Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Factory Info: Parts with Laser Cut Holes and Potential for Cracks
- Thread starter greghughespdx
- Start date
- Status
Ok, this doesn't look good.
I called today and got hold of a live warm body, told them I wanted to put in a parts order even if it meant paying full list for the parts. I just wanted to order the LCP's for the wing kit, and let the rest of it wait until the dust settles. She said "I'm not sure we can do that, but I'll forward your request to management."
Here I am, a legitimate customer, repeat offender, offering to pay full list to fix their mistake, and I can't get a parts order in.
The inability to reorder LCP at full price must be new. I placed an order 7 days ago and while it was accepted, I still don’t see any charges to my CC but have confirmed it’s still in the queue.
What a shame and I’m honestly embarrassed for Van’s. I am dead set against paying for everything over again. However, I am beat down and sick of these games and at this point I just need to move forward. Really pathetic situation we’ve found ourselves in here.
Last edited:
Paul Thomas
Well Known Member
It's all going to get sorted out. There is less than a year worth of productions for kits containing LCP parts. Producing new inventory will take some time but it's going to get done.
Resolving the producing side is not rocket science. Van knows how many LPC were produced (and paid for on their end) and should plan to produce just as many. While not all parts are bad, and not all builders will request replacement, Van will end up replace some parts that were not LCP because some builders won't check whether theirs are LCP or punched.
Overproducing should not be a big issue for Van's. Yes, it takes money and time... but those parts will end up being sold.
I'm saying that and I'm trying to be patient, but the LCP is hitting my build timeline and I hope we hear a path forward on replacement soon... again, it's not rocket science. I do agree with those that have said replacement should be prioritized based on initial kit order, at least in the first week or two when parts can first be ordered.
Resolving the producing side is not rocket science. Van knows how many LPC were produced (and paid for on their end) and should plan to produce just as many. While not all parts are bad, and not all builders will request replacement, Van will end up replace some parts that were not LCP because some builders won't check whether theirs are LCP or punched.
Overproducing should not be a big issue for Van's. Yes, it takes money and time... but those parts will end up being sold.
I'm saying that and I'm trying to be patient, but the LCP is hitting my build timeline and I hope we hear a path forward on replacement soon... again, it's not rocket science. I do agree with those that have said replacement should be prioritized based on initial kit order, at least in the first week or two when parts can first be ordered.
David Paule
Well Known Member
They are definitely shipping replacement parts out. I mentor a locak RV-12iS project at the high school, and we got ours.
Dave
Dave
Are you saying you placed your LCP replacement order in the special portal and received those replacement parts? Or are you talking about random parts ordered through the store? If the former, what communication have you received from Vans? As I understand it, most all of us have been in the dark since selecting parts in the portal.
2theskyy
Well Known Member
I got a note in my order: it says something like 1yr return policy, parts must be what vans currently sells to get credit. I was wondering if that meant part number( could be lcp or punched) or no lcp since they went back to punched for most parts now.
So return policy has changed from what the note said.
Found it:Any item returned must be in “AS NEW ” sellable condition, and must be a product that we currently sell.
So no lcp, they’ve stopped producing. But why, they are great parts. Just ask the engineers and testing(sarcasm)
The website still references 2 yr whereas the note said 1 yr. So difference in products, maybe.
Last edited:
PaulvS
Well Known Member
I expect the answer will be "no". The returns policy states: " Any item returned must be a product Van’s Aircraft currently sells." and these LCP parts are no longer being produced and sold. The returns policy is based on the premise that Van's would re-sell the returned part to another customer but this isn't applicable to LCPs.
David Paule
Well Known Member
The project's teacher made the order. I don't know how he did it or what Van's communicated. At least one part, the one we actually needed (and the only one I asked for), was listed as back-ordered. I had not expected all four part numbers to arrive but they did.
Of the four, 2 were acceptable (that is, not LCP) by date and by the blue film. One, which was installed, was acceptable by careful inspection with a 10x loupe. The one we needed was clearly an LCP. Somehow we got all four new.
Dave
Are the *part numbers* identical? Or does one or the other (LCP, punched) have a "-1" or "-2" part number revision?
Because if they don't, then I'd say under the letter of the law, they're both "products Van's Aircraft currently sells".
Big Yikes. Not honoring a written return policy is a very bad look...
All they need to do is TALK to us - but the refusal to communicate, with the obvious need to... that is saying a lot that they perhaps don't want said.
rph142
Well Known Member
I completed the repairs on my RV-7 HS today. It’s a long story how I ended up with a completed LCP stab and a set of non LCP parts. It was a solid 8 hours from start to finish. I forgot how easy it is to drill out rivets effectively once you get in rhythm. It’s just time consuming. This is unfortunate to be sure, but metal work is cake compared to the glass/avionics harness fabrication down the road. Build on!
