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

[2theskyy]

Just have a think about what it means when you say I don’t trust vans engineers.

If that were remotely true, sell your kit.

If you don’t trust them how do you know your plane is safe? If you don’t trust them how do you know you can pull 6G? Or that their Vne figure is correct? Or that the drop test on the landing gear was done properly? How about any or all of the engineering analysis that was done to prove your aircraft design was safe?

What I actually think you mean is that they have come up with an answer you’re not happy with. It’s fine if you’re not happy, you have every right to be unhappy. I’m not particularly happy about it.

However, to call into question the professionalism of their engineering staff based on nothing more than opinion is disrespectful. And I imagine if someone came into your place of work and called into question your professionalism they would be told to leave.

If you actually didn’t trust Vans Aircraft engineers you wouldn’t be on here, because you wouldn’t have bought the kit in the first place.

In Vans defense. Every replacement part is punched.

I only speak for myself and I no longer have a dog in the fight. I pulled ever lcp and put it in a pile. I was fortunate out of this group to not have anything built in yet. Im a huge advocate against these LCP’s in this situation. I trust vans designs enough to have had rebuilt #15 RV3 years ago. I wish I still had it. But now have went the RV8 route. I can say that communications today is different from then. I decided to purchase my entire list of lcp(red,blue,green, etc) at full price as well as taxes and shipping. Why in the **** would I do that. I put a lot of thought into it and it helps Vans out financially( debatable if they should be helped). It allows me get back into the build. Im fortunate to be able to make such a decision now as when I had the RV3, I pinched Pennie’s and I mean I was poor but loved aviation.
Are any of these planes going to fall out of the sky. No, that’s not how it works. Except in a few cases. But cracks will propagate and be discovered in CI’s. Then extensive repairs will need to be accomplished at that time.

I still say time is $ and I still will not put a lcp in my plane. I still will build it and it won’t be perfect by any means. But I felt I’d throw Vans a little bit of my help to hopefully pass on the others affected.
I sit in the left seat of an airliner and I have sent planes back to the hanger for a variety of reasons. I have no problem being the last line of defense for safety for myself and my pax. Because I trust engineers to do their job and I also have a responsibility to do my job. I determine an airplane airworthy. Not an engineer.

 

[Bullpup]

Just have a think about what it means when you say I don’t trust vans engineers.

If that were remotely true, sell your kit.

If you don’t trust them how do you know your plane is safe? If you don’t trust them how do you know you can pull 6G? Or that their Vne figure is correct? Or that the drop test on the landing gear was done properly? How about any or all of the engineering analysis that was done to prove your aircraft design was safe?

What I actually think you mean is that they have come up with an answer you’re not happy with. It’s fine if you’re not happy, you have every right to be unhappy. I’m not particularly happy about it.

However, to call into question the professionalism of their engineering staff based on nothing more than opinion is disrespectful. And I imagine if someone came into your place of work and called into question your professionalism they would be told to leave.

If you actually didn’t trust Vans Aircraft engineers you wouldn’t be on here, because you wouldn’t have bought the kit in the first place.

I trust and respect the team responsible for designing and bringing these wonderful machines into existence! That history is why I chose Vans for my first build.

That doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the errors that got us here, and ask the right questions with all the new information we've learned through the LCP saga. Errors were made, obviously, as at least some of the parts require replacement.

I guess the root of my issue is that we now have unclear and incomplete guidance on the workmanship and quality standards we should be building to. I've been saying all along that the required testing, data quality, and guidance to builders in order to accept installing parts with a known 90%+ crack rate was beyond what this test effort could generate.

If Vans publically comes out with documented crack acceptance guidance (and a lot more data to support than a 5 pg summary!), at least we'll have more of an idea of what "acceptable for use" means. I can't shake the impression that they are trying to have their cake and eat it too - they don't want to replace all the parts, but don't want to publically be the first company to say widespread cracks are OK (for both reputation and liability reasons).

 

[Carl Froehlich]

No one asked me, but….

I enjoy a lifestyle that would not exist if not for Van’s aircraft. I fully understand the frustration builders are having with this mess, but shoot fire I would hope most builders would want to just get on with their projects. The point for this note it to open a discussion on what we, as builders, can do to become part of the solution.

I do know of one builder beating the “I’ll file a class action lawsuit” drum. I’d like to assume this guy is an outlier.

I’m sure Van’s is walking a tightrope with lawyers and such. But let’s keep in mind this is aluminum, rivets and time, not rocket science. I do not know the Van’s game plan but I do know the processes that have worked well for them to manage SBs and such. To that end:
- I would not expect Van’s to hand out refunds.
- I hope Van’s ends the testing phase and just gets on with the solution being to replace these parts. While some of these part are benign (like wing walk doublers) I would want to replace the critical parts in my RV. The builders I talked with share this view.
- For each part, I would expect Van’s to assemble a team to identify the needed parts (replacement Laser cut part and associated parts needed in the process) and put together kits and instructions for each, just like they do for SBs.

I suspect the big stumbling block will be QB kits. As these customers are not familiar with the SB process I’d expect them to balk at the concept of them doing the repair. Off the top of my head I see options to address this problem (perhaps others have more ideas):
- Back in my previous life we addressed class problems by assembling Tiger Teams to airdrop in and do the work, following a well documented and repeatable process.
- For Van’s to do this in house, I would expect the builder to be responsible for shipping the QB kit, not Van’s.
- I do not see a requirement for these Tiger Teams to be located at Van’s. Here perhaps is opportunity for builders like me to give back to Van’s and volunteer time to help QB builders do the work.

