Status
Not open for further replies.
2theskyy said:
Didn’t say new cirrus but look at nice used ones. Your reality and mine must be very different.

My point was lcp kit owners time is worth $, $10/hr, maybe more but in current situation it’s $0/hr.

Talk about a different reality. Who’s ok with their time being worth $10/hr
Maybe this is why lcp kit owners are frustrated?
Click to expand...

I get the frustration; yes, I think vans should be putting out regular updates, even if it is "still testing".

The problem is, vans is looking for a viable, complete solution and that requires data; most people are looking for an instant solution to the problem.

Reading many of these posts, you would get the impression that vans should just send everyone complete new kits, free of charge...and pay the builders for their time. Even if they did that, people would still complain about the next SB that comes about.

There has never been, or ever will be a perfect design or build. Things go wrong, mistakes are made, and time moves forward. It is understandable that people are frustrated and angry; a solution will be found. Would you rather wait and have a viable solution, or just have vans be done?

I am not discounting the wasted time, effort, or expense of those directly impacted...it definitely is a bad situation but the speculation within this thread, based on incomplete data and information, really isn't doing anything but winding people up more than they already are.
 
2theskyy said:
Didn’t say new cirrus but look at nice used ones. Your reality and mine must be very different.
My point was lcp kit owners time is worth $, $10/hr, maybe more but in current situation it’s $0/hr.
Talk about a different reality. Who’s ok with their time being worth $10/hr
Maybe this is why lcp kit owners are frustrated?
Click to expand...

First of all, if you are considering the "cost to build" an airplane, you probably shouldn't be building an airplane.

You should build an airplane because you want to build an airplane, not because you want an airplane!
 
2theskyy said:
Who’s ok with their time being worth $10/hr
Maybe this is why lcp kit owners are frustrated?
Click to expand...

I'm thrilled earning $10/hr to do a hobby I love.

However, fact is, I'm not even counting on any equity, because I'll keep the plane as long as I can fly it, and after that, money probably won't matter much to me.
 
Mel said:
First of all, if you are considering the "cost to build" an airplane, you probably shouldn't be building an airplane.

You should build an airplane because you want to build an airplane, not because you want an airplane!
Click to expand...


I think you should want an airplane and want to build it yourself. Similar to your thought.

So you’ve been a DAR for a long time, I’m sure you given plenty of AWC pro bono.
Have you ever denied an AWC because you know a builder has built just to sell to make $? I’m guessing you run into this from time to time.
 
2theskyy said:
I think you should want an airplane and want to build it yourself. Similar to your thought.

So you’ve been a DAR for a long time, I’m sure you given plenty of AWC pro bono.
Have you ever denied an AWC because you know a builder has built just to sell to make $? I’m guessing you run into this from time to time.
Click to expand...

I don't think Mel can deny an AWC based on what the owner may do with his aircraft..... And there is no law against selling your completed kit aircraft.
 
Last edited:
jimbom said:
I'm thrilled earning $10/hr to do a hobby I love.

However, fact is, I'm not even counting on any equity, because I'll keep the plane as long as I can fly it, and after that, money probably won't matter much to me.
Click to expand...

I think I’m falling into a similar direction as you.
My math so far has been more along the lines of “building an airplane as a hobby only costs me $20 an hour.”
Much cheaper than my other hobby of flying airplanes that costs me over a hundred an hour ;)
 
gasman said:
I don't think Mel can deny an AWC based on what the owner may do with his aircraft..... And there is now law against selling your completed kit aircraft.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I thought a DAR could walk away for any reason. Mel can set me straight on it.

Law for completed kit, pre awc? After AWC it’s just a plane sale?
 
rocketman1988 said:
….(snip)….Reading many of these posts, you would get the impression that vans should just send everyone complete new kits, free of charge...and pay the builders for their time. Even if they did that, people would still complain about the next SB that comes about…..
Click to expand...

I think there's two distinctively different camps here. One, are those who have been building from standard build kits and two, those who have Q.B. kits.

It sucks, but for people who've been building from standard build kits, probably can't expect to be compensated for the time it's going to take to rebuild affected components. They should definitely be supplied with the replacement parts along with whatever parts that may get damaged as part of the disassembly/reassembly process.

The QB folks should have the option to have entire assemblies replaced. I for one don't plan on dismantling my QB kit....that I paid a lot of money for, just to start replacing suspect parts.

I personally don't think that simply asking to get what I paid for is asking for too much.
 