And that's where the logic chain turns around and eats it's own tail.
If Van's would not ship these parts to a new customer because they're not good enough, then they can't expect a customer already in possession of them to use them.
As has been demonstrated right here in this thread ad nauseam, it’s irrelevant whether these parts are good enough. “Not in my plane” is not a sentiment Van’s can overcome and certainly not one around which they could manage inventory.
Wouldn't you agree that there exist varying levels of "Good Enough"?
Sure, "good enough" not to fall out of the sky. I trust the engineers that it's safe.
Are they "good enough" where I wont be replacing smoking rivets every annual because they loosened up due to dimple cracks? Will I find ribs with cracks getting a little bigger, leading to replacing ribs? How does that feel with aircraft paint costing 25k+?
I think the engineering document looks great. I am especially impressed with the RV10 wing testing. But... I also dont want a maintenance headache. Personally I dont think this should cost me additional to get what I paid for originally, but if it does, so be it. Just hoping to get on with it. Greg, if you are reading, please keep us in the loop. Let us know what you are working on with parts replacement.
I am sure that the team over at Vans are reading all of these thread comments - I have personally sent Greg and the kit status teams multiple emails regarding my QB wing/Fuse and Finish kit that I have paid for as I wanted to know when they would be arriving and also very importantly - that they would arrive without any affected parts built into them
They were scheduled to arrive last month and the kit status has not been updated with any new information.
I think the issue is the lack of dialogue beyond the broadcast information sent out from Greg here on this medium - beyond that I have not received any comms from Vans - that's part of the customer dissat that we are experiencing because we feel shut out of the whole progression for our own projects.
Greg - I know you and the company are navigating your own private nightmare with this but you need to talk to us - your customers, and it needs to be done directly as soon as possible to negate any downstream negative washout with your stellar reputation as the premier kit provider on the planet.
Many on here have supported you and the company in a very positive way regarding where we find ourselves in this situation - myself included, but the many on here who have already built their projects and are lucky to be unaffected by this issue do not have skin in the game like the builders who are currently affected like myself.
Communication is paramount - talk to us individually to help us through this current uncertainty - I cant think of any other product or service where I would spend this amount of money and not be able to get to a resolution with the service provider
If you're not clear with people on an individual basis they may start to look elsewhere - maybe a certified airplane or another kit provider - either way that's not what any of us want and certainly not what Vans would want either as that would involve people asking for business impacting refunds etc
I just want to continue and build on with certainty like I am sure just about everyone on this wonderful forum does too
Steve Allcock
They were scheduled to arrive last month and the kit status has not been updated with any new information.
I think the issue is the lack of dialogue beyond the broadcast information sent out from Greg here on this medium - beyond that I have not received any comms from Vans - that's part of the customer dissat that we are experiencing because we feel shut out of the whole progression for our own projects.
Greg - I know you and the company are navigating your own private nightmare with this but you need to talk to us - your customers, and it needs to be done directly as soon as possible to negate any downstream negative washout with your stellar reputation as the premier kit provider on the planet.
Many on here have supported you and the company in a very positive way regarding where we find ourselves in this situation - myself included, but the many on here who have already built their projects and are lucky to be unaffected by this issue do not have skin in the game like the builders who are currently affected like myself.
Communication is paramount - talk to us individually to help us through this current uncertainty - I cant think of any other product or service where I would spend this amount of money and not be able to get to a resolution with the service provider
If you're not clear with people on an individual basis they may start to look elsewhere - maybe a certified airplane or another kit provider - either way that's not what any of us want and certainly not what Vans would want either as that would involve people asking for business impacting refunds etc
I just want to continue and build on with certainty like I am sure just about everyone on this wonderful forum does too
Steve Allcock
Like many others, my issue isn't a safety of flight issue with blue LCPs. It's a safety of wallet issue.
These aircraft (RV-10 anyway) are selling north of $300k, nice ones $400k. If you have two closely matched builds, but one has laser cut parts and one doesn't, there is no question a potential buyer is going to choose the non-LCP over one with. If the buyer is truly not worried about it, they will use LCP as a negotiating tactic. I would.
It's very much like an airplane with damage history. Damage history aircraft generally take a hit on resale. Apples and oranges but conceptually similar IMO.