I can already hear the want-a-be lawyers out there screaming about liability. I would assume we can come up with some protection against this.

I wish Van’s the best as they navigate these shoal waters. Let’s see what we can do to help.

Stepping off my soapbox,
Carl

 

[Jonnyb]

In Vans defense. Every replacement part is punched.

I only speak for myself and I no longer have a dog in the fight. I pulled ever lcp and put it in a pile. I was fortunate out of this group to not have anything built in yet. Im a huge advocate against these LCP’s in this situation. I trust vans designs enough to have had rebuilt #15 RV3 years ago. I wish I still had it. But now have went the RV8 route. I can say that communications today is different from then. I decided to purchase my entire list of lcp(red,blue,green, etc) at full price as well as taxes and shipping. Why in the **** would I do that. I put a lot of thought into it and it helps Vans out financially( debatable if they should be helped). It allows me get back into the build. Im fortunate to be able to make such a decision now as when I had the RV3, I pinched Pennie’s and I mean I was poor but loved aviation.
Are any of these planes going to fall out of the sky. No, that’s not how it works. Except in a few cases. But cracks will propagate and be discovered in CI’s. Then extensive repairs will need to be accomplished at that time.

I still say time is $ and I still will not put a lcp in my plane. I still will build it and it won’t be perfect by any means. But I felt I’d throw Vans a little bit of my help to hopefully pass on the others affected.
I sit in the left seat of an airliner and I have sent planes back to the hanger for a variety of reasons. I have no problem being the last line of defense for safety for myself and my pax. Because I trust engineers to do their job and I also have a responsibility to do my job. I determine an airplane airworthy. Not an engineer.

I agree with just about everything you have said, and have done exactly the same for pretty much the same reasons.

The only bit I disagree with is the last sentence. When I sign the tech log to accept an aircraft, I do so having taken the opinion and advice of engineers who know the aircraft better than myself. Can I prove the aircraft is totally airworthy in every respect? No. I have to trust the engineers that it is.

 

[2theskyy]

I agree with just about everything you have said, and have done exactly the same for pretty much the same reasons.

The only bit I disagree with is the last sentence. When I sign the tech log to accept an aircraft, I do so having taken the opinion and advice of engineers who know the aircraft better than myself. Can I prove the aircraft is totally airworthy in every respect? No. I have to trust the engineers that it is.

Fair point.
I suppose that’s why researching how and why the lcp decision came about and the process now going forward with testing. I cannot say I trust it for many reasons. But many that have a dog in the fight now already address this. So I’ll try to keep off this thread now.

 

[ccarlson]

Can I prove the aircraft is totally airworthy in every respect?

You don't have to prove it, no, but you are responsible for the determination regardless.

See: 14 CFR 91.7(b)

 

[LittleJon]

It was my understanding that LCP's were produced between Jan '22 and June '23. The RV-12 Tail Kit LCP Parts list shows 16 parts placed in inventory in 2020. Greg, can you verify the dates for these parts? Thanks.

UPDATE: Today, Van's has revised the RV-12 Tail Kit LCP List to show correct dates.

https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Laser-Cut-Part-List-Revised_R5.6.pdf

 

[dmattmul]

Liability, no problem.

I’m sure Van’s is walking a tightrope with lawyers and such. But let’s keep in mind this is aluminum, rivets and time, not rocket science. I do not know the Van’s game plan but I do know the processes that have worked well for them to manage SBs and such.
- For each part, I would expect Van’s to assemble a team to identify the needed parts (replacement Laser cut part and associated parts needed in the process) and put together kits and instructions for each, just like they do for SB.

I suspect the big stumbling block will be QB kits. As these customers are not familiar with the SB process I’d expect them to balk at the concept of them doing the repair. Off the top of my head I see options to address this problem (perhaps others have more ideas):

- I do not see a requirement for these Tiger Teams to be located at Van’s. Here perhaps is opportunity for builders like me to give back to Van’s and volunteer time to help QB builders do the work.

I can already hear the want-a-be lawyers out there screaming about liability. I would assume we can come up with some protection against this.

I wish Van’s the best as they navigate these shoal waters. Let’s see what we can do to help.

Stepping off my soapbox,
Carl

All good points and input. I’m not sure if the group has seen the latest liability release (The one you must sign to get a Bill of Sale) and a BOS is needed before you can get a AWC. I’ve had the displeasure for the last 40 years of reading through acquisition contracts and this release would make the finest New York lawyers proud. It basically releases Vans from any kind of liability that might exist for the life of your airframe. (I don’t remember my 14 contract written this way but it’s been some time since I had to sign that document) I’m not holding that against them and probably needed but don’t let a possible liability problem for Vans alter your judgement. Let’s stay informed and hopefully Vans can pull together a workable arrangement for us all and yes my QB 10 wing kit is affected.

 

[Jonnyb]

You don't have to prove it, no, but you are responsible for the determination regardless.

See: 14 CFR 91.7(b)

And to do that who do I put my trust in?

 

[sophie]

One improvement I just noticed in the updated Laser Cut Part List is for the RV14 tail kit is:

Van's will replace aluminum elevator, rudder, and vertical stabilizer components if they are damaged in the rebuild process

Yesterday it only mentioned the aileron and flap components

 

[SwissVolts]

The problem is not just lack of trust in engineers! Maybe they are right!

