[dstates]

We've been told an update is coming about laser cut parts and it looks like in a document given to the court yesterday they told the court an update to customers will be soon...

From section #6 of the status report filed 1/2/24 talking about how they are attempting to predict future revenues they include an excerpt from an email from Van to the current bankruptcy CEO:

 

[calvid]

On page 6 of that document, it looks like they plan to spend 75k to 110k a week on LCP remediation for the next several months, starting immediately. Maybe parts will be going out soon.

 

[N82VM]

I see they left out the details of when the offer to replace and when kit’s stopped shipping actually occurred. Without that context it completely changes how it reads. Looks much better to the uninformed as it implies these actions may have taken place closer to late 2022 as opposed to much much later in 2023. Wonder if the Judge is aware shipping went on for a LONG time after they were aware.

 

[Wrench]

I see they left out the details of when the offer to replace and when kit’s stopped shipping actually occurred. Without that context it completely changes how it reads. Looks much better to the uninformed as it implies these actions may have taken place closer to late 2022 as opposed to much much later in 2023. Wonder if the Judge is aware shipping went on for a LONG time after they were aware.

Dead on ! Judge has no idea...

 

[Lucmac]

I see they left out the details of when the offer to replace and when kit’s stopped shipping actually occurred. Without that context it completely changes how it reads. Looks much better to the uninformed as it implies these actions may have taken place closer to late 2022 as opposed to much much later in 2023. Wonder if the Judge is aware shipping went on for a LONG time after they were aware.

That is exactly what came to mind the instant i read that passage last night in the new court filing. This is misleading info to the court.

 

[airguy]

The court is only concerned with the finance side of getting the company out of Chapter 11. This is NOT a criminal or civil action against Vans.

 

[mstrauss]

Vans not replacing all structural LCP!

To me the biggest concern I read from the document, is that Vans will not be replacing all structural LCP. They will only be replacing the highly loaded parts based on the analysis they performed, of which, we have received very little detail.

I've been holding out hope that after all the negative responses from builders not wanting to use any structural LCP, Vans would have realized the reputation impact, and would replace any structural LCP requested by the builder. Very very disappointed to read this. It's now looks as though impacted builders will be adding thousands more to there build to get all the structural parts replaced.

If this is the direction they plan to go, they really need to release all the analysis data, tools and techniques used in the testing. let the builder community review what was done, and determine if they have it right. If you think about it, it's like getting a whole other set of skilled engineering eyes (many in the Vans builder community) on the analysis, free of charge.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

If this is the direction they plan to go, they really need to release all the analysis data, tools and techniques use in the testing. let the builder community review what was done, and determine if they have it right. If you think about it, it's like getting a whole other set of skilled engineering eyes (many in the Vans builder community) on the analysis, free of charge.

And a much, much greater number of unskilled, uninformed internet expert eyes on the analysis.......might make the legacy primer discussions look elementary by comparison.

 

[mstrauss]

And a much, much greater number of unskilled, uninformed internet expert eyes on the analysis.......might make the legacy primer discussions look elementary by comparison.

And would that be so bad about that? As a whole, I don't think there are to many blithering idiots building, and flying airplanes. There are a lot of very intelligent and, skilled people in this community, and they have a lot to offer. Yes, some are very opinionated, and stubborn at times. However, I find that in these vigorous debates, the cream does rise to the top, and reasonable people looking at the facts, are able to find that cream.

 

[gotyoke]

I agree this reads like Van's reacted to the LCP thing quickly when they in fact did not. May be inconsequential, as long as the cost and timeline to remediate is accurate.

It definitely reads like Van's will be replacing only the red and yellow parts for free. At least they acknowledged they originally said they would replace all LCPs for free if the customer requested it, which is something they've yet to do in open forum. It would be great if they just came out and said "We originally told you we would replace all LCPs for free for customers who requested it, but we cannot financially do that anymore, so we sincerely apologize for making a commitment we could not uphold."

