Factory Info: Parts with Laser Cut Holes and Potential for Cracks

[KatanaPilot]

I can remember discussions here on VAF where people said they were able to dimple the undersize holes directly without match drilling, and reporting that the rivets were fitting and setting fine. There was considerable discussion about whether or not the holes would crack doing this. I don't recall whether anyone found any cracks doing this, but I don't know if anyone would have pulled out the electron microscope at the time...

I was involved with that discussion as it involved a process being used at a build assist center I was using at the time.

There was some consternation by a (now former) Van's employee who was very uncomfortable with that process. However, it had been tested (by a engineering college - similar to what is being done now for the LCP). As a result of said testing, there was a letter from Van's to the build assist center indicating that the process (with specified conditions) was acceptable.

 

[auburnaviator]

I was involved with that discussion as it involved a process being used at a build assist center I was using at the time.

There was some consternation by a (now former) Van's employee who was very uncomfortable with that process. However, it had been tested (by a engineering college - similar to what is being done now for the LCP). As a result of said testing, there was a letter from Van's to the build assist center indicating that the process (with specified conditions) was acceptable.

Krea,
Can you expound on said process and possibly provide a copy of the letter from Vans to the build assist program? Not that it matters on my build (all of my metalwork is complete and I'm currently stuck in fiberglass h$!!) but I’m interested in said process and the research done to prove reliability.

Regards,
Zach

 

[Bill Boyd]

I wish folks would stop referring to DAR’s as some kind of experts, they are not responsible for airworthiness and generally are not aeronautical engineers, they are strictly there/responsible for the FAA paperwork when they give you an AW certificate, no more. I’m sure they could care less about this debate.

Walt, I see where you are going with this. It jives with my experience as well - the DAR gives things a look-see, then gets down to filling out paperwork. At the end of the visit, it comes down to a paper swap: "You give me lots of green rectangles; I give you a coveted pink rectangle and we both go away happy."

The misperception arises from the fact that the "A's" in "DAR" and "AW certificate" both stand for...

yeah, "airworthiness."

So it's easy to see why some would think of DAR's as some kind of experts.

 

[jimbom]

I wish folks would stop referring to DAR’s as some kind of experts, they are not responsible for airworthiness and generally are not aeronautical engineers, they are strictly there/responsible for the FAA paperwork when they give you an AW certificate, no more. I’m sure they could care less about this debate.

Per FAA Order 8130.2J, the DAR is to inspect the aircraft and verify that it is airworthy.

https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/faa_order_8130.2j.pdf

Chapter 2: Common Policies and Procedures for Issuing an Airworthiness Certificate

2-3. Common Procedures for Issuing an Airworthiness Certificate.

e. Inspect Aircraft. Physically inspect the aircraft to verify−

(9) Airworthiness. The aircraft is airworthy.​

 

[RV8JD]

Krea,
Can you expound on said process and possibly provide a copy of the letter from Vans to the build assist program? Not that it matters on my build (all of my metalwork is complete and I'm currently stuck in fiberglass h$!!) but I’m interested in said process and the research done to prove reliability.

Regards,
Zach

Not Krea, but ... I can't find the letter, but here is Scott M's take on the issue:

https://vansairforce.net/community/showpost.php?p=912468&postcount=6​

 

[Bullpup]

I wish folks would stop referring to DAR’s as some kind of experts, they are not responsible for airworthiness and generally are not aeronautical engineers, they are strictly there/responsible for the FAA paperwork when they give you an AW certificate, no more. I’m sure they could care less about this debate.

I think you're indirectly, and inadvertently, supporting my point. I've been following threads on the allowability of Rocket-style fuel vents, for example, and there are reports of DARs "not liking" them and requiring rework before issuing an AW certificate.

I don't expect them to be aerospace engineers, and follow the testing trail on every joint and component, but they do have the power to withhold the cert based on their own judgement. And there is a chance that their judgement includes "no known cracks".

 

[David Paule]

Just for background into crack growth....

Back way before I retired, I did some crack propagation analysis on Shuttle payloads. Our ground rules were fairly straightforward -

We assumed that there would be a crack in the location of interest and that it was the very biggest that we couldn't detect. We had several inspection levels that we could specify. The loosest was visual with a 10 power glass.

We had a time-history of the loads which would be applied. It was more of a predicted time-history since it was yet to occur.

We'd assume that the part had to still carry the load after a specified number of those time histories were flown. This wasn't to allow re-flights, it was more of a factor of safety. As I recall, this was a while ago, the number was either 4 for well-identified loads or 8 for less so.

Since the part had to still carry the load, that allowed for some cracks to grow a bit, as long as they didn't cause failure. It was a rational approach to the idea.

The stress analyst, me, got to determine what the stress levels in the part were and where they existed. I chose the locations to evaluate. With some experience it was fairly easy to figure out the critical locations, and I expect that Van's engineering is doing that right now. The location gave us the geometry.

