What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Fatal Lancair 1st flight w/passenger

Status
Not open for further replies.
That was Frank Romeo, the president of the EAA chapter up there. The same chapter that puts on the RV Forum every year. He was a former Air Force B-52 pilot and knew what he was doing. Not sure why two people were on the first flight, tho. I know Jack Briggs, RV-6 builder/pilot (you may remember a Lauran Paine Jr., article in Sport Aviation a few months ago about the Briggs brothers), was helping them that morning (and was probably the last to talk to them), but I haven't had time to talk to Jack.
 
Yeah, this is a strange one. The Operating Limitations should have had the statement "During the flight testing phase, no person may be carried in this aircraft during flight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight." It is hard to see how you could argue that a second person was "essential" on a first flight. If the PIC isn't competent to do the flight solo, then he isn't competent to be PIC on that aircraft. Have someone else do the first flight if required. Or, get additional training and experience so you are properly prepared to do the first flight by your self.

The risk of engine failure is much higher on the first few flights than it is on subsequent flights. There is no reason to risk additional lives. One person only please.

I have a hard time imagining any Phase I test flight where the presence of a second crew member was "essential" to the purpose of the flight.

So many people don't take the flight test phase seriously. I've read too many messages from people who talk about "flying off the hours", as if they just have to fly circles for 25 hours, then they can start operating the aircraft normally. There is a reason why we have a flight test phase, and why we should have minimum crew on those flights. A "proper" flight test program will almost certainly take a lot more than 25 hours. Don't do anything with a passenger that you haven't already fully explored solo. That includes weight, CG, winds, temperature, manoeuvres, speeds, altitudes, etc.
 
Last edited:
DARs are supposed to talk rather emphatically to applicants on this topic. It wouldn't surprise me if the wording gets changed like it did on the Light-Sport operating limitations. Originally they were worded the same way, but the last change changed the wording to say, "The test pilot will be the sole occupant of the aircraft."
 
Essential Crew

I did a little "test pilot" stuff for some certification stuff and the "unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight" was always there. Some times just the pilots only, some times several aux crew where on board, depending on the flight test being done. If that was his Op limits than its his judgment, 1st flight or not. Regardless, the outcome was tragic, thoughts and prayers to friends and family. :(
 
gmcjetpilot said:
I did a little "test pilot" stuff for some certification stuff and the "unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight" was always there. Some times just the pilots only, some times several aux crew where on board, depending on the flight test being done. If that was his Op limits than its his judgment, 1st flight or not. Regardless, the outcome was tragic, thoughts and prayers to friends and family. :(
Click to expand...

George this not a normal statement from you and I have to agree with you. There will more than likely be two people on board when my RV-10 is going up for its first flight. One to monitor the engine and one to fly the plane. Experimental plane with experimental engine. Will use a long runway with lots of landing areas.
 
gmcjetpilot said:
I did a little "test pilot" stuff for some certification stuff and the "unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight" was always there. Some times just the pilots only, some times several aux crew where on board, depending on the flight test being done.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference between a test flight on a large aircraft, where essential test instrumentation is usually back in the cabin, and a test flight on a small aircraft where everything that is needed is well within the sight and reach of one pilot.
TSwezey said:
There will more than likely be two people on board when my RV-10 is going up for its first flight. One to monitor the engine and one to fly the plane. Experimental plane with experimental engine. Will use a long runway with lots of landing areas.
Click to expand...
You have a converted automotive engine, which is probably more likely to have problems than an aircraft engine. And you want to also double the number of people at risk if there is a problem. Does this really make sense?

Is the purpose of the second person to alert you if the engine indications show an impending problem? If so, there are engine indication systems that are designed to do just that - you set upper and lower limits on parametres of interest, and the engine indication system will flash a light, sound a tone, etc to alert you if a parametre hits its limit. This seems like a much better way to mitigate the risk of you missing an impending engine problem than risking a second life.

I say again - if you don't have the skills to fly the aircraft and monitor the engine, you are not the right person to be doing the test flights. If you do have the skills to do that, then there is no point to risking a second life - do the flight solo.
 
