My never ending RV-10 saga

I haven't posted anything on this site about my thoughts about Vans Facebook comments on my airplane, but I noticed Vans is still commenting this time in Sport Aviation.

Sport Aviation gave me a heads up on Vans request to place his Facebook article in the August issue. I asked if they could include my comments, but they said his article would take up all the allowable space available for this section of the magazine. They did say they would include a link to my web site.

I sent Vans a personal email asking why he decided to single me out when there have been many before me with RV modifications ? corvette engine, 3 seat RV6, floats and a complete redesign of the RV10 cabin top for a few. I didn?t expect an answer nor did I get one. Except for the seat adjustment lever I sold, I was not making parts or plans on what I did. All I did was share my ideas and methods on what I did.

Sport Aviation sent an email to me shortly after my first flight inquiring about my airplane. They had been following my changes and wanted to do an article on it. At the time I thought this was great, but now knowing the repercussions, I would have turned them down. When my aircraft was judged at Sun n Fun, I wasn?t even at the aircraft. I had only bought the ?Do Not Touch? sign to place on my propeller with my information on it. Not wanting to stay for the airshow, I left about 2 hours after I arrived.

Guys, I have to be honest. This whole thing has really taken the wind out of my sails and given me nothing but grief. My only intention was to complement the RV10 aircraft which I still think is a great aircraft.

Greg...

Enjoy your plane

You built what you wanted. If someone points out a safety issue it may save your life and/or others too. If you are sure the issue is safe; enjoy your plane, if not you can improve it. Van expressed his opinions for the safety of present and future builders, owners and passengers. I can imagine what a swing you experienced, that was a tough one. You have the support of a big community (some of it is tough love).
Dale

Greg, I personally have been following your site and many of the ideas on my wish list come from your site. It is unfortunate that Van's has taken the approach of pointing out what is wrong. If he had a concern, why not reach out to you and say, "well, if you insist on doing something like your seatbelt, why dont you engineer it in such and such a way?" Anyone can point out the mistakes someone makes, why not be a better person and show how it could be done the right way?

I for one really like the seatbelt idea for instance. I wish the conversation had been more about how it COULD be done. If people are making these changes, then it should be clear there is an interest in a better product.

I've only been building with Vans for under a year, but it is clear to me that there is a strong resistence to change or improvement. Why aren't plans updated more regularly even when mistakes and omissions are found? Is it that hard to have someone write an update and make sure when the current stock of printed plans runs out, the new ones are used? Or even have an Errata of known issues.

In any case, I would hate to see you let all the attention deflat your sails and take away all the hard work you have done. Perhaps YOU could be the better person and if you think there is any legitimacy to any of Van's concerns, then re-engineer. If you think you are right in other areas, don't worry about it, enjoy your plane and go fly.

Speaking as someone who makes his living in journalism, it is truly disappointed to hear that the editor of an article that references you did not give you the opportunity to comment.

It doesn't get much more unprofessional than that and is very disturbing if true.

It also raises questions to me regarding the impact of advertisers on the quality and content, an issue that has been whispered about over the years but never really discussed. Van's is a Sport Aviation advertiser and these sorts of things continue to raise questions about the integrity of the articles therein.

The reason that publications HAVE editors in the first place is to , you know, edit. If someone's comments are too long; they get edited so as to allow a fuller, more complete, and more contextual story to be given to the reader.

At the end of the day, I need to know that the things I read in Sport Aviation w.r.t. are editorially viable. I have great respect for Van and his opinion and judgment, but I demand the ability to judge those comments based on all the data available. That you were denied the opportunity to present your data is not just an afront to you, it's an afront to readers and members of EAA.

I'm confident EAA can and will do better in the future if we make our opinions known -- politely -- to the editor on this issue.

Greg,

Don't let this get you down. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off and move on. Take Van's issues to heart, evaluate your changes, get some additional opinions and fix that that does not match your risk tolerance.

I am sad to see that Van's used you and your plane as the example to vent all his frustrations without discussing the concerns 1 2 1 first.

I am also sad to see that you were not allowed to make comments on an article that is clearly about you and your plane. Bad move Sport Aviation!

Bottom line is that you built an awesome aircraft and even if you change some of the things in the name of risk management, it will still be an awesome machine!!!! One that most could only dream of being able to build so be proud!!!