This all depended on the material of the parts. Some materials were more susceptible to flaw growth than others. But we evaluated every location in any material which could cause a problem. By "problem," read destroy the Shuttle and kill the crew, and incidentally ruin your career. We wanted to avoid problems.

Dave

 

[RV7A Flyer]

I find it very interesting that all of the arm chair quarterbacks jump in and say it is a crack and a crack is bad, therefore the entire airplane is compromised and will fail.

Strawman fallacy. I haven't seen anyone say that "a crack is bad and therefore the entire airplane is compromised and will fail." If you're going to make your point you should do it without putting words in others' mouths.

What people HAVE said is that they are concerned with *numerous* cracks appearing over time and compromising some components.

 

[rocketman1988]

I think you're indirectly, and inadvertently, supporting my point. I've been following threads on the allowability of Rocket-style fuel vents, for example, and there are reports of DARs "not liking" them and requiring rework before issuing an AW certificate.

I don't expect them to be aerospace engineers, and follow the testing trail on every joint and component, but they do have the power to withhold the cert based on their own judgement. And there is a chance that their judgement includes "no known cracks".

Another devil's advocate scenario...

There is also a chance that if Van's engineering analysis finds that cracks within a certain limit are acceptable, it will be acceptable to the DAR.

Now what do you do? Do you side with the engineering analysis and the DAR, or do you pull the plug and refuse the A/W certificate that the DAR has provided?

It will be interesting to follow what happens in the coming months...

 

[KatanaPilot]

Krea,
Can you expound on said process and possibly provide a copy of the letter from Vans to the build assist program? Not that it matters on my build (all of my metalwork is complete and I'm currently stuck in fiberglass h$!!) but I’m interested in said process and the research done to prove reliability.

Regards,
Zach

Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of that letter. I did see it and (going off memory now) - testing was done by a former Van's engineer (who may have been an employee at the time - don't know) and they verified that there were no issues with fatigue life provided the dimple die pilot met a certain specification. I think the build center had the dies made for them.

Fundamentally, I don't think it's any different than what is done today with final size holes - debur and then dimple using proper sized dimple dies.

I think the concern was if the dimple die was forced through the hole - which is why there was a requirement to make special dies to fit the undersized punched holes.

Not Krea, but ... I can't find the letter, but here is Scott M's take on the issue:

https://vansairforce.net/community/showpost.php?p=912468&postcount=6​

And yes I remember that discussion quite well.

What I don't understand is that if testing was done to verify the direct to dimple process and the testing showed no ill effects - why there was such concern over doing so. I think a lot of airplanes have been built at this build center and there have been no ill effects.

 

[Bullpup]

Another devil's advocate scenario...

There is also a chance that if Van's engineering analysis finds that cracks within a certain limit are acceptable, it will be acceptable to the DAR.

Now what do you do? Do you side with the engineering analysis and the DAR, or do you pull the plug and refuse the A/W certificate that the DAR has provided?

It will be interesting to follow what happens in the coming months...

Not sure I follow -for me, at least, I won't put the aircraft in front of the DAR without fully expecting that both of us consider her airworthy. Why would I finish an airplane and invite a review if I didn't think it ready to go?

This is about making decisions while still building, and if any of us will actually button up wings, etc. with parts that have such potential for cracking, observable at build or not, that they were removed from production and no longer produced.

 

[deMan]

Not sure I follow -for me, at least, I won't put the aircraft in front of the DAR without fully expecting that both of us consider her airworthy. Why would I finish an airplane and invite a review if I didn't think it ready to go?

This is about making decisions while still building, and if any of us will actually button up wings, etc. with parts that have such potential for cracking, observable at build or not, that they were removed from production and no longer produced.

Would you feel better if testing says the LCP are good and Vans goes back to laser cutting parts?
Them no longer using laser cutting seems like a big part of your argument.

 

[AlphaCharlieBravo]

Update

There is a August 12th update on todays VAF front page and Vans website.

Arnie

 

[Bullpup]

Would you feel better if testing says the LCP are good and Vans goes back to laser cutting parts?
Them no longer using laser cutting seems like a big part of your argument.

I would be absolutely thrilled to go back to about 3 months ago, when the advice was "build on" and I didn't worry about checking every dimple under magnification. If the test results are so conclusive that Vans goes back to shipping LCPs, removing the question for both my passengers and potential resale buyers, I'll be 100% on board.

Do you really think that will happen? Even the referenced message about dimpling specifically called out the "much higher risk of radial cracks at the perimeter of the holes".

 

[2theskyy]

I think this is going to go in many different directions. Some just have a pile of parts and vans says they’ll replace them. Done

Others are partially built and aren’t ok with doing all the drilling out so many non lcp parts are warranted and vans currently says cover lcp but non lcp will be a discount at owners expense. Arguably done

Others are comfortable doing the drilling/replacement and lcp are covered at vans expense. Done

Others are QB. Same 2 scenarios and 3rd to get replacement after dealing with Vans for deal.

Then there’ll be those that are good to leave kits with lcp and go flying.