I hope the update they eventually give us says they are ramping up production of all LCP parts, not just the red and yellow ones, because I'll be looking to replace many, even, begrudgingly, if I have to pay full price, and I know I'm not alone. I'm very concerned about a parts shortage if they just do normal production runs of green and blue parts.

 

[lr172]

And a much, much greater number of unskilled, uninformed internet expert eyes on the analysis.......might make the legacy primer discussions look elementary by comparison.

agreed. Do not believe that aircraft engineering should be crowd sourced from self-proclaimed experts on the internet. Many months in and I still can't believe that this group trusts vans for 99% of the engineering in the plane but vehemently call BS on the engineering associated with the LCP parts. Sorry guys but you either trust all of the engineering decisions they made for you or you don't; Just can't imagine a middle ground here. If you think they are feeding you BS on the LCP parts, how could you possibly trust the other 1000's of engineering decisions they have made on your behalf? Deburring holes and using a microscope for finding cracks is not the same as engineering or structural analysis. Following the mantra of cracks are bad is pointless. Vans took a wing and cut all of the ribs in half and stress tested it. Went beyond the structural load limit. Clearly there is more to the story than all cracks are bad. THey also published pictures of a part with a dimple crack, then stressed it well beyond the limits and a new, different crack formed right next to the original vs expanding the original. How much evidence do we really need here that this may not be BS?

 

[mstrauss]

agreed. Do not believe that aircraft engineering should be crowd sourced from self-proclaimed experts that likely can't spell aeronautical engineering or finite element analysis. Many months in and I still can't believe that this group trusts vans for 99% of the engineering in the plane but vehemently call BS on the engineering associated with the LCP parts. Sorry guys but you either trust all of the engineering decisions they made for you or you don't. If you think they are feeding you BS on the LCP parts, how could you possibly trust the other 1000's of engineering decisions they have made on your behalf? Deburring holes and using a microscope for finding cracks is not the same as engineering.

I wouldn't say I don't trust the engineering team as a whole, but this is a little different then updating a structure for cost savings. The new practice fundamentally goes counter to the norms, and best practice provided by Vans. I don't wish to open a debate on the subject in this thread. All I am trying to say, is when the engineering team changes best practice to something opposite to what they have said all along, it gives one pause, and it is very reasonable to ask, how did you come up with that. In the end, what is the harm in providing the information? Does it open Vans to some additional liability? Based on the waiver I just signed, I don't see it.

 

[lr172]

I wouldn't say I don't trust the engineering team as a whole, but this is a little different then updating a structure for cost savings. The new practice fundamentally goes counter to the norms, and best practice provided by Vans. I don't wish to open a debate on the subject in this thread. All I am trying to say, is when the engineering team changes best practice to something opposite to what they have said all along, it gives one pause, and it is very reasonable to ask, how did you come up with that. In the end, what is the harm in providing the information? Does it open Vans to some additional liability? Based on the waiver I just signed, I don't see it.

True, but they spent $5M with high end material science labs confirming that this change in protocol was safe and within the structural limits of all components. It is not like some guy stood up in a meeting and said lets just call it safe so we can spare the expense of shipping new parts. They took pretty extraordinary steps to insure that it was safe. I just don't see how joe average says nah, I know better than those material science guys with their advanced degrees and their million dollar test gear. I just KNOW that cracks are bad.

 

[Jack_G_S]

"In late 2022, Debtor first became aware of cracks forming around dimpled laser cut holes, and Debtor reacted with caution by offering to replace the laser manufactured parts it had supplied with many kits. It ceased shipping kits with laser manufactured parts.”

At least they are admitting they knew about this in 2022 but to imply they immediately stopped shipping and offered replacement parts then instead of July 2023, WOW.

 

[Brian_G]

agreed. Do not believe that aircraft engineering should be crowd sourced from self-proclaimed experts that likely can't spell aeronautical engineering or finite element analysis. Many months in and I still can't believe that this group trusts vans for 99% of the engineering in the plane but vehemently call BS on the engineering associated with the LCP parts. Sorry guys but you either trust all of the engineering decisions they made for you or you don't. If you think they are feeding you BS on the LCP parts, how could you possibly trust the other 1000's of engineering decisions they have made on your behalf? Deburring holes and using a microscope for finding cracks is not the same as engineering.

