All the talk about testing and engineering, and the credibility or otherwise of the folks doing it and commenting on it, is irrelevant anyway and totally missing the point. The core of the matter has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the parts are airworthy or not. I watched all the videos, and while there’s clearly a lot of experience on show I didn’t see much evidence of critical reasoning skills or anyone able to see the bigger picture. Missing the point was also on constant display. As I think @Dan pointed out, I felt the Kitplanes video was less impartial vindication and more a case of a bunch of likely cheerleaders and vested interests being rounded up to wave the flag.
This isn’t military, it isn’t public sector, it isn’t commercial aviation and it isn’t B2B – thus the problems aren’t solved by deep-dive engineering and compromise based on incurring the minimum expense necessary to ensure safety and functionality. It’s a simple retail manufacturing business, and retail customers are notoriously intolerant of being sent product which (a) isn’t as described, and (b) has features which all wisdom up until that point, including from the vendor, says are really bad.
The engineering-based damage-limitation approach is fine and wholly pragmatic for a aircraft in service. For an aircraft not yet built, where the simple alternative of not using defective parts exists, the approach is a very tough sell.
It’s too bad Van’s didn’t have anyone on board at the start who could have told them this. They spent so much time and money on trying to prove the point that it’d probably have been simpler and even cheaper just to replace all the parts. It certainly would have avoided the reputational damage they’ve suffered, and probably the bankruptcy too.
Time will tell whether this is over, although Van’s may think they’ve put the issue to bed. They’re not out of the woods yet – they have an awful lot of parts to ship and customers to satisfy, and a big pile of scrap QB kits needing remedial work. Remember that Chapter 11 easily collapses into Chapter 7 if the cash flow does not proceed per plan, and at the last checkpoint Van’s were about $1m behind their planned position after three weeks. Perhaps more information will become available after the creditors conference today.
gallois wrote:
do you mean there is no need for further discussion as long as you have the final word?
What I meant was it’s the end of my discussions on this topic, as it would be as fruitless as trying to convince flat earthers that the earth is a globe. That, and the very fact that end of it is reached. There’s nothing more to add. Things got messed up indeed, for sure. But, due to excellent work now in this particular case, and all the work that has previously been done in the design and production of these aircraft, it turns out everything fizzles out, leaving nothing of importance at all for aircraft safety and aircraft airworthiness. It is a non-issue, and it should be clear for everyone to see, if they only opened their eyes. An RV (and I must emphasize an RV exclusively here) built with LCP is equally safe to fly as an RV without LCP.
Any further discussions will IMO only be irrelevant musings of, I don’t know, self pity and self righteousness perhaps? And it’s all just poor excuses, because the real reason is an urge to hurt Vans. I for one will much rather have Vans around, and I don’t want to “feed the trolls” more than I already have been doing. The engineers and others at Vans I can relate to in my passion for aircraft, aircraft design and the spirit of aviation. Those “trolls” I have no urge to relate to whatsoever.
LeSving wrote:
An RV (and I must emphasize an RV exclusively here) built with LCP is equally safe to fly as an RV without LCP.
No argument from me on that – it’s undoubtedly true.
It’s not the point though, and failure to recognise that it isn’t the point is one of the single biggest reasons Van’s has gone bankrupt.
This has just popped up in my inbox. Don’t know how many of you are enrolled in the FAA WINGS program (and not sure if you need to be), but this might be of interest:
Buying a Used Vans RV Aircraft
Topic: Tips and tricks to navigate the purchase process of a Vans RV.
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 14:30 Central Standard Time (12:30 PST; 13:30 MST; 15:30 EST; 10:30 HST; 11:30 AKST; 13:30 Arizona; 20:30 GMT)
Link to the webinar and further info is here.
To add: I have absolutely no skin in this game, so consider this a public service announcement.
to stay on the thread’s path, here is KeithO’s take at it, directly off VAF, which IMHO is worth more than a read…:
I have been an engineer too for a long time. The product we work on also consists of thin material and welding, not riveted. And high heat (exhaust systems, DOC, DPF ECR etc as per post 2012 diesel emissions standards). Yes, simulation, FEA, coupon tests etc are ways to try to get a handle on risk, but for sure the best thing a builder can do is replace his parts with NON LCH ones. Of course Vans knows that many of the parts are already embedded in assemblies and this work was done in preparation for the lawsuits to come from people who do not want to continue with LCH parts in their airframes.
I think Vans is digging a grave for themselves with this issue. The problem is that wear and fatigue in a riveted airframe is not that easy to predict. Yes they have run standard joint configurations but in the airframe the load case can vary. Especially if the tension on the skin is slightly different on each builders airframe. Thus the best case scenario is to avoid built in cracks in the first place.
Its very likely that time in the field if we imagine 10+ years down the line that there may be numerous unaccounted for failure modes in the parts of the aircraft having these fractured parts. They may not be catastrophic, they only have to be bad enough to require remediation. Suddenly the airworthiness of the fleet is called into question. One can be virtually guaranteed that no-one will be able to prove whether or not their airframe is or is not impacted unless your airworthiness date is long before or after this disaster. Owners facing substantial cost or time commitment to replace failing structure in their airplanes. Worst for non builder owners who have to pay an A&P to potentially do the work. How many non builders own RVs today ? Plenty Im sure.
Especially as RVs get sold and owners are not the original builders. This LCH issue is going to cost owners a lot of money way down the line and will undermine the reputation once had by Vans
Dan wrote:
Yes, simulation, FEA, coupon tests etc are ways to try to get a handle on risk
I don’t know enough about the engineering side of it to take them to task on this directly, but having viewed all their material on the subject of testing LCPs I was left asking myself whether those tests reasonably reflect what a riveted joint undergoes in an aircraft in real-world use.
For instance, there was no mention of vibration or temperature. Nor any explanation of why, at each cycle of the machine, ‘one big stress’ applied in a particular way can reasonably be assumed to simulate the thousands of smaller and varied stresses that occur in a given hour of flight.
Van’s engineers are not impartial – their backs are against the wall. To those who say trust them, I simply say “MCAS”.
New update from Vans. They had a goal of 70% repurchasing of kits, which some said was a pipe dream. The result so far is 81%. In short, things are going well, much better than expected. IMO it’s good to see that the world has not yet gone completely off rail 
They also thank Lycoming, Hartzell and Dynon for all their extra effort. Not all that exceptional of course considering Vans is one of their largest, if not the largest customer, but very positive nonetheless.
Graham wrote:
I don’t know enough about the engineering side of it to take them to task on this directly
Well, any particular reason why you don’t study the only important part that really matters in this whole event? Nevertheless, you still feel knowledgeable enough to comment on it, hmm.
As far as I’m concerned this case is closed. The lid is on, and the nails are firmly hammered down (with proper edge distance ) Some people will of course never let it go, but that’s their problem.
Soooo?
IMO it’s good to see that the world has not yet gone completely off rail They also thank Lycoming, Hartzell and Dynon for all their extra effort.
A friend of mine makes wheels and brakes for Vans, has reduced their credit line but is now shipping smaller batches more regularly. It’s still a good volume in total. This arrangement was worked out equitably between the two companies and apparently Vans has a new purchasing agent who is an asset in that regard. Deliveries and (I’m told) payments continue on track.
Well, Greg and Dick look pretty pleased, relaxed and optimistic
I’m looking forward to join them in the mood when my engine, which I ordered and paid a deposit for beginning of February 22, is sitting safe in the workshop… until then I’ll be holding my breath and keep my fingers crossed…
