging to the hope there is something exceptional about QB quality are delusional. If you don’t trust Vans disposition of problems and expect an ideal outcome you might as well stop now. You won’t finish the plane before you time out.

I am a first-time builder who never worked on a Space Shuttle. I am also an engineer who has owned, maintained, and operated aircraft for 35+ years.

I paid $30,000 (emp, wing, & fuse kits + shipping) for a product (RV-14A) that was advertised, in part, as follows (via https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-14):

"The RV-14 kit has the full benefit of improving based on our experience gained through the other RV kits that have come before. The RV-14 entered the world firmly establishing new standards in completeness and accuracy. With these improvements, many builders have completed RV-14s in significantly less time than our other ‘driven-rivet’ RVs – some even in less than one year! All of the aluminum components are formed and pre-punched with all the rivet and bolt holes already in place and final-sized. The “matched-hole” punching technology makes the airframe essentially self-jigging: when you insert cleco clamps and all the holes line up, you know the airframe is straight..."

I received 4 crates earlier this year, 3 of which contained - unbeknownst to me at the time - nearly 400 parts that were poorly cut using a laser cutting process instead of the advertised punch process. Said differently, I received a product that was materially different from what I ordered.

Expecting to receive what one paid for, regardless of testing and data developed to support viability of an alternative after-the-fact, is not delusional.

The loyalty to Vans is awesome, and I share it, but suddenly accepting a new standard with respect to known or potential cracks is a tall ask, especially given over a year of missteps from Vans on this specific topic. It does none of us any good to minimize what is being discussed.

Thank you. Agreed, and well said.

 

[Mikeyb]

Nobody drank more of the Vans CoolAid than me. I was fond of telling people
“They have built so many of these and the kits are so mature I’m essentially getting a standard category airplane and just providing the labor to assemble it”
Yeah right. Almost immediately I ran into heartbreaking steel part problems. I went through a bevy of problems with Covid period QB wings that was a doozy. Vans gave me several options to correct them. None of them were ideal but I lived through it.

 

[lyosha]

I think the "Vans is cost cutting" is in the "wait two months for us to do research" bit. A bit in the laser cutting too.

They screwed up - the testing is just to try to sell the parts they screwed up to the builders to recoup some $$$.

I asked a non-vans-affiliated head of engineering for an aerospace company (that happens to also use laser cut parts in some of their stuff) and he immediately said vans screwed up in the process used to laser cut them and needed to use a more expensive process (I don't understand the details, maybe someone can fill in), the results are "probably not un-airworthy" but the maintenance on them will be significantly higher because they made the metal more brittle and it will crack and once a crack forms on the brittle metal it will go through the rest. So avoid if you can - it will be yet another headache you chase for the life of the plane. He also said "welcome to aviation - it's a ****show".

So that's the advice I'm going with, regardless of what Vans research shows.

He also hypothesized a market for heated dimple dies opening up as apparently they are one option for a "middle ground" solution. Not sure if that's been suggested.

 

[bertschb]

...the testing is just to try to sell the parts they screwed up to the builders to recoup some $$$.

I think the testing is for people who have partially or fully completed assemblies that utilized some laser cut parts (or affected QB kits). Builders in this situation would want to know if they need to replace parts. If testing shows the lifespan of the parts isn't adversely affected, the builder could choose to leave them in their assembly and continue building.

 

[lyosha]

I think the testing is for people who have partially or fully completed assemblies that utilized some laser cut parts (or affected QB kits). Builders in this situation would want to know if they need to replace parts. If testing shows the lifespan of the parts isn't adversely affected, the builder could choose to leave them in their assembly and continue building.

Probably for both. The messaging with regards to people waiting for kits has been "if we think laser cut is okay for certain parts, we're going to give you laser cut" - which is disappointing.

 

[CizzoPilot]

I am a first time builder and on part of the aft fuse, I got a little careless and let the rivet gun slip, putting a nice smiley in the skin. As frustrated as I was, I drew a little frowny face next to it with a Sharpie and laughed about it later over a beer.

I looked at the side frames along my mostly completed emp kit the other day and saw a bunch of dark spots along every dimple at exactly the same clock position. With a closer look they were laser burns and under some magnification every single one of them looked to be cracked. I did not have a laugh and a beer over that.