Greg
To say that I am dissappointed on several levels would be an understatement.
You did not deserve the treatment you got. You have my sympathy.
Joe

Avoiding the "X" in Experimental

Greg,

I've been following your build and loved the pictures of your mods in Sport Aviation. That being said, I liked some of the mods and disliked others. Some fell within my own personal aesthetic and risk-tolerance envelope and some didn't. That's normal. While Van's opinions on the Facebook page certainly carry more weight than mine, and are likely more educated ones, they are still opinions.

Everyone who builds makes decisions about risk when modifying their aircraft. In fact, we make those very same decisions when deciding WHAT to build in the first place. We make those calls based on our desire to have fun, weighed against our desire to not become the "X" in Experimental; a stigma which, in most cases, in unfounded in General Aviation. Realize Van's got a lot more at stake than his own reputation, or your feelings. If people start making un-educated choices about mods and have accidents because of them, it reflects poorly on the safety of ALL experimentals.

Take Van's comments to heart, as though it was coming from an experienced pilot who has spent his life in aviation and aircraft design, because THAT is the reality of your situation. He put a lot of effort into evaluating your mods from an engineering standpoint. While his article may have been blunt, he took the time to research and present his viewpoint, and it should be respected. It's the same thing as hangar flying with an old regular at an unfamiliar field, who tells you that it's too hot today to make it over the trees at the end of the strip. It's always your decision, and you may make it out fine, but it would be wise to take another look at your calculations before taking the chance. If you're sure, then throttle in and go for it. However, don't be mad at the guy. After all, he was just looking out for you, himself, the airport, the people in the houses at the end of the airport, me, the next guy and the next guy, etc.....

Enjoy your beautiful 10. It has inspired many of us to think creatively about our own builds and what's possible. If Van's comments raise concern with you or your loved ones, maybe you should re-evaluate. Like when a good friend RV'r notices a loose hose or a string of bad rivets; it sucks to fix anything, but it might suck more to have a fuel leak in the air, or a skin seperate in flight. The good thing is you don't have to pay an A&P to do the work.

Praise in public, criticize in private. Sorry about the treatment you have received, Greg.

Greg,

Bob Collins, a real journalist, is right and one can hope Sport Aviation will give you ample space to answer your critic(s) which would be about the same space they gave Van.

Between a rock and a hard place

I too have been following some but not all of the posts. I have read the Sport Aviation article and Van's reply.

I am a mechanical design engineer in the defense industry for almost 30 yrs and I deal with designs that must work every time. But I don't design aircraft but do understand the due diligence that goes into aircraft design and development. I believe that in the thousands for RV builders I am in the minority with this professional understanding.

The reason I say "Between a rock and a hard place" is because Van has a responsibility to safety to respond where appropriate. He may not like some of the changes which may limit the utility of the aircraft, but that is your call, not his. However if he sees something unsafe and it is widely distributed to the masses, he has an obligation to speak up.

Some of the changes made have some safety ramifications and some utility. I believe we should embrace the safety concerns Van identified and decide for yourself the merit of the utility concerns.

Yes these are experimental aircraft and you can do what you want to with them. It is your hide. But when you bring passengers along it is their hide as well. We RV builders have a large investment in our project. If a unsafe modification was embraced by many builders and tragic results ensued, not only will we have lost friends and family but our investment may be quickly devalued.

Van doesn't know it all but he surely knows about the engineering and margins of safety in the design of the the RV's. With that knowledge he intern understands the ramifications of some of the builder changes.

Food for thought, your mileage may vary.

There are more urgent topics available

I read the articles in Sport Aviation and Van's original post regarding Greg's aircraft and I find it ironic that Van chooses to step in to caution people about aspects of one of the finest RV-10 examples built to date. Where is Van's critical thinking regarding installation of Automotive engines in 10's. To date the track record is one dead and two barely escaping with there lives during a deadstick landing trying to reach the runway and two more who were burnt when the plane exploded on the taxiway and the plane burnt to the ground. This seems to be a more urgent topic to discuss with builders, I know it has been talked about some in the past but not at the level of Greg's -10. Not a full 2 page article.

Or what about the doors coming off of the 10's inflight. There's a newsworthy topic... Everyone was asking for their input to be heard after numerous accounts of doors coming off in flight started occuring, we heard NOTHING for 2 yrs. Then we get service bulletin placed on the plane and patch instead of a redisigned latching system.
It's ironic that Greg's plane has one of the best door latching systems offered to date for the 10! That somehow got overlooked in the critique.