Last edited:
2theskyy said:
Interesting. I thought a DAR could walk away for any reason. Mel can set me straight on it.

Law for completed kit, pre awc? After AWC it’s just a plane sale?
Click to expand...

Should have been "NO LAW" in my post.

And there is no law against selling pre awc..... You need a paper trail.

GETTING WAY OFF TOPIC...... maybe this thread will finally cool off.
 
Just a little FYI.....

gasman said:
I don't think Mel can deny an AWC based on what the owner may do with his aircraft..... And there is no law against selling your completed kit aircraft.
Click to expand...

By signing the 8130-12, eligibility statement, you are swearing that you built the aircraft solely for education or recreation in accordance with 14 CFR part 21.

It goes on to state:
Whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or who makes any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism, imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(U.S. Code, Title 18, Sec. 1001)

I can and have refused to issue an Airworthiness certificate in a very few cases.
 
Last edited:
gasman said:
Should have been "NO LAW" in my post.

And there is no law against selling pre awc..... You need a paper trail.

GETTING WAY OFF TOPIC...... maybe this thread will finally cool off.
Click to expand...

That makes more sense. Thanks for pointing that out
 
2theskyy said:
Have you ever denied an AWC because you know a builder has built just to sell to make $? I’m guessing you run into this from time to time.
Click to expand...


Not sure how Mel would know what's going on in the mind of a builder. I don't think it matters what a builder intends to do with a finished airplane, particularly if it is just the building that he loves to do.

Perhaps by the 3rd or 4th identical build, it can be perceived as a business venture rather than an educational or recreational experience.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gasman View Post
I don't think Mel can deny an AWC based on what the owner may do with his aircraft.....And there is no law against selling your completed kit aircraft.

MEL responds....
"By signing the 8130-12, eligibility statement, you are swearing that you built the aircraft solely for education or recreation in accordance with 14 CFR part 21.

It goes on to state:
Whoever in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or who makes any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement ."

Let me make this clear. My statement of "And there is no law against selling your completed kit aircraft." Completed means finished registered kit aircraft..... After it was signed off by a DAR or FAA, with ALL of the paperwork complete.

Have you ever asked a builder if he is going to sell this aircraft? If the answer was YES. Did you refuse his application?
 
rocketman1988 said:
I get the frustration; yes, I think vans should be putting out regular updates, even if it is "still testing".

The problem is, vans is looking for a viable, complete solution and that requires data; most people are looking for an instant solution to the problem.

Reading many of these posts, you would get the impression that vans should just send everyone complete new kits, free of charge...and pay the builders for their time. Even if they did that, people would still complain about the next SB that comes about.

There has never been, or ever will be a perfect design or build. Things go wrong, mistakes are made, and time moves forward. It is understandable that people are frustrated and angry; a solution will be found. Would you rather wait and have a viable solution, or just have vans be done?

I am not discounting the wasted time, effort, or expense of those directly impacted...it definitely is a bad situation but the speculation within this thread, based on incomplete data and information, really isn't doing anything but winding people up more than they already are.
Click to expand...

I think I may be in the camp you're referring to, and I'll say that you are representing both more and less than what I think.

More in that I expect absolutely no consideration for time or annoyance - simply the materials to return my project to the status indicated when I paid for the kit, in consideration of the faulty guidance (build on), and with respect to the long-standing section 5 language about the trade-off inherent in any major rework of a sheet metal airplane.

The less comes with your faith that there is enough data possible, or that Vans is in a position to get that data in their test program, to make a difference. I'll go on record as saying that they could likely leave every 4th rivet out and still pass the tests they are conducting up to a 30k hour life. That doesn't make it ok to leave rivets out!

I just think they have their priorities reversed. Every penny and minute should be going into replacements, starting with the web portal so they can plan their production runs. Deal with the few who are willing to accept hundreds of known cracks in their airplanes later.
 
I also wonder about those who purchase abandoned builds, particularly near-complete builds.

The original builder gleaned most of the education and recreation. The guy applying for the AWC and Repairmans Certificate has not, but is certainly entitled to receive both.
 
gasman said:
Quote:

Have you ever asked a builder if he is going to sell this aircraft? If the answer was YES. Did you refuse his application?
Click to expand...

No, I do not ask that question. There is no problem with selling an amateur-built aircraft.
The problem comes into play if you are building the aircraft for the express purpose of selling it. When you sign the 8130-12, you are swearing that that is not the case!
 