Going into this project, I knew there were going to be mistakes made and the airplane wasn't going to be perfect. But those mistakes would be my mistakes. I dont think anyone on here wants to have an airplane they feel is not perfect (or as close to perfect as it could be) because of Vans mistakes.

 

[gotyoke]

Y'all are freakin' me out!

All my SB wing ribs, leading edge ribs, and tank ribs are laser cut. Visible marks at the cut point after dimpling, yes. Visible cracks after riveting, not observed (yet). Listen, I'm not drilling out all my ribs. I'm just not, whatever that ends up meaning.

 

[georgemohr]

Y'all are freakin' me out!

All my SB wing ribs, leading edge ribs, and tank ribs are laser cut. Visible marks at the cut point after dimpling, yes. Visible cracks after riveting, not observed (yet). Listen, I'm not drilling out all my ribs. I'm just not, whatever that ends up meaning.

It needs to be said (again). Don't freak out. Wait till Vans completes their testing. Perhaps drill out a few sample rivets on your structures to inspect your specific results in the mean time. No cracks will likely prove to be acceptable and long-lived.

 

[maxmirot]

It needs to be said (again). Don't freak out. Wait till Vans completes their testing. Perhaps drill out a few sample rivets on your structures to inspect your specific results in the mean time. No cracks will likely prove to be acceptable and long-lived.

Buy a 200 dollar borescope and learn how use it

 

[Tlrguy]

Industry Standards

I think Vans is going to find that they’re testing, no matter how extensive, just isn’t going to sway many builders one way or the other.

There is an industry standard that must be upheld, regardless of brand. The standard simply cannot be changed over night, and it certainly cannot differ based on manufacture. That’s the whole point of having a standard when you sit back and think about it.

Different construction methods obviously warrant different standards and what we are talking here is the all metal aircraft. Fortunately this is not new technology so we have countless reference material , new and old to draw off of for guidance. I personally am open to new ideas and ways of doing things but it’s going to take getting the industry as a whole onboard to gain any traction.

I’m not quite sure why Vans is doing what they are but, it sure looks like a continuation of the poorly made decisions that landed us all here in the first place.

 

[rocketman1988]

would

"...I’m not quite sure why Vans is doing what they are but, it sure looks like a continuation of the poorly made decisions that landed us all here in the first place...."

Would you prefer they jump to an incomplete or not viable solution without having all the information?

It would seem that your speculation is doing just that.

 

[Tlrguy]

"...I’m not quite sure why Vans is doing what they are but, it sure looks like a continuation of the poorly made decisions that landed us all here in the first place...."

Would you prefer they jump to an incomplete or not viable solution without having all the information?

It would seem that your speculation is doing just that.

Given what we currently know right from the horses mouth, I don’t see where I am being speculative? Take a step back and look and everything we know as truth right now. Justifying through testing the use of extremely cracked parts in an all metal airplane is something that is grossly against industry standard and flat out a really poor decision.

I work around aircraft structures engineers as part of my day job. Unfortunately I have yet to find one that could say these parts are OK to use in an airworthy and flying machine.

I’m pretty deep into a -10 build and want nothing more than for this project to move forward without taking 700 steps (hours) back. Gotta maintain those industry standards though and anything less would be irresponsible.

 

[Bullpup]

"...I’m not quite sure why Vans is doing what they are but, it sure looks like a continuation of the poorly made decisions that landed us all here in the first place...."

Would you prefer they jump to an incomplete or not viable solution without having all the information?

It would seem that your speculation is doing just that.

You've mentioned this a few times, but I agree with some of the other posters that the end state of the testing program is unclear, it is not certain that enough variables will be tested to ever be conclusive, and if it isn't able to convince those of us who already trust Vans enough to buy a kit, it certainly won't convince the broader community.

It seems the testing is to understand the lifespan of parts which violate a commonly accepted industry standard, one which Vans was an enthusiastic supporter of until they had a major quality escape. Their testing program may be comprehensive for an EAB airplane or design, but it is certainly not enough to overturn the existing standard about known cracks in metal airplanes.