But...

Is it a fact that the traditional manufacturing procedure is better than laser cutting?
Is it a fact that LCP parts crack and are of lower quality than regular parts?

The big question is:
are you willing to build an airplane with lower quality parts than the ones you paid for?
Maybe this is the first thing Van's should have asked its customers, before spending money on engineering tests...

We are not talking about a television or a washing machine, which I can buy another at any time. I and I suppose most of us will be able to build one or maybe two airplanes in our lifetime. We are talking about a lot of money and a lot of time invested.

I don't care if the LCP parts are airworthy. I am a perfectionist and I want the best airplane I can build. I only ask for the same as what I paid for!

 

[ccarlson]

And to do that who do it put my trust in?

Only you can answer that. The point was you don't have to prove it, but you are responsible for it.

To that end, I think the placement of trust is less about the who and more about the what.

When I climb into my Piper Cherokee, I trust the airframe because I know the engineer who designed it (Fred Weick), and the production staff who built it, did so using well-established and time-tested aviation industry standards. Inherent trust is a, if not the, hallmark benefit and purpose of standards.

I am aware of no well-established or time-tested standard that supports aircraft construction with cracked parts as an acceptable practice; however, I am aware of several crashes caused by unchecked or unexpected fatigue cracking of aircraft parts.

 

[vic syracuse]

Let's stop the bashing

I don't really have a dog in this fight as I am not building anything right now. However, as all of you know, I am very connected to this community. The Van's line of airplanes has brought many fond memories over 42+ years across a whole slew of aircraft. While this is the their biggest challenge I have seen them have, there have been many others. They have ALWAYS stepped up to the plate to do what is best for the community, both from a safety standpoint and from a good business approach.

Let's face it---there are roughly 12,000 flying aircraft. They have a responsibility to all of them as well as all of the current builders, which number many thousands. WE as a community need them to be a viable company for a very long time, dare I say forever?

We live in a very litigious society, along with one that gives everyone so much perceived power with a keyboard. It's really sad. One of the BEST aircraft companies out there, Van's, is doing their best to address a problem. They, and all of us, WILL get through this. Perhaps not in the timeline you want it to happen, but it WILL happen.

For those of you who are beating the drum about not trusting Van's or their engineers, I would encourage you to find some other airplane to build. I'm fully confident you will regret that decision, but it is your decision.

For now, we all need to get behind the company that has brought all of us here, along with an entire cottage industry supporting all of the owners, such as interiors, tools, air conditioners, paint, etc. You name it. There's a whole lot more people affected than just Van's right now, as lots of orders have stopped due the building slowdown.

Frankly, I've watched the keyboard jockeys go on here way too long bashing Van's over this issue. It is not an easy one. They have engaged lots of help, at their own expense, and have a proven track record that they will do the right thing.

If the bashing continues, I will lock down the thread IAW the vendor bashing rules.

Vic

 

[drone_pilot]

I agree. I think tool paths are a big part if not THE problem.

 

[drone_pilot]

I agree. I think tool paths are a big part if not THE problem. A QC issue for sure.

 

[mstrauss]

One improvement I just noticed in the updated Laser Cut Part List is for the RV14 tail kit is:

Van's will replace aluminum elevator, rudder, and vertical stabilizer components if they are damaged in the rebuild process

Yesterday it only mentioned the aileron and flap components

Well that is very good news. I was not sure why the original statement was in the Emp. kit portion of the list. It now looks to have been a typo.

So Vans is goin to:

• Replace the unfit LCP.

• Replace the "fit" LCP (maybe at a cost).

• Replace impacted parts due to replacement of LCP on the elevator, rudder, vertical stabilizer, ailerons, and flaps.

• Shipping is TBD, hopefully it will be covered.

I am stating to feel a whole lot better about this.

 

[scsmith]

No emal about the portal.....

I bought a rudder kit, ordered in January of 2023 and received in March 2023, within the window of time that LCP were used.

And...

My rudder kit is full of LCP. Some, like the stiffeners, seem to fall into the category of acceptable for use. I will work on a few of those and see if the dimples crack or not.

Some of the parts in the rudder kit fall into the category of "replace".

But i have not received any email about the portal to get the parts.

I guess I should call them? I've been trying not to, imagining the flood of calls they must be getting.

 

[Bullpup]

I don't really have a dog in this fight as I am not building anything right now. However, as all of you know, I am very connected to this community. The Van's line of airplanes has brought many fond memories over 42+ years across a whole slew of aircraft. While this is the their biggest challenge I have seen them have, there have been many others. They have ALWAYS stepped up to the plate to do what is best for the community, both from a safety standpoint and from a good business approach.

Let's face it---there are roughly 12,000 flying aircraft. They have a responsibility to all of them as well as all of the current builders, which number many thousands. WE as a community need them to be a viable company for a very long time, dare I say forever?

We live in a very litigious society, along with one that gives everyone so much perceived power with a keyboard. It's really sad. One of the BEST aircraft companies out there, Van's, is doing their best to address a problem. They, and all of us, WILL get through this. Perhaps not in the timeline you want it to happen, but it WILL happen.

For those of you who are beating the drum about not trusting Van's or their engineers, I would encourage you to find some other airplane to build. I'm fully confident you will regret that decision, but it is your decision.