What about commenting on Get'r Donitis?
Here is an area where Van could use his influence to reach out to those builders who are setting artifical deadlines to complete their build and get in the air. Builders would listen to Van regarding things like this if done in a fashion similar to the Safety articles he has put out recently.
I feel Van could have approached this so much better than this and still achieved his goal. Instead he singles out a quality builder and points out his "issues" to the entire community.
How many poor quality built aircraft have shown up at shows but are somehow not being exposed to the criticism that has been placed on Greg?

Sport Aviation seemed to think Greg's plane was something special to get the original article done, now they come back and do a Van's perspective update that try's to rewrite their original article. Not Cool...

Greg,
I went to your site and read the other side of the story you provided. I suggest others do as well.
I hope to see your plane at OshKosh, you did a great job!
Don Orrick
N410JA

midwest rv-10 said:

I read the articles in Sport Aviation and Van's original post regarding Greg's aircraft and I find it ironic that Van chooses to step in to caution people about aspects of one of the finest RV-10 examples built to date. Where is Van's critical thinking regarding installation of Automotive engines in 10's. To date the track record is one dead and two barely escaping with there lives during a deadstick landing trying to reach the runway and two more who were burnt when the plane exploded on the taxiway and the plane burnt to the ground. This seems to be a more urgent topic to discuss with builders, I know it has been talked about some in the past but not at the level of Greg's -10. Not a full 2 page article.

Or what about the doors coming off of the 10's inflight. There's a newsworthy topic... Everyone was asking for their input to be heard after numerous accounts of doors coming off in flight started occuring, we heard NOTHING for 2 yrs. Then we get service bulletin placed on the plane and patch instead of a redisigned latching system.
It's ironic that Greg's plane has one of the best door latching systems offered to date for the 10! That somehow got overlooked in the critique.

What about commenting on Get'r Donitis?
Here is an area where Van could use his influence to reach out to those builders who are setting artifical deadlines to complete their build and get in the air. Builders would listen to Van regarding things like this if done in a fashion similar to the Safety articles he has put out recently.
I feel Van could have approached this so much better than this and still achieved his goal. Instead he singles out a quality builder and points out his "issues" to the entire community.
How many poor quality built aircraft have shown up at shows but are somehow not being exposed to the criticism that has been placed on Greg?

Sport Aviation seemed to think Greg's plane was something special to get the original article done, now they come back and do a Van's perspective update that try's to rewrite their original article. Not Cool...

Greg,
I went to your site and read the other side of the story you provided. I suggest others do as well.
I hope to see your plane at OshKosh, you did a great job!
Don Orrick
N410JA

Click to expand...

The examples quoted above are attempts to deflect attention away from the Hale RV-10 issues but instead point out the very reason Van had to write his article. Nobody wants to duplicate auto conversions that catch on fire or the poor building practices of someone who rushes through a project.

But Van felt a need to come forward precisely because the Hale aircraft is a stunningly beautiful plane that was highlighted in a widely circulated magazine. This is the kind of plane that will have well-heeled builders writing huge checks to custom car interior designers in an attempt to achieve/exceed the attention given to Hale's aircraft. All of us know that many of these builders are totally unequipped to evaluate the cosmetic changes they will order without proper engineering review.

The ugly aircraft only get our disgust and pity. The georgous airplanes receive highly critical and detailed review because they are subject to being copied.

Van has been around the block enough times to know this is how the community works. This is why he felt he had no choice but to go public with his concerns. A private chat with an individual builder can not raise safety awareness within our community the same way a public posting does.

In my opinion, if there is a culprit in this saga, it is a magazine that jumped into an article without enough technical foresight to see where this would end up. I regret Greg has suffered public attention of the type he never wanted. But I hope that over time he can realize that our experimental community will be refined because of the aggravation he has experienced. And I hope he has many enjoyable and safe years in his RV-10.

It is Richard VanGrunsven's turn

Greg,

With 10,000+ flying hours, a mechanical engineering degree, nine different aircraft designs(all of which he did the first flight)... I trust Van with my wife and two kids. I chose to follow the plans for SAFETY above all else. Along with that came reduced build time, affordability and resalability. I made five minor modifications and did not feel it was necessary to contact Van's engineering for approval. When planning for the modifications, I always ask myself,"What else will this effect and if it fails can it kill me?" If one chooses to make a major modification then the designer should be contacted first. If they don't recommend it, then it is just like for me when the wx briefer says,"vfr flight not recommended". If one chooses to build it or fly anyway then we may be better off not publicizing it.