Those of us questioning the acceptability of LCP and associated cracks aren't trying to invent a new process, we're just following what would have been universal guidance (including from Vans) until 2 months ago. I've taken "good" LC parts, with undersized holes and apparently clean cuts, and found microcracks at every hole after dimpling. Most concerning, they are masked by primer, calling into question the ability to inspect assembled structures which have been primed.

By their own admission, Vans chose to employ a process with little support in aviation, failed to put in place the required QC that they themselves identified during the initial acceptance, and were roughly a year late in responding to customer questions and complaints. Speaking only for myself, I'd prefer to see the time and money going into testing to instead be spend on remediation. I doubt I'm the only one.

 

[Paul Thomas]

Testing needs to be done. There are airplanes finished with those parts. It's the right thing to do on Van's part. How much more upset would people be if Van's said "the parts may be ok, but we're not going to spend the money to find out. Continue at your own risk" (which EAB is already about).

It doesn't mean that YOU have to finish YOUR airplane with laser cut parts, even if good laser cut parts can be used. Van has said they will replace.

 

[2theskyy]

We have posted an update on the Van's website. Our next update post will be made on or before next Friday.

Short version: Testing is ongoing and consists of extensive evaluation of materials, fasteners, hole types, structures, and computer models for stresses and loads. We have completed the first phase of testing and have moved into the second phase, where we address more complex structures. The tests conducted thus far have shown no meaningful reduction in the life of an airframe, and the process is still underway.

We are currently working on a couple of things specifically for builders: A procedure describing methods that can be used to inspect for and identify laser-cut parts, where possible; and a web-based portal where customers will be able to request replacement parts. It will be a few weeks or so before that portal is ready and the necessary data and information can be loaded for use. Both the inspection documentation and the portal are under development, and we will update regarding progress on those as we go.

My work schedule today requires me to be away from the computer for most of the day, but I will try to block out some time over the weekend to answer a few of the questions that have been posted recently.

greg

“Our next update post will be made on or before next Friday”

TTT
Looking forward to todays update

 

[lyosha]

Van has said they will replace.

To be fair, they haven't said that.

They've said they're exploring options based on what their tests show and have said that they will continue to ship laser cut stock for parts they deem it's okay to continue to do so based on testing.

Unfortunately, they haven't said "we took all the laser cut parts and put them in the garbage bin due to the heavily negative community response".

 

[Jonnyb]

I thought Van have said they would replace laser cut parts if customers aren’t happy.

Here’s my speculation:
I think the testing is to inform customers about wether laser cut parts buried deep in assemblies “need” to be replaced.
If the testing shows these parts don’t “need” to be replaced, Vans will still replace them at the owner’s request. But if they “need” to be replaced then vans is going to have to go further than just replacing the laser cut parts.

 

[Paul Thomas]

To be fair, they haven't said that.

They've said they're exploring options based on what their tests show and have said that they will continue to ship laser cut stock for parts they deem it's okay to continue to do so based on testing.

Unfortunately, they haven't said "we took all the laser cut parts and put them in the garbage bin due to the heavily negative community response".

Right from their website:

Van’s will replace parts that the builder/manufacturer deems are not suitable when the parts are available. The practical aspects of the current situation dictate that while Van’s will strive to produce and deliver replacement parts in as timely a manner as possible, it will take some time to complete that process and we appreciate your patience.

 

[FarrellDiesel1]

Duplicate post, should have refreshed my browser

 

[rocketman1988]

You've mentioned this a few times, but I agree with some of the other posters that the end state of the testing program is unclear, it is not certain that enough variables will be tested to ever be conclusive, and if it isn't able to convince those of us who already trust Vans enough to buy a kit, it certainly won't convince the broader community.

It seems the testing is to understand the lifespan of parts which violate a commonly accepted industry standard, one which Vans was an enthusiastic supporter of until they had a major quality escape. Their testing program may be comprehensive for an EAB airplane or design, but it is certainly not enough to overturn the existing standard about known cracks in metal airplanes.

Those of us questioning the acceptability of LCP and associated cracks aren't trying to invent a new process, we're just following what would have been universal guidance (including from Vans) until 2 months ago. I've taken "good" LC parts, with undersized holes and apparently clean cuts, and found microcracks at every hole after dimpling. Most concerning, they are masked by primer, calling into question the ability to inspect assembled structures which have been primed.