For now, we all need to get behind the company that has brought all of us here, along with an entire cottage industry supporting all of the owners, such as interiors, tools, air conditioners, paint, etc. You name it. There's a whole lot more people affected than just Van's right now, as lots of orders have stopped due the building slowdown.

Frankly, I've watched the keyboard jockeys go on here way too long bashing Van's over this issue. It is not an easy one. They have engaged lots of help, at their own expense, and have a proven track record that they will do the right thing.

If the bashing continues, I will lock down the thread IAW the vendor bashing rules.

Vic

I don't see a lot of bashing, especially given that Vans has completely reversed a policy as of just a few weeks ago, and not in the customer's favor. All companies should be so lucky to have such an understanding and supportive customer base.

But you're guidance to "just wait" is mistaken, IMO. Vans is clearly going down a path, and waiting for them to go further is not (again, IMO) in all of our collective interests.

Vans is making an extraordinary claim as to the acceptability of known cracks in a new-build aircraft. I have already voted with my money and time to support Vans, and I'm not convinced by the evidence and data they've presented.

If I'm not convinced when I have about $50,000 on the line and 8 months of effort, how do you think the next customer will feel when it comes time to pick a kit? I'm offering (constructive, I hope) criticism that they have failed to provide extraordinary evidence to support their extraordinary claim, but instead have introduced a ton of doubt into what acceptable build quality is, and that won't be received well by some fraction of current and future customers.

Can you imagine assisting someone on a pre-buy and the seller says "don't worry about the cracks, Van's says that's a low-stress part"? Each of the 12k+ airplanes has a dog in this fight to make sure the reputation stays strong.

I do trust the engineering that designed my airplane. I'm also 100% sure that that initial design did not assume cracked parts at assembly. In general, to make this sort of modification to the MIL-STD and other guidance would require a much more comprehensive, and public, test program. If Van's is able to provide that level of evidence I'll reconsider, but the summary published is not enough.

Trust is finite, and it concerns me to see Vans spend theirs charging this particular hill.

 

[Bullpup]

I don't know this for fact, but I have strong suspicion that this is one of the factors influencing whether certain LCP are graded as acceptable or not.

At this point, Vans knows who the supplier(s) was(were) that did a poor job of designing the tool-paths, and left the big divits and burns in the edges of the holes, and which supplier(s) did a better job, making pretty serviceable parts where the hole edges should clean up well when match-drilled.

So it seems reasonable that an LCP part from one of the suppliers that did a good job designing the tool paths, and is in a position of relatively low stress, would be graded as acceptable for use.

My "good" LCP, with nearly circular holes and minimal notch or slag, had cracks visible under magnification on 100% of the sample holes I tested (reamed to final size, deburr, dimple w both hand and pneumatic methods).

None of my punched parts exhibit the same behavior.

 

[Jonnyb]

Only you can answer that. The point was you don't have to prove it, but you are responsible for it.

To that end, I think the placement of trust is less about the who and more about the what.

When I climb into my Piper Cherokee, I trust the airframe because I know the engineer who designed it (Fred Weick), and the production staff who built it, did so using well-established and time-tested aviation industry standards. Inherent trust is a, if not the, hallmark benefit and purpose of standards.

I am aware of no well-established or time-tested standard that supports aircraft construction with cracked parts as an acceptable practice; however, I am aware of several crashes caused by unchecked or unexpected fatigue cracking of aircraft parts.

Strictly speaking I’m responsible for the aircraft being safe to fly, not for its airworthiness. Or I would be if I flew under the FAA rules.

The other point is that you have put your trust in the engineers who designed, built, and maintained your Cherokee. If you don’t trust Vans engineers, don’t build the plane.

 

[Paul Thomas]

I just read the Engineering Assessment Document.

It talks a lot about fatigue characteristics, and useful life vs loads, all the classical stuff. But it seems to me that there is a problem with the analysis and assumptions, at least as presented in the document.

"Normal" fatigue analysis predicts the life of a part that starts out as a good part. It likely has stress risers, small defects that will eventually initiate a fatigue crack. A large fraction of the useful life occurs with no crack. At some point, a crack is initiated, and over time, grows to the point where the part fails. The portion of the useful life of a part once the crack forms is, I believe, fairly short compared to the portion of the life prior to the emergence of the crack.

So I'm not convinced the analysis and assumptions and testing presented in the document is meaningful for the case where a part begins its life with a crack.

Maybe Greg H. could comment on that?

I'm glad to see someone talking about having read the engineering document and bringing good discussion points. It may be worth having this discussion in a different thread as this one appears to be mostly about how to move forward and venting.

The study didn't answer the question I was looking forward to: likelihood of cracks propagating over time. I'd also think that the LPC "cuts" would be different than burns in initiating further cracking.

If the bashing continues, I will lock down the thread IAW the vendor bashing rules.

Vic

Which may make the need for different threads on LCP all that more important since it is likely to continue. Van's may not always get it right, but their integrity has never been an issue. It's interesting to note the difference in in tone from US customers vs. non-US customers.

[ed: Paul, I’m working up the architecture for a few new threads at the current time. Great minds thinking alike. V/r,dr]

 

[rv10builderx]

Re: No emal about the portal.....

I bought a rudder kit, ordered in January of 2023 and received in March 2023, within the window of time that LCP were used.
...

But i have not received any email about the portal to get the parts.

I guess I should call them? I've been trying not to, imagining the flood of calls they must be getting.

I had the same issue and reached out to Greg via email. He checked and found a typo in my email address in their system. It was fixed and I received the portal/survey emails earlier this morning.