Each builder has the right to decide what’s best for them and there’s many arguments for each on this thread.

These are experimental planes and therefore, well experimental. But I just hope and want anyone leaving LCP’s in flying airplanes include paperwork or logs to indicate they are doing so. I say this for the future potential owner so they may make an educated decision on the purchase.
Will this affect resale $$$. We can only speculate at this point. Will this affect a CI each year? Only 1 person will determine this in each case. The potential buyer and the inspector.

But I do appreciate Greg’s communication and date for next communication. I hope Vans does right for all involved

 

[PCHunt]

"Like Fred, a lot of us don’t know exactly how all this stuff works,….but just know that it does. At the end of the day, I just want the quality product that Vans is known for and a product that’s going to hold its value for years to come. However, Vans shouldn’t try to BS an old BS’er."
__________________
Mark H.

Mark, what evidence do you have that Van's is trying to BS us?

In the absence of any evidence, I recommend you retract your statement.

I'm willing to change my opinion if there is evidence.

 

[deMan]

I would be absolutely thrilled to go back to about 3 months ago, when the advice was "build on" and I didn't worry about checking every dimple under magnification. If the test results are so conclusive that Vans goes back to shipping LCPs, removing the question for both my passengers and potential resale buyers, I'll be 100% on board.

Do you really think that will happen? Even the referenced message about dimpling specifically called out the "much higher risk of radial cracks at the perimeter of the holes".

Honestly, no.
But mostly because I don’t think people would accept Vans going back to LCP because of negative sentiment, not because of engineering reasons.

 

[N82VM]

Wondering about the interior/low stress parts that Vans says they will replace if the builder finds cracks, but will continue to ship laser parts until inventory is exhausted.

Does that mean they are inspecting the laser parts before shipping? Otherwise requesting a replacement just means requesting another and another until you win the no crack laser lottery or the supply is exhausted and a punch part arrives.

 

[Mark33]

"Like Fred, a lot of us don’t know exactly how all this stuff works,….but just know that it does. At the end of the day, I just want the quality product that Vans is known for and a product that’s going to hold its value for years to come. However, Vans shouldn’t try to BS an old BS’er."
__________________
Mark H.

Mark, what evidence do you have that Van's is trying to BS us?

In the absence of any evidence, I recommend you retract your statement.

I'm willing to change my opinion if there is evidence.

Okay, I changed my wording a little bit to “I hope Vans doesn’t try to BS an old BS’er”.

So here’s the facts: Even though this was a known issue several months ago, people were told to “build on”, but that advice has now made a 180. This is where I started raising an eyebrow. Now, the majority of the LCP have discontinued and Vans has switched back to producing parts via the punching process, which is definitely a good thing. Like I’ve said in previous posts, all I’m asking for is for my airframe to consist of the exact same parts as the new kits have and I don’t think anything less is acceptable.

What I’m worried about is that we’ll be told that “testing has shown” that certain LCP are good to go and that the life expectancy of our airframes and potential for cracks forming is no different than if the punch method was used. If this is what we’re eventually told, then the question must be asked, what happens 5-10 years down the road if this doesn’t actually turn out to be the case? Who’s going to be holding the bag?

I know Vans is a wonderful company and hopefully they’ll do the right thing, but like everyone else, I’m just holding my breath and trying to be patient but I can’t help but to feel like the temperature and dew point have converged and I’m flying VFR.

 

[Walt]

So here’s the facts: Even though this was a known issue several months ago, people were told to “build on”, but that advice has now made a 180.

I can’t help but to feel like the temperature and dew point have converged and I’m flying VFR.

I believe the problem was brought up over a year ago, not several months ago.

 

[Cessnadog]

Let me tell a story, then my .02 here. A few years ago, a friend and his girlfriend got into bee keeping. I was an observer when they installed their first packaged bees into the brand new hives. As newbees (see what I did there) errors were made and one of the queens may or may not have been lost in the process. My friend said to his girlfriend, “I think we need to re-queen that hive”. She said “How much does that cost?”. His reply was perfect, “we are $1200 into this, we aren’t getting cheap now”.

So, I am in the middle of all of this LCP mess. I am waiting for word from Van’s to give guidance to make some decisions, but I have also already made some. More on this in a minute.

My take is that Van’s knows more about building an aluminum airplane than most (all?) of us. I think they are moving away from LCPs for two reasons, first, because of the perception of lesser quality (now at least), even if they parts were perfect. I am also confident that an internally manufactured punched part is significantly less expensive for them than an externally sourced laser cut part. I think they are likely quite a bit less expensive.

One last note. I have looked, I have looked with magnification, I have not looked with a microscope… but I can not find any cracked holes in my assemblies. I doubt that is really true, but I would bet that there are very few RVs out there with no cracked/imperfect rivets/holes. There are 11,000 of these planes that have flown, and half of those builders were below average. The number of variables in play here is HUGE. Clearly Van’s has designed an aircraft that is very forgiving in the assembly department.