By their own admission, Vans chose to employ a process with little support in aviation, failed to put in place the required QC that they themselves identified during the initial acceptance, and were roughly a year late in responding to customer questions and complaints. Speaking only for myself, I'd prefer to see the time and money going into testing to instead be spend on remediation. I doubt I'm the only one.

Yes, I have said it before.

...and any discussion of the "end state of the testing program" is really just speculation. They are attempting to gain data to enable a successful and viable solution. It takes time...

I have no doubts that they will do the right thing, in the end...

 

[msires]

I'm waiting for my 10 empennage kit, switched to 'assigned to crating' a couple of weeks ago, so I don't know yet if this will be an issue for me.

My biggest issue is that Van wrote an article some time ago admonishing builders for making modifications that shrank the safety margins built into the designs. His argument was that those margins were built in for his (the designers) benefit, to allow for the variability in a kit built aircraft. Yet in this case the company made a decision that has arguably shrank those safety margins themselves.

 

[Jack_G_S]

…
By their own admission, Vans chose to employ a process with little support in aviation, failed to put in place the required QC that they themselves identified during the initial acceptance, and were roughly a year late in responding to customer questions and complaints. Speaking only for myself, I'd prefer to see the time and money going into testing to instead be spend on remediation. I doubt I'm the only one.

You are definitely not the only one. This has been a multi-layered failure on Van’s part. I find it sad they will be trying to leave this burden on us.

 

[TenJax]

“Our next update post will be made on or before next Friday”

TTT
Looking forward to todays update

I was thinking that too. I’m refreshing their bulletin like a 16 year old waiting by the phone. A whole bench full of junk parts that I’d love to replace. Cmon Vans, let’s go

 

[lipper03]

Thanks and offer of support to anyone needing to talk about their path forward

As a person who has built sections 6-10 on my 14A with laser cut parts and has confirmed "features" and with a QB fuse and wings either at Van's, or on the way to Van's, like many here I'm in a what do I do position.

Those that have just started, I think many will stop using LCP, get new parts, redo a some parts and assemblies and the build moves on. Lower level of mitigation (redo/time/money), for a low level of future risk (no concern with laser cut parts).

Those that have entire structures and QBs are looking at either major rework, and/or restarting or switching QB etc.. Which is now a higher level of mitigation effort for an uncertain level of future risk at this time. If the risk is low enough, the mitigation might not be worth their time. Van's has already said they are replacing and providing discount on other parts needed. More on my thoughts on value of parts vs time below.

I personally don't want to start over, and if sound engineering can get me some comfort that the plane isn't falling out of the sky, as an experimental, it's probably worth that risk. Is it a guarantee, never will be, but I think that each builder will have to make that call, as well as buyers in the future. Will it have a value impact as a whole, probably, but as an individual sale, each will be it's own transaction with how the builder documented, and what the buyer's risk level is. So in the end, Van's is doing right by doing testing and working on getting us a sound recommendation, but like everything in life and especially in engineering/design, nothing is guaranteed or 100%. If we wanted zero risk, we'd live very differently.

More on the value of time. My tech counselor mentioned to me something that made me pause a few weeks ago. In everything we do, time is our most valuable resource. Worth more than the parts and planes we are building. We need to make the most of our time, and mitigate risk accordingly. So many of us should wait for testing, to ensure we are able to balance our time with future risk, and the solution will be different for each of us.

It is not fun to wait, not fun to have to make decisions like this, but hopefully being able to talk about it, with each other and with Van's, we will all be able to make a decision that makes sense for each of us. I'm happy to talk with anyone that needs it, as I have spoken with many to help myself work though this so far and will continue to do so as we get more information. We are not on our own, and if anyone feels they are, reach out, we are here to support each other on this journey to build an aircraft. And for everyone who is posting and talking and providing that support for all of us, thank you! We all need it!

 

[Jack_G_S]

I was thinking that too. I’m refreshing their bulletin like a 16 year old waiting by the phone. A whole bench full of junk parts that I’d love to replace. Cmon Vans, let’s go

I wouldn’t lose any sleep waiting. If you can recall in the December 22, 2021 newsletter People were frustrated with open ended lead times and no communication so Van’s posted “Regular communications will take place on at least a bi-weekly basis beginning next week.”

