What's new
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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are shipments still happening?

Was there any mention at the presentation about the current status of subkit shipments? Email to kitstatus@vans has gone unanswered (7/5/23, with follow-up 7/10/23).

I'm curious about what the plans are with respect to crating/shipping (e.g. don't ship until 100% punched parts are available vs. ship what's available now and backorder the remainder). I know they're still requesting final payments (I just paid for my emp), so hope that implies shipments are going out the other end.

I've got 3 RV-14A subkits that are "Assigned to Crating" (emp, fuse, wings), with the wings marked "Crating Complete Shipping with Fuse kit" since late May (BTW, the fuse kit is almost a month past the close of the posted crating window). While I'm feeling lucky that I won't need to redo work because of the laser-cut issue, I really want to get started on something, and hope to receive my first shipment sooner rather than later! :)
 
Here's a quick summary of my understanding:
- If you've already received laser cut parts, stop work involving those parts
- If you've installed laser cut parts, you may have to drill out rivets, remove the parts and have them replaced (Van's will give guidance later)
- They are working on a web form to request replacement parts, which will be live in a few weeks
- Testing will continue for the next month and a half (plus or minus) and guidance for inspection, removal, etc. will follow
- For QB kits, you may have the option to receive a kit that includes laser cut parts and do repair work yourself (if, for example, there is guidance to replace certain parts) or wait for a new QB without laser cut parts (my impression is that they're around a year out)
- They are actively considering what to do about sections like the elevator that have wedges glued in making spar removal difficult without ruining other parts

*This is just my understanding from tidbits that I picked up listening to the forum and informal Q&A. Take this with a grain of salt
 
Freemasm said:
Completely unscientific (depending on who you ask) but; most interesting defensive body language by the Vans personnel. Was the crowd confrontational?
Click to expand...
I could see that turning into a meme and make me wonder if what appears to be positive news in the slides was not that positive.

Brantel said:
Should work now guys. It finally finished uploading.

https://www.youtube.com/live/gO1pKlyPqvk?feature=share
Click to expand...

I will watch it tonight. Thank you Brian.
 
Didn't Van's even have a professional camera/mic setup to record and publish this? We have to rely on the good intentions of an attendee with a cell phone?

This isn't 1983...it's 2023. Shees.
 
Quality Control/Assurance

Two things I found lacking in today’s presentation -

1. Although Rian explained how the mistakes were made by the third party vendor producing the defective laser cut parts, he offered no details on how these defective parts got past Van’s quality control. Given the pictures here on VAF of some of these parts (scorch marks and pronounced notches at holes), it would be good to know how/why these parts ever left Van’s.

2. It would also have been helpful to understand the change in position from “file out the notches and build on” to “stop building”. I did not hear any discussion about this.

I will say I was impressed by the obvious amount of effort being put into determining how big this problem really is. Unfortunate that the effort wasn’t made monitoring the processes of the third party parts providers.
 
KatanaPilot said:
Two things I found lacking in today’s presentation -

1. Although Rian explained how the mistakes were made by the third party vendor producing the defective laser cut parts, he offered no details on how these defective parts got past Van’s quality control. Given the pictures here on VAF of some of these parts (scorch marks and pronounced notches at holes), it would be good to know how/why these parts ever left Van’s.
Click to expand...

I too am amazed at the recent tool path disclosure. Every cnc machinist on the planet knows the importance of tool path engagement (lead in / lead out).
 
I have a trip to Synergy scheduled in August to start my RV-10. Assuming I could maaaaybe replace at least the red “must replace” spars before that (big assumption), is the guidance still not to start a build with laser cut parts in general?

If we’re not supposed to work, what do we think… should I cancel the trip and have them ship my empennage kit to me here in LA? I really wanted the watchful eye of their engineers to oversee and accelerate my initial work, and it’s a big setback to not get that (at least mentally, since EAA has had no workshops for metalworking this year and I’ve only learned from YouTube and practice kits).
 
inktomi said:
I have a trip to Synergy scheduled in August to start my RV-10. Assuming I could maaaaybe replace at least the red “must replace” spars before that (big assumption), is the guidance still not to start a build with laser cut parts in general?

If we’re not supposed to work, what do we think… should I cancel the trip and have them ship my empennage kit to me here in LA? I really wanted the watchful eye of their engineers to oversee and accelerate my initial work, and it’s a big setback to not get that (at least mentally, since EAA has had no workshops for metalworking this year and I’ve only learned from YouTube and practice kits).
Click to expand...

