The Laser-Cut Parts Engineering Evaluation, published yesterday, sure makes for some interesting reading…
Not all unexpected.
Not unexpected but still shocking. I’m not overly shocked that they are also going to throw the QB people under the bus but, I am surprised they still want to ship QBs with laser cut parts. Who would take one of those. Now I’m certain they will not survive this.
Quite a rise in temperature on VAF… which is no surprise really.
Man, I’m really sorry for all you guys affected by this LCP disaster, what a mess.
RV8Bob wrote:
I’m not overly shocked that they are also going to throw the QB people under the bus but, I am surprised they still want to ship QBs with laser cut parts.
QB folks can just reject the entire assembly and demand their money back. Their situation is more serious, but in essence it is simpler.
If Van’s don’t play ball, go after your credit card provider who in turn will nail Van’s for the money. You did pay with a credit card, didn’t you…?
Dan wrote:
Quite a rise in temperature on VAF… which is no surprise really.
Certainly no surprise.
They are reneging on their earlier written commitment to replace all LCPs free of charge. They think a 5 page summary report with no detail and no data will convince people that everything they previously understood (small cracks become large cracks which becomes an in-flight failure) no longer applies.
When analyzing stress levels, features such as relief notches between formed rib flanges typically exhibited the
highest levels of stress, much greater than stresses observed at the fastener holes. Of note, fleet
history has not indicated fatigue cracking occurs at these locations.
This may be true when analyzing stress levels, but all the SBs about replacing cracked parts (not related to lasers) show that in practice, cracks have a tendency to develop in other locations regardless.
Summary
To reiterate, laser-cut parts have been classified using conservative assumptions and with an
abundance of caution. Once the parts that Van’s has recommended for replacement are
addressed, the remaining laser-cut parts are secondary structure or lower, are functionally
equivalent to punched parts, and are acceptable for use.
The analysis of fatigue life in these remaining parts is based on peak stress, from test data that
uses worst-case outliers and statistical offsets. The calculated expected life is much greater.
It is very unlikely a fatigue crack should ever develop. However, should that happen RV structure
will allow for ample time to inspect and correct. This will not alter the useful life of the aircraft.
Annual inspections of structure provide an opportunity to detect fatigue cracks, which can be
corrected (typically stop-drilled), allowing the aircraft to remain in service. In addition, residual
strength testing has demonstrated that in the rare case fatigue cracks ever develop in secondary
structure there is minimal risk.
In essence: It will be just fine 
I’m surprised at how resilient Vans is regarding their stand on this. IMO this can only mean they have been talking to lots of customers, and most of those find this solution to be OK. The internet on the other hand
What they are saying is that:
This is essentially OK from an engineering/airworthy point of view, which is all that matters really. But it’s probably not what the “consumer oriented” persons are all that happy with. Also good to read that no customers have received any quick built kits with cracks apparently.
LeSving wrote:
Also good to read that no customers have received any quick built kits with cracks apparently.
That is BS from Van’s, pure and simple. Once a wing kit is advanced to the QB stage, there is no way it is possible to inspect every rivet. Even if you could, the crack is often covered by the shop head of the rivet.
LeSving wrote:
I’m surprised at how resilient Vans is regarding their stand on this. IMO this can only mean they have been talking to lots of customers, and most of those find this solution to be OK.
There’s no reason to suspect they’ve been talking to customers. Why would they? Which customers?
What they’re saying is ‘trust us’, amid some very defensive language. Trust them…. the same people who took that awful decision in the first place, the same people who ran a system with zero parts traceability, zero QC, and ignored the feedback from customers for a whole year, doubling down on their dogma before finally admitting there was a problem. I have zero faith in their engineering report – they clearly have a financial incentive to reach the conclusions they have and I trust them no more than I’d trust any other supplier trying to get away with delivering a defective product.
I’m surprised at how resilient Vans is regarding their stand on this. IMO this can only mean they have been talking to lots of customers, and most of those find this solution to be OK
Another possibility is that they looked at it and thought that thing the right thing would bankrupt the company so wasn’t possible, and instead they would take the risk and hope for the best!
I hope that’s not it.
dublinpilot wrote:
the right thing
What would the right thing be, according to you (and others) ?
You have take into account what this is all about. You are building something from individual parts that eventually ends up in the open marked as an airworthy aircraft. Is this the marks of a consumer? I don’t think so. There are several stories about people who deliberately destroy or in other ways make their aircraft not airworthy when they for some reason don’t want to use it anymore. Why? Apparently because they do not want the responsibility involved in selling an aircraft they have made. Rather odd if you ask me, but perhaps they have understood a thing or two about human psychology and “consumerism” that so far has passed me by
The deal everybody makes with Vans is that Vans take care of the design, engineering, production of parts etc, while the builder builds the aircraft according to the design and with the parts, and with Vans as a consultant. There is nothing else. There is nothing more implied in it.
From a legal point of view, Vans is indeed holding up their end of the bargain. Everybody will eventually get what they signed up for. Vans did a big juicy mistake for sure, and lots of people are unhappy and angry, but that’s basically it.
LeSving wrote:
From a legal point of view, Vans is indeed holding up their end of the bargain.
I don’t think that is entirely accurate. Van’s is certainly doing something, but they will not have held up their end of the bargain until they’ve met (or successfully renegotiated) the terms of their purchase agreements with customers, particularly with those who purchased RV-14 kits. The RV-14 kits are advertised as follows:
https://www.vansaircraft.com/rv-14/
…The RV-14 entered the world firmly establishing new standards in completeness and accuracy. With these improvements, many builders have completed RV-14s in significantly less time than our other ‘driven-rivet’ RVs – some even in less than one year! All of the aluminum components are formed and pre-punched with all the rivet and bolt holes already in place and final-sized. The “matched-hole” punching technology makes the airframe essentially self-jigging: when you insert cleco clamps and all the holes line up, you know the airframe is straight….
As we have clearly seen through direct observation and identification data provided by Van’s, it is obvious that laser cut parts are not punched parts. Laser cut parts are also not functionally equivalent to punched parts because laser cut parts have a high propensity (> 90%) of cracking when dimpled (punched parts do not). This means a builder has to spend extra time in his or her build to either file out or stop-drill cracks to make a cracked part questionably functional. The result is significantly more build time versus the advertised “significantly less” time required to achieve completion while using acceptability criteria that lacks conformity with aviation standards.
Unless they have released clarifying information since the Sep 25 update and release of the parts portal, it appears as though Van’s may be expecting customers to pay to replace laser cut parts Van’s have deemed “Acceptable for Use” as a result of their testing. In other words, it appears – hopefully I am wrong – they will be asking customers like me who purchased three RV-14 kits (empennage, wings, fuselage) that were delivered with 317 laser cut parts to purchase at least 195 of those same parts again ($2,750 + tax and shipping).
