Flyfalcons said:
So your qualifications to perform the first flight are that you're a private pilot, rated in the category and class that the RV falls into. Nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly legal. Whether the knowledge that there are three inspection panels on the left wing and the ailerons delect 23 degrees up and down is of benefit to you when the engine fails at 200 feet is debatable. Some would argue that many hours flown in the same type of plane would better prepare someone for a first flight, but I digress. All my ratings from ATP and down, and flight experience in many types including experiencing abnormal events in those types, doesn't necessarily give me any great insight on an RV first flight either.
Click to expand...

Speaking of aileron up & down deflection; just a year or so ago, at an airport close by.............two professional test pilots unfortunately failed to note that the ailerons had been rigged in reverse, after a mechanic switched the control arms while doing some landing mechanism repair. This was on a new prototype business jet. Both died within seconds after the plane left the ground.

So tell me---------------how many RV engines have failed on the first flight? I know there has been a few, yet the percentage is extremely low when compared to all first flights. Would the outcome be any different, should the engine fail on the builders first flight..........even though the plane was previously flown by another pilot?

And besides, most reasonable builders would thoroughly check, or have checked; the engine, wiring, magnetos, and fuel systems before the first flight. If not, they have no business building an airplane.

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Sure, most reasonable builders have. Yet, we still get reports of reversed elevator trim and the like on first flights; some on this very thread. These things do happen.
 
I'll echo poster Toad's (and some others' above) thoughts...I did not want to endanger anyone else with my project.

My ego could handle someone else flying that first flight, but less so my conscience if I made a construction mistake that led to a mishap and injured a test pilot.

I've had a few inflight emergencies and I know that I can deal with sudden contingencies without freezing up, (but I'd much rather not have to, and I certainly don't know everything.) I have a long way to go to prepare myself as much as I possibly can, which I'll endeaver to do.

One publication along those lines is the FAA advisory circular on flight testing of amateur-build a/c. (Although from what I gather, we should skip the high speed taxi tests in the RV series.)

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/aircraft/media/ac90-89a.pdf

IIRC, the first flight is statistically the most hazardous. The decision should be well-thought-through.



.
 
Captain Sacto said:
One publication along those lines is the FAA advisory circular on flight testing of amateur-build a/c. (Although from what I gather, we should skip the high speed taxi tests in the RV series.) .
Click to expand...

Not sure why you say that. ?? Did I miss something in the advisory circular specific to RVs?
 
Jamie said:
Here we go again. The waiver allows people to RENT their aircraft for the purpose of offering transition training. You can pay an instructor for a flight review or instrument training in your RV. You can be paid for fly your experimental in an airshow. You simply can't carry passengers or cargo for hire and you may not rent out an experimental aircraft unless you have some sort of waiver.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. But the "here we go again" comment is entirely unnecessary. I am, admittedly, still learning about the Experimental category. I'd appreciate your humility as I share mine.
 
I'm gonna practice hard in MSFS before my first flight. If I can get my fingers coordinated on the keyboard for take-off, I should be good to go! :D
 
Flyfalcons said:
Sure, most reasonable builders have. Yet, we still get reports of reversed elevator trim and the like on first flights; some on this very thread. These things do happen.
Click to expand...
Sure, things happen but reversed elevator trim seems to get more than its fair share of billing. I do not understand why all the concern. Those who have experienced it will tell you it borders on being a non event. Big Whoop. If something as minor as that is enough to unnerve a pilot, he really should let someone else conduct the first flight. Like I mentioned, a simple wire swap will correct it but I choose not to. Just yesterday I let a seasoned airline pilot fly my RV from the right seat. The electric trim is controlled ONLY through the the china hat atop the pilot's stick. When he needed to trim and reached over to adjust it, I said " Heads up Randy, it's wired to work in reverse." He said, "Why?" I said "I like it that way, down is down and up is up." He just shrugged and never gave it a second thought as he trimmed the airplane. Like I said, BIG WHOOP.
 
