QB Repairs

[Kyle Boatright]

There is a post about QB repairs over on Beechtalk. The poster indicated he is a hangar neighbor with the owner of the Philippine QB factory and the owner indicated he is sending crews from the PI to the US (Oregon - presumably Van's HQ) to repair QB's with LCP issues. One statement was they are discarding things like ailerons and fuel tanks, but reworking other parts of the QB's in order to get that inventory moving.

Sounds promising to me. We need Van's to succeed at digging themselves out of the hole the are in.

 

[airguy]

I sincerely hope, once the QB backlog is repaired and sold, that Vans gives up on the QB option and sticks with their core SB business. There are more than enough builder assist shops to handle the QB business.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

I sincerely hope, once the QB backlog is repaired and sold, that Vans gives up on the QB option and sticks with their core SB business. There are more than enough builder assist shops to handle the QB business.

I think the QB's are a great business for Vans. They bring in customers (and multi-subkit sales, prop sales, engine sales, sundries sales) who wouldn't build an airplane otherwise.

From a customer perspective, they allow a builder to advance a project quickly *without* needing to visit a gun for hire shop. There are at least two of those in the Atlanta area, but both are over an hour from me. That pretty much rules them out as an option. A QB delivered to my door, OTOH...

Either way (QB's going forward or not), it benefits the entire community if there's a reasonable solution to the QB/LCP issue.

 

[Mark Dickens]

I think it would be a mistake for Vans to quit the QB business. I've built a SB -8 kit and have no desire at all to build another set of wings. Mind numbing, repetitive, time consuming...been there, done that. I'd happily pay someone to take care of that. Van's just need to price them accordingly and it sounds like they are doing that now. I did the "education" part on my -8. Now I just want to put together another airplane and fly it in the fastest possible way.

 

[Jonnyb]

I think there's always space for the QB build market. But that doesn't mean Vans has to take on the risk.

Im surprised there's not a number of repeat offenders offering to build a SB kit to QB stage for a price. Give that Vans are charging a $25k premium for QB, plus who knows when delivery. You could order SB kits and get someone who's done it before to build it for you to QB, and have it a lot quicker than ordering from vans.

 

[Walt]

Maybe homebuilding should just get back to it's roots, build it yourself.

 

[docjjrmd]

Maybe homebuilding should just get back to it's roots, build it yourself.

I concur. How many hours does a QB fuselage save? 250, 300? Do the math. Skilled metal work labor, minimum $30 / hr. Plus taxes and benefits looking at $45 to $50/hr realistically. That translates to $11,250 to $15,000 incremental costs assuming no profit taking on the labor. Additionally shipping on a fuse at QB stage is more expensive. As my grandmother used to say when I loaded up my plate, "boy, make sure your eyes aren't bigger than your stomach". Don't bite off more than you can chew. First build start simple, grow your speed and competence. If time to flying is the motivation, then buy a completed plane.

Happy New Year to all!

JJR

 

[Mel]

Maybe homebuilding should just get back to it's roots, build it yourself.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want an airplane, buy an airplane!

If you want to build an airplane, build an airplane!

 

[Freakshow108]

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you want an airplane, buy an airplane!

If you want to build an airplane, build an airplane!

Maybe homebuilding should just get back to it's roots, build it yourself.

I concur. How many hours does a QB fuselage save? 250, 300? Do the math. Skilled metal work labor, minimum $30 / hr. Plus taxes and benefits looking at $45 to $50/hr realistically. That translates to $11,250 to $15,000 incremental costs assuming no profit taking on the labor. Additionally shipping on a fuse at QB stage is more expensive. As my grandmother used to say when I loaded up my plate, "boy, make sure your eyes aren't bigger than your stomach". Don't bite off more than you can chew. First build start simple, grow your speed and competence. If time to flying is the motivation, then buy a completed plane.

Happy New Year to all!

JJR

Could not agree more!!

 

[rocketman1988]

I chuckle

I have to chuckle at some of these posts, like "just build it yourself".

The QB kits offer a TIME savings; There are those of us who do not work 9-5, and when we are out of town, we are literally out of town. It means we cannot actually work on the project on days we are at work; this translates to a substantially longer build time, and the QB kit saves some of that.

I find it humorous that some of those saying "just build it yourself" are also those who have issues with building what you want if it differs from what they did.