So

Bullpup said:
I think I may be in the camp you're referring to, and I'll say that you are representing both more and less than what I think.

More in that I expect absolutely no consideration for time or annoyance - simply the materials to return my project to the status indicated when I paid for the kit, in consideration of the faulty guidance (build on), and with respect to the long-standing section 5 language about the trade-off inherent in any major rework of a sheet metal airplane.

The less comes with your faith that there is enough data possible, or that Vans is in a position to get that data in their test program, to make a difference. I'll go on record as saying that they could likely leave every 4th rivet out and still pass the tests they are conducting up to a 30k hour life. That doesn't make it ok to leave rivets out!

I just think they have their priorities reversed. Every penny and minute should be going into replacements, starting with the web portal so they can plan their production runs. Deal with the few who are willing to accept hundreds of known cracks in their airplanes later.
Click to expand...

So, if every penny goes into replacements, how do you keep the company solvent?…and if the company isn’t solvent, where does that leave everyone?

It’s NOT a simple solution, as many people here believe…
 
Well in usual fashion, this threads has been bouncing guardrail to guardrail and man are they getting really far apart! :p
 
rocketman1988 said:
So, if every penny goes into replacements, how do you keep the company solvent?…and if the company isn’t solvent, where does that leave everyone?

It’s NOT a simple solution, as many people here believe…
Click to expand...

That's quite the strawman, but I did leave myself open to it.

I'll be more clear: most of the current testing effort (time, money, and manpower) should be focused on replacement instead, at least until they can open the portal to have an idea of the magnitude of the problem. Then test as required to handle the isolated cases where replacement is not warranted or practical.

Of course I want Vans to continue to realize revenue and stay solvent! I also think that gaining the reputation of "the company that says cracks are OK" is equally damaging to their long-term solvency as running in the red for a quarter.
 
rocketman1988 said:
I get the frustration; yes, I think vans should be putting out regular updates, even if it is "still testing".

I am not discounting the wasted time, effort, or expense of those directly impacted...it definitely is a bad situation but the speculation within this thread, based on incomplete data and information, really isn't doing anything but winding people up more than they already are.
Click to expand...

Quite true. The void in communication from Van’s is feeding this. In my previous life, we would update the passengers every 15 minutes or so during a delay - even if it was no news or more bad news. Passengers were a lot more understanding when they were communicated with and told the truth. Van’s has been less than stellar in that regard (and no, I’m not suggesting we have been lied to).
 
airguy said:
For the record, I'm an LCP kit owner. I do have skin in the game. My affected serial number is 42790. Care to share yours?
Click to expand...

Sure thing. 83316
My fuse kit is affected, only a pile of parts as I’ve stated multiple times if you’ve read this entire thread. So I’m not as affected as others.

You’d like to call me as well? I’d be interested how your SDS is set up with dual power busses.

I’m new to VAF but not to aviation my friend. I spent 13 yrs in the army as enlisted rotor head mechanic(combat vet), 14 yrs in regionals, currently left seat at a major airline. I’ve made less $, and more $ than most on this thread. I’m not as smart as most but somehow I get by.
I’m an A&P, ATP & CFII

And, I like slow walks on the beach ;)
Anything else you’d like to know my friend?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Section 5 revision

Can someone please PM me the Section 5 revision as it pertains to LCP!? I’m having a hard time locating it on the Vans website and I did not download it earlier.

Thanks
 
Tlrguy said:
There was some guidance about filing features and published specs to maintain. I can’t find it anywhere.
Click to expand...

From page 05-09:

Occasionally, a hole will crack when dimpled. This does not necessarily mean that the part must be scrapped. The criteria below provide guidance
on how to evaluate cracks in dimple. Cracks exceeding the criteria stated below not only present a safety risk from a structural standpoint, but also
could crack further in the future:
• A crack in a dimple countersink may not extend more than 1/3 the height of the dimple measured from the bottom edge of the dimple.
• For cracks in dimples for 3/32 rivets, 1/8 rivets and #6 screws: Remove the crack with a rounded file.
• For cracks in dimples for a #8 screw: File out the cracks if short or, if cracks are the full 1/3 length, stop drill with a 1/16 drill bit. The edge
of the stop drill holes shall not extend more than 1/2 the height of the dimple measured from the bottom edge of the dimple. The stop drill
hole will not be visible with the screw in place.
 
There was a lot of talk about “good” LCPs vs “bad” LCPs. serious question. Did anyone receive good LCPs from Van’s?