re:qualified

I feel qualified to test fly my RV. I'm current flying 150's an 172's. I've also been flying my brother's 9A regularly since it stays at my house. I'll try to get some "stick time" with some of the local RV10 builders/flyers first. But, I'll do my own test flight.:)

Marshall Alexander
RV10 N781DM
 
Elevator Trim Sense and Labelling

That was one of the things that the inspector from the Albany NY FSDO checked carefully and walked through the logic with me during his sign off. It was correct :)

Jim Sharkey
 
terrykohler said:
"professional" type test pilots are not required.
I believe Cessna continues to flight test every 172 that comes off of the assembly line (spins included). Interesting that they would feel this is necessary for a design over half a century old. Wonder if they're using "professionals", or just asking for volunteers from the local flight schools to fly these standardized machines.
Terry, CFI
RV-9A N323TP
Click to expand...

There is a significant difference between "production flight test" and "experimental flight test". Production flight test is used to verify that all systems work before the product is delivered. This contrasts sharply with experimental flight test where you are just looking to see if the vehicle is capable of controlled flight.

And of course Cessna has "professional" pilots on staff... Why wouldn't they? I doubt very seriously that they fly with chutes on their backs and one hand on the door release as they take every 172 to the "edge" and back. :D

There is little doubt that a brand new RV will fly almost exactly like the 3000 other RV's out there so the only risk is that you, the Feds, and the scores of other people who inspected your work missed something mechanical that will cause a problem in flight. If that is the case, the risk is substantially the same whether the first or 500th flight
 
Rick6a said:
Like I said, BIG WHOOP.
Click to expand...
Rick, I'm not sure this is the attitude that should be prevalent in homebuilt construction and test flying. If we allow one thing to slide, such as trim rigged backward, what else are we allowing to fall by the wayside? A backward trim on a first flight to you may not be of concern, but you may also have been a bit more current and experienced when you made your first flight compared with others. This is why we must take an introspective look into our own flying ability and currency before making the determination on whether to take the first flight or not. Someone who is low time and has only flown 20 hours in the last five years while building their RV is not going to be as ready as someone who is current and familiar with the type, even if that person did build the plane and are very familiar with its construction. That's the only point I'm trying to get across here, all for the sake of a good discussion.
 
Who's not being logical?

Flyfalcons said:
Tracy, I hate being the proverbial turd in the punchbowl, but it's important to look at these issues with logic and not emotion ...
Click to expand...

Ryan,

I don't really want to get into a pissing contest here, but I am using logic and not emotion. There is more to a first flight than making sure all of the controls work correctly, and the airplane will not drop out of the sky. There are a number of instruments that are very important to monitor. I think I would be a little pissed if I hired someone to do a first flight, and my airplane came back with the cylinders melted because he could not find the CHT readouts, or he didn't know that running a rotary engine with coolant above 220 degrees is a bad thing.

I'm not suggesting that the only thing for a first flight pilot to do is to monitor all of the gauges and not look out the window to be sure the ailerons are staying attached. I'm suggesting that it is one aspect of doing the first flight, and the guy who built the panel has the best knowledge of the layout and operation of the controls on the panel. This could be very valuable during the first flight, although, not the only qualifier.

As an example, take my own RV-7A. It will, someday, be rotary powered, using a Real World Solutions EM2 engine monitor and EC2 engine controller, with a couple of MGL Voyager EFISs, and MGL radio, plus some sort of transponder. Now, although altitude and airspeed will be on the EFISs, they can be preset and left on the same page, and it only takes a few minutes to become familiar with reading those fairly important indications. Although, to be fair, I would expect any pilot doing a first flight to be able to fly without those indicators. The radio and transponder can probably be preset and left alone, so those are probably not too much of a distraction.