Not judging, not being mean, not doing anything other than making an observation.

Everyone has their own individual circumstance; it is not a "one size fits all" hobby...

Everyone have a Happy New Year!

 

[Mikeyb]

From my limited experience I think a lot of builders would be better served by paying for the QB labor and concentrating on the electrical and FWF details, the parts that really matter. The QB option costs less than 10 percent of the total cost to build.

 

[Mel]

I have to chuckle at some of these posts, like "just build it yourself".
I find it humorous that some of those saying "just build it yourself" are also those who have issues with building what you want if it differs from what they did.
Everyone have a Happy New Year!

I have to disagree with this statement. I think if you will do a little research, you will find that people who build from basic kits and or from scratch, tend to build all different kinds of aircraft. Example; I have built 9 airplanes. Only 2 from one kit manufacturer, 2 from another kit manufacturer, 4 from 4 different kit manufacturers, and 1 from scratch.
I encourage people to search for a kit/model that fits their wants/needs.

 

[deek]

I have to disagree with this statement. I think if you will do a little research, you will find that people who build from basic kits and or from scratch, tend to build all different kinds of aircraft. Example; I have built 9 airplanes. Only 2 from one kit manufacturer, 2 from another kit manufacturer, 4 from 4 different kit manufacturers, and 1 from scratch.
I encourage people to search for a kit/model that fits their wants/needs.

Strongly concur with Mel! I've built 5 planes: 3 scratch built EZ's, one kit from one manufacturer and another kit from a different manufacturer. The next build will be a kit from a manufacturer I *haven't* built from. When people ask me what to build, I have never suggested they build any of the five I did.

 

[n82rb]

first I agree with the fact that quick build has changed EAB, and i don't think its for the better. EAB has moved to put part a in part b and DO NOT deviate from the script. for the most part, education has gone. im building because I want xxx, not because i want to build and airplane. my fear is that the FAA will come down on EAB in the future because of it. they have to a degree because of people not really building and applying for a repairman cert. two years ago at SNF i was talking to a kit manufacture, i will not say which one, but it was a plane that has the wings on the wrong end of the plane and i was playing kind of dumb as to building a plane. he basically told me that they would build it at their facility under "assist" and I would really only have to write checks. if i were a FED I would have started in investigation, he really was pushing well beyond the builder assist rules. there are plenty of these operators out there and someday the FAA will say enough, and we will all pay the price.

I think there is a place for QB and assist centers, but i feel they need to be held to the rules. the business problem that van faces with them is the unpredictable and uncontrollable cost involved with them. when shipping times were a few months, the risk was alot lower. when it when to a year out, and the cost went through the roof, the contracted price was way to low to cover the increases in cost. we will never see the numbers, but i bet the losses on just material and shipping costs of QB kits sold in 2020 and beyond was staggering and they really never saw it until it was to late and there was nothing that could be done about it.

i think that the solution to keep providing QB kits will require them to raise prices even more than they have or a cost adjustment clause in the sales contract that allows for a price increase with cost adjustments for inflation or a basic deposit with an open ended price set at time of shipment with a refund less cancel fee policy.

 

[georgemohr]

I suggest folks stop looking for problems where there arent any. The issue with QB is that the demand is too high, and Vans fumbled that ball. Honestly, anything that helps grow GA is a boon, not the other way around.

 

[PilotjohnS]

Just me

My point was not to judge if QBs or SBs are better, but just to say the QB business is really hard right now with the current monetary, and political arena we are in. I think, in order for Vans to get thru their bankruptcy, the QB business may have to slow down a little to mitigate risk.

 

[David Z]

This isn't a complicated answer. If they can produce a reasonable profit with QB sales, then they will continue to be sold.

Determining that profit margin seems to be more difficult.

 

[JonJay]

This isn't a complicated answer. If they can produce a reasonable profit with QB sales, then they will continue to be sold.

Determining that profit margin seems to be more difficult.

Controlling quality offshore might be another. Don’t know something went wrong until it lands on your lap, in multiples….

 

[Kyle Boatright]

Controlling quality offshore might be another. Don’t know something went wrong until it lands on your lap, in multiples….

My guess is they have made a ton of money either directly (QB sales) or indirectly (all the other stuff) due to QB's over the years, even AFTER whatever the primer issue cost. The primer issue was a lack of direct control over the QB manufacturer, and is the only thing that can be directly attributed to the QB factory in the PI. The LCP/pricing issues originated in Oregon.