You have a huge user base in L.A. Where are you located? I'm betting you can find someone to assist or coach you locally.
 
inktomi said:
I have a trip to Synergy scheduled in August to start my RV-10. Assuming I could maaaaybe replace at least the red “must replace” spars before that (big assumption), is the guidance still not to start a build with laser cut parts in general?

If we’re not supposed to work, what do we think… should I cancel the trip and have them ship my empennage kit to me here in LA? I really wanted the watchful eye of their engineers to oversee and accelerate my initial work, and it’s a big setback to not get that (at least mentally, since EAA has had no workshops for metalworking this year and I’ve only learned from YouTube and practice kits).
Click to expand...

If you would have to use laser cut parts at synergy you are wasting your resources. Stop means stop if you have to use laser parts.
 
inktomi said:
I have a trip to Synergy scheduled in August to start my RV-10. Assuming I could maaaaybe replace at least the red “must replace” spars before that (big assumption), is the guidance still not to start a build with laser cut parts in general?

If we’re not supposed to work, what do we think… should I cancel the trip and have them ship my empennage kit to me here in LA? I really wanted the watchful eye of their engineers to oversee and accelerate my initial work, and it’s a big setback to not get that (at least mentally, since EAA has had no workshops for metalworking this year and I’ve only learned from YouTube and practice kits).
Click to expand...
I have seen two projects that were done at Synergy in Oregon and based on those samples, I would certainly give other sources a try. They were just a tiny bit better than a first time builder, if that.
 
KatanaPilot said:
Two things I found lacking in today’s presentation -

1. Although Rian explained how the mistakes were made by the third party vendor producing the defective laser cut parts, he offered no details on how these defective parts got past Van’s quality control. Given the pictures here on VAF of some of these parts (scorch marks and pronounced notches at holes), it would be good to know how/why these parts ever left Van’s.

2. It would also have been helpful to understand the change in position from “file out the notches and build on” to “stop building”. I did not hear any discussion about this.

I will say I was impressed by the obvious amount of effort being put into determining how big this problem really is. Unfortunate that the effort wasn’t made monitoring the processes of the third party parts providers.
Click to expand...

That is the responsible thing to do... I even tested this out...but it made a test dimple large and mis shaped...the notches too large....and it still cracked. plus the level of golden splatter I have on my ribs which cannot be removed except with coarse sandpaper means I have some of the worst from the bad batch. The only option is to stop building with laser cut parts and I am glad Vans said this...its an acknowledgement of this issue. How they got sent out in the first place is beyond me though.
 
Last edited:
inktomi said:
I have a trip to Synergy scheduled in August to start my RV-10. Assuming I could maaaaybe replace at least the red “must replace” spars before that (big assumption), is the guidance still not to start a build with laser cut parts in general?

If we’re not supposed to work, what do we think… should I cancel the trip and have them ship my empennage kit to me here in LA? I really wanted the watchful eye of their engineers to oversee and accelerate my initial work, and it’s a big setback to not get that (at least mentally, since EAA has had no workshops for metalworking this year and I’ve only learned from YouTube and practice kits).
Click to expand...

I completed my 14 tail at Synergy South the week before this whole laser part debacle started. Now I have a tail that cost thousands to complete through their class, only to potentially need to disassemble it to replace potentially affected parts.
You should contact Synergy to determine what their position is on it and whether they want to pause or build on. If it were me, I'd either cancel or reschedule until Vans provides results from their testing.
 
scard said:
I too am amazed at the recent tool path disclosure. Every cnc machinist on the planet knows the importance of tool path engagement (lead in / lead out).
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it was obvious to anyone who deals with cnc programming that a supplier had changed the toolpath, possibly unknown to Vans and the QC folks at Vans totally missed it. Engineering staff clearly not being "hands on" with the parts on a day to day basis.... Anyone who has inspected the original samples and put them through validation testing would have recognised the change immediately. But this is a common thing today. People employ vision systems and other automated means (CMMs) to inspect parts while never actually putting the part under the microscope once in a while to make sure there has not been any paradigm shift.
 
RV7A Flyer said:
Didn't Van's even have a professional camera/mic setup to record and publish this? We have to rely on the good intentions of an attendee with a cell phone?