I ask that because I received my kits close to the beginning of the process and I can’t find any that look like good LCPs. Some look very good to the naked eye however all of them have a visible HAZ under magnification. Even after match drilling, deburring and dimpling, several will crack in a line of holes. Below is a picture of the best looking LCPs that I thought wouldn’t crack but did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bertschb said:
Some of my LCP's didn't look too bad to the naked eye but I found it odd how many of them had been "retouched" by somebody with a grinding wheel. It's as if the person that made them saw flaws and tried to grind them away. As a new builder, this isn't what I expected. I thought I would be getting pristine, precision engineered aircraft parts.
Click to expand...

That’s interesting. Maybe they were trying to remove the slag. I was more looking to see if anyone has had less than a 10% crack rate with any dimpled LCP that isn’t drilled oversized?
 
Jack_G_S said:
I was more looking to see if anyone has had less than a 10% crack rate with any dimpled LCP that isn’t drilled oversized?
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if you find anyone with a less than 50% crack rate on the #40 dimpled holes on any one LCP. I wish I was joking.
 
USAF testing

I found an interesting document online today. In 1970, the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory conducted extensive testing in regards to crack propagation.

This document is called, wait for it,

Crack Propagation In Aluminum Alloy Sheet Materials Under Flight Simulation Loading.

Testing is done on 7075 T6 and 2024 T3. This report is extensive. Would someone much smarter than I be willing to read the document and translate to us uneducated builders such as myself. I do understand the basics of the document but get lost in the math.


https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0715331.pdf


I’m not sure if posting a link to a document is against the rules? Mods, remove the link if it’s not cool.
 
Last edited:
swift12 said:
2 checked LCP ribs….100% crack rate here.
Click to expand...

A number of folks in this thread have either run their own prep/dimpling experiments on LCPs at home, or have gone back and inspected previously dimpled LCPs, and have had similar results--lots of cracks.

I'm curious, have any of those folks:
a) Measured the resulting cracks to determine if they fall within the "1/3 the height of the dimple measured from the bottom edge" tolerance in the latest Section 5?
b) Followed the instructions for filing out the cracks after dimpling and then...
c) Gone ahead and riveted the part?

If anyone has done all of the steps above, what has your experience been with additional cracking after riveting?
 
tfriske said:
A number of folks in this thread have either run their own prep/dimpling experiments on LCPs at home, or have gone back and inspected previously dimpled LCPs, and have had similar results--lots of cracks.

I'm curious, have any of those folks:
a) Measured the resulting cracks to determine if they fall within the "1/3 the height of the dimple measured from the bottom edge" tolerance in the latest Section 5?
b) Followed the instructions for filing out the cracks after dimpling and then...
c) Gone ahead and riveted the part?

If anyone has done all of the steps above, what has your experience been with additional cracking after riveting?
Click to expand...

I did a basic sample test on a NON laser cut sample. The hard part would be how to measure 1/3 of the dimple. We are talking a few 32nds. Many cracks are at or over 1/3 so that poses a problem. Also what is the guidance if the cracks form after riveting.

That being said. I was expecting very poor results but found that it wasn’t horrible. Of course I have no way to test how it affected the strength and they were non-LCPs so I have no idea if the HAZ would exist past the filed out section. Also there is a video of someone who said he tried filing the cracks out and the prices cracked anyway after riveting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just before I decided to stop and wait for the dust to settle, I filed cracks on almost 80% of the dimpled flap spar holes. After riveting one side of the spar, I inspected each rivet with a 10x magnifier and still found cracks like the picture below on 6 holes.

Impossible to see without some magnification, but it's definitely a crack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jack_G_S said:
I did a basic sample test on a NON laser cut sample. The hard part would be how to measure 1/3 of the dimple. We are talking a few 32nds. Many cracks are at or over 1/3 so that poses a problem. Also what is the guidance if the cracks form after riveting.

That being said. I was expecting very poor results but found that it wasn’t horrible. Of course I have no way to test how it affected the strength and they were non-LCPs so I have no idea if the HAZ would exist past the filed out section. Also there is a video of someone who said he tried filing the cracks out and the prices cracked anyway after riveting.
Click to expand...

I’m confused as to what you were testing? Punched parts have zero issue.
 
Tlrguy said:
I’m confused as to what you were testing? Punched parts have zero issue.
Click to expand...

Just to see the effects of riveting a dimple that had a notch filed into it. It could be used as a control after filing LCPs. Me personally I wouldn’t be comfortable filing out more than one in a very large area so it’s probably a moot point.
 