Kevin Horton said:
I say again - if you don't have the skills to fly the aircraft and monitor the engine, you are not the right person to be doing the test flights. If you do have the skills to do that, then there is no point to risking a second life - do the flight solo.
Click to expand...

Can I get an amen or perhaps a hallelujah to what Kevin said! Wait a sec... I'm not religious, so I'll just say "ditto". On a first flight, bringing along another person just to monitor the engine seems a bit silly and irresponsible to me.
 
Amen/Ditto

This topic is discussed at length every year at our DAR recurrency training seminars. It is the interpretation of the FAA that with aircraft such as ours, there is absolutely no reason to have a second person on board during phase I flight testing. That's why I made the comment that I wouldn't be surprised to see the wording changed as it was on Light-Sport aircraft. PLEASE don't try to bend this rule, FAA doesn't like it, your insurance company won't like it, and all of the amateur-built world will suffer.
 
Please dont bring a passenger

I am sure by the time you will make the first test flight you will have changed your mind.
Let us convince you.
Extra weight you really dont need
Risking another persons life
He sure wont be covered by insurance and if you wreck it (I bet the insurance would decline responsibility)
Its illegal

My prayers go out to the pilot and passenger and their families.
 
Amen/Ditto!

I am a religious individual, so I will say Amen!

However, we do not necessarily need to only think of the word "amen" as a religious saying. The meaning of the word "AMEN" really should not have any religious meaning to it other than the fact it is an ingrained phrase that has been incorporated into the Christian religious culture.

The word's meaning is: "Thus say us all."
Or, if you want to simplify, "I agree".

I would whole heartedly argue against anyone taking up another soul anytime during their Phase I flight tests. Perhaps if we were building complex multi system large scale aircraft that required flight crews we may be justifiable in taking someone else up during this testing. These planes most definitely do not need anyone else in them except a pilot!
 
TSwezey said:
George this not a normal statement from you and I have to agree with you. There will more than likely be two people on board when my RV-10 is going up for its first flight. One to monitor the engine and one to fly the plane. Experimental plane with experimental engine. Will use a long runway with lots of landing areas.
Click to expand...
Not to beat a dead horse, but this reminds me of the old days in auto racing where the mechanics rode along. The only result was more casualties at the scene of the accident.

If something is wrong with the engine, you'll know it when he does, and since there's nothing either of you can do to fix it in flight, why risk his life too?
 
I agree...

Don't take anyone else on a risky flight. This applies to the first flight, and beyond. Every time that maintenance is done that could effect the engine or flight controls, a single pilot that can correctly handle the risk, should be the only one on board. We all need to help improve the homebuilt accident statistics, I have enough trouble convincing my wife to go fly with me. :(

As an aside, when I suggested to my FAA inspector that during phase 1 I would need to take someone with me to set the AOA, while I flew the plane through the zero G maneuver, he laughed and said NO WAY. :D

Kent
 
kentb said:
Don't take anyone else on a risky flight. This applies to the first flight, and beyond. Every time that maintenance is done that could effect the engine or flight controls, a single pilot that can correctly handle the risk, should be the only one on board. We all need to help improve the homebuilt accident statistics, I have enough trouble convincing my wife to go fly with me. :(

As an aside, when I suggested to my FAA inspector that during phase 1 I would need to take someone with me to set the AOA, while I flew the plane through the zero G maneuver, he laughed and said NO WAY. :D

Kent
Click to expand...
That AOA can be adjusted in phase II.
 
Don't do it!

Todd,

I do understand the reasons you said:

"There will more than likely be two people on board when my RV-10 is going up for its first flight. One to monitor the engine and one to fly the plane. Experimental plane with experimental engine. Will use a long runway with lots of landing areas."