 

[lyosha]

I see my previous post got deleted. Going to try again.

I haven't met a QB builder that is okay with "reworked" LCP-ridden assemblies. I worry Vans are just wasting time and resources trying to meet demand that simply isn't there.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

I see my previous post got deleted. Going to try again.

I haven't met a QB builder that is okay with "reworked" LCP-ridden assemblies. I worry Vans are just wasting time and resources trying to meet demand that simply isn't there.

I'd be fine with one. Both of my airplanes (one slow build, one sorta QB) had more than a few areas reworked during the build. Drilling out rivets and re-riveting new parts isn't magic. Ain't like the QB folks are neophytes. They have probably installed and drilled out more rivets than 99% of us. Because of that, they are almost certainly very skilled.

 

[lyosha]

I'd be fine with one. Both of my airplanes (one slow build, one sorta QB) had more than a few areas reworked during the build. Drilling out rivets and re-riveting new parts isn't magic. Ain't like the QB folks are neophytes. They have probably installed and drilled out more rivets than 99% of us. Because of that, they are almost certainly very skilled.

At least one major build assist shop has suggested they wouldn't do that for a lot of parts due to the damage that inevitably occurs My understanding from talking to a number of people within and closely affiliated to Vans is Vans is trying to add reinforcement to certain areas like doublers and not so much drilling rivets.

 

[airguy]

I'd be fine with one. Both of my airplanes (one slow build, one sorta QB) had more than a few areas reworked during the build. Drilling out rivets and re-riveting new parts isn't magic. Ain't like the QB folks are neophytes. They have probably installed and drilled out more rivets than 99% of us. Because of that, they are almost certainly very skilled.

Even so, I don't have faith in flying an airplane, or an assembly in an airplane, assembled by someone paid by the hour with little oversight and no skin in the game. That's the whole reason I built my own airplane instead of buying one built by union labors. I'll take the SB, thanks.

I've been married 3 times, I have trust issues.

 

[Walt]

Maybe homebuilding should just get back to it's roots, build it yourself.

I have to chuckle at some of these posts, like "just build it yourself".

The QB kits offer a TIME savings; There are those of us who do not work 9-5, and when we are out of town, we are literally out of town. It means we cannot actually work on the project on days we are at work; this translates to a substantially longer build time, and the QB kit saves some of that.

I find it humorous that some of those saying "just build it yourself" are also those who have issues with building what you want if it differs from what they did.

Not judging, not being mean, not doing anything other than making an observation.

Everyone has their own individual circumstance; it is not a "one size fits all" hobby...

Everyone have a Happy New Year!

You can 'chuckle' all you want Bob, we all know this is directed at me because I've always encouraged builders to use time tested simple systems/methods when building. Conservative, yes, but this generally leads to an improved safety record for EAB. We know when you take everything to the bleeding edge just so you can have the "latest and greatest", the risk certainly increases.

So yes, I am all about and will continue to encourage safe, simple, and reliable aircraft, which should equate to a lower accident rate. Additional bonus is it also happens to be cheaper most of the time.

The hobby has changed so much over the last 20+ years, a guy used to have to have a true burning desire to build an airplane in his garage, now, a fat wallet is mostly all it takes to build an RV (a stroll around Osh these days proves this).

I had a great experience a few weeks ago flying into a local bbq hotspot. Newly build, un-painted, no wheel pants RV7A sitting on the ramp and this young kid strolls over and is getting ready to depart. I walk over to admire his work and chat for a minute. It was such a great story to hear, young (maybe 35-40) been building for 10+ years, slow build, put the engine together himself with some help, put together his own really basic VFR panel, no interior... you get the picture. We talked for a good while and I invited him to tag along to Osh next year, could see the excitement in his face. I thought to myself this is the face of a true homebuilder, it was so refreshing, it absolutely made my day. We exchanged contact info and I look forward to meeting him again.

 

[jrs14855]

EAB

Maybe homebuilding should just get back to it's roots, build it yourself.

Perfect!! I have been building airplanes from scratch for 60 years. I still enjoy it.