The only communication that followed, for months, was monthly price increases.

 

[grubbat]

Known a long time ago…

About 35 yrs ago when I worked in a metal shop for a large maintenance facility in a far far away galaxy, we wanted to expand our parts mfg. The old Trumpf punching machine just took too long to punch out a part. We approached FAA and Boeing about laser cutting, or plasma cutting, and water cutting and they said both laser and plasma was a no no due to heat treating edge of cut and thus causing stress cracks. Water jet was the only option so we did what any big company would do, we worked overtime on punch machine and bought an autoclave. That was 35 yr ago. When I heard folks were using laser (cable laser is the thing now) to cut structural parts or parts used in critical areas, I thought that they knew something nobody else did like maybe using water or something to prevent heat treating the cut area. I guess that wasn’t the case.

Nevertheless, it’s a problem that can be corrected and I’m sure that given enough time and expertise and testing, a viable solution will come about. Aircraft mfg is one field that patience is required cause we want to get it right the first time. If not, at least learn from our mistakes. I say “our” because we are all part of this and we all have a vested interest in getting it right. I know Vans will get it done and I know they will get it right. I know it’s frustrating, but hey, look at the bright side. Now would be a good time to learn about the theory of avionics, or maybe get caught up on some honeydos, or maybe take up sewing and make so,e interior parts. Heck, I see this deal as being a great opportunity to do something else while you wait…….

 

[greghughespdx]

We've posted an update to our website, including a document that contains information intended to help in the identification of laser-cut vs. punched parts.

I will be out of pocket for the next couple of weeks. Our entire team remains hard at work on punching new parts, production planning, and testing.

Updated: August 18, 2023 (Note: this is a copy of what was posted to the Van's website this evening)

Progress in the testing program has been good and is still ongoing. Complete wing structures have been tested as well as continued testing of specific materials, holes, dimples, and fasteners in combination.

We anticipate launching a web-based portal interface in early September that will allow customers to select which laser-cut parts they need to have replaced.* The portal will specify which parts are on the laser-cut list and the individual part counts for that associated kit. Customers will be able to specify which parts they wish to request replacements for, and to submit their request to Van's Aircraft. More information about the portal will be released as we get closer to its availability.

In addition, today Van's published a reference document providing visual identification assistance for the purpose of identifying laser-cut and punched parts. You may access that document at this link. We will be adding information to this document over time, including additional examples. We welcome feedback, which can be sent to [email protected].

We anticipate releasing our next update on or before September 5th.​

 

[GrahamF]

Greg,

Thanks for the update. It’s good to know that we’ll soon be able to request replacements for defective parts. Can you please publish some information on lead times?

When do you think the testing will have you in a position to give a final verdict on replace or not for most/all parts on the list? It’s fairly obvious that builders will request replacements for all parts still awaiting build, but for entombed parts I imagine your results and recommendations may make the difference. If the results aren’t final, people are going to just request absolutely everything.

 

[gotyoke]

Now I feel like a sucker for deburring all my edges, tooling holes, and lightening holes.

I'm joking, thanks for the update. Identifying laser-cut parts prior to prep was already super easy. It's after it's been prepped, primed, and riveted to an assembly, sometimes quite deep, where identification gets very difficult. Maybe the QB folks could make use of this info, assuming the professionals are not as OCD about deburring as I am.

Well, looks like another few weeks until we maybe get something actionable. Back to fiberglass work. Cheers!

 

[howardtlcc]

Greg, I have been in contact with support but they have not updated the list of laser parts yet.

The following parts are on the RV-10 wing list but are not RV-10 parts (RV-14). They need to be taken off the list.

FL-00003-L
FL-00003-R

That will save builders time in trying to find these parts in the plans...

thanks,

 

[TimSPEED]

We've posted an update to our website, including a document that contains information intended to help in the identification of laser-cut vs. punched parts.

I will be out of pocket for the next couple of weeks. Our entire team remains hard at work on punching new parts, production planning, and testing.

Updated: August 18, 2023 (Note: this is a copy of what was posted to the Van's website this evening)

Progress in the testing program has been good ...
​

Hi Greg.