This isn't 1983...it's 2023. Shees.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more! The audio is so bad that I can't understand most of it. (Even with my hearing aids on, and turned up!) :eek:

I'll have to wait for a better video. Hopefully one will show up.
 
Last edited:
Vender

KeithO said:
Unfortunately, it was obvious to anyone who deals with cnc programming that a supplier had changed the toolpath, possibly unknown to Vans and the QC folks at Vans totally missed it. Engineering staff clearly not being "hands on" with the parts on a day to day basis.... Anyone who has inspected the original samples and put them through validation testing would have recognised the change immediately. But this is a common thing today. People employ vision systems and other automated means (CMMs) to inspect parts while never actually putting the part under the microscope once in a while to make sure there has not been any paradigm shift.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you can fault the vendor. Vans would have provided them with a readable file but not any tool paths or G codes. Those could be unique to the machine doing the work.
 
PCHunt said:
Couldn't agree more! The audio is so bad that I can't understand most of it. (Even with my hearing aids on, and turned up!) :eek:

I'll have to wait for a better video. Hopefully one will show up.
Click to expand...

Sorry you are so disappointed. :confused:
 
jask said:
I don’t think you can fault the vendor. Vans would have provided them with a readable file but not any tool paths or G codes. Those could be unique to the machine doing the work.
Click to expand...

Programming the G-code is a setup for the job. It by itself doesn’t make the vendor any money. Only cutting the parts does. So it’s not unreasonable to expect it only happens for the first batch and gets reused thereafter. Just from a purely economic sense that’s what you should do.
I bet Vans in house and all their regular CNC mill vendors keep the programming the same for any part they mill.

Either way, the vendor also had a QC failure since they made parts that didn’t meet Vans specifications. Yet another layer in the Swiss cheese model.

For me this whole thing is the confirmation that not all laser cut parts are created equal. Some are bad but many meet Vans specs. Based on all the tests done in the past and right now, good laser parts are fit for the task.
From what I saw in the presentation they definitely put in their due diligence in testing good laser parts before they ever started shipping them. I don’t think anyone is questioning that laser cut parts can be up for the task.

Punching is also not a really gentle manufacturing technique. It literally creates a very localized stress high enough to shear the material. A punched hole still has a lower fatigue lifetime than a drilled one. We accept that because it’s good enough.

So given all the available data, for my undersized-hole RV-9 I will use laser cut parts that were made with the proper G-code. And I will get the ones that were not replaced.

-Lars
 
jask said:
I don’t think you can fault the vendor. Vans would have provided them with a readable file but not any tool paths or G codes. Those could be unique to the machine doing the work.
Click to expand...

That's no excuse. Take something to a printing shop and ask for 10,000 copies. They will want you to sign off on a proof copy, especially if they were involved in the design..... and that's only paper and ink!

So they took a file to a vendor for first run, and never checked quality of first run, and accepted hundreds of non inspected parts...... really?
 
gasman said:
That's no excuse. Take something to a printing shop and ask for 10,000 copies. They will want you to sign off on a proof copy, especially if they were involved in the design..... and that's only paper and ink!

So they took a file to a vendor for first run, and never checked quality of first run, and accepted hundreds of non inspected parts...... really?
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know what Van's normal QC process for parts from vendors is...do they pull some percentage of parts and random from the delivered lots and do a thorough inspection and approval? Or simply do a one-off at the start of the contract?
 
Brantel said:
Sorry you are so disappointed. :confused:
Click to expand...
Brian, thanks for taking this on yourself! I also wish Van's would have ran their own setup for the broader community, but your willingness to hold a phone and post-process/publish gives us all a window into the current status.

Honestly, their failure to record and distribute this through company channels goes along with the QC failure as showing a disconnect in what many of us expected from Vans. I know this is an experimental & homebuilt aircraft, but a huge factor of going with Vans was their scale and history, especially for a 1st project. Like it or not, they're not a mom & pop organization that can just do an informal briefing on a subject like this.
 
gasman said:
That's no excuse. Take something to a printing shop and ask for 10,000 copies. They will want you to sign off on a proof copy, especially if they were involved in the design..... and that's only paper and ink!

So they took a file to a vendor for first run, and never checked quality of first run, and accepted hundreds of non inspected parts...... really?
Click to expand...