 

[g zero]

Quick Build

I built a slow build 8 …I spent more time on a custom canopy / skirts , Sam James Cowl & wheel pants and getting the fiberglass parts ready for paint than I spent Building and Riveting the Airframe!
The pre punched parts make the slow build a no brainer ….

 

[JonJay]

I have done both, SB and QB. What the QB did was reduced the monotony of repeated tasks, mainly riveting. However, you still have to learn the skills regardless. 51% right? It is still a huge endeavor and accomplishment.
I would not be quick to belittle those that want to go down that path.

I will be doing a panel upgrade soon. I built my first panel. I will have Stein or someone build the second as I want to spend my time elsewhere. (Building a different airplane).
To say someone who goes down the QB path isn’t a builder or doesnt have the passion to build may not be fair. They may just be managing their time and trading $$ for it.

I caution folks that think a QB is a quick path to getting into the airplane they want. It isn’t. Lots of QB go on the market after the owner realizes the commitment.

 

[ChiefPilot]

Lots of this going on in this thread.

 

[wirejock]

QB repair

There is a post about QB repairs over on Beechtalk. The poster indicated he is a hangar neighbor with the owner of the Philippine QB factory and the owner indicated he is sending crews from the PI to the US (Oregon - presumably Van's HQ) to repair QB's with LCP issues. One statement was they are discarding things like ailerons and fuel tanks, but reworking other parts of the QB's in order to get that inventory moving.

Sounds promising to me. We need Van's to succeed at digging themselves out of the hole the are in.

Thread has drifted a little. I have no dog in the hunt but I do wonder if Vans is planning to rework QBs, will they remove all LCP parts or just the ones flagged. I'm sure builders waiting for orders want to know exactly what was done to their QB. Seems like it has to be logged somehow.

As far as QB vs SB, if a builder has the money, more power to them. My SB is going on 10 years and finally seeing some light at the end of the tunnel. I build solo and life happens.

I do feel Vans would be more efficient if they eliminated the QB option and let specialty shops take that on. I'm willing to bet a few owners have already breached the subject with Vans.

 

[rocketman1988]

Just discussion

You can 'chuckle' all you want Bob, we all know this is directed at me because I've always encouraged builders to use time tested simple systems/methods when building. Conservative, yes, but this generally leads to an improved safety record for EAB. We know when you take everything to the bleeding edge just so you can have the "latest and greatest", the risk certainly increases.

So yes, I am all about and will continue to encourage safe, simple, and reliable aircraft, which should equate to a lower accident rate. Additional bonus is it also happens to be cheaper most of the time.

The hobby has changed so much over the last 20+ years, a guy used to have to have a true burning desire to build an airplane in his garage, now, a fat wallet is mostly all it takes to build an RV (a stroll around Osh these days proves this).

I had a great experience a few weeks ago flying into a local bbq hotspot. Newly build, un-painted, no wheel pants RV7A sitting on the ramp and this young kid strolls over and is getting ready to depart. I walk over to admire his work and chat for a minute. It was such a great story to hear, young (maybe 35-40) been building for 10+ years, slow build, put the engine together himself with some help, put together his own really basic VFR panel, no interior... you get the picture. We talked for a good while and I invited him to tag along to Osh next year, could see the excitement in his face. I thought to myself this is the face of a true homebuilder, it was so refreshing, it absolutely made my day. We exchanged contact info and I look forward to meeting him again.

That's all great. Yes, the hobby, and the world, has changed...that is the nature of things. We have had many discussions over the last decade or so about these topics and discussion is good.

The reality is, though, that building an airplane is not cheap. Also, everyone has their own vision of what the fruits of their labor should be. For example, I never even considered a -7, much less a VFR one, as that isn't my personal mission. There isn't anything wrong with that, or someone who finds that VFR -7 attractive.

The same can be said of progress in technology. No-one questions that 50 year old design and technology are proven. The problem is is everyone subscribes to that philosophy, progress is stifled. It is certain that pushing the tech envelope is NOT for everyone; that doesn't make it wrong for those who want to push it...and that is how progress is made. Standing with the status quo will NEVER get you anywhere but where you are. Some of us choose to move forward, and that is what changes the status quo. It's a discussion that has been going on for a long time; well, basically forever.

Anyway, discussion is always a good thing, and new builders need to see the project from as many perspectives as they can in order to decide which path they are comfortable with. It will be interesting to see how the status quo will change over the next couple of decades; the only thing that is certain is that it will change.