I'm nothing more than an interested observer that loved the RV-4 I owned before life moved on and my mission changed, but I've seen this line of thinking here several times and everytime it strikes me how much it ignores the human nature involved. We know now that the LCP fiasco was the last thing that pushed a financially struggling company into bankruptcy. The testing was outsourced but the final decisions involved and the implementation of any indicated fixes was all Vans, was it not? You don't have to be a nefarious actor (and please note that I don't believe anyone at Vans was) to be influenced by that. It would be near impossible to act in an unbiased manner with your back against the wall like theirs was and is.

That pressure wasn't there with the other 99% of engineering decisions referenced.

Doesn't mean you can't reasonably decide to trust them on this, but it's also not so unreasonable to be unwilling to just accept them at their word. Especially when documents like the one several posts above have the appearance of a current Vans Aircraft that's somewhat generous in their self-assessments.

 

[Jack_G_S]

True, but they spent $5M with high end material science labs confirming that this change in protocol was safe and within the structural limits of all components. It is not like some guy stood up in a meeting and said lets just call it safe so we can spare the expense of shipping new parts. They took pretty extraordinary steps to insure that it was safe. I just don't see how joe average says nah, I know better than those material science guys with their advanced degrees and their million dollar test gear. I just KNOW that cracks are bad.

Try not to think of it as Van’s engineers vs ignorant builders. Try to think of it more like embattled Van’s engineers vs thousands of FAA engineers.

It will be interesting in the future now that all of this is being written in court documents. I have a feeling they will be brought up for many years

 

[Jonnyb]

I'm nothing more than an interested observer that loved the RV-4 I owned before life moved on and my mission changed, but I've seen this line of thinking here several times and everytime it strikes me how much it ignores the human nature involved. We know now that the LCP fiasco was the last thing that pushed a financially struggling company into bankruptcy. The testing was outsourced but the final decisions involved and the implementation of any indicated fixes was all Vans, was it not? You don't have to be a nefarious actor (and please note that I don't believe anyone at Vans was) to be influenced by that. It would be near impossible to act in an unbiased manner with your back against the wall like theirs was and is.

That pressure wasn't there with the other 99% of engineering decisions referenced.

Doesn't mean you can't reasonably decide to trust them on this, but it's also not so unreasonable to be unwilling to just accept them at their word. Especially when documents like the one several posts above have the appearance of a current Vans Aircraft that's somewhat generous in their self-assessments.

That’s quite an accusation.

I would be very very surprised if Vans have done something unsafe due to financial pressures.

 

[mstrauss]

True, but they spent $5M with high end material science labs confirming that this change in protocol was safe and within the structural limits of all components. It is not like some guy stood up in a meeting and said lets just call it safe so we can spare the expense of shipping new parts. They took pretty extraordinary steps to insure that it was safe. I just don't see how joe average says nah, I know better than those material science guys with their advanced degrees and their million dollar test gear. I just KNOW that cracks are bad.

Wow, $5M was spent on the analysis, are we sure about that? If so, would it have been cheaper to just replace all the parts?

The other interesting part in all this is that even with the analysis, vans has decided it best to stop using LCP. Not sure if that is due to cost, customer concern, or a desire to pull this back in house for better control.

In the end, if Vans recommendations are followed, there will be a small group of RVs that are experiments. We will be guinea pigs, with every plane before and after using punched parts. Maybe some just don't want to be a guinea pig. There is something to be said about staying with the tried and true, this is aviation after all.

I am not saying anything that others haven't already, so sorry for the repeat. I just think it's unfair to be made the experiment.

 

[Bavafa]

Let's say there are two near identical RV for sale. One has LCP parts that VANS said it is OK and the other RV has no LCP parts and the price is the same. Which one you are going to buy?

 

[Brian_G]

That’s quite an accusation.

I would be very very surprised if Vans have done something unsafe due to financial pressures.