You built your plane the way you wanted with more modifications than any other RV-10 builder, showed it to world proudly as you should have and had an article in a highly respected magazine that thousands of builders will read as "gospel". You allowed them to do the story. Was Van contacted for any input before the mods were made or the story was published? If I was Van I would want an article published too as the interviewer in your article probably knew nothing about designing, building or flying an RV-10. Let Van give us his expert engineering explanations so we can all learn from this. Then as others have said make the changes that you feel are necessary for you and your passengers safety and enjoy the plane.

It would have been reasonable to discuss the content of the article and their concerns with Hale, ahead of time however. Likely it would have had about the same content...but just like in the IT/security field where you (try to) tell the vendor about an exploit (and discuss the issue, and both learn something) before releasing public bulletins. Same effect, but Hale would be in a better place and it would look altogether better for both parties.

And...a bit of balance on the things that were done well and improved (ie. door latches, from what I saw) would have been appropriate too.

I don't have issue with it being published -- I just don't understand why you wouldn't communicate more first vs. firing it off. Heck, if I were Hale I would have been willing to fly my plane up there and go over the details in person...for better or for worse, but at least its a more honest and honorable outcome.

Also, Hale could have learned something himself, which I hope Vans would have also been interested in...heck, imagine if some things were changed and that was included in the article? You don't learn or improve from being ripped apart, but I guess they didn't really care about the effect on their target?

My 2 cents worth

I've read the Sport Aviation article, Vans Facebook article and Greg's comments on his website about the articles.

I think I can understand everyone's point of view. Greg wanted a custom plane, and was willing to take the responsibility for any consequences thereof. Sport Aviation saw an incredibly beautiful, fully loaded example of a homebuilt and wanted to write a feature article about it. Van saw the article and became rightfully concerned that other, less educated builders might try to do the same thing, without accessing the consequences. Therefore, he wrote an article that (paraphrasing) says "builder beware", or "don't try this at home".

Imagine if everyone thought they could buy an RV-10 kit and put whatever they wanted in it. If some of them got carried away people starting getting killed, the perception would be that the RV-10 was an unsafe aircraft. Imagine how this might impact all of us.

Keep in mind that Van did not tell Greg he couldn't make any of these mods. He didn't imply that Greg should go back and change anything on his plane. Greg built the plane the way he wanted to, and I wholly support this right and privilege. Van simply told people that in his opinion, nobody else should try to duplicate it. And I support Van's right to do so.

I think all three articles were well written, showing three different points of view, each based on the information that they had at the time.

midwest rv-10 said:

I read the articles in Sport Aviation and Van's original post regarding Greg's aircraft and I find it ironic that Van chooses to step in to caution people about aspects of one of the finest RV-10 examples built to date. Where is Van's critical thinking regarding installation of Automotive engines in 10's. To date the track record is one dead and two barely escaping with there lives during a deadstick landing trying to reach the runway and two more who were burnt when the plane exploded on the taxiway and the plane burnt to the ground. This seems to be a more urgent topic to discuss with builders, I know it has been talked about some in the past but not at the level of Greg's -10. Not a full 2 page article.

Or what about the doors coming off of the 10's inflight. There's a newsworthy topic... Everyone was asking for their input to be heard after numerous accounts of doors coming off in flight started occuring, we heard NOTHING for 2 yrs. Then we get service bulletin placed on the plane and patch instead of a redisigned latching system.
It's ironic that Greg's plane has one of the best door latching systems offered to date for the 10! That somehow got overlooked in the critique.

What about commenting on Get'r Donitis?
Here is an area where Van could use his influence to reach out to those builders who are setting artifical deadlines to complete their build and get in the air. Builders would listen to Van regarding things like this if done in a fashion similar to the Safety articles he has put out recently.
I feel Van could have approached this so much better than this and still achieved his goal. Instead he singles out a quality builder and points out his "issues" to the entire community.
How many poor quality built aircraft have shown up at shows but are somehow not being exposed to the criticism that has been placed on Greg?

Sport Aviation seemed to think Greg's plane was something special to get the original article done, now they come back and do a Van's perspective update that try's to rewrite their original article. Not Cool...

Greg,
I went to your site and read the other side of the story you provided. I suggest others do as well.
I hope to see your plane at OshKosh, you did a great job!
Don Orrick
N410JA

Click to expand...

Please you don't have a clue what the cause of that was and by the way the ONLY thing besides the tail that was still usable was the corvette engine and the PSRU. It had absolutely nothing to do with my choice of engine. Amazingly look how many people are flying Van's aircraft with water cooled engines now. Very ironic. Somebody has to take the first leap. You just have to try and do it as safely and methodically as possible. And Greg I feel your pain many times over.