Happy New Year!

 

[Kyle Boatright]

Thread has drifted a little.

Yeah.

I thought the QB rework story was important enough from a big picture standpoint to post here. Thought it might generate some interest. I figured it would largely be around the idea that Van's has a plan and is moving forward to dig out of its hole. Some from people who'll "never" accept a reworked kit (despite the fact that lots of SB's and QB's have rework in various areas).

But it turned into a referendum on the evils of QB's and how other people choose to build their airplanes.

Go figure.

 

[airguy]

But it turned into a referendum on the evils of QB's and how other people choose to build their airplanes.

Go figure.

And we haven't even mentioned primers yet!

For what it's worth, I like NAPA 7220.

 

[Richard Connell]

Flame suit on!
The undeniable reality of QBs are that they are built to a price and minimum standard by the cheapest skilled labor available.
Most QBs meet this minimum standard.
None exceed it.
Some fall well short.
If you’ve been around a while you’ll have seen this first hand with your own eyes.
Things I’ve seen…
QB fuse with only two rivets holding each engine mount weldment. The remainder were through Swiss cheesed and figure 8 holes in the longeron sandwiched between the skin and weldment. Invisible. Only found due to a TD to ND conversion.
Wing nose ribs not riveted to the spar web. All of them except the outboard one. Discovered very late in the build while installing pitot tube plumbing.
Countless leaking tanks. I wouldn’t be surprised if 1/4 of all QB tanks leak.
General disdain for deburring and edge cleaning.
Poor/missing priming etc.
The reality of QBs is a lot of remediation. Van or the builder has been remediating QBs forever.

Most first time builders have very little experience with acceptable sheet metal practices and techniques. Some learn on the job , some don’t. Most aren’t in a position to objectively asses quality and likely assume they are getting a certified quality airframe parts built for them.
IMHO the problem with QBs is it trades cash for time and quality. With many proponents justifying it by claiming the QBuilders are more skilled and do a better job than they could do. I wouldn’t be so sure. All you are guaranteed is quicker.
I’ve never been comfortable with that concept. But that’s just me.

It used to be that all you needed to build a plane was a moderate amount of cash and the desire, patience and persistence.
Now it’s a big business where a lot of building is largely outsourced in an effort to get near certified performance at a significant discount. This process and the fallout from mistakes on Vans part could well mean the end of affordable home building which is very sad.

 

[airguy]

Flame suit on!
The undeniable reality of QBs are that they are built to a price and minimum standard by the cheapest skilled labor available.
Most QBs meet this minimum standard.
None exceed it.
Some fall well short.
If you’ve been around a while you’ll have seen this first hand with your own eyes.
Things I’ve seen…
QB fuse with only two rivets holding each engine mount weldment. The remainder were through Swiss cheesed and figure 8 holes in the longeron sandwiched between the skin and weldment. Invisible. Only found due to a TD to ND conversion.
Wing nose ribs not riveted to the spar web. All of them except the outboard one. Discovered very late in the build while installing pitot tube plumbing.
Countless leaking tanks. I wouldn’t be surprised if 1/4 of all QB tanks leak.
General disdain for deburring and edge cleaning.
Poor/missing priming etc.
The reality of QBs is a lot of remediation. Van or the builder has been remediating QBs forever.

Most first time builders have very little experience with acceptable sheet metal practices and techniques. Some learn on the job , some don’t. Most aren’t in a position to objectively asses quality and likely assume they are getting a certified quality airframe parts built for them.
IMHO the problem with QBs is it trades cash for time and quality. With many proponents justifying it by claiming the QBuilders are more skilled and do a better job than they could do. I wouldn’t be so sure. All you are guaranteed is quicker.
I’ve never been comfortable with that concept. But that’s just me.

It used to be that all you needed to build a plane was a moderate amount of cash and the desire, patience and persistence.
Now it’s a big business where a lot of building is largely outsourced in an effort to get near certified performance at a significant discount. This process and the fallout from mistakes on Vans part could well mean the end of affordable home building which is very sad.

Precisely.

Vans does not WANT to be, nor NEED to be, in this business.

 

[JonJay]

I had one of the early QB fuselages. I slow built the wings prior.
While there were some issues, you would have to look hard. The general quality of riveting and fit and finish was quite good. It was worth the time $$ exchange for me. So, if Vans can reliably provide it, I would consider a QB. If the quality has changed, that’s a bummer.
Back to your normal channel.