Might be a similar issue in your case?

 

[dstates]

One improvement I just noticed in the updated Laser Cut Part List is for the RV14 tail kit is:

Van's will replace aluminum elevator, rudder, and vertical stabilizer components if they are damaged in the rebuild process

Yesterday it only mentioned the aileron and flap components

This is a good update...
-But when they say replace can we trust that it is at no cost or will they charge for these parts?
-And when and how do we order these parts?
-Is there a time limit (say it takes a few months to get LCP replacements and you start disassembly then and have damaged parts)?

 

[N8DAV8R]

I have 1 part on my RV-12is that I need to replace. The tail kit itself is from 2019 so pre LCP. There was an SB to replace the servo tray, which I did early this year. The replacement portal only gives me access to the power plant kit.

If you ordered parts as the result of an SB is there a replacement process? It's not an expensive part so I'm not sweating the cost too much, but curious what Van's wants us to do to replace a 'red' part in this case.

 

[RV8JD]

I don't really have a dog in this fight as I am not building anything right now. However, as all of you know, I am very connected to this community. The Van's line of airplanes has brought many fond memories over 42+ years across a whole slew of aircraft. While this is the their biggest challenge I have seen them have, there have been many others. They have ALWAYS stepped up to the plate to do what is best for the community, both from a safety standpoint and from a good business approach.

Let's face it---there are roughly 12,000 flying aircraft. They have a responsibility to all of them as well as all of the current builders, which number many thousands. WE as a community need them to be a viable company for a very long time, dare I say forever?

We live in a very litigious society, along with one that gives everyone so much perceived power with a keyboard. It's really sad. One of the BEST aircraft companies out there, Van's, is doing their best to address a problem. They, and all of us, WILL get through this. Perhaps not in the timeline you want it to happen, but it WILL happen.

For those of you who are beating the drum about not trusting Van's or their engineers, I would encourage you to find some other airplane to build. I'm fully confident you will regret that decision, but it is your decision.

For now, we all need to get behind the company that has brought all of us here, along with an entire cottage industry supporting all of the owners, such as interiors, tools, air conditioners, paint, etc. You name it. There's a whole lot more people affected than just Van's right now, as lots of orders have stopped due the building slowdown.

Frankly, I've watched the keyboard jockeys go on here way too long bashing Van's over this issue. It is not an easy one. They have engaged lots of help, at their own expense, and have a proven track record that they will do the right thing.

If the bashing continues, I will lock down the thread IAW the vendor bashing rules.

Vic

Please lock it down. This thread has gone on way too long and way past previous Forum guidelines and standards. I've had posts deleted for much, much less! Not to mention the repetitive nature of the posts.

[ed. I will probably lock this down in the near future, after I get some other new threads in place (working on it). Normal posting rules apply. Bashing, uncivil, legal stuff, they all get deleted. v/r,dr]

 

[BruceW]

Lock it.

Yes, lock it.

Nothing productive coming out of here now.

 

[DeltaRomeo]

Section-specific part swap documented.

Portal is live, emails sent, there is a plan of attack. So,

I need help from some folks willing to start a thread and document their laser cut parts swap out. Not 'War and Peace', just some words, some pics. I'd like to get the ball rolling with these threads, really just to see if it grabs, in that model's subforum (-14 for example). Title it appropriate to the part you're working on (ex: VS LCP part swap-out).

I'll make that a sticky and spotlight your swap here on the front page. While I could see having (4) 'VS/HS', 'Flight Controls', 'Fuse' and 'Wing' sticky threads in each model sub-forum eventually, I doubt it will get that micro in scope. If we could start with a single person willing to get it underway toward the goal (getting RVs in the air). Let's see where it takes us - we can rename the threads to something more appropriate if needed.

Once a few swap threads gain some traction I plan on closing this thread, as the mothership got their feedback, and I can then point people to those build threads.

I am looking at this thread now with a stronger microscope. ANY uncivil, bashing, legal type stuff will get deleted (repeat posts like it from same person will get your account locked). You got to vent.

I'm tired of the complaining. Kit airplanes are hard. Most aren't finished. Adapt, overcome, and be in the small percentage who get in the air. We will welcome you with a high five. We really are pulling for you. Help us help you.

I would ask the moderators to follow my lead and adjust their squelch on this thread. Standard rules apply, but now viewed through a magnifying glass.

Thanks, dr

 

[jcbarker]

identifying LCP parts in QB assys

Unless I missed it, I have not seen any guidance on how to identify LCPs in a QB assy. I've looked at mine (at least what I can see) and don't see anything that jumps out at me. Anybody heard anything about this? My wing QB assy was picked up at Van's mid March '23. I finished all the work on the wings before this all blew up.

 

[KatanaPilot]

I just read the Engineering Assessment Document.

So I'm not convinced the analysis and assumptions and testing presented in the document is meaningful for the case where a part begins its life with a crack.

Maybe Greg H. could comment on that?

I had to read this post a couple of times. If I'm not mistaken, Steve Smith is the PhD Aero Engineer that designed the airfoil on the RV-10/14 and now the RV-15. I think he also designed and helped build a composite wing for Bob Mills Rocket 6. So he knows a thing or two about structures (and clearly aerodynamics, as well).

His comments don't exactly give me a lot of confidence in the recently released report from Van's. Did I misread something?

