Graham wrote:
I don’t think there’s anything particularly odd about the dimples
The metal around the dimple itself is completely deformed. One additional round protrusion is visible. Could of course be a picture artifact, but they can be seen on several. There is other goofiness as well. Look at the thick member that appears to be sandwiched in between two thinner members. The edge appears rough as coming directly from a laser cut or a saw. That may, or may not be a structural thing, but I mean, it’s clearly not according to best practice, and makes it hard to impossible to detect a crack. Rough edges are also bad for corrosion. Then there is the lack of priming, which is OK, if you live and fly in the Arizona desert 
Obviously Van’s has created a big mess with their laser cut parts This is greatly enhanced by the internet.
I think you’re struggling with seeing the picture and visualising what’s actually there. It looks normal to me, although very crisp.
I don’t know what you mean about the metal seeming deformed. A dimple has an outer diameter and an inner diameter, both are clearly visible to me.
See the enlarged picture in post number 72. I have made a million dimples, and they are all perfectly smooth. No marks of tools or odd shapes. The dimples in that picture looks weird, as if something else than a dimple die has been used, or a wrong die. It could be the picture of course.
I also wonder about the thickness of the sheet in question. From the ones on the vertical edges, you can see that the sheet is comparable in thickness to the squeezed rivet. That thickness is optimally 1/2 of 3/32 which is 0.047 inches. The max thickness for dimple is 0.032 if I remember correctly.
I don’t understand what you mean by crisp.
@Graham. Don’t be discouraged about people dismissing your concerns. There is 4 types of people invested in this.
1) people that have aircraft/kits that don’t have these parts, therefore only care about Van’s reputation and not your concerns.
2) people who are not affected by this, as of yet, but are mid build and concerned about the availability of future kits.
3) people who are minorly affected by this and may still be in denial.
4) people who are majorly affected by this and may still be in denial.
Unfortunately we are vastly outnumbered by the first 3 groups. The PR nightmare from this if going to be long lasting. I can say with confidence that my trust in Van’s has been shattered. At the very least this will affect resale of aircraft with 2022 kits. Apparently there are already people asking to buy components except from 2022 kits.
P.S.
Sorry VAF was censoring your concerns. Some people can’t handle open conversation
Looked a bit around at VAF and Van’s. What a complete mess
This is Van’s official info and path of fixing. Important to read that one to get a better picture of what’s going on.
My take on this (after reading that info from Van’s, and corresponding thread at VAF), is:
A highly unfortunate event. But it’s not the end of the world by any means for anyone.
@LeSving wrote:
A highly unfortunate event. But it’s not the end of the world by any means for anyone.
Definitely not the end of the world, but since I suspect you are in group one without an iron in the fire, I really don’t think you know what it’s like for people that have spent 1,000 hours on kits with laser cut parts.
If we are told we have to rebuild these kits that will be 1,000 hours of lost time plus the 1.5 years I had to wait and store a empennage for them to retool into laser equipment. I don’t know about you, but I value my time.
If they just have a service bulletin to inspect these parts would you purchase an affected aircraft second hand? Knowing it’s nearly impossible to inspect some areas and builders are not initially noticing cracks then going back and saying up to 30% of their dimples have cracks.
RV8Bob wrote:
Definitely not the end of the world, but since I suspect you are in group one without an iron in the fire, I really don’t think you know what it’s like for people that have spent 1,000 hours on kits with laser cut parts.
At least they can blame someone I could only blame myself when I had to build a new horizontal tail on the -4 due to my saggy jig
You are missing the big picture. Each builder is the producer of their aircraft. Van’s is NOT the producer. Van’s is only selling the design along with bits and pieces. This situation is not very different from the 737 MAX episode. The main difference is that, although late, the errors were discovered, and is being fixed before any aircraft is killing people. These are aircraft, they are not sofas from IKEA. These things happen from time to time. You should also keep in mind that whatever Van’s eventually ends up with in terms of faulty parts, they do not have the last word here. The builder has.