Please don't read my comment as an accusation that they would intentionally do something unsafe or put people at risk. I don't think that at all and tried to make that clear. I do, however, think it's human nature for our decisions to be influenced by the situation in which they're made, consciously or not. The LCP decisions were not made in the same environment or with the same motivations that the rest of the engineering decisions were, so we ought to (in my opinion, which with no skin in the game doesn't really matter, but it is the internet) give some grace to those who don't trust them the same.

 

[Jonnyb]

Please don't read my comment as an accusation that they would intentionally do something unsafe or put people at risk. I don't think that at all and tried to make that clear. I do, however, think it's human nature for our decisions to be influenced by the situation in which they're made, consciously or not. The LCP decisions were not made in the same environment or with the same motivations that the rest of the engineering decisions were, so we ought to (in my opinion, which with no skin in the game doesn't really matter, but it is the internet) give some grace to those who don't trust them the same.

I apologise, I miss understood your comment.

You’re absolutely right, if money were no object then all the LCP parts and assemblies would have been replaced.

That doesn’t, however, make the parts unfit for use.

There is another comment above about resale, and I think that is a real issue. The perception of LCP parts is not good, and is very unlikely to change.

My own opinion, for what it’s worth, is if you can change them then do. If they are buried deep down in a in a built assembly and vans says they’re ok, then I would leave well alone.

 

[Sam Buchanan]

When we see so many RVs being purchased by very uninformed buyers with no or very cursory prebuy inspections I have to wonder how much LCP will actually impact the market once the firestorm has passed.....

 

[Mark Dickens]

When we see so many RVs being purchase by very unimformed buyers with no or very cursory prebuy inspections I have to wonder how much LCP will actually impart the market once the firestorm has passed.....

Agree...I wonder how many RVs are flying with their builders/owners blissfully unaware of how many rivet holes have cracks due to their ham handed drilling and deburring techniques? Vans (for all of their questionable business practices) at least designed well engineered kits that can be built by amateurs and flown safely even with less than stellar technique. I always recall someone at vans pointing out that we're "building a lawnmower, not a Swiss watch".

 

[wsquare]

Who's making the decisions?

@Brian_G said: "Doesn't mean you can't reasonably decide to trust them on this, but it's also not so unreasonable to be unwilling to just accept them at their word. Especially when documents like the one several posts above have the appearance of a current Vans Aircraft that's somewhat generous in their self-assessments."

Remember to keep in mind who is making the decisions and publishing the documents. It is not Vans. All customers in the middle of this BK need to realize that attorneys contracted by Vans are making the decisions, and crafting the language in any documents. Part of the agreement provides full authority to the attorneys running the show.

As a customer, you are not dealing with Vans. You are dealing with BK attorneys that have only one motivation in mind. To get paid. Of course, Vans is in the background, and can try to advocate for a particular position on an issue, but the attorneys will have the final say. Personally, I would sign modified agreement(s), pay added expense (if I could afford the added cost), to keep my project moving forward, and then immediately file a claim to recover increased cost beyond my original expectations, with one of many of my claims being that the steps that I took to protect my original investment were done under duress, with the fear of losing my original investment. The worst that can happen is the judge tosses the claim.

Customers are not dealing with Vans, customers are dealing with attorneys that don't necessarily have the customer's best interest in mind.

 

[Everwild]

Blue and other impacted parts at a discount

I was happy with the last deal they offered if they follow through with it.

Last deal I remember was they would replace red and yellow free of charge, and offer blue parts, and parts damaged in the process of disassembly at some discount.

The LCP portal page seemed fairly well organized. Hope they open it up and get on with shipping out parts.

 

[Paul Thomas]

Wow, $5M was spent on the analysis, are we sure about that? If so, would it have been cheaper to just replace all the parts?

The other interesting part in all this is that even with the analysis, vans has decided it best to stop using LCP. Not sure if that is due to cost, customer concern, or a desire to pull this back in house for better control.

In the end, if Vans recommendations are followed, there will be a small group of RVs that are experiments. We will be guinea pigs, with every plane before and after using punched parts. Maybe some just don't want to be a guinea pig. There is something to be said about staying with the tried and true, this is aviation after all.