 

[flyinlow74]

Couple of things..
Has anyone else received an email from Vans stating the QB fuse/ wing already in the owners possession is free of laser cut parts? I've only seen one post like that (#1253). I'm expecting my "all clear" email any day!
Second, my parts portal is incorrect in that it lists a QB wing (which I don't have) and no QB fuse (which I do have). Anyone else have this problem?

 

[Tlrguy]

You, an average guy, may think that a crack in a dimple is bad, but I am sorry to say that you likely DO NOT have the knowledge or testing data to make that claim. If you have done the destructive testing to prove your opinion as fact, please accept my apology and share the data.

I’m an average guy.

This is what Van’s Aircraft should do to prove the science. To make an informed decision, we really needed to see the test results. Show me the proof, right.

A really nice and in depth video showing the actual testing being done at all the various steps including dissection of components and what everything actually looks like after many life cycles could literally silence me dead in my tracks.

If I could physically see all the test results and sure enough, none of the cracked LC holes propagated, we could be having a different conversation. Overwhelming video evidence of the testing and findings could literally save the day in this situation.

Is something like this possible Greg? A documentary style short film putting the whole test program out there for us to see? I’d even be willing to come out to Aurora to have a look at the test subjects in person. NOW THAT, would go a long way.

 

[Bullpup]

I’m an average guy.

This is what Van’s Aircraft should do to prove the science. To make an informed decision, we really needed to see the test results. Show me the proof, right.

A really nice and in depth video showing the actual testing being done at all the various steps including dissection of components and what everything actually looks like after many life cycles could literally silence me dead in my tracks.

If I could physically see all the test results and sure enough, none of the cracked LC holes propagated, we could be having a different conversation. Overwhelming video evidence of the testing and findings could literally save the day in this situation.

Is something like this possible Greg? A documentary style short film putting the whole test program out there for us to see? I’d even be willing to come out to Aurora to have a look at the test subjects in person. NOW THAT, would go a long way.

And in that expanded presentation of the test data, is Vans willing to give clear guidance on:

• How many cracks (in a row, on a part, etc.) are acceptable?
• How big can the cracks be?
• Should we file cracks in dimples or not?
• If we file, and the hole exceeds MIL-STD for hole sizing, what is the new standard?

I'm not just here to complain! And I trust the engineers and the company. But, as an engineer myself, the documentation provided would have failed an undergraduate homework assignment, and is not enough to support the change in promised plans from the company.

I would love nothing more than to not have to disassemble my wings - I'm not hoping for bad news here. But the company (and this community) needs to be realistic about what it will mean for Vans to be known as the "airplanes with cracks".

I hope this isn't the post that gets me banned, but it is clear that the perspective of a big chunk of the customer base is not making it through to Vans, and I don't post on Facebook, so this is the remaining venue.

 

[gotyoke]

I need help from some folks willing to start a thread and document their laser cut parts swap out. Not 'War and Peace', just some words, some pics. I'd like to get the ball rolling with these threads, really just to see if it grabs, in that model's subforum (-14 for example). Title it appropriate to the part you're working on (ex: VS LCP part swap-out).

I'll be disassembling my tunnel side assemblies and can start a post for it. I don't think it will be helpful to many folks since there are likely to be very few others at my exact stage of the fuselage build. But, at least it could be a feeler gauge for how to organize such posts.

[ed. I appreciate it, Eric! Thank you!!!! It'll be a start. Kindest,dr]

 

[dmattmul]

This comment seems to have decent merit

I just read the Engineering Assessment Document.

It talks a lot about fatigue characteristics, and useful life vs loads, all the classical stuff. But it seems to me that there is a problem with the analysis and assumptions, at least as presented in the document.

"Normal" fatigue analysis predicts the life of a part that starts out as a good part. It likely has stress risers, small defects that will eventually initiate a fatigue crack. A large fraction of the useful life occurs with no crack. At some point, a crack is initiated, and over time, grows to the point where the part fails. The portion of the useful life of a part once the crack forms is, I believe, fairly short compared to the portion of the life prior to the emergence of the crack.

So I'm not convinced the analysis and assumptions and testing presented in the document is meaningful for the case where a part begins its life with a crack.

Maybe Greg H. could comment on that?

As someone well versed on engineering at Vans and what I would consider a qualified expert (Steve) maybe Greg could comment on this so builders can make an informed decision.

 

[Nashpdman]

Couple of things..
Has anyone else received an email from Vans stating the QB fuse/ wing already in the owners possession is free of laser cut parts? I've only seen one post like that (#1253). I'm expecting my "all clear" email any day!

Yes, I received an email yesterday stating my QB wings and fuse did not contain LCP's. I received a separate email for each kit. My QB kits came from Flyer.

 

[BruceW]

Thanks Doug.
FWIW, I would ask for a more focused thread on
LCP- QB kits not yet delivered
so parties in that situation can compare notes.
I know there are lots of other options for "LCP focused forums".

Portal is live, emails sent, there is a plan of attack. So,

I need help from some folks willing to start a thread and document their laser cut parts swap out. Not 'War and Peace', just some words, some pics. I'd like to get the ball rolling with these threads, really just to see if it grabs, in that model's subforum (-14 for example). Title it appropriate to the part you're working on (ex: VS LCP part swap-out).

I'll make that a sticky and spotlight your swap here on the front page. While I could see having (4) 'VS/HS', 'Flight Controls', 'Fuse' and 'Wing' sticky threads in each model sub-forum eventually, I doubt it will get that micro in scope. If we could start with a single person willing to get it underway toward the goal (getting RVs in the air). Let's see where it takes us - we can rename the threads to something more appropriate if needed.