They explained during the video that this did indeed occur when they first set up the runs with the vendor - but the tool path changed later at the vendor without Vans knowing about it. The resulting new tool path is what caused the hot spots and notching.
 
airguy said:
the tool path changed later at the vendor without Vans knowing about it.
Click to expand...

Which means either their on-going QA process isn't up to the task, or there *was* no such inspection process after the initial approval.

Neither case is acceptable.
 
So…

So, you are saying that they should check each part in a batch run, individually, as they each come out of the machine? That’s not how production works…
 
I have been in manufacturing for almost 30 years now and this situation is not unique.

Sales
Engineering
Operations
Quality Control
Finance
HR

Are almost always at odds with each other no matter how world class the company is….
 
KatanaPilot said:
Two things I found lacking in today’s presentation -

1. Although Rian explained how the mistakes were made by the third party vendor producing the defective laser cut parts, he offered no details on how these defective parts got past Van’s quality control. Given the pictures here on VAF of some of these parts (scorch marks and pronounced notches at holes), it would be good to know how/why these parts ever left Van’s.

2. It would also have been helpful to understand the change in position from “file out the notches and build on” to “stop building”. I did not hear any discussion about this.

I will say I was impressed by the obvious amount of effort being put into determining how big this problem really is. Unfortunate that the effort wasn’t made monitoring the processes of the third party parts providers.
Click to expand...

And this is why I have little sympathy for Vans Aircraft over this whole ordeal. The ball was dropped on so many fronts. Every one of us stuck in the middle of this is out something. Right now it’s all three; Time, money and mental well-being. Vans has the option to ensure we are not out money, and depending on how smooth a resolution they come up with, the impact to mental wellbeing can be greatly minimized. Time though, well we can never get that back and arguably the most valuable.
 
Your sentiments are understandable.
Right now the scope of the problem is still being defined.
Van's can't take many specific actions until the testing is finished.
 
maxmirot said:
Your sentiments are understandable.
Right now the scope of the problem is still being defined.
Van's can't take many specific actions until the testing is finished.
Click to expand...

The scope of the problem isn't still being defined though, is it?

It might be on a technical level ("yeah, our tests suggest this stuff is ok so you might choose to live with it if you're too far down the line") but on a reputational level it's anything but ok - Van's themselves have seen to that by (a) committing to replace any laser-cut part on demand, and (b) terminating laser-cut production. If some laser-cut parts are fine, why are you doing that?

I don't know about other builders, but if I have cracks in my parts then being told "don't worry, our tests show they won't propagate" is unlikely to cut the mustard. Since people started showing evidence that even non-final-size holes still have some sort of crack there once reamed and dimpled (been and checked mine, yes you can detect the crack with magnification or running a pick round but not with the naked eye) then the situation got a whole lot worse.

Failing to properly record and distribute this latest information to customers, such that most of us get it via one man's YouTube posting, is truly bizarre. One might reasonably question why they are at Oshkosh promoting the brand and celebrating an anniversary when they perhaps should be in the office / factory working out how they're going to do right by their customers and save their reputation.
 
A bit off topic, sorry

Bavafa said:
I have seen two projects that were done at Synergy in Oregon and based on those samples, I would certainly give other sources a try. They were just a tiny bit better than a first time builder, if that.
Click to expand...

I’ve built two RV’s with Synergy’s help (one in Oregon and one in Georgia) and I disagree strongly with your opinion.

I seem to recall you had similar comments about an Evoke painted airplane. I also have one Evoke painted airplane and one there currently.

Given Evoke’s 4+ year waiting list and Synergy Air South’s two full hangars of partially completed kits and airplanes, I think you are very much in the minority with your opinion of the quality being delivered by either company.
 
The company president stood up on opening day of the world's largest aviation gathering and told the whole friggin' world everything they know so far, with data to back it up. Then he told us what they don't yet know, and what they're doing about it.

If I could stick a knife in my heart
Suicide right on stage
Would it be enough for your teenage lust?
Would it help to ease the pain?
Ease your brain?
 
DanH said:
The company president stood up on opening day of the world's largest aviation gathering and told the whole friggin' world everything they know so far, with data to back it up. Then he told us what they don't yet know, and what they're doing about it.

If I could stick a knife in my heart
Suicide right on stage
Would it be enough for your teenage lust?
Would it help to ease the pain?
Ease your brain?
Click to expand...

And then Greg continued the Q&A out side for well over an hour!

