Rough red is now an aircraft

[Ted Radclyffe]

On the 11th month 1999 the box for Rough Red's tail arrived.
Before my 65th birthday (1st September 2006) "Rough Red" became an aircraft.
It is not the world's best kept secret but at this moment we still await the final C of A "Blessing"... so only very high speed taxi tests have been undertaken....enough to put 2500 feet between the wheels and the runway!

Rough red looks as the name implies; with rough red painted fibreglass work and in matt finish two part silver epoxy paint on the aluminium. Retro some people call it. One either loves or hates it.
Judging by those who want to photo it and its "flying red wine bottle" on the nose, the 1930's image has been achieved.

Basically it is fit for IFR with vacuum instruments, vans "steam" gauges Sl30 comms/nav with ILS and Sl50 GPS. TruTrak wing leveller in place of bat and ball. All about as standard as one can achieve (Glass cockpit comes much later)

Prop is Hartzell CS with O-320 standard Lyc from Van.
Battery is the small concord.
Why this configuration? Well I knew that RV-6's were a bit tail heavy and I wanted to lift me,the wife, and a dog. Well aboout 60 LBS of luggage.
It officially weighed in at 1067 lbs with a Cof G at 69.97" so we have achieved the objective.

Without the wheel pants we cruised on 75% power at over 160Kts IAS.

It is too early to know if I have a heavy wing nor whether I need to put a trim tab on the tail. The Guru who flew me on its maiden flight reckons I have a fast true aircraft and to leave it just as it is for the next 25 hours.
It might look a bit rough round the edges but it flies well so what more can one ask for?

So how do I feel? I think I am still up there.
The C of A inspection is on Monday but I simply could no longer wait to say something.

Just a small addendum.... This web site has sustained me over the last 6 to 7 years and though I have only put in about 15 or so posts, I have come to indirectly know many of you. Thank you Doug and the rest of the crew.

[fodrv7]

Congratulations Ted.
Nice name, nice aeroplane.
Pete.
PS. Until now I thought rough reds were for BBQs.
P.

[pierre smith]

Ted,
Congratulations for sure.......but.......methinks you shouldn't tell this kind of story here.

[jbDC9]

Originally Posted by Ted Radclyffe

It is not the world's best kept secret but at this moment we still await the final C of A "Blessing"... so only very high speed taxi tests have been undertaken....enough to put 2500 feet between the wheels and the runway!

I'm curious how this works; I see that you're in Australia... are you allowed to fly before the "Feds" inspection down there?

[Ted Radclyffe]

Thanks all for the congrats.
Do I feel guilty about mentioning that Rough Red is able to fly prior the granting of the official Certificate of Airworthiness? Only from the actual letter of the law perspective. Since the initial "testing" (which is sort of understood to take place in most circles) there cannot and should not be any other such ventures. And there haven't been, no matter how much one is tempted.

In Australia the SAAA (Sports Aviation Association) has the running for inspections and Applications for Certificates of Airworthiness applications through an approved person.

Throughout the entire building process there must be a number of inspections (minimum 3 but in my case 9) which are recorded and sent to SAAA for file. These inspections are done by a nominated technical cordinator.

The final inspection by an approved person is carried out to ensure predominantly that all the other inspections are in order, that more than 50% has been done by the builder, that the placards and warning signs are in order and that the Registration signage is in order, Wieghts and balances are officially recognised and the noise exemption certificate is in order. Basically the aircraft conforms to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's regulations for Experimental aircraft. In my case all the paper work is with the Approved Person and has been since the aircraft has been in a state ready to fly.

The moving and shaking of the control surfaces etc is, to a very large extent done by the TC and by also by someone that the SAAA knows about or is a LAME. Of course through all this, it is wise to have kept in very close contact with the person approved to do the final inspection. In my case the Guru who took me on the first flight works cooperatively with the Approved Person and has done a thorough inspection of the workmanship etc. There is no hint that anything would be "under the carpet".

I don't want to enter into a discussion of pros and cons for the way it works over here.....just share the joy of the first flight and the anticipation of the good days to come after the official paper work "blessing" has been ratified.

[pierre smith]

Mornin' everybody,
Ted, I hope that you didn't view my reply as inflammatory because it wasn't inteneded that way, and I surely didn't want to rain on your parade.

Here in the USA, we are facing quite a bit of scrutiny from the FAA and the Feds in general over the 51% rule that is in some places, skirted quite flagrantly, with buyers plunking down big bucks to have their airplanes built for them.

I've been witness to "High-speed taxi tests" wherein I could have sworn I heard a tire chirp followed by a wink-wink, "No you didn't, it was heavy braking" type of explanation. We have to comply with the regs, like it or not, or we stand even more regs and scrutiny, which we really don't need.

I hope you understand my point of view,
Kind regards,
Pierre

Blue skies and tailwinds to ya, mate...fair dinkum!

[fodrv7]

Pierre,
You, by demonstration of being a EAA Flight Advisor accept the responsibility of all that is involved with that position.
So you do NOT need to offer an apology here.

In fact we all have a responsibility here.
If we abide by the law; EAA or SAAA (which is an Australian adoption of the EAA Regs) then we will all be able to enjoy the privilege that the 'Experimental' certification offers.

Anyone who abuses that privilege jeopardises the 'Experimental' builders of the future.

To fly an aircraft in the USA or Australia without a Certificate of Airworthiness is operating illegally

Pierre, you are right to question this action.



Pete.

[Ted Radclyffe]

Pierre, Peter,
I certainly didn't take offense at your question. I am a dedicated SAAA member and have for many years attended most of the fly away meetings. It has been a rocky road to get to a position where there is a resonable building program. I certainly would not want to be thought of as abusing the trust of the organisation in any way.
In fact it is interesting to hear all the misunderstanding which surrounds the responsibility of the TC and the AP. They are not in any way responsible for the workmanship or the airworthiness of the aircraft. There was actually an exoneration letter which was supposed to be presented. This is not in the latest SAAA package but the clear intention is that they give advice and ensure that the directives of CASA are adhered to respectively

In my case the AP the TC and the person who closely inspected my aircraft all know me and the aircraft well.

I absolutely abhore the concepts of having someone else build the aircraft and then have a purchaser (of the parts) claim to be the builder. Not only is it dishonest but in the end it could be dangerous.


I suppose I do now feel sad that I didn't wait ....but after Monday all will be well in the garden.

[fodrv7]

Ted,
Put it behind you and enjoy your beautiful RV.
Pete.

[mlwynn]

Hi Ted,

thanks for the picture. I am just finishing my wings but spending a lot of thought on painting, colors and schemes. When you say "rough red" on the fiberglass portions, what exactly do you mean?

Regards,

Michael Wynn
RV 8 Wings (Flaps)
San Ramon, CA