Once a few swap threads gain some traction I plan on closing this thread, as the mothership got their feedback, and I can then point people to those build threads.

I am looking at this thread now with a stronger microscope. ANY uncivil, bashing, legal type stuff will get deleted (repeat posts like it from same person will get your account locked). You got to vent.

I'm tired of the complaining. Kit airplanes are hard. Most aren't finished. Adapt, overcome, and be in the small percentage who get in the air. We will welcome you with a high five. We really are pulling for you. Help us help you.

I would ask the moderators to follow my lead and adjust their squelch on this thread. Standard rules apply, but now viewed through a magnifying glass.

Thanks, dr

 

[scsmith]

I had to read this post a couple of times. If I'm not mistaken, Steve Smith is the PhD Aero Engineer that designed the airfoil on the RV-10/14 and now the RV-15. I think he also designed and helped build a composite wing for Bob Mills Rocket 6. So he knows a thing or two about structures (and clearly aerodynamics, as well).

His comments don't exactly give me a lot of confidence in the recently released report from Van's. Did I misread something?

Krea,

I moved that post to a new thread and added some additional thoughts. To be clear, I have high confidence that the testing is appropriate and meaningful. I was just remarking that the document didn't convey that as much as I had hoped. I hope I didn't give an impression that I thought what they were actually doing wasn't smart. I'm sorry if I did.

 

[KatanaPilot]

Krea,

I moved that post to a new thread and added some additional thoughts. To be clear, I have high confidence that the testing is appropriate and meaningful. I was just remarking that the document didn't convey that as much as I had hoped. I hope I didn't give an impression that I thought what they were actually doing wasn't smart. I'm sorry if I did.

Thanks Dr. Smith. Yes, I read your comments a couple of times and drew the wrong conclusion. I’ve also read your latest posts in the new thread which provided a lot more clarity. Appreciate you taking the time to clear that up for me (and probably others as well).

 

[tenacious9]

Couple of things..
Has anyone else received an email from Vans stating the QB fuse/ wing already in the owners possession is free of laser cut parts? I've only seen one post like that (#1253). I'm expecting my "all clear" email any day!

Yes, I received an email yesterday stating my QB wings and fuse did not contain LCP's. I received a separate email for each kit. My QB kits came from Flyer.

Was it made during the LCP time? Any details you can share like Brazil or Philippines? Date shipped to to QB builders? Day shipped from? Day you got the Kit?

TIA

 

[rocketman1988]

Please do respond Bob. You obviously have something on your mind. And I’m not selling out of the project or I’ll do even more money so that is a rather silly response. I’ll finish it but not as a lemon….then I might sell it….

No, I’m not going to go there and get put in forum jail or banned.

(Actually, I did write a fairly long and detailed response but decided against posting it for the above reason)

Have a nice day and I hope everything works out to your satisfaction.


As a side note, time to shutter this thread.

 

[lyosha]

There's a lot of frustration with Vans over this issue and I'm not sure gagging those frustrated is long term the best solution.

There's a lot of absolutist language here. Either trust "the engineers" or don't. Basically a false dichotomy. People telling others they are unworthy of building a plane. Very sad.

I also do not get the people not building a plane bashing those frustrated. Not a good look.

For what it's worth I still don't know what's going on with my kits and what my options are. That in and of itself is bad. Many aspects of this debacle were not handled in good form by Vans unfortunately. Hopefully constructive negative feedback is still Kosher.

How have people been moving forward? Should I email Greg?

For what it's worth, I'm happy to do my part in keeping Vans afloat and buy punched parts to replace any LCPs in my not yet delivered kits, so long as I don't get LCPs. In the Grand scheme of a project that will cost me in six figures the cost is a drop in the bucket. Is that an option?

 

[flyinlow74]

Was it made during the LCP time? Any details you can share like Brazil or Philippines? Date shipped to to QB builders? Day shipped from? Day you got the Kit?

TIA

I received mine on July 7 from Flyer (Brazil) with a tag dated 23/03/23. So I am in the affected range. I have inspected the fuse with 10x power headset and flexible borescope and found no cracked dimples. All my parts appear to be punched as best I can tell. I have taken tons of photos with associated part numbers for documentation. My other concern and reason for my earlier posting is the parts order portal doesn't even list my QB fuse as an option to order parts for. This suggests they don't even know I own a affected QB fuse? Any one else had this problem?

 

[Weefle]

Couple of things..
Has anyone else received an email from Vans stating the QB fuse/ wing already in the owners possession is free of laser cut parts? I've only seen one post like that (#1253). I'm expecting my "all clear" email any day!
Second, my parts portal is incorrect in that it lists a QB wing (which I don't have) and no QB fuse (which I do have). Anyone else have this problem?

I received my email yesterday that my QB wing kit is free of LCP. I’m sure they are work8mg their way through the stack.

Keith

 

[tqflightdoc]

Hello all. This is my first post, hopefully this is the right thread.

My wife and I are building a RV-14A. Our first kit was the wing kit, which is nearly complete. Only the bottom wing skins and wingtips to complete.

According to Van's information on laser cut parts, I need to replace the inboard wing rib and torque tube attachment. I can wait for a fix for the flap rib issue.
So this should be straightforward enough.