 

[1001001]

Controlling quality offshore might be another. Don’t know something went wrong until it lands on your lap, in multiples….

In my limited experience with contract manufacturing overseas, it is extremely important to have your own QA/QC people/person at the remote site. Relying on your contractor/toll vendor to do their own QA is foolish. It's not that they are necessarily unethical (although that can definitely be a problem), it's that they have slightly different incentives than you or your customers have.

Paying an employee company wages to live far from home is expensive, and in some cases, it can be very expensive to hire a local expert, but it will pay back in reduced quality incident reports and increase customer satisfaction and higher margins with less re-work.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

In my limited experience with contract manufacturing overseas, it is extremely important to have your own QA/QC people/person at the remote site. Relying on your contractor/toll vendor to do their own QA is foolish. It's not that they are necessarily unethical (although that can definitely be a problem), it's that they have slightly different incentives than you or your customers have.

Paying an employee company wages to live far from home is expensive, and in some cases, it can be very expensive to hire a local expert, but it will pay back in reduced quality incident reports and increase customer satisfaction and higher margins with less re-work.

Van's QA program has bigger issues than just not having a resident authority on-site overseas. Waaaay bigger.

 

[gtrplaya101]

This would address QB issues where Vans still has the kit. Would like to know what the plan is for us with QB assemblies that have already been shipped. Since repairing ours doesn't generate revenue I'm not overly optimistic

 

[dmattmul]

100% agree

In my limited experience with contract manufacturing overseas, it is extremely important to have your own QA/QC people/person at the remote site. Relying on your contractor/toll vendor to do their own QA is foolish. It's not that they are necessarily unethical (although that can definitely be a problem), it's that they have slightly different incentives than you or your customers have.

Paying an employee company wages to live far from home is expensive, and in some cases, it can be very expensive to hire a local expert, but it will pay back in reduced quality incident reports and increase customer satisfaction and higher margins with less re-work.

25 years ago, the company I worked for tried to do Asian manufacturing on the cheap sending engineers and managers over on a semi periodic basis. Not until we assigned full time engineers (Who also were good managers) did we turn around quality and profitability to very respectable metrics. After 7 years, 5 factories and a billion dollars a year annual revenue we finally understood what it took to manufacture in Asia, full time boots on the ground. (Of course, that is only the start, the mother company needs to have a good QA management structure but using the incorrect primer and/or application probably could have been avoided.)

QB purchasers would have gladly paid a dollar more an hour to ensure their kits were assembled correctly. That's all it would have taken to have people their full time. Vans use to advertise the rates overseas were less than 8 dollars an hour fully loaded.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

25 years ago, the company I worked for tried to do Asian manufacturing on the cheap sending engineers and managers over on a semi periodic basis. Not until we assigned full time engineers (Who also were good managers) did we turn around quality and profitability to very respectable metrics. After 7 years, 5 factories and a billion dollars a year annual revenue we finally understood what it took to manufacture in Asia, full time boots on the ground. (Of course, that is only the start, the mother company needs to have a good QA management structure but using the incorrect primer and/or application probably could have been avoided.)

QB purchasers would have gladly paid a dollar more an hour to ensure their kits were assembled correctly. That's all it would have taken to have people their full time. Vans use to advertise the rates overseas were less than 8 dollars an hour fully loaded.

It's perhaps worth noting that the LCP QA failure occurred in the US, both at Van's and at the vendor.

 

[Richard Connell]

It's perhaps worth noting that the LCP QA failure occurred in the US, both at Van's and at the vendor.

Sure but to my point earlier…
Many QBs were assembled from LCPs by supposedly skilled labor who it seems didnt notice the cracking. Yet first time builders with no experience at all noticed and raised it as an issue. Why would that be?

 

[Kyle Boatright]

Sure but to my point earlier…
Many QBs were assembled from LCPs by supposedly skilled labor who it seems didnt notice the cracking.

How do you know this? Bet ya don't...

My assumption is the QB folks were given the same guidance as the regular Joe's: Build on.

 

[Richard Connell]

How do you know this? Bet ya don't...

My assumption is the QB folks were given the same guidance as the regular Joe's: Build on.

