KITPLANES Roundtable on Van's Laser-Cut Parts Tech Briefing 

Same here, Mechanical and Aerospace engineer, design riveted shtmtl structures, and building a Onex right now (hope to build a Vans next). Their presentation was very interesting and well put together.

Great informative presentation. Would love to see this group take on more aviation issues.

It's a valid point. But some people will never be convinced no matter what you do either. And unfortunately we can't change the past. But definitely should be a learning lesson for any other companies out there, and they should think ahead how they intend to handle such a crisis of their own if it were to happen (and then strive to ensure it never happens).

@@SoloRenegade As an engineer myself, I am a big fan of having engineers run companies that make products or deliver technology. However, as I learned during my engineering career, most customers operate on emotion, not on logic. And it cases like this, engineers tend to revert to their logical nature and think that if they just provide customers enough data all will be well. Sadly, that is seldom successful unless you have a very technically savvy customer base. Most customers will view that as you being defensive and trying to justify your actions and not listening to them and taking their concerns seriously. This is the one case where I think a company led by engineers will fall on its face every time. Sometimes you just have to accept that it doesn’t matter if the parts really are perfectly fine. What matters is that your customers, whose money sustains your business, think the parts aren’t fine and you really need to respond with that perspective in mind. Often much less expensive in the long run to just give them equivalent parts that they think are fine rather than trying to convince them to change their perception.

Van's specified cutting paths that started and returned to the middle, as part of subcontracting these parts. Somewhere along the line, subcontractors started using other paths. Yes, Van's should have caught that in the QC. But your direct question is something that Van's as not addressed publicly. Likely there are legal reasons for that. Potential lawsuits about unauthorized cutting path changes, perhaps... (that is speculative.)

As far as we know, the laser-cut parts in question were done by an outside contractor.

@@KitplanesMagazine cut with incorrect toolpaths to mimic the defects?

@@jvtaylor3 Sorry, misunderstood the question. They did use the third-party parts in their testing.

Yes. This is touched on a number of times in the long presentation. @@jvtaylor3

nobody in the early years of Vans built airplanes based upon actual flight data. the engineering fatigue analysis is VALID equivalent to flight test. And Vans was overly conservative multiple times over in their testing. so what they say it can handle, is actually less than it can actually handle. People who don't understand engineering, should trust the engineers who've done valid testing with 3rd party oversight. Vans did testing, got outside feedback, followed decades of established testing, and allowed many expert observers to look over their shoulder at all the work/testing they did. Everyone has backed up Van's testing and conclusions. If you don't like it, then stay away from Experimental Aviation.

As a builder, I know that my (20+ year old RV6) plane has FAR MORE flaws that **I** introduced in my non-perfect construction than ANYTHING that I saw at Van's. This plane has over 2500 hours on it, has done years of airshows, has been "upside down" a few times, and has pulled more "G's" than probably 90+% of kit-built planes. Still going strong. And oh, the earlier kits were not PERFECT either. What I saw and felt at Van's FAR EXCEEDED what I thought I might see. The impression that I get from the presentations/videos that they have presented don't fully capture how much they have done and are doing. They are VERY conservative (in my opinion). They tested many, many samples ("coupons") to failure. The stress crack to failure were NOT from the LCP crack. The highest stress points were shown to be elsewhere in the dimpled area. And THAT stress area is what we have been flying to "+6.0/-3.0 G's" for 30+ years.

Except for the time to apply the adhesive and the difficulty of replacing parts (for any reason) with a bonded joint.

Two good reasons for stopping the use of LCP. First, while all this was going on, Van's added another punch press, which gave them needed capacity. Two, with that in mind, the outsourced LCPs were actually more expensive than punched parts.

@@KitplanesMagazine then why LCP in the first place if all they had to do was source a press? It wasn’t a short period of time that LCP was used and now they magically source a press. Nahh… there’s more here and this is all just CYA and you’re complicit.

@@djquick Short term you can use Laser Cut outsourcing to meet demands while you get more tooling. You're reading far too much into this, seeing conspiracies where there are none. You're letting your emotions, fear, and ignorance guide you, rather than listing to the experts and the scientific facts. Vans went above and beyond in their analysis of the laser cut parts.

@@SoloRenegade short term?1 😀1800 kits were laser cut! 😂

@@djquick you clearly have no understanding what "short term" means. 1800 parts is nothing. that is a very small order for any company. It can take months to buy new machines, grow shop space and hire people. In the meantime a laser cutter can crank out a lot of parts until the new tools, space, and employes are ready to take over again. Have you ever seen a commercial sheet metal fabrication facility? They crank out a lot of parts very quickly. I'm a Mechanical and Aersopace engineer and design shtmtl riveted structures for a living. My preferred sheet metal vendor can crank out 1800 parts in mere days.