This is not meant as a rhetorical question. Does anyone know of any field of endeavor that has resulted in more start up failures than aviation?

Isn't there an old adage that "If it flies, floats, or farts, don't invest in it."?

Jg

Uh, define "start-up" , 'cause Vans has 50 years behind them ...

Yes, high tech.

There are whole swaths of products that have thousands of companies involved that are totally gone in a few years.

Mike C.

The others said: "Charging too much for my product/service".

Mike C.

I believe there is another set of F’s, that says to only rent it.

Butch

Restaurants.

On another forum (not Vans), it was mentioned that the laser-cut rivet holes on the fast build kits were cracking when the builder tried to dimple them. (I'm no longer a member of Van's forum)

A former colleague of mine stopped by my hangar yesterday. He and I were discussing his concerns regarding the RV-10 he’s building.

He relayed the issue with cracks developing from laser cut parts.

We were both stunned. He, a metallurgist, and I, an aeronautical engineer, couldn’t believe it. The technical term facing these parts is recast, essentially burning of the metal (and resulting cracks) at the cut. It’s been a well-known issue within the aerospace industry for at least 35 years. There’s been an immense amount of time and effort funded by both industry and the Government to work this issue. It’s hard to believe any company currently working with laser cutting technology wouldn’t be aware of this problem AND know how to deal with it.

My colleague is waiting to see if he’ll be able to salvage his project.

I was at a friend's house today with a reject RV-14 quickbuild kit (sat on a dock in the Philippines for 2 years). Apparently they gave/sold them to employees and this one ended up in my friend's hangar for dirt cheap. Unquestionably it has light corrosion all over the airframe. It's certainly not unairworthy but you wouldn't accept this on a new airplane. The laser cut parts he showed me are total garbage. The rivet holes are not round and are very crude and burnt. I can see how they would crack when dimpled.

I don't see any possible financial way they can make this right with their existing customers. The only way out is to declare bankruptcy, discharge these liabilities and try to restore the faith of the market and sell new kits (will be a tough task after screwing their existing customers over).

Great machines and great for general aviation, I hope they pull through.

Laser cutting has some science to it. There are a couple of laser types available for sheet work, and then you can add a variety of gasses to the cut to reduce this sort of problem.

Laser cutting has some science to it. There are a couple of laser types available for sheet work, and then you can add a variety of gasses to the cut to reduce this sort of problem.

There are 1800 customers with LCP in their build and the cracking occurs after dimpling then riveting. Entire assemblies (tail sections, wings, etc) that have been built with these parts. It’s an unbelievable mess.

I was told this was caused by an issue with laser cut parts too. To meet demand they started producing some parts with a laser cutter instead of their CNC punch press. The laser was cutting in a way that *may* have tempered the metal in some cases and caused it to become brittle and cause cracks at the rivet hole. This came to light and they were caught in a tsunami of parts returns.

Laser cutting aluminum is a big no no. The heat from burning the hole tempers the aluminum within the HAZ area, and will crack as seen when trying to manipulate the metal. This isn't something new that the aviation world just learned about. I don't know how their engineers would have thought this was acceptable in the first place.

If this is true, then why would Van’s say they had one testing that showed this method would be acceptable?

Van’s doesn’t seem like the kind of company that would lie about something like this. Their existence relies on maintaining a good reputation and manufacturing a good, safe product.

It’s hard to envision that there’s any scenario other than the vendor produced parts using a method, material, or quality that was inferior to what was tested.