So, my plan
1) I won’t install any more LCPs. Cost to me to do this is nothing but time. Easy
2) I am going to rebuild my tail surfaces (except HS) from scratch. All my spars are suspect and building from scratch (to me) is preferable to disassembly. (I’m not going cheap now). Plus, I am a better builder now than I was when I started. They will all be better than the ones I have.
3) awaiting word from Vans on tail cone, HS and fuselage (as far as I am assembled) parts that might need replaced. Hopeful that there are minimal to no parts that need replaced. Will absolutely do exactly what they recommend.
4) QB wings are a question. Mine are early enough that they MIGHT not have any LCPs in them. Again, waiting guidance from Van’s

 

[Flygirl64]

Vans carries insurance. The LCP manufacturer carries insurance. Vans says they approved a specific lead in for the fabrication. They say the manufacturer changed this and hot spots and asymmetries were the result. Unless Vans approved the change, the out sourced company and their insurer have liability here. Vans should be in discussions with the manufacturers insurer and their own to defray costs.

My emp/ tail has been completed for 6 mos and I’m still waiting (2 years) for QB fuse/ wings (were scheduled for crating this week).

I want vans to succeed. They have a strong reputation and presence. I understand the internal discussions of scope, cost, PR. I believe ‘units’ should be replaced - and the cost should not doom the company with the manufacturer on the hook as well … but bad PR may be more destructive.

Just my $0.02

 

[mtebbe]

Hey guys! Long-time viewer, first time poster.

I'm also knee-deep in the LCP situation, too, building an -10. Emp complete (with LCP), and I have QB fuse and QB wings all with the potential LCP.

I have ~20 years of mechanical engineering experience with the last 10 in Aerospace/Airplane Engineering. One big thing to remember is that the rivet pinches the joint together. On a non-dimpled joint, the stresses are divided amongst the cross-sections of this "pinched" together point. Usually 5-10X greater than the diameter of the rivet. Most of the dimpled and AN426 rivets have an effective shear diameter at the diameter of the dimple. The AN426 rivet is there to hold the dimples "nested". Think of shear loads going radially through through nested cones. As long as the "pinch" on the rivet is not severely compromised (meaning that the cones are able to separate in shear), the loading will still be handled as-designed. This is called "Stressed-Skin" design, or "semi-monocoque design". Usually, it will take more than 3-5 cracked rivet holes in the supporting structure to compromise the design. Not to say that if you have found multiple severe-cracks in your build that you should not replace the LCPs. (READ: Wait for Vans Results).

Mainly posting to share the understanding with what Greg posted earlier that there may be little-to-no compromise in a situation with a "few" cracks, especially if the crack is less than 1/3 the length of the dimple. From my experience, the nested dimple takes most of the load; whereas the rivet holds the dimples together. The spacing of the rivets/dimples ensures that there is minimal "peeling" (or tensile loading) if the rivets.

The Glasair-Owners site has a good, brief explanation of what I mentioned above about the nesting dimples (without explicitly calling it out). https://glasair-owners.com/resources/strength-of-riveted-joints/

 

[2theskyy]

Hey guys! Long-time viewer, first time poster.

I'm also knee-deep in the LCP situation, too, building an -10. Emp complete (with LCP), and I have QB fuse and QB wings all with the potential LCP.

I have ~20 years of mechanical engineering experience with the last 10 in Aerospace/Airplane Engineering. One big thing to remember is that the rivet pinches the joint together. On a non-dimpled joint, the stresses are divided amongst the cross-sections of this "pinched" together point. Usually 5-10X greater than the diameter of the rivet. Most of the dimpled and AN426 rivets have an effective shear diameter at the diameter of the dimple. The AN426 rivet is there to hold the dimples "nested". Think of shear loads going radially through through nested cones. As long as the "pinch" on the rivet is not severely compromised (meaning that the cones are able to separate in shear), the loading will still be handled as-designed. This is called "Stressed-Skin" design, or "semi-monocoque design". Usually, it will take more than 3-5 cracked rivet holes in the supporting structure to compromise the design. Not to say that if you have found multiple severe-cracks in your build that you should not replace the LCPs. (READ: Wait for Vans Results).

Mainly posting to share the understanding with what Greg posted earlier that there may be little-to-no compromise in a situation with a "few" cracks, especially if the crack is less than 1/3 the length of the dimple. From my experience, the nested dimple takes most of the load; whereas the rivet holds the dimples together. The spacing of the rivets/dimples ensures that there is minimal "peeling" (or tensile loading) if the rivets.

The Glasair-Owners site has a good, brief explanation of what I mentioned above about the nesting dimples (without explicitly calling it out). https://glasair-owners.com/resources/strength-of-riveted-joints/

That is all good. Please just be transparent and put each lcp or that LCP’s are installed in said RV.