That brings us to the EM2/EC2. Again, to be fair, the EM2 can probably be left on the first page, monitoring the temps, but I would be a little more comfortable if the first flight pilot were familiar with that piece of equipment. Now, the only thing left is the EC2. Ok, everyone here who is familiar with the EC2, please raise your hands. Yeah, I thought so, not too many. How many of you who are familiar with the EC2 have flown a rotary powered RV7? How many hours? How many engine out landing? Now, how many of you feel comfortable doing my first flight?

Like I said, the panel is not the only thing to think about, but in some cases, it can be very important, and familiarity is an advantage here. In my own particular case, the panel layout and operation is going to be fairly important, and my knowledge of how it works, and how the engine operates is going to be very important to the success of the first flight. I do not plan on asking someone else to assume that responsibility.

Cheers,
Tracy.
 
Last edited:
first flight...

Disclaimer: I am "inexperienced" but trying to maximize my chances of becoming "experienced".

I will be confronting this issue shortly and I decided a long time ago to have someone else do the first flight. I made that decision before I did my transition training (loved it!) and before I would be emotionally drained from the "push to the finish" of getting it airworthy.

I've tried to educate myself as to "best practices" with the build and testing processes and decided that, no matter how "comfortable" I was, there were many folks more qualified for the first flight than I was. I don't view the first flight as a wedding night. For me, and only me, that would be a trigger for an attitude check. But THAT'S JUST ME. I know there are way more qualified folks who know what they're doing who can allow themselves that level of personification of an experimental, amateur built aircraft, at the beginning of flight testing. I can't. I think one of the aspects mentioned in the John Denver crash was an attitude that exceeded his actual experience and skill set.

I will do the rest of the 40 hours because I love to learn and practice challenging things. The risk/reward just isn't there for me to do the first flight. There are other "first" tests that I will also ask someone else to do. Spin/Acro testing certainly, perhaps aft Cg, Vne explorations, maybe others. After the "first" tests, I will duplicate them, to learn how to do them and learn the aircraft. I have more research to do, but it will be done with the assumption that there is probably stuff that would be better done by more experienced folks. I've been very careful to not overly emotionally imbue that event with too much. Yes it will be a huge milestone, but I've been trying to develop a professional attitude.

One other aspect...I've had a number of (experienced) folks who have watched my build over the years, volunteer to do the first flight. Someone pointed out that if none of them had, I should have thought long and hard about flying it myself:eek:

One of the challenges many of us face is that we are "romantics and dreamers". Why else would we be doing this?:eek: Personification of something that took this much to come into being is natural. That's great but it needs to be balanced. Maybe what I'm trying for is an attitude that is essentially "it is an it until we have learned about each other's capabilities". I won't trust it or personify it until it has earned my trust through thorough flight testing. Some of that testing I'm qualified for, others, not so much.

One thing about RV's and many RVers is a high level of ASSUMED conformity. I know of lots of planes that have been flying for many hours with VERY incomplete Phase 1 tests. First flights at gross and rear cg done with family and baggage for a long trip at destinations with high density altitude. Impromptu first time aerobatics out of Phase 1. First time with various full/empty tank configurations, no knowlege of actual calibrated speeds or climb abilities or gradients, all with trusting passengers. I think this comes about as a result of the comfort we have with the kind of airplane we're building, but that comfortable attitude can be very dangerous.

The one other thing I've not seen discussed in this thread is the issue brought up of "fast taxi". I won't be doing those either, and neither will anyone I let fly the plane. Again, a risk/reward decision.

Just one more data point...no judgement implied either way for anyone else.

Jeremy Constant
 
cattflight said:
Not sure why you say that. ?? Did I miss something in the advisory circular specific to RVs?
Click to expand...

You may want to check the Vans newsletter about this issue of 'High Speed Taxi Tests' (sorry, but I do not recall the exact issue). There was an excellent article in there by Van who stated that high speed taxi tests were not necessary and even dangerous as they could lead to inadvertant flight, therefore do not do any high speed taxi testing.
 
