Michael Burbidge

Michael Burbidge

Well Known Member
In the Preview Plans under "Flight Testing" it is suggested that the first flight be conducted on a runway at least 3000' in length. The closest 3000' runway to my home is 1 1/2 hours away. The field where I current fly out of is 1/2 hour away. It has a 2000' runway with a 500' grass overrun.

If I decide to build an RV I could do most of the construction in my 3-car garage, but final assembly would have to be at the field. I'm not sure if I'd ever finish if I had to drive 1 1/2 hours to the hangar while doing the final construction.

Two questions: What percentage of the construction has to be done at the field? How many hours? And would you consider first flight and subsequent flight testing on a 2000' foot runway with a 500' grass overrun area?
 
I flew my 7A out of our private grass strip (1700 ft), but my first two landings were done at longer strips (4000 +). I wanted to get comfortable with landing before attempting a landing at home. We have the luxury of a larger airport two miles away, so I had options if trouble arose.

Unless you are very competent with flying, especially HP aircraft (RV's in particular), I would opt for a larger field for at least the initial flight.

You should be able to get the plane completed at home, remove the wings, and trailer the plane to the longer airport. That would be the best, and safest, plan. It would be much more inconvenient if you should have to do an emergency, rushed, landing back to a very short field and schmuck up your new plane.

JMHO,
Roberta
 
Makes me Nervous...

Michael,

There is no doubt that a 2000' strip would be a great place to operate from in the long run, but it would make me nervous to do a first flight in an aircraft off that length unless I had lots of time in the same type. Any RV will be well off the ground in that distance on take-off, but you probably wouldn't want to make your first landing (in type) on a place that doesn't give you a large margin of error for float.

I obviously don't know your piloting background, but I'd say that while this would be possible if you accumulated some time in type before you took yours up (and had a good handle on landing it short), this doesn't give you much margin for contingencies. I have seen at least one case where a person lost a homebuilt on the first flight simply because they weren't prepared for how it flew, and there was no margin for error.

I agree that it would be hard to commute a long distance for building. But if you have a three car garage, you could basically finish the plane at home, take it apart, trailer it to a better field, and in a very short time have it ready to fly.

Only one opinion - I'm sure you'll get more!

Paul
 
Seatac?

I can't add anything to the great answers you've gotten so far.

Probably a dumb question, but could you get a hangar at seatac for a month for final assembly and early flight testing?

Edit: Never mind - just looked at it on Google maps. No GA that I can see.
 
Last edited:
Seatac / Paine Field...

SeaTac is in the middle of a metropolitan area and is in class B airspace. How appropriate would it be to try and flight test at such an airport. I didn't think you could do flight testing over congested areas.

Paine field in Everett might be a possibility, but it is also over congested area, but much less so that Seatac. It is also not in class B airpsace. It is the airport that I was thinking of when I said 1 1/2 hours away. It is about 30 miles away, but traffic here in Seattle is horrible and I live about 10 miles from a freeway, so it can take awhile.
 
Michael,

If I were you I'd find a DAR in your area (a reputable one) and find out exactly which airports are approved for first flights, and roughly what you can expect as far as your Phase One restricted area is concerned. That'll give you a pretty clear idea of where you can and cannot base the airplane for Phase One.

Also, my 2 cents which echo previous replies: ANYTHING that adds even small amounts of stress, pressure, or constraints to a flight -- whether it's a short runway, obstacles, the condition of a runway, etc. -- is not a good thing. For your first flight and Phase One, try to remove as many variables as possible. Would 2000' be enough for your first landing? It should be. But if you have a CHOICE and can opt for a bigger strip (with fire/rescue facilities if possible), all the better imho.
 
Hi Michael:

I would say that you're such a long way from flying I would just worry about building now. All those little details seem to work themselves out.

We have a local -9A builder that's using builder's assistance at an airport that's about 1.5 hrs away. This is *real* builder's assistance...not the type where you drop the plane off and stop in every other weekend to help out while someone else builds your airplane.

He borrowed a camper trailer and got permission to keep it at the airport. That's where he stays during the week while he works on the plane (he's retired so he can do that). If you want to fly your project bad enough you can make it happen.