I purchased an engine which the seller could’ve easily not told me it was a prop strike. He said it’s going in experimental so you can just put it in and fly. Not a chance and I sent every piece off to get inspected and certified. I bought a brand new crankshaft and replaced the 120 hr cylinders with brand new cylinders. I don’t get angry at the seller. I thank him for his transparency so I can make educated and not so educated decision. Every non certified part which I could’ve used on experimental, was destroyed as no one else with less knowledge would not use.

Because I 100% guarantee that this science will support you keeping lcp in your plans. You will not receive 1 piece of certification paperwork to support that decision. But I digress because I know nothing relative to you or other engineers when it comes to putting known cracks in airplanes that’ll last 30000 hrs. Just be transparent.

 

[mtebbe]

... when it comes to putting known cracks in airplanes that’ll last 30000 hrs. ...

Oh, I failed to mention that the "known" cracks are either filed down, or stop-drilled if they are discovered during manufacture.

Similarly, in February 2023, Vans updated (as someone mentioned before, "silently") Section 5-09 to reflect this crack/dimple/file or drill information.

See: https://www.vansaircraft.com/service-information-and-revisions/5/

 

[Tlrguy]

Hey guys! Long-time viewer, first time poster.

I'm also knee-deep in the LCP situation, too, building an -10. Emp complete (with LCP), and I have QB fuse and QB wings all with the potential LCP.

I have ~20 years of mechanical engineering experience with the last 10 in Aerospace/Airplane Engineering. One big thing to remember is that the rivet pinches the joint together. On a non-dimpled joint, the stresses are divided amongst the cross-sections of this "pinched" together point. Usually 5-10X greater than the diameter of the rivet. Most of the dimpled and AN426 rivets have an effective shear diameter at the diameter of the dimple. The AN426 rivet is there to hold the dimples "nested". Think of shear loads going radially through through nested cones. As long as the "pinch" on the rivet is not severely compromised (meaning that the cones are able to separate in shear), the loading will still be handled as-designed. This is called "Stressed-Skin" design, or "semi-monocoque design". Usually, it will take more than 3-5 cracked rivet holes in the supporting structure to compromise the design. Not to say that if you have found multiple severe-cracks in your build that you should not replace the LCPs. (READ: Wait for Vans Results).

Mainly posting to share the understanding with what Greg posted earlier that there may be little-to-no compromise in a situation with a "few" cracks, especially if the crack is less than 1/3 the length of the dimple. From my experience, the nested dimple takes most of the load; whereas the rivet holds the dimples together. The spacing of the rivets/dimples ensures that there is minimal "peeling" (or tensile loading) if the rivets.

The Glasair-Owners site has a good, brief explanation of what I mentioned above about the nesting dimples (without explicitly calling it out). https://glasair-owners.com/resources/strength-of-riveted-joints/

While I do understand the science behind the “stressed skin” concept of aircraft construction, it’s really hard to justify building in a part that has say, 90 of 105 dimpled holes cracked and confirmed by others in the industry.

If this issue was just a hole here or there, I would not consider this to be an issue. I’ve spent the last month inspecting and documenting everything I’ve done so far, and there are just too many holes cracked to justify moving forward.

 

[2theskyy]

Oh, I failed to mention that the "known" cracks are either filed down, or stop-drilled if they are discovered during manufacture.

Similarly, in February 2023, Vans updated (as someone mentioned before, "silently") Section 5-09 to reflect this crack/dimple/file or drill information.

See: https://www.vansaircraft.com/service-information-and-revisions/5/

Oh, that makes me feel better. Follow a revised section after vans knew about this. Just don’t be an a$$ to future owner and notate it in the logs.
Be transparent. Aviation safety is designed around transparency. Just ask Boeing.

 

[mtebbe]

Oh, totally agree! Definitely note it on both your builder's log AND the Airframe Log book.

 

[2theskyy]

Anyone tried to stop drill a crack on a dimple edge. You can clean it up and then go oversized or next size rivet.

My RV8 will not have LCP’s. Others might keep them.
That’s all the builders decision.

 

[Blw2]

I am far too many decades past the one and only metallurgy course I took, as well as the work experience I had in metals, machining, and welding... to have any useful memory on the topic.... so forgive if this is a silly question, but could these parts be annealed before de-burring, reaming, and dimpling?

 

[swift12]

That is all good. Please just be transparent and put each lcp or that LCP’s are installed in said RV.

I purchased an engine which the seller could’ve easily not told me it was a prop strike. He said it’s going in experimental so you can just put it in and fly. Not a chance and I sent every piece off to get inspected and certified. I bought a brand new crankshaft and replaced the 120 hr cylinders with brand new cylinders. I don’t get angry at the seller. I thank him for his transparency so I can make educated and not so educated decision. Every non certified part which I could’ve used on experimental, was destroyed as no one else with less knowledge would not use.

Because I 100% guarantee that this science will support you keeping lcp in your plans. You will not receive 1 piece of certification paperwork to support that decision. But I digress because I know nothing relative to you or other engineers when it comes to putting known cracks in airplanes that’ll last 30000 hrs. Just be transparent.