But everyone is right on the money here - it is too risky. If you feel that you are not up to doing both the flying and the engine monitoring then you should not be doing your first flight. In that case, find a professional to do it. You indeed are being more experimental than most with your special auto conversion and so of course this further places you several notches higher on the risk factor simply because this is a true unknown. We ALL have our limitations and just because you built it doesn't mean it is best that you test fly it. Test flying a standard RV with a standard old Lyco in the nose is stressful enough and we are flying behind a largely known and proven combination. You are truly more of an experimental and I salute you for trying something new (even if I would never do that myself) and being a pioneer in that regard.

However, if you feel you need a second person to help monitor things in the cockpit while you fly, then you need to be realistic about the fact that you aren't the right person for your first test flight(s). Once you have some solid data after an experienced test pilot has flown it, then it would give you a comfort level to complete the remainder of the test period.

But don't let your discomfort with the situation allow you to pull in another person qualified or not. Maybe that second person is a qualified test pilot. Then you are just along for the ride and risking your life too and for no reason other than wanting to be on the first flight.

I have built three planes - and only did the test flight on two out of three aircraft. The last two of course. Glad I had a professional do my test flying on my first one. He handled a serious cyl overtemp on my VW conversion (Sonerai 2) better than I ever could have at that time. Now with significantly more experience behind me, I could handle that kinda test flight, but then, no.

As Dirty Harry once said, "A man as got to know his limitations."

Know yours and plan for it.

Good luck with your future test program.

Cheers,

Rob
 
This is an interesting thread. The more sophisticated our instrument panels have become -- with their ability to tell us things that pilots never had the ability to monitor before -- apparently the more people you need on board to fly an airplane.

My understanding is the BEST part about engine monitors is that they can tell you information EARLY so you can land and avoid a big problem. In fact -- as I understand it -- you can download all the data the engine monitor had to tell you -- AFTER you've already landed.

So clearly, if I'm following the rationale in this thread, they're not making our workload lighter, they're actually straining us.

Or else it wouldn't take two people to take an airplane in the air for a couple of minutes over an airport and land it.
 
I will let my DAR make the decision. By the way I am not the pilot. I should say that the second person is there to adjust the engine in flight. I find it extremely dangerous for one person to be screwing with the engine parameters while trying to fly. This engine can not be set up correctly until at various altitudes. I again I will leave the decision up to the DAR but I believe sending one person up on it's initial flight with THIS engine and plane combo is like playing Russian Roulet.(spelling?) My DAR might want to be the one to take it up.
 
TSwezey said:
I will let my DAR make the decision. By the way I am not the pilot. I should say that the second person is there to adjust the engine in flight. I find it extremely dangerous for one person to be screwing with the engine parameters while trying to fly. This engine can not be set up correctly until at various altitudes. I again I will leave the decision up to the DAR but I believe sending one person up on it's initial flight with THIS engine and plane combo is like playing Russian Roulet.(spelling?) My DAR might want to be the one to take it up.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me that there might be two individuals playing Russian Roulette in this scenario. I know nothing about your engine configuration but it seems to me that mixture controls are the altitude adjuster mechanisms for engines. If that is an automated system on your engine then I would hope you could set up specific parameters for that on the ground. Go fly the thing. Monitor the results. Make another adjustment on the ground. Go fly. Monitor the results. Etc.

I have never seen any auto engines that "required" adjustments while driving the car. Usually a mechanic will make an adjustment in the shop then go test drive it, then bring it back in for any further adjustments. Why could this method not be used in your case? Much safer than placing two people at such dangerous risks.
 
I can see that your setup is very expermential..

TSwezey said:
I will let my DAR make the decision. By the way I am not the pilot. I should say that the second person is there to adjust the engine in flight. I find it extremely dangerous for one person to be screwing with the engine parameters while trying to fly. This engine can not be set up correctly until at various altitudes. I again I will leave the decision up to the DAR but I believe sending one person up on it's initial flight with THIS engine and plane combo is like playing Russian Roulet.(spelling?) My DAR might want to be the one to take it up.
Click to expand...

Looks like none of us (VAF readers) has worked with our combination of plane and engine.