Aviation authorities all around the world are also following this. Van’s is the world’s largest player in the kit industry. Looking at how they now handle the situations (much better than Boeing with MCAS, or NASA with the Space Shuttle accident), this is a big thumbs up.
I still agree with Graham though. The lack of QA is staggering, like it has not been present – at all. My experience is that it’s only in parts of Europe and in Japan that you can expect that. Even with this episode, I really don’t think Van’s will improve in that respect. It is also a bit worrying this “fatigue testing” that supposedly was done up front. What was that all about when looking at the situation as it is today?
LeSving wrote:
You are missing the big picture. Each builder is the producer of their aircraft. Van’s is NOT the producer.
You are missing the big picture. Van’s IS the producer of parts and there is a level of trust people have that they will be delivered a quality product. Right now that is in question. When Van’s says “in the aerospace industry laser cutting hasn’t been allowed in the past, but we have a good engineer…” does that mean they are the first to cut HOLES with lasers. I don’t know about you but I didn’t sign up to be the launch customer and test pilot for laser cut holes. True we do have the last word and maybe we trusted Van’s too much hoping they would use proven methods, but it’s hard to stop mid build with so much time and money invested.
Comparing this to the 737 MAX tragedy may be accurate but is setting the bar very low. Both companies did ignore warnings for a year until it could not be ignored any further.
You make it sound like we should be happy if Van’s sends us a block of aluminum with the instructions, build airplane. Sorry but there is an expectation of quality from Van’s and builders pay a premium for it.
RV8Bob wrote:
You make it sound like we should be happy if Van’s sends us a block of aluminum with the instructions, build airplane. Sorry but there is an expectation of quality from Van’s and builders pay a premium for it.
“There is an expectation of quality” – OK. Define that expectation in terms of relevant industry standards used in production- and assessment of quality of parts used by amateurs when they build a specific aircraft design in their homes and garages. You will not find any such standard because such a standard does not exist.
This discussion is very much like discussing laws in a society that has no laws. The only place where you “by proxy”, sort of, would get such a standard, are typically kit versions of factory produced UL and LSA aircraft. The RV-12 is the closest you will get from Van’s. For engines, this is normally how it is done. The most popular engines are non-certified versions of Rotax and Lycoming. They are identical (practically speaking) to the certified versions, but come with “no paperwork”. What does “no paperwork” even mean? Think about that for a while.
What you get from most kit manufacturer is (what you pay for):
End of story is that you are firmly stuck with whatever “quality” Van’s chooses to send out. You have no saying in the matter, and there are no applicable standards you can use to define your expectation of quality. That’s the way it is. Not that long ago experimental aircraft were built from plans, and those plans were often just copies of copies of some scribbling on a tissue. What you get from Van’s is a million times better.
I understand what you mean. You would hope for some level of quality, especially some procedures regarding QA of what they deliver. I am sure that many at Van’s are banging their heads over that right now too. Maybe they will improve after this episode, but I would not put much money in that happening. Their designs are superb, and their kits are usually OK. What they do right now however, in full openness truly working the problem, is fantastic.
If you want a high quality kit, the Carbon Cub is supposed to be very much it. But so are also most of the European kits. The price is a few notches higher as well.
Isn’t the saying that EXPERIMENTAL is a combination of experiment and mental
From Van’s aircraft;
“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.“
@LeSving wrote;
Define that expectation in terms of relevant industry standards used in production- and assessment of quality of parts used by amateurs when they build a specific aircraft design in their homes and garages.
I’m not trying to argue that a legal industrial standard exists. I am unaware of any, but feel that could be argued about nearly everything and probably keeps courts busy
I am however certain this will be tried in the court of public opinion and it’s not looking good. VAF was unable to censor the flood of concerns on this one and now past issues are also getting through.
“What you get from Van’s is a million times better.” At this point I would rather not have pre punched holes than laser cut ones. I would expect to pay a lot less as well.