This is useful and all but it would be good to provide an update on what is happening for those customers whose kits are still in manufacture. I ordered a slow build kit and the wings and fuse were just about to ship when this issue came to light so correctly the shipment was delayed. But no information has been provided as for how long a delay any of us can expect?

Can someone from Vans please provide some indication so I can get a sense of when to expect a new shipping date?

If would even be useful if the kit status page showed my order going from crating back to manufacturing and new dates provided.

Also if you look at the expected lead times for new kit orders, it is really showing no delay on slow build kits so unless you are deliberately lying to prospective buyers, it would be good if you could give us a status update, ideally saying my kit is about to ship.

Thanks

 

[lyosha]

Hi Greg.

This is useful and all but it would be good to provide an update on what is happening for those customers whose kits are still in manufacture. I ordered a slow build kit and the wings and fuse were just about to ship when this issue came to light so correctly the shipment was delayed. But no information has been provided as for how long a delay any of us can expect?

Can someone from Vans please provide some indication so I can get a sense of when to expect a new shipping date?

If would even be useful if the kit status page showed my order going from crating back to manufacturing and new dates provided.

Also if you look at the expected lead times for new kit orders, it is really showing no delay on slow build kits so unless you are deliberately lying to prospective buyers, it would be good if you could give us a status update, ideally saying my kit is about to ship.

Thanks

I have QB wings kit with a crating date of "Jul 17 2023 - Oct 22 2023". I have received zero communications and have no idea what is going on. Unfortunately the people on the phone told me to send an email to kitstatus@vans - which has thus far been a non-responsive black hole the 2-3 times I have tried to email with questions (even prior to laser-part-gate). Unfortunately getting someone on the phone who could tell me what is going on with my kits and to explain how the Vans system works has been futile

 

[Cessnadog]

QB logistics

Different but related question

My QB wings were shipped by Vans in late August of 2022. The QC Tag from Exemplar (the builder in the Philippines) was dated 23 May, 2022. I do not see similar tags on the flaps and ailerons. There are dates on those boxes that are clearly from Van’s facility because they were shipped within 6 days of the dates on the outside of the boxes. I have some hope that a laser cut part released in January wouldn’t have time to get containerized, shipped to Asia, work it’s way to the front of the inventory line and get built into a wing by 23 May.

Does anyone know if Van’s treats the QB wings as a unit? Or do they just order X Sets of wings and enough flaps and ailerons for those but the controls could be built at significantly different times?

Thoughts?

And yes, I have asked Van’s for clarity on this, but since idle speculation seems to be one of the main past-times of this board…

 

[steve997]

Different but related question

My QB wings were shipped by Vans in late August of 2022. The QC Tag from Exemplar (the builder in the Philippines) was dated 23 May, 2022. I do not see similar tags on the flaps and ailerons. There are dates on those boxes that are clearly from Van’s facility because they were shipped within 6 days of the dates on the outside of the boxes. I have some hope that a laser cut part released in January wouldn’t have time to get containerized, shipped to Asia, work it’s way to the front of the inventory line and get built into a wing by 23 May.

Does anyone know if Van’s treats the QB wings as a unit? Or do they just order X Sets of wings and enough flaps and ailerons for those but the controls could be built at significantly different times?

Thoughts?

And yes, I have asked Van’s for clarity on this, but since idle speculation seems to be one of the main past-times of this board…

I just received by 14 QB Wings two weeks ago - all my pieces have tags and were made at different times,
Flaps 13 July 2022
Wings 12 Jan 2023
Ailerons 4 Feb 2023

Interestingly, my wings look fine (all the bits that I can see) but my QB Fuselage is riddled with cracks on the seat/baggage area floor supports.

 

[Jonnyb]

but my QB Fuselage is riddled with cracks on the seat/baggage area floor supports.

Any pictures? Would be interested to know what I’m looking for.

 

[Lucmac]

Interestingly, my wings look fine (all the bits that I can see) but my QB Fuselage is riddled with cracks on the seat/baggage area floor supports.

Very problematic location to remove and replace fuselage ribs. They were installed intentionally with the fore and aft bulkheads split open. To get proper access the fuse would have to be de-constructed and the fuse floor halves split open again. Can’t wait to see what Van’s engineering instructions are for dealing with this particular area. There’s even pro seal that’s already been installed on KAI 29-04. What a minor ‘disaster’ area to undo.