In the interest of safety would it be possible to do your first flight down low (not to low of course) where the engine operates like it would on the ground. After the plane has proved that it can operate at alt X. Move the testing up higher where the only thing new would be doing your engine adjustment. Just work it up a little at a time. Then maybe only one person would be exposed to the higher risks that go with phase I flight.

Just some thoughts to ponder. Good luck.

Kent
 
"Risky Flight"

Your first flight should be proceeded by high speed taxi and maybe even some 2 to 5 feet flights above the runway. If anyone feels the first flight is going to be risky, for any reason(inexperienced pilot, possible issues with the aircraft), the flight should not be attempted. If you want to fly a "risky flight" over a desert or an ocean and can find an "essential" person to ride, thats the person's choice, if well informed. NONE of us have the right to endanger innocent, unaware civilians under our flight path with a "risky flight".

The fact that nobody in this thread has mentioned this fact tasks me to ask each of you to reexamine your comments.

BTW: Lay off Todd. He is a smart guy. I have flown with him and if he say the other person is essential, I believe he will do everything possible to minimze the risks and will only allow a qualified individual, knowledgeable of the risks to assist. I'll help you in any way possible, buddy!

Sorry to rant, but thats what I do sometimes.

FWIW.
 
Last edited:
Hard Knox said:
Your first flight should be proceeded by high speed taxi and maybe even some 2 to 5 feet flights above the runway. If anyone feels the first flight is going to be risky, for any reason(inexperienced pilot, possible issues with the aircraft), the flight should not be attempted. If you want to fly a "risky flight" over a desert or an ocean and can find an "essential" person to ride, thats the person's choice, if well informed. NONE of us have the right to endanger innocent, unaware civilians under our flight path with a "risky flight".

The fact that nobody in this thread has mentioned this fact tasks me to ask each of you to reexamine your comments.

BTW: Lay off Todd. He is a smart guy. I have flown with him and if he say the other person is essential, I believe he will do everything possible to minimze the risks and will on allow a qualified individual, knowledgeable of the risks to assist. I'll help you in any way possible, buddy!

Sorry to rant, but thats what I do sometimes.

FWIW.
Click to expand...
Ok, I will acquiesce to the rant and in so doing, direct my last response back to the original topic. My condolences to the families of these individuals who were involved in this tragic accident.
 
lancair

In 1994 I was working for a friend who built a lancair 400. He has built 11 airplanes of differing kinds over the years and he built the lancair in one year. In those days the lancair was kinda new to the scene. On the initial flight, a factory rep/test pilot came down and worked with Buddy to prep the plane. Several of us gave a hand and finally they concluded it was time to fly. We buttoned down the cowling, and Buddy and the factory test pilot took the bird up for its first ride. They had no trouble, except a few minor engine tweeking things to do post flight. It may not have been legal, but both these guys were very experienced pilots and builders and they concured and agreed to ride together for the first several hours so they could both trouble shoot any problems. I dont know if its right or wrong, but these guys did it without incident.
 
Bob Collins said:
That was Frank Romeo, the president of the EAA chapter up there. The same chapter that puts on the RV Forum every year. He was a former Air Force B-52 pilot and knew what he was doing. Not sure why two people were on the first flight, tho. I know Jack Briggs, RV-6 builder/pilot (you may remember a Lauran Paine Jr., article in Sport Aviation a few months ago about the Briggs brothers), was helping them that morning (and was probably the last to talk to them), but I haven't had time to talk to Jack.
Click to expand...
What gets me here is that Mr. Romeo was an EAA chapter president. As the president of chapter 309, I feel it is my responsibility to hold myself to a higher standard, in build quality, safety, following the regs, etc.

It is the chapter officers and board members who set the standards for the rest of the chapter and if I or one of my fellow chapter executives do something stupid, how can we pressure other members to do the "right thing"?

Remember, everything each pilot does reflects on all of us. I would rather self police the aviation community via peer pressure than have the FAA, DHS, etc. do it through fines and/or jail terms.

The accident is unfortunate and my heart goes out to the family of the two men on board.
 