All fine and dandy. I tested 20 different holes in my LC RIBS. every single one is cracked when dimpled. Is that bad enough? Yep these ain’t going in my plane. No way. I must have got the bad vendor ones.lots of slag all over the place too. Absolute yuk. Waiting for the request form. Totally unsuitable parts on this side of the fence.

 

[ccarlson]

Greg please clarify this statement on the update.

"The forthcoming web portal will allow a builder to select which laser cut parts are needed for replacement as well as any other associated parts needed due to damage, which will be made available at a significant discount. "

I assume the significant discount is only for the parts damaged when rectification work is carried out? The "not fit for purpose" Laser cut parts requested for replacement regardless of testing will be free of charge. Thank you.

+1

I am also wondering what to expect with regard to shipping costs for replacement parts (both laser cut and associated).

 

[gasman]

+1

I am also wondering what to expect with regard to shipping costs for replacement parts (both laser cut and associated).

Based on your location, shipping charges won't be out of this world.....

 

[Tlrguy]

Based on your location, shipping charges won't be out of this world.....

Thanks for throwing that out there! This thread and all of us involved could stand a laugh right now!

 

[lr172]

I am far too many decades past the one and only metallurgy course I took, as well as the work experience I had in metals, machining, and welding... to have any useful memory on the topic.... so forgive if this is a silly question, but could these parts be annealed before de-burring, reaming, and dimpling?

The poor execution of the laser movement allowed a small area at the edge of the hole to get too hot and therefore that area became re-hardened, with no follow on tempering step, (so very brittle) and allowed it to crack under the stress of the bending (it is really more stretching than bending creating the stress at the hole). The crack length is a reflection of how large the hardened area was. The logic here is similar to why vans, on certain parts, starts with annealed sheets and hardens them after the the more aggressive bending operations; An annealed sheet can take a lot more bending without potential cracking than a hardened sheet.

You can't anneal just a small area of a sheet and the sheet cannot be annealed, as the design likely requires the much stronger properties of the hardened sheet. You could however anneal the sheet and repeat the hardening and tempering steps. This would likely prevent the cracks caused by dimpling, as there are no longer brittle areas. This is pretty common for gas welders working with 4130. They create a hardened and brittle area just outside of the weld and then use heat to normalize that area (essentially somewhere close to annealed). The 4130 is typically used in the normalized state, not the hardened state, so not the best example. However, it seems there really is no significant need for this as the crack is not likely to extend beyond the brittle area, which is a VERY SMALL portion of the dimple and the entire dimple area is what creates the shear resistance. Seems there is good variability on the length of cracks, as the cutting quality and laser tuning seems to be quite variable.

Not looking for more debate here, just answering one posters question.

 

[JonJay]

It’s been a number of years but when I was at Vans vendor they formed ribs and such from “O”, annealed sheet, then solution heat treated them.
It would be nice to know what processes they use today for “matched hole” parts.

If Greg covered that somewhere here, I apologize. Too much conjecture to sort the wheat from the chaff in this thread.

 

[rocketman1988]

Yes

“…If Greg covered that somewhere here, I apologize. Too much conjecture to sort the wheat from the chaff in this thread...”

That is the truth.

 

[lyosha]

... so 74 pages later, has anyone actually gotten a response from Vans about their kits? The guys on the phone said to email kitstatus and the crickets sure are chirping. Does anyone know the phone number of someone who would be able to answer some basic questions about what the status of my kits on order is?

I have RV10 Wings and Fuse kits ordered, the wings timelines got pushed up significantly since Osh to July 17 - Oct 22 since osh (guessing everyone ahead of me cancelling). Are those dates just B.S. at this point? Are they going to try to give me a QB kit with laser cut parts? Are these going to be QB wings with half the rivets drilled out to replace the laser cut parts?

Is there some summary out there? Reading through 74 pages isn't humanly feasible...

 

[gotyoke]

...
Is there some summary out there? Reading through 74 pages isn't humanly feasible...

Since you're asking about what is happening with your kit, you'll need official word from Van's. Check the news section of the Van's website. The forums here are mostly people people theorizing what Van's may do or what they want Van's to do, so probably not much help answering your questions.

 

[bertschb]

... so 74 pages later...

I've read every post in those 74 pages and although I REALLY want my empennage kit (which I made final payment on nearly a month ago), I won't contact Vans because based on everything they have communicated to date, it's going to be several more weeks before they have answers to any questions I may have.

I'll be happy if I get my kit next month and even happier if there are enough parts in it for me to actually start my build. I have a feeling there will be many parts backordered :-(

 

[maxmirot]

Here a FYI that tells why Van's is now going back to punched parts.

Vans Aircraft Business Update - January 15 2022

Start at 10 mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMTkDq2g-p0&t=783s



Note: They say that they were planning expanded production back on their presses but would take months for a new punch new to be delivered.

In between they planned to use LCS parts.