Greg, others have posted what I would like to have wanted to say so i won't repeat it.

It sucks to be the attention of such scrutiny, I know. You did not deserve this. All I want to say is hang in there. You built a beautiful plane. Others are learning from the comments and articles written about it, so in a strange way you are contributing more than most builders ever will to our hobby.

Thanks for the post. Hang in there, and certainly do not lose sleep over it. Just enjoy the plane.

I have a set of your seat handles, now if I can just find the time to install them.

I think you have a great plane, and I think Van handled it poorly. It would have been just as easy to put a picture of the rudder pedal standoffs and the seatbelt brackets in the RVator, and inform the public of his opinion. No names or N-numbers would have been needed. You aren't singled out, and Van gets his point across without looking like a bully-win win.

Everyone knows how Van feels about light/vs heavy aircraft, FWIW.

Keep your chin up, and keep building great aircraft!!

craigvince said:

.....
I think all three articles were well written, showing three different points of view, each based on the information that they had at the time.

Click to expand...

Maybe... but the whole episode shows a complete lack of communication, mainly on Vans and Sport Aviation's sides....

Dont feel bad. Can you imagine what the article would look like if he attacked my plane? 97gal of wing fuel, IO-540 RV-8, pulling G's in show after show in front of the public putting all those lives on the ground at risk, all those planes in the air? Geez. A field day of writing could be had.
Id consider it an honor if he picked me.
Chin up as others have said. If you put your plane out for review, you have to expect it to be picked apart. Take it with a smile. I love it when smart people pick my plane apart. I learn a lot and have fun with it.

Kahuna said:

Dont feel bad. Can you imagine what the article would look like if he attacked my plane? 97gal of wing fuel, IO-540 RV-8, pulling G's in show after show in front of the public putting all those lives on the ground at risk, all those planes in the air? Geez. A field day of writing could be had.
Id consider it an honor if he picked me.
Chin up as others have said. If you put your plane out for review, you have to expect it to be picked apart. Take it with a smile. I love it when smart people pick my plane apart. I learn a lot and have fun with it.

Click to expand...

...and don't forget all of those highly modified RV-4s (aka Rockets) out there...

Greg,
Your RV-10 and the 8 prior are GORGEOUS. Too many here warship at the altar of Van's and what he says is gospel to many.

His quality control of what becomes of his aircraft ends at the factory. You're dead on with regards to all the mods on the market and things people have done. It's called experimental for a reason, and I think Van has forgotten where the original RV came from. He's a brilliant engineer no doubt, but I take offense to how you were singled out, and the control/influence he's trying to exert over his customers. Many of which are much more experienced aviators, engineers, etc.

Build on!

Sam Buchanan said:

The examples quoted above are attempts to deflect attention away from the Hale RV-10 issues but instead point out the very reason Van had to write his article. Nobody wants to duplicate auto conversions that catch on fire or the poor building practices of someone who rushes through a project.

But Van felt a need to come forward precisely because the Hale aircraft is a stunningly beautiful plane that was highlighted in a widely circulated magazine. This is the kind of plane that will have well-heeled builders writing huge checks to custom car interior designers in an attempt to achieve/exceed the attention given to Hale's aircraft. All of us know that many of these builders are totally unequipped to evaluate the cosmetic changes they will order without proper engineering review.

The ugly aircraft only get our disgust and pity. The georgous airplanes receive highly critical and detailed review because they are subject to being copied.

Van has been around the block enough times to know this is how the community works. This is why he felt he had no choice but to go public with his concerns. A private chat with an individual builder can not raise safety awareness within our community the same way a public posting does.

In my opinion, if there is a culprit in this saga, it is a magazine that jumped into an article without enough technical foresight to see where this would end up. I regret Greg has suffered public attention of the type he never wanted. But I hope that over time he can realize that our experimental community will be refined because of the aggravation he has experienced. And I hope he has many enjoyable and safe years in his RV-10.

Click to expand...

Sam,
When I have mild criticism for the the fact that there are bigger issues that could use Van's attention you seem to have stepped in front of it and dismissed my opinion as "an attempt to deflect attention away from Hale's rv-10 issues"

You suggest that because one builder has acheived a higher level of craftsmanship that "well healed builders" will follow writing huge checks to interior shops.
So What!
If they feel that they want to improve their interior to suit themselves they are free to do so.