Nothing personal Todd

But in the effort to police ourselves, keep my insurance rates low and maybe keep a few goobers from killing themselves, your plan is idiotic. Foot stomp. If your plane is such a hazard that you cannot fly it with many hours of viewing everything before the first flight, then please take it to a desolate area and fly it solo so that only you are at risk.

Not long ago someone flew their RV here for the first time and came very close to dying because he was fixated on his fancy smancy glass panel and forgot about flying the plane. He came very close to stalling which almost certainly would have led to a spin and crash shortly after take-off.

Your other option is to get a competent test pilot to fly it. Put your "I built it so I will fly it first" ego away and use good judgement.

If others want to flame me, go ahead but I am tired of RV pilots dying because of poor judgment.
 
TSwezey said:
I will let my DAR make the decision. By the way I am not the pilot. I should say that the second person is there to adjust the engine in flight. I find it extremely dangerous for one person to be screwing with the engine parameters while trying to fly. This engine can not be set up correctly until at various altitudes. I again I will leave the decision up to the DAR but I believe sending one person up on it's initial flight with THIS engine and plane combo is like playing Russian Roulet.(spelling?) My DAR might want to be the one to take it up.
Click to expand...

I highly recommend getting the EMS programmed properly on the ground. Chock it, tie it down, whatever you need to do to do near full power runups. If that can't be done, I'd be very wary about taking it into the air, Alternately if you can data log AFRs during a fast taxi test to full power, this is a safer way to do it. Programming the EMS in flight if it isn't running right is not a great idea IMO.
 
Lancair

Sorry to bend the thread a bit, but I'd like to ask this. I lost two friends in that accident. So if you engineering guys have any opinions, I'd like to hear them. Assuming that all things were the equal with the exception of the aircraft, would this accident have been any more survivable for them if this had been an RV, aluminum construction, as opposed to the carbon fiber construction of the Lancair? From pictures I've seen, there wasn't much left of it forward of the baggage compartment. I also agree that the 2nd person should not have been aboard, but that was their decision, not the best one in my opinion.
 
52Pop said:
Sorry to bend the thread a bit, but I'd like to ask this. I lost two friends in that accident. So if you engineering guys have any opinions, I'd like to hear them.
Click to expand...
There is so little information available on this accident that there is no point to speculating on what happened. The only people who might be able to offer any kind of informed opinion would be those who actually witnessed it, and studied the wreckage. Speculation from other people is worthless.
 
I keep reading here that a second person was needed to "help troubleshoot any problems." I haven't done a lot of flight test research but isn't the only thing you need to do in the event of a "problem" is land? ON a first flight, isn't the airport right below you? Isn't that WHY you fly close to the airport on a first flight?

I'm not quarelling if someone says they think their flight testing regimen makes a second person essential.

Maybe he/she is. But doesn't that at least suggest there might be something wrong with the regimen?
 
Lancair

Kevin, I'm not speculating what happened. I've seen the TV news video reports as well as the local paper. I'm merely trying to find out from people that know the different properties of materials, if given the same circumstances, if an aircraft made with aluminum would withstand the impact any better than the carbon fiber type of construction appears to have.
 
Hard Knox said:
Your first flight should be proceeded by high speed taxi and maybe even some 2 to 5 feet flights above the runway.
Click to expand...
OK, my turn to rant.

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. High speed taxi tests and "crow hops" are unneccesary and dangerous. If you have a well proven design (like the RV) properly weighed/ balanced, with proper control surface throws, sufficient static RPMs, etc (in other words- all the grounds checks are OK) and you have recieved training in type, then there is nothing worthwhile to be gained.

Many a plane have come to grief doing high speed taxi tests and crow hops.
 
ronlee said:
Your other option is to get a competent test pilot to fly it. Put your "I built it so I will fly it first" ego away and use good judgement.
Click to expand...


Did you read my bucking post. I am not the pilot. I did not say I had to be on the first flight. I will almost bet my plane will be more thoroughly tested BEFORE it leaves the ground than 99% of the other RV's. I am sure the planes initial flight will probably be a high speed taxi with a slight lift off. It will be flown in Savannah where there are two runways over 5000'. The plane will not leave the vicinity (gliding distance) of the runway until the engine is thoroughly tested. I think I need four people on board to do that!