 

[inktomi]

For what it's worth, I'm in exactly the same shape only my QB wings and fuse are a bit later this year than yours. Vans has said something to the effect of.. there are few laser cut parts in quickbuild kits. They have not said much else about quickbuild kits at all.

I've interpreted that to mean that Vans has sent their own punched parts to the quickbuild factory - but that some laser cut parts are included. I believe they were still punching parts even while also laser cutting the same parts - just a way to generate parts faster and get kits shipped sooner.

My plan is, barring more information to the contrary:

1) Have Vans provide a list of laser cut parts used in my kits (or an attestation along those lines) before I send the final payment.
-or-
2) Cancelling my QB orders and placing new ones, pushing out the order about a year and avoiding the whole issue.

I do trust the engineers. If we can't trust the engineers and the overall company, then I'm not sure what to do. I want to minimize my exposure to anything in the future though - and hence I need to know which parts are used in my quickbuild kit that "might" cause issues in the future juuusstt in case there is an AD like "inspect all your laser cut parts for cracks".

I am also assuming that since the guidance right now is "stop all work" that also includes their facility assembling quickbuild kits - unless, as I suspect, that facility is all/mostly using punched parts. In that case it might be possible for the QB kits to be produced right now, even when the rest of us as told to hang tite. This would align with their info on there not being many laser cut parts in quickbuild kits. It's entirely a theory though and Vans has not said this.

I've got family that is nervous enough in turbulence without them having any thoughts about cracks also in their mind. They already think the wings might fall off even without this whole issue. I don't think that's likely at all, but like anything with our kits we need to be as certain as we can be in these things.

For now, I'm giving Vans the benefit of the doubt. I do think they're giving us as much info as they have without giving so much that it causes additional work. I can only imagine the emails and calls if they told us the company that's helping do the testing (for example)..

... so 74 pages later, has anyone actually gotten a response from Vans about their kits? The guys on the phone said to email kitstatus and the crickets sure are chirping. Does anyone know the phone number of someone who would be able to answer some basic questions about what the status of my kits on order is?

I have RV10 Wings and Fuse kits ordered, the wings timelines got pushed up significantly since Osh to July 17 - Oct 22 since osh (guessing everyone ahead of me cancelling). Are those dates just B.S. at this point? Are they going to try to give me a QB kit with laser cut parts? Are these going to be QB wings with half the rivets drilled out to replace the laser cut parts?

Is there some summary out there? Reading through 74 pages isn't humanly feasible...

 

[lyosha]

For what it's worth, I'm in exactly the same shape only my QB wings and fuse are a bit later this year than yours. Vans has said something to the effect of.. there are few laser cut parts in quickbuild kits. They have not said much else about quickbuild kits at all.

I've interpreted that to mean that Vans has sent their own punched parts to the quickbuild factory - but that some laser cut parts are included. I believe they were still punching parts even while also laser cutting the same parts - just a way to generate parts faster and get kits shipped sooner.

My plan is, barring more information to the contrary:

1) Have Vans provide a list of laser cut parts used in my kits (or an attestation along those lines) before I send the final payment.
-or-
2) Cancelling my QB orders and placing new ones, pushing out the order about a year and avoiding the whole issue.

I do trust the engineers. If we can't trust the engineers and the overall company, then I'm not sure what to do. I want to minimize my exposure to anything in the future though - and hence I need to know which parts are used in my quickbuild kit that "might" cause issues in the future juuusstt in case there is an AD like "inspect all your laser cut parts for cracks".

I am also assuming that since the guidance right now is "stop all work" that also includes their facility assembling quickbuild kits - unless, as I suspect, that facility is all/mostly using punched parts. In that case it might be possible for the QB kits to be produced right now, even when the rest of us as told to hang tite. This would align with their info on there not being many laser cut parts in quickbuild kits. It's entirely a theory though and Vans has not said this.

I've got family that is nervous enough in turbulence without them having any thoughts about cracks also in their mind. They already think the wings might fall off even without this whole issue. I don't think that's likely at all, but like anything with our kits we need to be as certain as we can be in these things.

For now, I'm giving Vans the benefit of the doubt. I do think they're giving us as much info as they have without giving so much that it causes additional work. I can only imagine the emails and calls if they told us the company that's helping do the testing (for example)..

I don't want any laser cut parts in my kits, but that's my personal risk tolerance, based on advice given by others who are familiar with laser cut parts than me.

For their part, Vans seems to be treating this as a cost-cutting exercise. Which is unfortunate.

That aside, there were a few things I got from Vans at Osh with regards to QB kits.

With regards to if your QB kit is contaminated or not - depending on when you placed your order, that will depend on if your QB kits had laser cut parts or not. Unfortunately I placed my orders in June and July, so a few months too late to not have laser cut parts. Apparently, despite the strong demand for QB kits, they weren't front-loading the shipment of kits to QB assemblers so if you ordered in June, you likely have laser cut parts. Although this was told by a rep at Osh, and not the official word as far as I can tell.

Vans appear realize they are taking a loss, and appear to be trying to minimize their loss.