But the flaps and aileron use ribs - replacing these requires tearing down the parts almost completely. I would think building new components would be much quicker and result in a better-finished part.

My questions:
1. We used squeezers rather than a C-arm to dimple the parts, and I saw no cracks at the dimple sites. They were thoroughly deburred. Perhaps the gentler dimpling procedure results in no cracks being formed. Any data on this?

2. Does anyone know an optimal procedure to replace the flap and aileron nose ribs that will result in a good as new finished part? In particular, is there a way to do this and not open up the trailing edges?

I have watched Van's Aircraft as a company for many years. We were given a tour of their factory. I have been most impressed by the quality of their workforce, and their airplanes. People and companies can make honest mistakes - this is part of the real world. I doubt one can find a better aircraft company out there. Van's is doing everything they can to ensure we will have safe airplanes, at what must be a considerable expense. We need to support this company.

Paul Turnquist, MD
RV-14A

 

[swift12]

Hello all. This is my first post, hopefully this is the right thread.

My wife and I are building a RV-14A. Our first kit was the wing kit, which is nearly complete. Only the bottom wing skins and wingtips to complete.

According to Van's information on laser cut parts, I need to replace the inboard wing rib and torque tube attachment. I can wait for a fix for the flap rib issue.
So this should be straightforward enough.

But the flaps and aileron use ribs - replacing these requires tearing down the parts almost completely. I would think building new components would be much quicker and result in a better-finished part.

My questions:
1. We used squeezers rather than a C-arm to dimple the parts, and I saw no cracks at the dimple sites. They were thoroughly deburred. Perhaps the gentler dimpling procedure results in no cracks being formed. Any data on this?

2. Does anyone know an optimal procedure to replace the flap and aileron nose ribs that will result in a good as new finished part? In particular, is there a way to do this and not open up the trailing edges?

I have watched Van's Aircraft as a company for many years. We were given a tour of their factory. I have been most impressed by the quality of their workforce, and their airplanes. People and companies can make honest mistakes - this is part of the real world. I doubt one can find a better aircraft company out there. Van's is doing everything they can to ensure we will have safe airplanes, at what must be a considerable expense. We need to support this company.


Paul Turnquist, MD
RV-14A

All well and good but not everyone’s experience is the same. Some of us ordered kits years ago…then got pushed out by the batching procedure adopted during the Covid years well past lead times by over a year and into the LCP debacle. Excuse me if I don’t share your sentiments. I like the aircraft….most of it goes together very well….but I’m feeling well and truly screwed over.

 

[GrahamF]

1. We used squeezers rather than a C-arm to dimple the parts, and I saw no cracks at the dimple sites. They were thoroughly deburred. Perhaps the gentler dimpling procedure results in no cracks being formed. Any data on this?

No data, but many have reported (myself included) that the tiny notch/crack in the dimple isn't visible to the naked eye. Or maybe it is, but you'd have to look at it REALLY closely and know what you were looking for and why. Under magnification, it becomes obvious.

I'm in a similar position in that I didn't notice anything amiss while building, but then I wasn't looking for it and I didn't look really closely at every dimple. When Van's first acknowledged the issue I experimented with the laser-cut parts I have on the shelf, and the crack/notch rate upon dimpling is close to 100%.

 

[lyosha]

No data, but many have reported (myself included) that the tiny notch/crack in the dimple isn't visible to the naked eye. Or maybe it is, but you'd have to look at it REALLY closely and know what you were looking for and why. Under magnification, it becomes obvious.

I'm in a similar position in that I didn't notice anything amiss while building, but then I wasn't looking for it and I didn't look really closely at every dimple. When Van's first acknowledged the issue I experimented with the laser-cut parts I have on the shelf, and the crack/notch rate upon dimpling is close to 100%.

A more knowledgeable person than me with no relation to Vans suggested hot dimpling would be the only way to avoid cracking.

 

[Nashpdman]

Was it made during the LCP time? Any details you can share like Brazil or Philippines? Date shipped to to QB builders? Day shipped from? Day you got the Kit?

TIA

Ordered all kits 7/15/21, received empennage 6/22 it does contain LCP's. Received wings 4/23 & Fuse 5/23 they do not have any LCP's. I inspected both QB kits prior to receiving the email and could not identify any LCP's. Both of my QB kits came from Flyer in Brazil.

I believe, based on the dates given by Van's in their update videos, my kits were just prior to any LCP's being shipped to the QB factories.

 

[ccarlson]

Survey

For anyone who has not received the survey (I received the parts portal access email, but never received the mentioned survey email), I found it by googling: vans aircraft survey

I am not posting the link because I do not want to encourage automated abuse.

 

[N82VM]

Cost analysis

I did some meaningful cost analysis of my affected kit.

RV-8 Fuse
-123 unique part numbers $1640.2
-127 total parts (some are qty 2) $1675.1
-10 unique "Red" parts
-4 unique "Yellow" parts
-60 unique "Blue" parts
-49 unique "Green" parts*


-E-store cost 127 total parts $1675.1
-E store cost Red and Yellow parts $238.65
-E store cost Blue and Green parts $1436.45

Proposed 66% cost (aka kit price)
-127 total parts $1105.57
-Red and Yellow parts $157.51
-Blue and Green parts $948.06

This is worst case having ALL LCP parts. Assuming Vans is still paying for Red and Yellow that still leaves almost $1000.

Going down the TBD price route that appears to be happening I could only hope they do not make us pay kit prices (which include profit) for these parts.