Or to JJs point, aircraft that will be expensive to maintain also take a value hit. Second hand buyers are most likely not going to tear parts out on their own so repairs will get really pricey if they have to pay shop rates to fix a cracked whatever. And how many risk adverse A&Ps are going to tell a customer with a newly purchased RV with cracks "Aww, that looks fine. Let me sign off on that." It's just not reality.
With all that, I want to work with Vans and pay (at some workable rate) for the blue parts I need to have a mostly LCP free aircraft. I'm good with green. Should they just replace them, probably, but they need to survive this above all else so we can build on.
These aircraft (RV-10 anyway) are selling north of $300k, nice ones $400k. If you have two closely matched builds, but one has laser cut parts and one doesn't, there is no question a potential buyer is going to choose the non-LCP over one with. If the buyer is truly not worried about it, they will use LCP as a negotiating tactic. I would.
It's very much like an airplane with damage history. Damage history aircraft generally take a hit on resale. Apples and oranges but conceptually similar IMO.
Or to JJs point, aircraft that will be expensive to maintain also take a value hit. Second hand buyers are most likely not going to tear parts out on their own so repairs will get really pricey if they have to pay shop rates to fix a cracked whatever. And how many risk adverse A&Ps are going to tell a customer with a newly purchased RV with cracks "Aww, that looks fine. Let me sign off on that." It's just not reality.
With all that, I want to work with Vans and pay (at some workable rate) for the blue parts I need to have a mostly LCP free aircraft. I'm good with green. Should they just replace them, probably, but they need to survive this above all else so we can build on.
Last edited:
MIKE JG
Well Known Member
I would think that any part in their inventory that has to be replaced due to being previously produced by laser cutting, would not be available to anyone right now until they have enough inventory to make the affected customers whole again.
Anyone know roughly how many kits that were shipped are affected by LCPs??
Anyone know roughly how many kits that were shipped are affected by LCPs??
Last edited:
ccarlson
Well Known Member
I suspect they are making parts in a ratio that supports fresh revenue via kit shipments while continuing to service replacement and backorder demand. That makes sense to me because I don't think they could continue to sustain operations any other (reasonable) way.
Some folks have speculated on the number of affected kits, but I don't think Van's has shared anything useful around that. I wish they would because it would be a good step toward setting some basic expectations. Heck, what do the parts portal data reveal? It may not include QB impact, but it would certainly help give some dimensionality to the scope of things.
I know for a fact I have 3 affected kits with a total of 317 LCPs.
Am I looking at 12 months before I can start building? 18? 24? 36? After nearly 4 months of publicly wrangling with this, and three weeks of collecting parts portal data, surely someone at Van's has at least a ballpark idea of what it is going to take.
Edit: Before flaming me, please note that I did not suggest, and I am not suggesting, any of this is easy for Van's. I run the tech division of a consulting company with over 400 employees located in 5 countries. I rarely expect anything to be simple.
Last edited:
It would make sense that as they produce parts for each train of new kits, they would produce the parts for that kit train + the replacement parts for that kit previously delivered.
An example, my -10 fuse kit is listed to deliver Jan-Feb and they are producing parts. Will they also produce replacement parts for all of the -10 fuse kits delivered in the past 18 months while they work through current orders. Maybe it pushes my fuse kit some, but they will be able to clear the replacement backlog for -10 fuse kits?
Seems that would be the most efficient way to reduce the number of tooling changes etc. On the site they are showing availability of most kits between January-July 2024. Not sure when they updated the site but it would seem they could clear the backlog in the next 6-9 months if they overproduce during regular production runs of each kit.
Total speculation.
An example, my -10 fuse kit is listed to deliver Jan-Feb and they are producing parts. Will they also produce replacement parts for all of the -10 fuse kits delivered in the past 18 months while they work through current orders. Maybe it pushes my fuse kit some, but they will be able to clear the replacement backlog for -10 fuse kits?
Seems that would be the most efficient way to reduce the number of tooling changes etc. On the site they are showing availability of most kits between January-July 2024. Not sure when they updated the site but it would seem they could clear the backlog in the next 6-9 months if they overproduce during regular production runs of each kit.
Total speculation.
Last edited:
TenJax
Member
For what it’s worth. I had filled out the portal two days after it went live. I have heard nothing on those parts requested. My -14 horizontal has been sitting on a bench ready for final assembly since this summer. I was fortunate enough to have blue spars so I only have LCP for the ribs.
Last week after some reading on here, my light bulb finally turned on and I ordered the ribs at retail price. They have just shipped. I will let you all know if they are blue, which I assume they will be.
Last week after some reading on here, my light bulb finally turned on and I ordered the ribs at retail price. They have just shipped. I will let you all know if they are blue, which I assume they will be.
