Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Nope. It is not cheaper to produce using laser cutting. It costs more.
I suspect that laser cutting has an advantage of low setup and tooling costs but longer run times per part so it could be advantageous for smaller batches of parts or bringing “temporary”’production sources on line, but for large production runs the CNC punch presses will be faster and cheaper.
I disagree. Zillions of companies out there have reasonable QA programs and parts traceability without ginormous costs to the customers. For a company Van's size, 1 or 2 people dedicated to QA would probably have been enough, provided they had a good PLAN in place and followed it. Inventory control has been around for decades and can be OTS. There is not reason that any given kit shouldn't have all parts with lot numbers at least tagged to that kit and such. That's what computers are for.
Not sure if this statement is true from my experience. There are literally thousands of LCP holes and punched holes in a RV kit. Every time it is burned or punched, there is a potential for error. There is zero chance for a human to catch the defects, especially for the miniscule 3/32 holes. The only way to check them is via a electronic inspection machines and they aren't cheap to operate. These types of machines are used in industrial, agricultural, food processing but you still need specialized tech to program, maintain, etc. So yes, there is an enormous amount of cost for a 100% QC and its not 100% fool proof either.
Flatly untrue. Humans are the ones who found the problems in the first place and reported them to Van's. The LCP errors were visible with the naked eye as evidenced by the photos users here posted. E.g.,
My point is in the totality of aircraft building, the defect was caught by the builder since nobody on Earth could manually inspect all the holes at the factory. And there are very few defects. As reported in the last few months, people inspected the affected parts and they could find nothing wrong with the QB or the parts they have on hand. The builder who found the defect, brought up the issues, and here we are. I am not convince random inspection will catch everything. They don't even catch everything in the big boy's world. The the idea is everybody checks along the way, from parts, to sub-assembly, to big assemblies, to the final flying airplane. It is not supposed to be a perfect airplane and this is why engineers design in safety factors. The testing in the discussion showed that the imperfect part has no bearing on the failure mode.
You are making my point for me. There ARE reasonable QA programs and processes, as you describe, and Van's will no doubt be instituting some of those, having learned this hard lesson.
Greg, I think yall should vocalize this more, that LCP is more expensive and that is why yall are not continuing it. Many people interpret, "there is nothing wrong with them, but we are no longer producing them" to mean yall are covering something up. I think the 2 hr video was a great step, but the company never really addresses why they will not continue them if there is no safety issue with them. Or that the reason is only by popular demand.
Van's acquired another Trumpf 5000 punch machine in 2022 (capital cost over $600,000) to provide additional in-house manufacturing capacity. So I am sure they will now want to utilize that machine, rather than outsource the manufacturing to a third party.
In the end it comes down to an individual decision to use -or not use- LCP components.
Of course nobody is going to inspect ALL the holes at the factory. How many times do I have to repeat the idea of *random* sampling? Further, nobody expects the guys crating the parts to have the responsibility for QA inspections...that's *QA's* job (unless you don't have any QAEs).
Regardless of all that a metallurgist would have had to say, in the end he would say, but it is the evidence acquired from testing that counts, not my or anyone else’s opinion.
A lot of time consuming important work done by a small team of dedicated people that shows the acceptability of performance of LCP parts under a range of operating conditions. Based on the data presented would I fly in an RV with LCP - yes. Would I build one with LCP - probably not if I had the choice of having punched parts. Did I feel that I was being gaslighted by the participants on the panel - not at all. Would I have felt more confidence in the opinions provided if there had been a metallurgist and stress analyst on the review team agreeing with the conclusion - absolutely.
And there you have it... Someone that appears to be looking at all this with an even hand, yes some skepticism, but let's face it, this subject warrants a bit, no? The key statement being, "would I fly in an RV with LCP - yes. Would I build one with LCP - probably not"
For the record, I am building another RV-8 and yes, it will have LCP in it....blue parts for sure, and might have a few red parts depending on replacement schedule.
Very well said Vic. Methinks this facet gets lost in the overall noise too often.
Scott, you are CORRECT!
And TIRED faces. It was clear to me that people are working almost literally "around the clock" and have been for SOME time. To have someone question your integrity and intellectual capacity after 50 years of "leading" work in an industry is tough on anyone.
Well said, CB