Apparently one option they are considering having the folks in Philippines/Brazil drill out all the rivets necessary and replace just the laser cut parts. I for sure don't want those resultant kits.

Another option is to scrap all the "bad" QB kits - that means noone gets kits delivered for like a year, much greater financial loss, but no issues with laser cut parts. This is the most negatively impactful to Vans $$$ wise, so predictably they are trying to dodge this scenario by trying to see how much of the bad parts can be salvaged and if they can convince people to have some bad parts in their planes.

... or builders waiting for QB kits could just switch over to slow build kits - but that really defeats the purpose of having waited all this time for a QB kit, doesn't it.

That said, I would really like to know what the status of my kits on order is and talk to someone who could tell me

1. Where I am in line for kits and if the dates on the website are real or just BS because noone adjusted them?
2. Is there traceability of parts? Will my QB kits guaranteed not have laser cut parts?
3. If there are laser cut parts in my QB kit, what it would take to have a kit without laser cut parts? I'm okay with waiting for another year. Not okay with laser cut parts.

 

[ccarlson]

Based on your location, shipping charges won't be out of this world.....

Hahaha… thanks! I needed that!

 

[TenJax]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00LAX52IQ?psc=1&ref=ppx_pop_mob_b_asin_title

I’m not sure if this has been offered or buried in the thread
. I picked this $15 hand held microscope up to take a closer look at the laser cut holes. And what I saw is amazing.

I have compared different holes from punched parts, burrs removed, dimpled etc. The LCP cracks at the start stop point every time. Moreover, the quality of the cut from laser is horrid under magnification, and some parts far worse than others. Close up, they aren’t even round.

If you do not own a kit with LCP, you are lucky, if you do, I suggest taking the closer look and see what it looks like.

I will be replacing every structural LCP,

 

[Snowflake]

Apparently one option they are considering having the folks in Philippines/Brazil drill out all the rivets necessary and replace just the laser cut parts. I for sure don't want those resultant kits.

Why not? You'll have a section with no LCP, which is your mandate. The pros who build these all day long can surely drill out and set new rivets a lot more reliably than we can. Do you think a QB section from them would never have any reworked rivets? Nobody is perfect, but they're probably better at it.

74(5?) pages later and i'm still waiting for someone to demand that they get an entire new airframe kit built by Van himself up to the same point their project was at by tomorrow noon so they don't lose any time in their build.

 

[2theskyy]

Why not? You'll have a section with no LCP, which is your mandate. The pros who build these all day long can surely drill out and set new rivets a lot more reliably than we can. Do you think a QB section from them would never have any reworked rivets? Nobody is perfect, but they're probably better at it.

74(5?) pages later and i'm still waiting for someone to demand that they get an entire new airframe kit built by Van himself up to the same point their project was at by tomorrow noon so they don't lose any time in their build.

Just like the “Pro’s” that laser cut these parts all day long? There are alot of excellent laser cutting Professionals out there. Too bad Vans couldn’t find them for 100% of their LCP’s.
We all know no one is perfect but as individual as this situation is, each builder affected has their right to demand whatever they wish. That doesn’t mean we will get any of those demands.

We just want the opportunity to screw up our own planes, not have Vans deliver parts pre screwed up. I know this might be the next step to pre-punched kits.

Pre screwed up kits? “save time by letting us pre-screw up your kit for you”

 

[dstates]

74(5?) pages later and i'm still waiting for someone to demand that they get an entire new airframe kit built by Van himself up to the same point their project was at by tomorrow noon so they don't lose any time in their build.

Most of us here with LCP in our completed assemblies already know we are out the time that we have spent on our builds. We just don't want to also be out all of the costs to rebuild them correctly.

Vans is now saying they will give a discount for parts affected due to replacing laser cut parts... Why do I have to pay for it at all? We were told to build on. Now they say affected spars need to be replaced. Now I have to tear apart elevators that have foam ribs, skin and the rear spar pro-sealed together. I get I'm out that time, but now I'm out the expense as well? That's bogus.

And here is a note for Vans.... the LCP replacement part portal will need to be open for quite a while. Say a person attempts to just replace a spar. They request a replacement spar and then mess up a skin removing it. They will need to order a new skin after the initial order. Don't expect us to have a complete list the first go around. Plus it will take time to get all this rework done. I'm lucky I built kind of slow and don't have anything done with the wing kit I've got sitting in my garage. If I had to repair or rebuild tail surfaces, ailerons, flaps, wing ribs.... that will take a long time.

 

[2theskyy]

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!

 

[lyosha]

Why not? You'll have a section with no LCP, which is your mandate. The pros who build these all day long can surely drill out and set new rivets a lot more reliably than we can. Do you think a QB section from them would never have any reworked rivets? Nobody is perfect, but they're probably better at it.

74(5?) pages later and i'm still waiting for someone to demand that they get an entire new airframe kit built by Van himself up to the same point their project was at by tomorrow noon so they don't lose any time in their build.

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.