Wish I had streamed that as well! Had no idea it would
go that long!
 
Last edited:
DanH said:
The company president stood up on opening day of the world's largest aviation gathering and told the whole friggin' world everything they know so far, with data to back it up. Then he told us what they don't yet know, and what they're doing about it.

If I could stick a knife in my heart
Suicide right on stage
Would it be enough for your teenage lust?
Would it help to ease the pain?
Ease your brain?
Click to expand...

This needs a like button.

This is not the certified world - certified expectations do not apply. In the 20 years I've been playing in the experimental world I've seen LOTS of companies make LOTS of mistakes - but I have not yet seen ONE of them that has reacted as quickly or as well as Vans has so far on this one. They are not even finished reacting yet, because they have not yet determined how far it goes - but that too is in process. They've already promised that anyone that is unhappy with the affected parts will get replacement just for asking - what else do you want?

We've already seen more out of Vans than we got with the ECI cylinder mess, or the Superior crankshaft recall, or any handful of other AD's that have been issued in the last 20 years - not to mention the dozens of companies in this line of work who simply folded up their tent and disappeared.

With all due respect - if their response is not at least enough to get you to calm down and wait for more, then perhaps EAB isn't for you.
 
Last edited:
I've been a regular visitor to this thread. I started building metal airplanes in 1972.

First thing I was taught by my mentors, guys who worked for Lockheed, Douglas and Northup, was the buck stopped with me.

Me, the builder, is the final QA person.

Reinforced by the name that goes on the AW Cert.

Yes, it's a bad hit. I received mine when I stored my wing panels in the dining room and didn't catch the cat using them for a privvy. Them panels were of "Lindy" quality. IMHO. I keep them as a reminder to be exceedingly cautious.

Assess, regather and resume the journey!

Onward and upward.
 
GrahamF said:
The scope of the problem isn't still being defined though, is it?

It might be on a technical level ("yeah, our tests suggest this stuff is ok so you might choose to live with it if you're too far down the line") but on a reputational level it's anything but ok - Van's themselves have seen to that by (a) committing to replace any laser-cut part on demand, and (b) terminating laser-cut production. If some laser-cut parts are fine, why are you doing that?

I don't know about other builders, but if I have cracks in my parts then being told "don't worry, our tests show they won't propagate" is unlikely to cut the mustard. Since people started showing evidence that even non-final-size holes still have some sort of crack there once reamed and dimpled (been and checked mine, yes you can detect the crack with magnification or running a pick round but not with the naked eye) then the situation got a whole lot worse.

Failing to properly record and distribute this latest information to customers, such that most of us get it via one man's YouTube posting, is truly bizarre. One might reasonably question why they are at Oshkosh promoting the brand and celebrating an anniversary when they perhaps should be in the office / factory working out how they're going to do right by their customers and save their reputation.
Click to expand...

You need to view their Jan 22 Video when announced they announced how they were going to expand production. They were out sourcing to laser while waiting for delivery of new punch press in June 23
 
Marc Bourget said:
I've been a regular visitor to this thread. I started building metal airplanes in 1972.

First thing I was taught by my mentors, guys who worked for Lockheed, Douglas and Northup, was the buck stopped with me.

Me, the builder, is the final QA person.

Reinforced by the name that goes on the AW Cert.

Yes, it's a bad hit. I received mine when I stored my wing panels in the dining room and didn't catch the cat using them for a privvy. Them panels were of "Lindy" quality. IMHO. I keep them as a reminder to be exceedingly cautious.

Assess, regather and resume the journey!

Onward and upward.
Click to expand...

And what do you think Lockheed, Douglas, Northrup, etc., would do to a team that let expensive and potentially liability-inducing (or life-threatening) parts past their QC, to be installed by techs on the line? Blame the line folks? Or look for the root causes, including a failed QC process?
 
RV7A Flyer said:
And what do you think Lockheed, Douglas, Northrup, etc., would do to a team that let expensive and potentially liability-inducing (or life-threatening) parts past their QC, to be installed by techs on the line? Blame the line folks? Or look for the root causes, including a failed QC process?
Click to expand...

Northrup has 95,000 employees. Van's has 135. You really think that's a fair comparison? Do you? Really?
 
Van's is quite clear about who is responsible for what on their website and they are acting accordingly. It's just going to take a bit of time for them to do a thorough job.