"Standardized" airplanes

Just in case anyone was wondering, this is what Cessna does for flight testing of the 172, a fairly popular model that's been around for a few years:
From the Cessna answer desk.............
Each new single engine airplane goes through a flight test with each model having its own flight test procedure. This flight test starts with a first flight which lasts for a little over an hour. If squawks are noted subsequent flights will be flown to make sure the squawk has been addressed. The flight test is quite extensive and includes affirming the navigation and communication equipment , the propulsion system and airframe all perform as designed. Each airplane will go through a wing set process that places flight loads on the airframe. Throughout the flight test the intent is for the production test pilot to gather a great deal of data about how the airplane is functioning. While all single engine aircraft incur stall testing, only the 172 is spun. Our test program requires every tenth Skyhawk be spun. Spins for the aircraft will be accomplished in both right and left directions for two turns, with the expectation recovery is accomplished in one half a turn.
Terry
 
thallock said:
Ryan,

I don't really want to get into a pissing contest here, but I am using logic and not emotion. There is more to a first flight than making sure all of the controls work correctly, and the airplane will not drop out of the sky. There are a number of instruments that are very important to monitor. I think I would be a little pissed if I hired someone to do a first flight, and my airplane came back with the cylinders melted because he could not find the CHT readouts, or he didn't know that running a rotary engine with coolant above 220 degrees is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I would hope if you brought on someone to do the initial flight, that you would at least spend a few minutes with them on cockpit familiarization and operating limits (you do have the operating limits marked on your gauges, right?) ;)
 
Fact Based Coaching

I have been following this thread off and on (loosely) the past few days, and thought I'd make just a little input from afar.....the first thing I noticed is that there hasn't been a lot of discussion about the EAA Flight Adviser program. These kind of discussions are the EXACT reason that the program exists - the truth is that there is no single answer to who should be doing first flights. A good FA will talk to an individual about their individual situation, experience, airplane, etc. Based on this discussion, he or she can do a little coaching to help achieve a good outcome for everyone. No two test flight situations are the same - and having an argument with another pilot about if they should or should not do this or that in a generic sense is nothing more than a waste of energy. Some low time pilots do fine, some high time pilots do poorly. Most first flight incidents are not caused by a "big" failure (such as an engine failure), but distractions caused by little things. It is not how you deal with emergencies - it is how you deal with distractions that count.

Stick and rudder skills are important, but an non-emotional, logical, fact-based approach is equally important. Most of the arguments I have read here are, in fact, emotion based at their heart - even the thoughts about "I would feel terrible if I asked someone else to take the risk". (Come on - the word "feel" should be a tip-off....;))

Talk to a local FA - if you are not sure if the first flight is right for you, they can help. If you are 100% convinced that the first flight is right for you, then what can it hurt to bounce your conviction off of someone else? Just as a wise builder has other builders and counselors inspect their airplanes, a wise pilot will ask for someone to inspect their operational decisions when they can.

Fly Safe,

Paul
 
Last edited:
Re RVs and fast taxi tests

Cattflight asks re comment that RVs might not be candidates for fast taxi testing...Not sure why you say that. ?? Did I miss something in the advisory circular specific to RVs?

Nothing in the advisory circular, sorry if I left that impression; however Van's does have an opinion. Here's an article from a year-old RVator by Ken Scott and Van (starts on p 6). http://www.vansaircraft.info/2008/6-2008-RVator.pdf.

A few years back, I took an RV construction class from Ken Scott, and he made the same comment, quite emphatically. Risk wise, the safety statistics apparently say that you are better off taking to the sky, intentionally, rather than trying to sneak up on lift-off speed, and finding yourself in an awkward predicament.


.
 
I'll use a test pilot for the following reasons

I fly weekly in my Cherokee Dakota and I have about 700 hours total time. I will use a test pilot to fly my RV-7A for the first time, for the following reasons:

1) a test pilot will be able to detect out of trim condition quicker than I and will be able to resppond accordingly faster than me. This could save me and my airplane from damage

2) if something goes wrong, I think a test pilot will respond better than me. And I don't need to get hurt in the plane I just built and I don't need to damage the plane either.