You also said that "all of us know that many of these builders are totally unequipped to evaluate the COSMETIC changes they will order without proper engineering review".
I'm not sure who "all of us you" are refering to because It's not me in that group...
What about guys sticking small block chevy engines in a plane? Seems they might need that proper engineering review over someone who makes cosmetic changes. Where is the concern for those builders?
What about doors that every10 builder agrees are extremely difficult to get to fit properly and have resulted in MANY door departures. these are known issues that don't get this type of attention.

All I was trying to point out is that there are larger and more urgent issues that Van could have focused on instead of One man's attempt at perfection.
Just because one guy builds a plane a certain way doesn't mean others will follow him. They may use some ideas but that's been going on way before Greg's plane showed up.

Lastly, I agree that a private chat with an individual builder cannot raise safety awareness the same way a public posting can. Van could have at least talked to Greg first to let him know about his concerns and give him an opportunity to explain his side prior to writing the article, and SA should have let Greg add his explanations to how he made his decisions as well.

I gotta run now,
Off to OshKosh in my highly modified RV-10 with A/C and modified seat levers in the morning!
Hope they let me in...


Don Orrick
N410JA
40010

Sig600 said:

Greg,
Your RV-10 and the 8 prior are GORGEOUS. Too many here warship at the altar of Van's and what he says is gospel to many.

His quality control of what becomes of his aircraft ends at the factory. You're dead on with regards to all the mods on the market and things people have done. It's called experimental for a reason, and I think Van has forgotten where the original RV came from. He's a brilliant engineer no doubt, but I take offense to how you were singled out, and the control/influence he's trying to exert over his customers. Many of which are much more experienced aviators, engineers, etc.

Click to expand...

Just don't get too carried away with being experimental. We've got people on the certified side of the fence, who are litterly calling "experimentals" a danger to society. They're using the recent FAA statistics on E-ABs as evidence. I try to calm their somewhat unfounded fears..........by saying that most experimentals are just well designed kit aircraft. These planes are just "experimental" in the context of law.

On the other hand, when too many deviations are made, in the name of "experimental"................and the airplane does crash, it gets noticed.

So no, I don't take everything Van say's as gospel either. I don't believe in RV's being as light as possible. I'd only do that, if I had no intention of cross countries, while being content as a local flyer.

At the same time, I do question the rudder pedal connections, and seat belts. Those are points that needed to be brought forward.

L.Adamson --- RV6A

L.Adamson said:

Just don't get too carried away with being experimental.

Click to expand...

What the **** is TOO experimental? Where is the line? And it can't be open to interpretation. No grey area.....

There's the problem. Otherwise buy a certified a/c.

az_gila said:

Maybe... but the whole episode shows a complete lack of communication, mainly on Vans and Sport Aviation's sides....

Click to expand...

Excellent point!

I don't remember ever reading an article written by a manufacturer that was so critical of a customer. Very unusual for someone to comment so harshly.

If Van's had such heartache with your changes they could have handled this in a more professional manner. They could have contacted you and expressed their concerns and offered suggestions for changes. You then could have had the opportunity to respond and later written an article offering an update on the aircraft. It would have made for interesting reading.

Sport Aviation should have given you a chance to comment on this article. The magazine lost some credibility in my eyes.

I liked your aircraft and the creativity that went into the improvements.

Consider the comments made by Van's, incorporate changes you feel will improve the design and then move on and enjoy flying a beautiful aircraft.

kevingross said:

I don't remember ever reading an article written by a manufacturer that was so critical of a customer. Very unusual for someone to comment so harshly.

If Van's had such heartache with your changes they could have handled this in a more professional manner. They could have contacted you and expressed their concerns and offered suggestions for changes. You then could have had the opportunity to respond and later written an article offering an update on the aircraft. It would have made for interesting reading.

Sport Aviation should have given you a chance to comment on this article. The magazine lost some credibility in my eyes.

I liked your aircraft and the creativity that went into the improvements.

Consider the comments made by Van's, incorporate changes you feel will improve the design and then move on and enjoy flying a beautiful aircraft.

Click to expand...

Great 1st Post!


Welcome to VAF!

I think that the argument has got away from the whole point. VANS makes an aircraft which is tested to the appropriate design standard. It is lightweight, strong and fast. It is never designed to be a "Cadillac". Sure, in the US, you have the experimental category. But taking a proven design and bulking it out so that it cannot perform to the original spec is not what is meant by "experimental".