Interesting parts received in my RV-14A empennage kit
I ordered my RV-14A empennage kit in March and picked it up ten days ago. There were a few backordered parts which I received today. Many of them were heat treated so no blue vinyl - and no evidence of laser cuts. But, there were a couple things that I find interesting as a new builder.
First, two of the parts (E-904) were fluted (and heat treated). I didn't realize Vans did any fluting at the factory. The second thing that was odd was the two E-903 parts had some dimpled holes. Nice to see the factory doing some of the work for me!
The other thing odd about E-903 aside from the dimpled holes is it absolutely looks like they were heat treated (no blue vinyl and dull finish) but they are not marked as such on the Vans LCP list. No evidence of laser cutting. They are listed as red replacement parts. I think Vans may have missed this one and they should be marked as heat treated.
EDIT: Greg confirmed the E-903 parts are heat treated.
I ordered my RV-14A empennage kit in March and picked it up ten days ago. There were a few backordered parts which I received today. Many of them were heat treated so no blue vinyl - and no evidence of laser cuts. But, there were a couple things that I find interesting as a new builder.
First, two of the parts (E-904) were fluted (and heat treated). I didn't realize Vans did any fluting at the factory. The second thing that was odd was the two E-903 parts had some dimpled holes. Nice to see the factory doing some of the work for me!
The other thing odd about E-903 aside from the dimpled holes is it absolutely looks like they were heat treated (no blue vinyl and dull finish) but they are not marked as such on the Vans LCP list. No evidence of laser cutting. They are listed as red replacement parts. I think Vans may have missed this one and they should be marked as heat treated.
EDIT: Greg confirmed the E-903 parts are heat treated.
Attachments
Last edited:
I got that part in a similar condition well before this LCP thing ever started. I think they dimple those holes to save you a bunch of hassle since it’s very tight towards the aft end.
ccarlson
Well Known Member
Congrats!
Not gonna lie, this made me feel a certain sort of way. Glad for you, frustrated as you-know-what for me and the -14A empennage kit I received in January that came loaded with 97 of 101 possible LCPs. <sigh>
Well, if it makes you feel any better, the wing kit I picked up in May has 82 laser cut parts. It's been sitting in my hangar for 5 months collecting dust while I wait for replacement parts. I'm VERY happy I have something to start working on but I suspect I'll be finished with the empennage kit long before I get replacement parts for my wing kit :-(
ccarlson
Well Known Member
I appreciate the effort, but that only hurts more! Hahaha...
I received my wing and fuselage kits in April. 114 LCP in the wing kit, 106 in the fuselage. My build is utterly and totally dead in its tracks.
Do you have an online build log? Maybe I can build vicariously...
Greg,
Flat out, I'm asking what exactly does TBD price mean?
Van's has 2 prices for parts.
1) kit pricing
2) webstore pricing
Both are derived in the usual ways that a business sets pricing for goods. Cost to produce +profit margin.
They know the cost of production. Only thing left is profit margin. What is the moving target that prevents this from being published?
Simple question. Would like it answered.
Flat out, I'm asking what exactly does TBD price mean?
Van's has 2 prices for parts.
1) kit pricing
2) webstore pricing
Both are derived in the usual ways that a business sets pricing for goods. Cost to produce +profit margin.
They know the cost of production. Only thing left is profit margin. What is the moving target that prevents this from being published?
Simple question. Would like it answered.
SwissVolts
Member
100% agree!
Agree 100%
Paul, please elaborate. I've had FAA and EAA people telling me an E A/B is NEVER airworthy, yet 8130.2J CLEARLY instructs whomever signs off the 8130-6 & 8130-7 that he must find the aircraft to be "airworthy." 8130.2J even defines airworthy -- in the case of non-type-certificated aircraft -- to be simply "in a condition for safe operation."
When I ask what is the purpose of the whole process to get a SAWC (the application, the subsequent inspection of the E A/B, and finally the issuance of the certificate,) if in the end the plane isn't considered "airworthy," I get no sensible answer.
Just a WAG, but perhaps they dimpled them just to see if they would crack.
Mine, delivered over a year ago were also sans blue film and were fluted. There were scuff marks which I assumed were to remove scratches. I replaced the first set (at Van's cost) thinking they were used parts. The replacements were not a lot better.
I've replied to this a couple of times. Of course it is airworthy---you get an Airworthiness Certificate. As you noted, the builder initially signs off that it is in a condition for safe operation, which is defined as airworthy in the Order. Subsequent to that, the aircraft is signed off each year by the holder of the Repairman Certificate or an A&P by a logbook entry stating that it is in a condition for safe operation, OR a simialarly worded statement. The DAR or MIDO/FSDO inspector make an entry that the aircraft meets the requirements for the certificate requested, after the builder makes the condition for safe operation entry in the logbook.