3) I think it will be a non-event and therefore can't find any negative reasons for not having a test pilot. This is different thinking, then, "might as well do it myself" see numbers 1) and 2).
 
Last edited:
test pilot

I had a problem lurking in my airplane. The inverted flip flop tube was not tightened properly inside the tank. Installation error by me. No problem as long as the whole tube is below the fuel line. But with a partial tank, the fuel pump start sucking air on take-off, nose-up attitude.

Had I been flying the airplane, who knows? Almost 4 years building and a lot of rust in the pilot skills. The Test Pilot instinctively switched tanks in a half of a gurgle, and it was a non-event. Thank you, Kahuna! Maybe that saved my life not finding that on my own.

The first flight is about the plane, not the pilot.

I had my first flight later, and it was just as sweet. If there's another RV left in this builder, I'll do first flight. By then I'll have the hours and experience.
 
dhall_polo said:
I had a problem lurking in my airplane. The inverted flip flop tube was not tightened properly inside the tank. Installation error by me...
Click to expand...

I don't want this to come off sounding harsh, but I suspect some will view it that way...

Prior to flight, did you perform a nose high, full power run in a the fuel condition (full, half, etc) expected for flight? This is an important preflight check; seems like it would have uncovered this problem, no?
 
Toobuilder said:
I don't want this to come off sounding harsh, but I suspect some will view it that way...

Prior to flight, did you perform a nose high, full power run in a the fuel condition (full, half, etc) expected for flight? This is an important preflight check; seems like it would have uncovered this problem, no?
Click to expand...

All testing that is typically done before first flight was done. First flight was done with near full tanks, and this was uncovered on a later flight. My test pilot flew more than just the first flight, and this error happened as fuel burned down. Hopefully the point was not missed that in the first flight or three, there's obviously a much greater chance of some sort of failure that could lead to emergency procedures. For those who question over whether they're personally the best test pilot, just need to assess their preparedness for the worst.

Thanks.
 
About 15 years ago there was a guy I worked with that had spent 10 years building his plane only to wreck and total it on his maiden voyage. Fortunately he escaped relatively unharmed. I don't recall what kind of plane it was.
 
Toobuilder said:
I don't want this to come off sounding harsh, but I suspect some will view it that way...

Prior to flight, did you perform a nose high, full power run in a the fuel condition (full, half, etc) expected for flight? This is an important preflight check; seems like it would have uncovered this problem, no?
Click to expand...
Doing a full power, nose high engine run is a bit much in my opinion. There are a few ways that could go very, very badly.

But, up here in Canada, we are required to do a fuel flow test with minimum fuel and the pitch attitude higher than it would be in a max angle climb. The fuel line is disconnected at the carb or fuel injection servo, and the boost pump is turned on, with minimum fuel in the tanks. The fuel flow must be greater than is required at take-off power. This is a good test to do, in my opinion, as it can catch myriad problems.
 
dhall_polo said:
All testing that is typically done before first flight was done. First flight was done with near full tanks, and this was uncovered on a later flight. My test pilot flew more than just the first flight, and this error happened as fuel burned down. Hopefully the point was not missed that in the first flight or three, there's obviously a much greater chance of some sort of failure that could lead to emergency procedures. For those who question over whether they're personally the best test pilot, just need to assess their preparedness for the worst.
Click to expand...

My engine had it's first and only "burp" after phase one. Within a split second I flipped the fuel pump on & switched tanks. That was quickly followed by a mixture change, that was most likely the problem to start with.

I would have done the same on the first flight, with no hesitation, as I was mentally prepared for it.

Since I read the majority of NTSB reports every week, as well as first flights on Van's website and here, I've concluded that the majority of first flight, as well as subsequent flights end successfully. Without doubt, failures still happen after these first few flights; and the pilot will have be just as prepared then. I just don't see a pattern of failures on the first to third flights as compared to airplanes with more hours, except for those where the obvious was missed. The obvious has wiped out many test pilots too.