Do you people just think that a buddy and I are just going to jump in the plane and fly off into the wild blue yonder over crowded cities on the first flight? You guys need to get out of the house more often! But I am glad to see I can ruffle some feathers so easily.

Thanks for watching my back Robby!
 
Hard Knox said:
Your first flight should be proceeded by high speed taxi and maybe even some 2 to 5 feet flights above the runway. QUOTE]

For those that agree with the above statement, it's time to dust off your old copies of the RVator. Second issue, 2005, page 9, "Beware: The High Speed Taxi Test", written by Van.

Tony
Click to expand...
 
sportpilot said:
It may not have been legal, but both these guys were very experienced pilots and builders and they concured and agreed to ride together for the first several hours so they could both trouble shoot any problems. I dont know if its right or wrong, but these guys did it without incident.
Click to expand...
That is like saying that because you have never experienced an engine failure, that it can never happen to you, and that you can completely ignore the risk.

Ron Wanttaja did a study of accident reports a few years ago that showed that there is a much higher risk of an accident during the first few flights on the aircraft. It is not prudent to put unnecessary people at risk.
 
First flights..

52Pop said:
I'm merely trying to find out from people that know the different properties of materials, if given the same circumstances, if an aircraft made with aluminum would withstand the impact any better than the carbon fiber type of construction appears to have.
Click to expand...

Mornin' guys,
Allan, the aluminum airplane designers claim a better deformation and absorption of impact forces because of aluminum's crumpling gradually in the event of an impact. How the guys in the Lancair hit, I have no idea and won't speculate.

As far as the initial flight, I read years ago about a possible life saving technique for first flight engine failures and it is done very easily. The procedure is to take off and climb at the best rate as soon as possible and here's the safety exercise: Turn right to approximately 30 to 40 degrees from the runway, still climbing as fast as practical. By the time you pass the end of the runway, off to your left, a left turn to base can now be easily accomplished in the event of an engine failure. Bear in mind that with either the RV's or Lancairs, this shouldn't take take a minute even. If the engine is still running, don't turn but continue climbing to a thousand feet or more, staying at the end of the runway and then circle while climbing. It's very difficult to execute a safe emergency landing from a mid-downwind position but not so off the end of the runway. At 1500 FPM or better, a couple of thousand feet gain happens quickly.

My condolences as well,
 
I feel for the families of these departed pilots. Now let's not trample on their graves any further and relegate any bantering about test flying to the appropriate area.

Roberta
 
Kevin Horton said:
That is like saying that because you have never experienced an engine failure, that it can never happen to you, and that you can completely ignore the risk.

Ron Wanttaja did a study of accident reports a few years ago that showed that there is a much higher risk of an accident during the first few flights on the aircraft. It is not prudent to put unnecessary people at risk.
Click to expand...

In a discussion with AVEMCO re hull insurance before first flight, the guy said they have numbers indicating the first 10 hours are the most risky, therefore when 10 hours are flown off, they would insure the hule.

That's how it was with AVEMCO a few years ago.

We all believe the first few hours are the most risky, insurance companies know it for sure. That being said, the risk is manageable if the builder avails himself of EAA tech and flight advisors. The first flight accident rate has been reduced substantially since this program was started by EAA.
 
Last edited:
TSwezey said:
There will more than likely be two people on board when my RV-10 is going up for its first flight. One to monitor the engine and one to fly the plane. Experimental plane with experimental engine. Will use a long runway with lots of landing areas.
Click to expand...

Some engine monitors spit their data out on a serial port. It would a pretty trivial matter to connect the output to a radio modem. Your second crewman could then stay on the ground, monitoring the data on a laptop.

Of course, I do this stuff for a living (I build UAVs...no crew aboard at all, and lots of data to monitor) so perhaps it just looks trivial to me.
 
robertahegy said:
I feel for the families of these departed pilots. Now let's not trample on their graves any further and relegate any bantering about test flying to the appropriate area.