We have moved away from the string and fabric style of homebuild but we should not forget that we are NOT (whatever the US law might say) aircraft manufacturers. The aircraft VANS designed are practical and safe and can be made very comfortable for long-range cruising, but there is a limit to what is sensible. I believe VAN was totally justified in making comment on what he felt was a misuse of his design. By buying his kit, we should honour his design and the testing that has been done.

paul330 said:

I think that the argument has got away from the whole point. VANS makes an aircraft which is tested to the appropriate design standard. It is lightweight, strong and fast. It is never designed to be a "Cadillac". Sure, in the US, you have the experimental category. But taking a proven design and bulking it out so that it cannot perform to the original spec is not what is meant by "experimental".

Click to expand...

Why not? Who made you the authority on the minimum utility of someone's personal aircraft?

midwest rv-10 said:

I read the articles in Sport Aviation and Van's original post regarding Greg's aircraft and I find it ironic that Van chooses to step in to caution people about aspects of one of the finest RV-10 examples built to date. Where is Van's critical thinking regarding installation of Automotive engines in 10's. To date the track record is one dead and two barely escaping with there lives during a deadstick landing trying to reach the runway and two more who were burnt when the plane exploded on the taxiway and the plane burnt to the ground. This seems to be a more urgent topic to discuss with builders, I know it has been talked about some in the past but not at the level of Greg's -10. Not a full 2 page article.

Or what about the doors coming off of the 10's inflight. There's a newsworthy topic... Everyone was asking for their input to be heard after numerous accounts of doors coming off in flight started occuring, we heard NOTHING for 2 yrs. Then we get service bulletin placed on the plane and patch instead of a redisigned latching system.
It's ironic that Greg's plane has one of the best door latching systems offered to date for the 10! That somehow got overlooked in the critique.

What about commenting on Get'r Donitis?
Here is an area where Van could use his influence to reach out to those builders who are setting artifical deadlines to complete their build and get in the air. Builders would listen to Van regarding things like this if done in a fashion similar to the Safety articles he has put out recently.
I feel Van could have approached this so much better than this and still achieved his goal. Instead he singles out a quality builder and points out his "issues" to the entire community.
How many poor quality built aircraft have shown up at shows but are somehow not being exposed to the criticism that has been placed on Greg?

Sport Aviation seemed to think Greg's plane was something special to get the original article done, now they come back and do a Van's perspective update that try's to rewrite their original article. Not Cool...

Greg,
I went to your site and read the other side of the story you provided. I suggest others do as well.
I hope to see your plane at OshKosh, you did a great job!
Don Orrick
N410JA

Click to expand...

Bravo Don, you are correct. Greg, congratulations on yet another outstanding build. I had the pleasure of seeing your RV8 many years ago at a fly in and it inspired me to build an RV. Since then I have built (2) RV8's and just finished a 10. Van may have had a couple of valid points but his communication method was very poor.

Pat

Flyfalcons said:

Why not? Who made you the authority on the minimum utility of someone's personal aircraft?

Click to expand...

Like (almost) everybody else in this forum, I state my opinion politely and without aggression. Kindly do me the same honour

This whole episode has been unfortunate and obviously upsetting to Greg. Aesthetics apart (and it's not to my taste.......), VAN is trying to make a valid safety point concerning the practice of declaring a gross weight above his recommended maximum (amongst other issues). Not, perhaps, as subtlely as he might have.....

Nuff said

paul330 said:

But taking a proven design and bulking it out so that it cannot perform to the original spec is not what is meant by "experimental".
......

Like (almost) everybody else in this forum, I state my opinion politely and without aggression. Kindly do me the same honour

This whole episode has been unfortunate and obviously upsetting to Greg. Aesthetics apart (and it's not to my taste.......), VAN is trying to make a valid safety point concerning the practice of declaring a gross weight above his recommended maximum (amongst other issues). Not, perhaps, as subtlely as he might have.....

Nuff said

Click to expand...

his critical point that your original statement of a complete definition of experimental is factory defined is still valid.

edit: and in an ironic way, greg has done what lancair did when they certified the columbias- bulked them out to "cadillac" specs

Greg, what a beautiful airplane you have there!
Don't let the circumstances get you down.

paul330 said:

I believe VAN was totally justified in making comment on what he felt was a misuse of his design. By buying his kit, we should honour his design and the testing that has been done.

Click to expand...