I do see a pattern in this thread of "anxiety". It's normal for a builder, whether a Van's RV or other. I know some very experienced pilots who have jumped aboard their new high powered creation, and still get a case of the jitters for that first takeoff.

But here's the deal. If your overwhelmed with hesitation and anxiety for that first flight..................then don't do it. But I don't want this thread to evolve.... to speculate that it's somewhat foolish to perform your own first flight, since someone else is "always" going to have more hours. And that's where it's kind of going. Afterall, a Van's design has a much better chance of total success versus a number of one off the paper designs. And the facts are, thousands of builders (including myself) do their own first flights, and are still here to talk about it. I'm glad I did. I didn't want it any other way..

L.Adamson --- RV6A
 
Last edited:
Test pilot

I have done several test flights, close to 15 now, mostly RV's. Next week I am due to make another in an RV-7 I am just now finishing up.

There is a HUGE difference between building and flying. Totally two different hats, and mind frames.

IF there is any question AT ALL

Call me or someone else!
 
Kevin Horton said:
Doing a full power, nose high engine run is a bit much in my opinion. There are a few ways that could go very, very badly...
Click to expand...

...Yet this very test is promoted by many very experienced people, apparently for good reason. As for going very badly, how so? Anyway, I would much rather have a bad day on the ground than in the air, anytime.

There are many good reasons not to fly your own test flight, but being "afraid" of mechanical failure should not be among them (nervous, sure; afraid, no). If you think that something might fall off, the engine will quit, catch fire, or the controls are backwards, you should not let ANYONE fly the thing. To be blunt, you have not done your job as a builder. The fact is, aside from a FREAK failure, like throwing a rod, a "correctly" built, conventional RV will fly very nicely with almost absolute certainty. Almost any first flight failure that requires anything above average piloting skill can be traced to poor preflight preparation and could have been found through ground test and inspection. I would challenge anyone to find a first flight failure that was completely out of the control of the builder or pilot.

I've been in the aviation maintenance business for all my adult life, and I have had countless first flights after I have torn the aircraft right down to the bare bones; I've NEVER wondered if the aircraft was safe. If I did, I would not let the pilot take the jet. To make a long story a little longer, flight test is not a method for uncovering the mistakes of the builder/mechanic, it is to verify what you should already know - that the aircraft is airworthy.

Build it right, it WILL fly.
 
Toobuilder said:
...Yet this very test is promoted by many very experienced people, apparently for good reason. As for going very badly, how so? Anyway, I would much rather have a bad day on the ground than in the air, anytime.

There are many good reasons not to fly your own test flight, but being "afraid" of mechanical failure should not be among them (nervous, sure; afraid, no). If you think that something might fall off, the engine will quit, catch fire, or the controls are backwards, you should not let ANYONE fly the thing. To be blunt, you have not done your job as a builder. The fact is, aside from a FREAK failure, like throwing a rod, a "correctly" built, conventional RV will fly very nicely with almost absolute certainty. Almost any first flight failure that requires anything above average piloting skill can be traced to poor preflight preparation and could have been found through ground test and inspection. I would challenge anyone to find a first flight failure that was completely out of the control of the builder or pilot.

I've been in the aviation maintenance business for all my adult life, and I have had countless first flights after I have torn the aircraft right down to the bare bones; I've NEVER wondered if the aircraft was safe. If I did, I would not let the pilot take the jet. To make a long story a little longer, flight test is not a method for uncovering the mistakes of the builder/mechanic, it is to verify what you should already know - that the aircraft is airworthy.

Build it right, it WILL fly.
Click to expand...


Another sensible post. In the end, and assuming a minimum level of relevant experience, it comes down to personal choice - but regardless of that choice both the plane and the pilot need to be prepared to the highest standard possible. Enlist the help of EAA Tech and Flight councellors or otherwise trusted mechanics and CFIs.

Jim Sharkey
RV6 ~20 hours into Phase 1 and having a ball :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.