I am not saying anything that others haven't already, so sorry for the repeat. I just think it's unfair to be made the experiment.

Where does the $5 millions figure come from? I believe I saw write down of 9 millions on the balance sheet.

With the bk, I'm shocked that LPC replacement are still going to be sent out. No idea whether I'll get some parts, but I sure didn't expect any from a bk.

 

[jimbom]

I'm shocked that LPC replacement are still going to be sent out. No idea whether I'll get some parts, but I sure didn't expect any from a bk.

I really think that Van's will do their (financial) best to make the LCP thing right. Regardless, nothing prevents any of us from filing a claim in the bankruptcy to recoup what Van's owes us. Then it's up to the courts to divy up proceeds available to be paid back to all creditors over whatever term is decided upon.

My understanding is that any and all claims have to be filed by mid-Feb (except for 3rd party engine, prop and avionic claims that have yet to be addressed.)

 

[GregInIdaho]

...My understanding is that any and all claims have to be filed by mid-Feb (except for 3rd party engine, prop and avionic claims that have yet to be addressed.)

Yes, I am not sure if that is true or not. ALL claims must be filed by mid-Feb. We have been told we won't know about the terms of these 3rd party issues until late January. I see nothing at this time where our deadline is extended for 3rd party claims???

 

[dstates]

I've mentioned here and directly to Vans that if they want people to accept their statement that LCP's are no concern in most locations that they need to share more info on how that decision was made. Rian's presentation at Oshkosh was pretty informative and I was amazed that Vans didn't send that out to all of the LCP affected customers. They need to have Rian continue his presentation and explain what they learned. The very last statement in the document says that they are working on a video to discuss LCP testing. I hope it is detailed enough.

Unfortunately the document didn't talk about when they are going to open up the LCP portal again so we can get orders in for replacements. They talk about sending out replacements this month and their budgets show it, but how are they going to do that if they don't give us a chance to finalize the list of parts we need?

 

[spatsch]

Personally, I would sign modified agreement(s), pay added expense (if I could afford the added cost), to keep my project moving forward, and then immediately file a claim to recover increased cost beyond my original expectations, with one of many of my claims being that the steps that I took to protect my original investment were done under duress, with the fear of losing my original investment. The worst that can happen is the judge tosses the claim.

Please talk to a lawyer before filing the claim. What will happen is that Vans will have to pay a lawyer to argue that your claim will be thrown out (you are not under duress in a legal sense even if it might feel that way). That lawyer will probably charge 2-3k$ for that effort which will reduce the settlement the people with legitimate claims get.

If everybody files claims with little chance of success all the money will go to the lawyers with nothing left for the people with real claims... . The lawyers would certainly love that outcome.

Oliver

 

[Snowflake]

Let's say there are two near identical RV for sale. One has LCP parts that VANS said it is OK and the other RV has no LCP parts and the price is the same. Which one you are going to buy?

Which one has primer?

 

[lr172]

When we see so many RVs being purchased by very uninformed buyers with no or very cursory prebuy inspections I have to wonder how much LCP will actually impart the market once the firestorm has passed.....

I agree with this. I have done numerous prebuys and have seen things WAY worse than a cracked dimple. Last one I did, I found peeling and floating slosh in the tanks. Also found one of the fuel vents fully plugged (there were several leaks that were acting as vents). There is some scarry stuff out there and uneducated buyers would likely be better with a well built plane with LCP parts than some of the horrors I have seen.

I helped a widow sell a 9 at our airport. Guy finds a mechanic for the CI and prebuy. He had never seen an RV before. He looks at the engine for 5 minutes, does a compression test then sits down in a lawn chair and says where is the logbook, as were done. I felt bad for the guy, so spent a full day doing a prebuy for him. I gave a thorough inspection and reported all issues even though I was essentially selling it. Don't suspect that is common.

I have seen what most buyers are thinking at purchase time and feel all of this resale concern is not realistic. Sure, if you come to VAF every day you would be concerned, but the vast majority of buyers have never heard of VAF and others just do a cursory review and maybe post a WTB.