Difference in UK and US thinking. It wasn't a misuse, it was a customers personalization. No one tells me what I can and can't do with something I own/build. Van gets no say in what becomes of a kit once it leaves the factory. If I want to stretch an RV-4 and slap an O-540 on it, I will. If I want to build it to spec because I'm not creative enough to do anything else, then that's what I'll do (am doing).

midwest rv-10 said:

Lastly, I agree that a private chat with an individual builder cannot raise safety awareness the same way a public posting can. Van could have at least talked to Greg first to let him know about his concerns and give him an opportunity to explain his side prior to writing the article, and SA should have let Greg add his explanations to how he made his decisions as well.

Click to expand...

So let me ask a simple question for all those that are taking Van to task for the method of his communication - in essence, criticizing Greg in public rather than private?

How many of you have extended Van the same courtesy? How many sent Van a note (privately) that you were disappointed in his behavior. I'd be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that very, very few of you have done so. How does that make you any different than what you believe that Van "did" to Greg?



Do I feel for Greg? Sure - a few weeks back, I posted a picture of the fuel line routing on our RV-3 project. That is all the pictures were intended to show. But I put them out there, and because I had some questionable stuff in the background (a poor cotter pin for instance), a very experienced builder whom I respect came on the thread and pointed out all the things that were wrong. Well, I was miffed - I'll admit it. None of that stuff was ready for inspection, and frankly, most had been fixed before he pointed it out (the picture was a few work sessions old). But was he wrong? Well....I have a certain level of notoriety in this world, and some new builder might come along and look at that picture and say "well, if HE did it that way, then it must be OK for me", not understanding the context of a "work in progress" shot. So in reality, it was a useful post, even though I didn't like it, and ever since, I have taken care to point out that when I "put something out there" on the project airplane, other things in the photo might not be finished examples of how you should do things. A simple disclaimer can work.

When you "put yourself out there" in public, I have learned, it is hard to complain about the response that you get. You'd like disagreements to be handled in private, but sometimes, the public distribution of one side of a "story" needs to be countered with a public distribution of the "other" side.

It is a shame that the editors of the magazine that started this did such an abhorrent job at what editors should do. If this had been the case (as pointed out by our able journalist Bob Collins awhile back), then none of this would be an issue.

Folks, does anyone have an additional point to be made, other than simply piling on "votes" for one position or another? I have seen no new points in three or more pages, and sense that all the information is out there for posterity for all to read. I'm not going to close the thread, because then I will be accused of over moderation, but let's ask just how civil it is to "pile on".

Anybody else have anything NEW, or can we all go and enjoy Oshkosh?

Ironflight said:

How many of you have extended Van the same courtesy? How many sent Van a note (privately) that you were disappointed in his behavior. I'd be willing to bet a dollar to a donut that very, very few of you have done so. How does that make you any different than what you believe that Van "did" to Greg?

Click to expand...

Right here.

Haven't heard a peep.

This is a trend. A certain RV-10 with a fire on the ground here, Van posted second hand pictures and flamed that builder too without all the facts or talking to the individual.

I'm an engineer by education and in my professional life. Unfortunately, engineering is blunt. F=MA, E=MC^2, all those things.

Van pointed out a couple of modifications (the seatbelt attach and the rudder pedal mod) that are poorly engineered with very real potential consequences. Fortunately, both of those changes are easy to rectify. The gross weight issue is something else entirely, and has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum.

I commend Van's for pointing out the easy to correct problems and explaining why those modifications were not good choices. I have no idea where Greg, Sport Aviation, or Van's could have done anything different given the sequence of events. Greg built the airplane he wanted, SA wrote an article on the airplane, and Van's, in looking out for its (and Greg's and other RV-10 builders) interest had to raise the red flag. That's just the way it is.

Ironflight said:

,......... but let's ask just how civil it is to "pile on".

Anybody else have anything NEW, or can we all go and enjoy Oshkosh?

Click to expand...

Very well said, as usual, Paul,

Best,

BTW, speaking of Van's concern for safety, I never did hear back from the company after several big cables -- each purchased at different times -- had their connectors easily twist off in my hands. I contacted the company, they asked that nothing be said online, and said there may have to be a service bulletin. That was the last I heard from the company and, of course, there was no service bulletin. But the company had someone making cables who thought heat shrink is what keeps connectors on.

I appreciate what Van was trying -- and is trying -- to do regarding safe RV construction. I would like a little more consistency in its application.

My chief complaint with Van's response is that he factually misrepresented the gross weight. Greg has publicly stated that his gross weight is set at 2700 pounds. Maybe I misread this.

I agree with Van that some of the Mods were not ideal, but for some reason his article left me with a sour taste in my mouth.