 

[steve997]

Any pictures? Would be interested to know what I’m looking for.

I'm not showing anything new that hasn't been shown in this thread previously, but since you asked... here's a wide shot of one rib on the rv14 baggage floor and every dimple on this one has a minor crack. Then I've included some closeups taken with my phone so they're not the best quality. What to look for??? Well, it's pretty easy to spot with a magnifying glass, as the crack will be at exactly the same point on each dimple (ie where the laser started/stopped).

Whilst they're small, they're there and if it were only a few I'd probably live with it, but this row is full of cracks and there's probably another 100 more in the floor area. Interestingly the sides of the QB fuselage all look ok.

 

[Cessnadog]

QB LCP dates

I spoke with Vans this morning.
They do not yet have the information on when LCP would have started being included into QB Kits. I was told “It will be published”

I find this a little odd, and honestly pretty frustrating as there are batch numbers on the QC release tags from the builder. It should be a pretty straight forward thing to look at batch numbers and match them to containers of parts and know. What do the batch numbers mean if not tied to a container?

I have been one of the guys saying let’s let Van’s do the research to see what remediation needs to be done. But for the QB wings… If Van’s can’t even tell me what parts may be in there I think I have no choice but require new wings and wait for them to be rebuilt. And how in the world can they suggest that they might just remove the LCPs and replace them if they don’t know what those parts are?
Really frustrated today.

 

[2theskyy]

I spoke with Vans this morning.
They do not yet have the information on when LCP would have started being included into QB Kits. I was told “It will be published”

I find this a little odd, and honestly pretty frustrating as there are batch numbers on the QC release tags from the builder. It should be a pretty straight forward thing to look at batch numbers and match them to containers of parts and know. What do the batch numbers mean if not tied to a container?

I have been one of the guys saying let’s let Van’s do the research to see what remediation needs to be done. But for the QB wings… If Van’s can’t even tell me what parts may be in there I think I have no choice but require new wings and wait for them to be rebuilt. And how in the world can they suggest that they might just remove the LCPs and replace them if they don’t know what those parts are?
Really frustrated today.

At least you spoke with someone. Many including myself, are not even getting callbacks. I’m not ordering final kit or other stuff until this is taken care of. I feel for anyone with a QB or built up kit. I hope they do everyone right. My guess is that’s why they’re doing the testing so they can tell QB folks all is good, build on. I’ve already voiced my opinion in this matter but it’s an individual decision. All I know is I’ll never buy a built airplane within these years without proof is does not have LCP’s installed.

Good luck

 

[Tlrguy]

I spoke with Vans this morning.
They do not yet have the information on when LCP would have started being included into QB Kits. I was told “It will be published”

I find this a little odd, and honestly pretty frustrating as there are batch numbers on the QC release tags from the builder. It should be a pretty straight forward thing to look at batch numbers and match them to containers of parts and know. What do the batch numbers mean if not tied to a container?

I have been one of the guys saying let’s let Van’s do the research to see what remediation needs to be done. But for the QB wings… If Van’s can’t even tell me what parts may be in there I think I have no choice but require new wings and wait for them to be rebuilt. And how in the world can they suggest that they might just remove the LCPs and replace them if they don’t know what those parts are?
Really frustrated today.

Pure speculation on my end here. Van’s had the ability to track parts and batches for every single item being shipped, but that wasn’t being done. This is a big no-no in aviation.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

Van’s had the ability to track parts and batches for every single item being shipped, but that wasn’t being done.

Did they? Or did they simply receive parts as they came in and add them to the stock of what they add, essentially "parts is parts"?

The only items I saw on my build with a serial number on them were the wing spars and carry-throughs. Everything else had no identifying information whatsoever, not even a lot number.

 

[Cessnadog]

My QB kit has a release tag from Exemplar with both batch and serial numbers on it. I can’t fathom that they can’t track a batch at least back to the container the parts came from. And that would allow them to tell a bunch of folks that their kits are free of those parts. This should be about 20 minutes worth of research.

Now, any batch that came from a container that included LCPs is a different story since the LCPs shared the same part numbers with punched parts.