Larry

 

[lr172]

Where does the $5 millions figure come from?

IIRC, it was quoted by Van during the initial video he did. Possibly it was in the first formal document before the BK announcement or possibly in the one of the press articles written pre-BK. I distinctly remember the number, as I was shocked that they would spend that much, but just can't recall the source.

 

[Dr_Dave_MT]

Which one has primer?

Oh, Boy! Here we go....

 

[RV7A Flyer]

The court is only concerned with the finance side of getting the company out of Chapter 11. This is NOT a criminal or civil action against Vans.

That doesn't mean that an attorney can knowingly mislead the court by including such information in a filing.

 

[MIKE JG]

Van's email states that in late 2022, when they became aware of the issues with LCP's, that they ceased shipping kits.

What that paragraph does not say is WHEN they finally ceased shipping LCP's. The way Dick's email reads, one would be led to believe they ceased shipping kits with LCP's in them in late 2022 which is clearly not the case. Mind you those are excerpts from an email so I don't believe that's the same thing as directly telling the court they stopped at a certain date.

Does anyone outside of Van's actually know when the last kit went out with LCP's in it?? I know it went well into 2023.

 

[ccarlson]

Does anyone outside of Van's actually know when the last kit went out with LCP's in it?? I know it went well into 2023.

I don’t know the answer to your question, but, as a point of reference, my wing and fuselage kits were shipped April 20, 2023, and there were 220 LCP between them.

 

[bertschb]

Does anyone outside of Van's actually know when the last kit went out with LCP's in it??

I picked up my -14A wing kit on May 30th and it had 82 LCP's.

 

[Snowflake]

I have seen what most buyers are thinking at purchase time and feel all of this resale concern is not realistic. Sure, if you come to VAF every day you would be concerned, but the vast majority of buyers have never heard of VAF and others just do a cursory review and maybe post a WTB.

As you pointed out, most won't do the kind of detailed pre-buy that you and I would deem reasonable, and they'll miss any number of non-LCP issues that they really *should* be aware of, because they are less well known and usually apply to all RV's equally.

LCP applies to a specific window of RV's, and given the high profile of the LCP issue, i'd be surprised if these same buyers don't latch onto it and use it to (try to) drive an asking price down, even if there are no actual issues due to it on the airframe. An Estate selling the airplane wouldn't know enough to argue.

 

[MJarreau]

An Estate selling the airplane wouldn't know enough to argue.

Good point. Then great care should be take to document parts identified and replaced, parts identified and not replaced along with reasons.

Mike

 

[Avi8shun Addict]

QB Kits With LCP

Maybe I've missed it but I've read nothing on what happens to those who purchased quick build kits that have LCP in them.

 

[jimbom]

Maybe I've missed it but I've read nothing on what happens to those who purchased quick build kits that have LCP in them.

There's indication that Van's is reworking QBs they possess, but I've heard nothing about them dealing with QBs that are in customers' possession.

 

[Bavafa]

Which one has primer?

I did say near identical, didn't I? Both have primers

 

[Bavafa]

I agree with this. I have done numerous prebuys and have seen things WAY worse than a cracked dimple. Last one I did, I found peeling and floating slosh in the tanks. Also found one of the fuel vents fully plugged (there were several leaks that were acting as vents). There is some scarry stuff out there and uneducated buyers would likely be better with a well built plane with LCP parts than some of the horrors I have seen.

I helped a widow sell a 9 at our airport. Guy finds a mechanic for the CI and prebuy. He had never seen an RV before. He looks at the engine for 5 minutes, does a compression test then sits down in a lawn chair and says where is the logbook, as were done. I felt bad for the guy, so spent a full day doing a prebuy for him. I gave a thorough inspection and reported all issues even though I was essentially selling it. Don't suspect that is common.

I have seen what most buyers are thinking at purchase time and feel all of this resale concern is not realistic. Sure, if you come to VAF every day you would be concerned, but the vast majority of buyers have never heard of VAF and others just do a cursory review and maybe post a WTB.