Vic
Because the FAA doesn’t want to take ultimate authority of experimental airworthiness. You are the only one that can claim it’s airworthy. The DAR can’t determine that it is airworthy but they can determine the aircraft is unsafe and deny an airworthiness certificate. So in essence they can’t say that it is airworthy but they can say it is not airworthy/safe. Clear as mud
I think it's pretty clear. Just follow the liability. Whoever says it's airworthy or in condition of safe operation takes on liability big time. So they push that on the builder not the DAR not the FAA not the kit manufacturer .... .
Oliver
ccarlson
Well Known Member
Correctamundo, thus the reason I am personally unwilling to deviate from long-established build standards by installing parts with known cracks. No thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Many good points about redefining standards to accommodate LCP.
Here’s a question. Why abandon LCP production now that there’s a new standard/definition? Why not keep on keeping on?
My other question posed yesterday about TBD price continues to go unanswered.
I must be the only one that’s curious about the margins Vans proposes to profit from customers that are replacing blue green LCP.
Here’s a question. Why abandon LCP production now that there’s a new standard/definition? Why not keep on keeping on?
My other question posed yesterday about TBD price continues to go unanswered.
I must be the only one that’s curious about the margins Vans proposes to profit from customers that are replacing blue green LCP.
It's a safe bet they have been trying to calculate the financial impact ever since the "oh sh!t" moment, and I very highly doubt this is a consideration of profit as much as survival and long term viability.
Let's look at the big picture. Vans have agreed to replace red and yellow parts.
Add in the cost to rebuild or fix impacted quick build kits.
Then there's a group of builders who are going to throw in the towel and demand a refund. Remember a high percentage of kits never get finished by the original builder and are sold. This is a perfect storm for pushing those on the fence over the edge. However, instead of historically selling the kit they will be looking at Vans for financial recovery because of LCPs.
Then there are discounted parts, TBD blue and green parts, testing costs, cost to build the replacement part portal, investment in new punching equipment, shipping cost considerations, slower than normal sales because people are waiting to see how this shakes out, etc, etc.
Running a small business is hard under the best of circumstances. They have a much larger and more complicated mess they are working through to the best of their ability I'm sure.
Their entire business has been built on providing some of the most affordable and accessible kits in the world. I highly doubt they are trying to gouge anyone, and simply trying to calculate how to keep the the lights on, people employed and keep kits and parts coming out of the building.
Last edited:
I think you are probably 100% correct, but why the silence of late? They put up the portal, and asked builders to enter their replacement needs. I am sure it's not a simple calculus, but one they have been homing in on for some time. I propose some form of update is in orders, even if its a note on next steps, and when they hope to have a more concrete update.
Last edited:
Agreed or egregious? I wouldn’t exactly say anything has been agreed upon. I wasn’t consulted about my purchase and how it would be handled. In fact I’ve been stymied and stonewalled with every attempt. So far Vans makes ALL the decisions and I am along for the ride. Vans has not done me any favors by “agreeing” to replace defective red/yellow parts free of charge. Items not as described. Period. I don’t see anything amazing about an individual or an organization that does what is supposed to be done/expected. That is called average. Nothing wrong with average. It means you meet the standard. Replacing red/yellow parts free is just average. However, developing a new definition to make LCP “acceptable” “functionally similar” is UNSATISFACTORY. Avoiding replacement of some defective parts is UNSATISFACTORY. That is not the standard and is below average. I’m not asking for exceptional only average. All LCP are defective.
I don’t understand the drum circle, go fund me, charity attitude to all this. I’m not a taker on that Kool-Aid
Just as frustrated. Will be rebuilding tanks, leading edges and have already spent plenty of time taking my wings apart. Probably close to 250 hours, $500 in materials, and a years progress lost. But I would prefer to see Vans survive so I can finish this thing vs having a worthless pile of parts hanging on the wall.
Thank you Vic, for saying what you said. You are the FIRST person with credentials I have heard utter the words "it is airworthy" and I am so thankful that some sanity exists in this new-to-me world of building an E A/B.
I have been mocked by other EAA members (and one chapter President) for making any assumption that a special airworthiness certificate has anything to do with an experimental aircraft being "airworthy."
Last edited:
Vans also promised, starting with the first communication in July, to "replace all dimpled LCP at builder request", then walked that back.
And they must have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on the test program - that $$ would have produced a lot of "blue" parts.
How/where did you come up with this number?
- Status