Curious

I would be interested to see magnified pictures of dimples that were not LCP.

I would bet that there will be some cracks found, though likely not as many as with LCP. Just more data to add to the file…
 
Jack_G_S said:
Just to see the effects of riveting a dimple that had a notch filed into it. It could be used as a control after filing LCPs. Me personally I wouldn’t be comfortable filing out more than one in a very large area so it’s probably a moot point.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying.
 
rocketman1988 said:
I would be interested to see magnified pictures of dimples that were not LCP.

I would bet that there will be some cracks found, though likely not as many as with LCP. Just more data to add to the file…
Click to expand...

I’ve looked at so many hoping to see the same. Simply not the case. The crack in LCP dimpled holes always seems to originate from the “feature”.
 
rocketman1988 said:
Yes, it makes sense that it would originate there…
Click to expand...

So as a tech counselor and an engineer. Let’s just say the vans result are build on. Would you advise builder to inspect each lcp dimple with a microscope.
And for that matter, moving forward each year to inspect each dimple and how so in some impossible to reach areas.
I know your answer may be, let’s wait to see. I guess I’m just bringing up some conjecture of how to move forward for folks than may choose to build lcp airframes.

You’re always looking for cracks at certain stress areas, hinges, etc. during preflights/CI’s but unknown lcp throughout kits seems over the top to inspect.
 
rocketman1988 said:
I would be interested to see magnified pictures of dimples that were not LCP.

I would bet that there will be some cracks found, though likely not as many as with LCP. Just more data to add to the file…
Click to expand...

I don't have pictures, but others have posted some.

I can offer up data involving my RV-14 empennage.

There are ~60 dimpled holes in my laser-cut VS-702 vertical stabilizer forward spar that I can still observe because they are not filled with rivets (and won't be). Many of the holes are cracked.

Also, this is my second VS-702. After I found cracked holes in my first VS-702 (and other VS parts), I thought I had a technique or tooling problem. Rather than follow Van's advice to file and continue, I bought new parts and started over. All of the new parts (all laser-cut) cracked when dimpled as well.

There are ~178 dimpled holes in my non-laser-cut VS-801PP vertical stabilizer skin. Using the same loupe, light, and eyeballs, I could not find a crack in any one of them.
 
Last edited:
rocketman1988 said:
I would be interested to see magnified pictures of dimples that were not LCP.

I would bet that there will be some cracks found, though likely not as many as with LCP. Just more data to add to the file…
Click to expand...

Relevant or not, I don't know. I am not an engineer.

On my wing kit. Not QB. Prepunched, around 2005.

I match drilled, deburred, and dimpled all holes.

Never looked at a single dimple under magnification. Are mine cracked? I don't know. I didn't look.

Is the increased scrutiny part of the issue?
 
Good point, and without data, I'd guess probably.

I'd rely on Van's testing when done and their recommendations.

Dave
Old retired aerospace structural engineer.
 
rocketman1988 said:
I would be interested to see magnified pictures of dimples that were not LCP.

I would bet that there will be some cracks found, though likely not as many as with LCP. Just more data to add to the file…
Click to expand...

from what I have observed I think a crack from a properly reamed and dimpled punched hole is nearly nonexistent. We have looked at both LCP and non-LCP under magnification in attempts to determine which ones are LCP.

Just look at the smoothness of the inner walls of the test sample I did. That is a non-LCP and the walls are as smooth as a mirror. LCP inside walls look like a file and that’s the area outside of the “feature”.
 
Last edited:
Another possible issue I have with filing out a crack comes directly from MIL-R-47196A. 4.2.1.b and .d state the hole must be fully filled with the rivet and you should not see any portion of the edge of the hole once the rivet is set.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jack_G_S said:
Another possible issue I have with filing out a crack comes directly from MIL-R-47196A. 4.2.1.b and .d state the hole must be fully filled with the rivet and you should not see any portion of the edge of the hole once the rivet is set.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it. The language in that section is discussing improperly formed rivets (either deformed or underdriven). The referenced images for the hole being exposed (1B) or the rivet not filling the hole (1D) are these...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tfriske said:
I don't buy it. The language in that section is discussing improperly formed rivets (either deformed or underdriven). The referenced images for the hole being exposed (1B) or the rivet not filling the hole (1D) are these...
Click to expand...

Yup. The intent is clear. If the rivet doesn’t fill the hole or if a portion of the edge is not covered you can run into problems.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.