Yes, entirely possible as well. I doubt they asked the question tho.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

Sure but to my point earlier…
Many QBs were assembled from LCPs by supposedly skilled labor who it seems didnt notice the cracking. Yet first time builders with no experience at all noticed and raised it as an issue. Why would that be?

*Proper* QA would have caught the change in LC process in the first place, preventing the issue from ever coming up (and ensuring that the same type of error doesn't recur in the future). That means having a presence on-site, conducting receiving inspections, doing statistical QA inspections on inventory, having a tracking system to trace problems identified downstreat back to their root cause, etc.

Even half-way decent QA would have stopped the manufacturing when the deviation was first noticed or brought to their attention, identified the cause(s) and remediated them before restarting. Crappy QA would at least have isolated the parts while pressing on with manufacturing, maybe pulling out some that appeared to be properly manufactured and sending them out the door, while half-heartedly trying to mitigate the *effects* of the change.

Zero QA would ignore it, tell everyone it's ok and just ignore the issue, until it lays its giant turd in the company's punch bowl of everything-will-be-just-fine.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

Yes, entirely possible as well. I doubt they asked the question tho.

There is absolutely no way to know if the people you're referring to did or didn't notice the problem, or raise it to their management. It's completely unfair to lay such blame as you have on workers without any concrete evidence.

 

[Richard Connell]

There is absolutely no way to know if the people you're referring to did or didn't notice the problem, or raise it to their management. It's completely unfair to lay such blame as you have on workers without any concrete evidence.

Well I’ve seen concrete evidence with my own eyes on multiple occasions of egregious deviations from plans and acceptable QC - deliberately and knowingly covered up and shipped out the door. Someone knew.
So yes you are correct, I wasnt there and don’t know what did or didn’t happen in this particular instance, nor the primer issue, but I dont think what I’m saying is a wild stretch.

I love RVs and Vans and everything they have done for experimental. I’ve always been a massive supporter over many decades. However, the holes of the Swiss cheese have lined up for them across a few different areas. Some of those holes have been floating around unchecked for years. QBs and remediation has always been a big one.
I hope they get their ducks in a row and make appropriate changes to the way they do business that is sustainable and allows many more to enjoy the experience they way I have been very fortunate to have. The first step though is acknowledging weaknesses, not pretending they don’t exist.

 

[joer308]

The only way to build an airplane is from the 3 view...

 

[airguy]

*Proper* QA would have caught the change in LC process in the first place, preventing the issue from ever coming up (and ensuring that the same type of error doesn't recur in the future). That means having a presence on-site, conducting receiving inspections, doing statistical QA inspections on inventory, having a tracking system to trace problems identified downstreat back to their root cause, etc.

Even half-way decent QA would have stopped the manufacturing when the deviation was first noticed or brought to their attention, identified the cause(s) and remediated them before restarting. Crappy QA would at least have isolated the parts while pressing on with manufacturing, maybe pulling out some that appeared to be properly manufactured and sending them out the door, while half-heartedly trying to mitigate the *effects* of the change.

Zero QA would ignore it, tell everyone it's ok and just ignore the issue, until it lays its giant turd in the company's punch bowl of everything-will-be-just-fine.

You seem to be asking for certified-level assurances - which come at certified-level pricing. Careful what you ask for...

I, for one, do NOT want to see Vans become another Cessna or Bonanza etc etc.

 

[RV7A Flyer]

You seem to be asking for certified-level assurances - which come at certified-level pricing. Careful what you ask for...

I, for one, do NOT want to see Vans become another Cessna or Bonanza etc etc.

Whether the processes and practices are "certified" or not is irrelevant. They are sound *engineering* and *management* practices.

Which do you think is cheaper...having sound QA in place and preventing LCP issues, unapproved changes of materials (primer), etc. in the *first place*, or not having them in place, and enjoying the results of having to file chapter 11 because of that lack?

The constant argument *against* QA because it would cause "certified prices" seems obviated by the simple facts of the current situation: they *didn't* have QA, and what do their prices look like now? Not to mention their customer base, reputation and long-term financial picture, etc.

It's penny wise and pound foolish to not have decent QA (and that's- not including the lack of robust inventory control to deal with the fallout from discovering *from your customers* that you have a supplier manufacturing problem).

 

[jimbom]

The only way to build an airplane is from the 3 view...

You have to mine your own ore, as well.