Roberta
Click to expand...
You couldn't have said it any better.
 
sprucemoose said:
OK, my turn to rant.

I'm going to disagree with you on this one. High speed taxi tests and "crow hops" are unneccesary and dangerous. If you have a well proven design (like the RV) properly weighed/ balanced, with proper control surface throws, sufficient static RPMs, etc (in other words- all the grounds checks are OK) and you have recieved training in type, then there is nothing worthwhile to be gained.

Many a plane have come to grief doing high speed taxi tests and crow hops.
Click to expand...

I can't side with you on this one. While I agree the hop is a bad idea on a short runway, high speed taxi tests are very important. Todd has an RV airframe but a first time engine installation. Believe me this is far different than having a Lycoming up front. My high speed taxi tests uncovered SEVERE main gear shimmy on my 6A at about 40-45 knots. I'm glad I found this out before committing to a flight. Good chance to check the ASI as well and keeping it straight with rudder, especially with the big V8. These tests can help you develop a good checklist for your aircraft which you should always use of course.

Have your plan set out, keep it below 45 knots, always be aware of runway remaining and have your cut throttle point visualized before advancing the throttle. Once you reach your 40-45 knots, idle throttle.

Once all bugs are worked out that you can on the ground and the engine has been tuned and runs properly, you may be ready for the first flight. Have a written plan on just a few critical items to test and stick to that list. Brief tower personnel on your intentions in person if possible, keep it close to the runway in a gentle climbing turn, don't pick an airport surrounded by trees etc. if at all possible (this has killed more than a few). Expect the engine to fail at all times. This will keep you on your toes. Keep the flight short (10 minutes) so that you can check for possible oil and coolant loss on the ground.

Have your engine out plan firm in your mind at each phase of flight- runway go/ no go point, rotation, climb etc. Have a best glide speed calculated and stick to it at all costs until the flare. Have another pilot quiz you on your plan to make sure it is instinctive. There will be lots going through your mind on the first flight. No matter what happens, fly the aircraft, keep the speed safely above the stall at all times, keep bank angles low.

I'd also do a quick GPS/ ASI test upwind and downwind to see if they average out within 10 knots or so. You can then have some faith in the ASI.

Test, test, test on the ground, prepare well and enjoy it. There is no other feeling like it after your first flight with an alternate engine and new airframe. We want to see that RV grin! :)

Keep us updated on your project Todd. Very exciting.
 
Last edited:
Little hops

I'm not sure what the "little hops" will accomplish. The engine/airframe will essentially be level. What is this doing?

I think high speed taxi tests are a receipt for problems. The numbers from previous studies verify this.

High angle fuel flow tests and possibly a high angle engine run. Under no circumstances should someone else be on board during this flight.

Regarding a second person on board during Phase I. I consulted with a DAR regarding a full gross weight flight. This involved a second person to get to gross weight. My testing involved, climb data, stalls, handling in slow flight and landing. The DAR told me the second person became essential crew. This was near the end of my 40 hours of Phase I and the flight was 1.1 hours.

He said this was more desireable than trying to ballast and take the chance of weight shifting. There was no game playing with the rules, but real purpose that was followed to the letter.
 
Lancair

Pierre, Thanks for the answer to my question. Also thanks for the additional info regarding the turns shortly after take off. Sounds like some solid advice, especially for a first flight! Amazing how something so simple seems so intelligent in that type of situation.
 
TSwezey said:
The plane will not leave the vicinity (gliding distance) of the runway until the engine is thoroughly tested. I think I need four people on board to do that!

Do you people just think that a buddy and I are just going to jump in the plane and fly off into the wild blue yonder over crowded cities on the first flight? You guys need to get out of the house more often! But I am glad to see I can ruffle some feathers so easily.
Click to expand...

I'm sure I'm misreading this, but are you saying that there will be four on board during initial testing? I can't figure what is so special about this engine that it can't be sorted out on the ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top