Larry

I agree there are some RV out there that maybe in worse shape then one with the LCP but I would imagine their price reflects on their condition.

My point earlier was that a RV with LCP will probably fetches less money or sells harder then another without. This unfortunate reality is not due to the sloppy work of the builder but as a result of VANS lack of due diligence or 'Making things right' for the customer.

 

[MV-RVer]

LCP, what is the solution going forward?

As an Engineer of over 40yrs in Aero, Semi and Structural fields I find that after the LCP issue has now been thoroughly evaluated it is clear that these parts represent a minor issue to the longevity and safety of an over-designed RV. I'm in the camp of observation, not rebuilding an entire plane due to unfounded fears. What I haven't been hearing about is the cause and solution of management systems that allowed this oversight to occur. A lack of appreciation to a quality control system and management of outside vendors which made the company vulnerable. In future communication, to bring peace to present and future customers, a method of managing these two components of the manufacturing process is necessary. These are present in all mid to large companies performing this type of work. It does add cost, but so does having a $M of parts going to a scrap bin. So, along with an MRP system, this is going to be an awesome company with an amazing product. Blessing to hard workers at Van's.

Back to work...

 

[howardtlcc]

Video Roundtable

KITPLANES Roundtable on Van's Laser-Cut Parts Tech Briefing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26-2g-rgkLo

Howard

 

[N82VM]

I’m in the camp of “why monitor when you can build with non LCP”. I am fortunate that I only have one assembly to rebuild and I will rebuild it. I will have to wait on non-LCP parts to press forward. My analysis of these analysis is that my leg is wet but it’s not raining and you’re telling me it’s raining.

 

[Fltonc]

I’m in the camp of “why monitor when you can build with non LCP”. I am fortunate that I only have one assembly to rebuild and I will rebuild it. I will have to wait on non-LCP parts to press forward. My analysis of these analysis is that my leg is wet but it’s not raining and you’re telling me it’s raining.

My thoughts exactly. What puzzles me is that most are not asking simple questions. LCP resulted in irregular holes and holes with divots. Of the holes with divots, some are minor divots and some a major divots. Van's says they tested representative parts from their inventory, but we don't know if they tested the truly bad parts that they want me to incorporate into my aircraft. I know for certain that Van's never reached out to me to say "please send me photos of your worst LCPs or please return to us your worst LCPs so we have a truly representative sample to test."

Van's also has released zero information from the third party testing that was done on the LCPs. Third party testing is great but it buys no confidence when you refuse to release the raw data.

Section 5: General Information of the Van's instructions says no deburring is necessary for holes punched to final size (RV -14). Do those instructions apply to the laser cut parts with irregular holes and divots? I'm an older guy with aging eyes. I followed the Section 5 instructions but I now know that the LCPs have rough edges and best practices suggest they should have been deburred. Did Van's testing take deburring (or the lack thereof) into account.

What about the longevity of LCPs that have already been incorporated into components that need to be completely torn down and then reconstructed. Did Van's test LCP parts that had been previously torn down by amateurs?

Section 5: General Information also tells us that "the second rivet that is driven in any one hole [is] likely to be more defective than the first because the hole is enlarged and [the] rivet will be more likely to buckle and form an imperfect head." Yet Van's is telling us to completely tear down and rebuild completed components to replace critical LCPs. How do they reconcile these statements?

Everyone in the community wants Vans to succeed but let's also recognize that they have an overwhelming financial incentive to get past the LCP problem and sacrificing 1800 kit customers may be a necessary step.

 

[calvid]

I got an email from Van's yesterday with a list of potential LCP in my kit. They asked me to mark off which ones I want replaced. Seems like things are moving forward...

 

[Lucmac]

I got an email from Van's yesterday with a list of potential LCP in my kit. They asked me to mark off which ones I want replaced. Seems like things are moving forward...

Similar to the previous emails with personal links and if so, was it set up the same way where they have a list of parts by color and show you the price of parts you want that aren’t covered for free as well as give you a list of rivets and other consumables you may need to select and the price for them too, etc?