"Our aircraft designs and internal processes are geared around providing builders a kit from which they can successfully build a safe and reliable airplane. For any given amateur-built airplane there are two key places where the safety of the finished aircraft is determined: in the kit design and manufacturing process, which Van’s controls and governs; and in the build process which is, of course, the realm of the individual building the airplane in their shop."
 
RV7A Flyer said:
And what do you think Lockheed, Douglas, Northrup, etc., would do to a team that let expensive and potentially liability-inducing (or life-threatening) parts past their QC, to be installed by techs on the line?
Click to expand...

Give the team a raise of course....

-Marc
 
Brantel said:
Sorry you are so disappointed. :confused:
Click to expand...

Hi Brian,

My apologies, sir! I appreciate the fact that you did your best to record the presentation, and it was not intended as an attack on you.

When I re-read my post, I could see how it could be taken that way,.... that was NOT my intention.

My intention was to mildly disparage Vans for NOT doing a professional-ish recording and promulgate it to all.

Also the fact that my hearing is nearly shot was a major part of the issue.

Again, apologies, and thanks for your participation on this forum.
 
Last edited:
I believe the "buck" stops with the final assembler.

If Vans incorporated the laser cut parts in a quick build assembly, that's on Vans. If Vans shipped defective parts to me and I missed the problem, while the parts may be Vans' obligation, repeating the assembly work would, IMHO, be on me.

Onward and upward
 
Van's is doing the right thing and stress-testing all the things to see how much of an impact these laser-cut holes with dimples have on safety. I speculate, based on their reserved language, that they currently believe most components will do just fine in their stress tests because they are in low-stress areas and the plane is "over-engineered", or something to that effect. Great, that's good news for the fleet.

But let me tell you, I am feeling very icky about the prospect of building on when I see that every single dimple in all of my baggage ribs has a very tiny crack in it, or a small notch where a tiny crack is probably going to form upon riveting, even if it does turn out to be a low-stress area. I'm going to be flying my friends and family in this thing some day. What would they think if they knew I built on knowing there were cracks everywhere? I know many wouldn't go up at all. That's the calculus going through my head at this moment.
 
Last edited:
airguy said:
Northrup has 95,000 employees. Van's has 135. You really think that's a fair comparison? Do you? Really?
Click to expand...

I do. How many distinct parts are there in an RV? How many contractors and vendors?

Now compare that to the number of parts in a B-2, B-21, JWST, SLS, etc. How many vendors?

It's not the size of the company or the product that's the issue. It's the *process* that's employed, or not. Even a tiny company can be ISO-9001 certified if they use good processes, AND requires it of their vendors. That means continued statistically valid QC on delivered parts, on-site inspections of vendor work on a regular basis, etc.

As a hypothetical, imagine that the vendor's process failed in a way that *wasn't* visible by inspection, say a metallurgical problem (improper annealing or heat treating, say, which significantly changed the temper and yield limits on a set of parts). Now whose responsibility is the QC on those items sold to customers? It sure isn't on the amateur builder working in his garage.

Look, I *like* Van's and I love my -7A, I'm just saying from a quality perspective, something wasn't done right to catch this issue early on and that should be fixed *by Van's* (and likely their vendor, too), but it's awfully hard to lay the blame at the feet of the homebuilder here.
 
I do. How many distinct parts are there in an RV? How many contractors and vendors?

Now compare that to the number of parts in a B-2, B-21, JWST, SLS, etc. How many vendors?

It's not the size of the company or the product that's the issue. It's the *process* that's employed, or not. Even a tiny company can be ISO-9001 certified if they use good processes, AND requires it of their vendors. That means continued statistically valid QC on delivered parts, on-site inspections of vendor work on a regular basis, etc.

As a hypothetical, imagine that the vendor's process failed in a way that *wasn't* visible by inspection, say a metallurgical problem (improper annealing or heat treating, say, which significantly changed the temper and yield limits on a set of parts). Now whose responsibility is the QC on those items sold to customers? It sure isn't on the amateur builder working in his garage.

Look, I *like* Van's and I love my -7A, I'm just saying from a quality perspective, something wasn't done right to catch this issue early on and that should be fixed *by Van's* (and likely their vendor, too), but it's awfully hard to lay the blame at the feet of the homebuilder here.
Click to expand...

Best post of the whole thread!
Thanks for that moment of truth RV7A Flyer :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top