I believe it was the infamous Rosie that said he had his -6A flying in just a couple of weeks after taking it to the airport...so it *can* be done. In the time I've been building I've watched many people haul their projects to the airport, just for progress to slow to a standstill because it's no longer convenient to work on it. I hope to keep mine in my garage until there's absolutely nothing else I can do at the house.

Best of luck...and stop dreaming! Start doing. :D
 
Seattle Area Options

Michael, one of the downsides of our area is that we just don't seem to have the nice variety of airports around that other areas do. I'm over in Hansville and base my RV at Tacoma Narrows - 5000 x 150 of good pavement, friendly tower, and sparsely populated areas nearby. Of course, there is a lot of that cold Puget Sound water nearby too, which was on my mind as I departed Rwy 17 on 9/8/04 for first flight.

Paine would be one decent option for you; perhaps Auburn (not sure of that strip's dimensions or services). Harvey Field in Snohomish a little short and narrow for a first RV flight, IMHO. BFI would be bad due to overlying SEA Class B, heavy mixed traffic, and dense population; Renton has similar issues though not quite as bad; SEA itself would be out of the question :(

TIW or Bremerton would be great but both are across the Sound and way too far from your home. Also, finding hangar space ANYWHERE around here seems to be very difficult, at least for anyone who is not Bill Gates.

****, maybe you're better off going over the mountains to Ellensburg ?

Whatever you choose, with a 3 car garage you can get it assembled, checked out, and then trailer to the airport and do final assembly and airworthiness inspection there. DO AS MUCH AS YOU CAN BEFORE YOU GO TO THE AIRPORT - when I moved the bird to TIW it got A LOT harder to get things done, and took way more time (I am 65 minutes from home to TIW, about 45 from my office in Poulsbo, but either way it is a long haul; best is if I have a hearing or something in Tacoma and can then hit the airport on the way home).

Good luck - and whatever you do, don't let this issue stop you from taking the plunge and building. :)
 
Can you get an experienced RV pilot to do the initial test flight at the small strip? After a flight or two, it could be flown to a larger airport for your initial flights.

My first flight was off a 2900' grass strip. In hindsight, the length caused me some distraction. But had I been a little more RV experienced, it would have been OK.

Bryan
 
You are getting good advice.

Go for the longer runway, do as much at home as possible. It took me 3 months to do final assembly of my aircraft in a hangar once it was painted. The hangar was 15 minutes from home, and the airport had a couple of long runways (up to 4800 feet).

Although you will probably never need the extra length, why add another risk or worry to your first flights? Believe me, that first flight is stressfull enough without worrying about the airport as well.

Add the extra commute time to your building time and you'll find that it's not much in percentage. Move closer when you are comfortable.

Safety is all about making good decisions, and having a backup plan for every failure scenario. The most likely scenario is an engine failure on takeoff... that's where the extra runway is useful-- backtrack for maximum length as well.

It's handy on landings as well, but the backup plan for a botched approach is a go-around. A go-around is a sign of good pilot decision making.

Vern Little
 
I know the dilema you are in.

I flew my -9A out of my 1020' strip. It was not done casually, and I had a lot of support in case of problems. I did have a 2000' overshoot into a wheat field.

1) 15deg and 5 miles off direct ahead was a 10000' RAF runway. I discussed with them the issue beforehand. They offered full support.

2) The plan was never to land back until I had done many landings at an airfield 30 miles away. (I came back - by air - a month later.)

The biggest risk to my mind was the engine stopping. I believe having the aircraft beside my home meant the degree of double and triple checking that was possible outweighed the risk, compared with a remote location. Some will disagree. I will do the same again with the -4 I am now building.

The way I look at it is that 200' after you push the throttle in you are comitted to flying and its better to go on to sort any problem.

Do be VERY careful and ask very experienced friends who understand your experience to work the plan with you and if it is appropriate. Steve.

PS This is the strip. http://gikonwhy4.blogspot.com/
 
I'd suggest looking at Auburn (S50). You can head south through Issaquah to hwy 18. Should be less than an hour w/o traffic. Plus there are hangars available. That's where my project is headed once there is absolutely nothing left I can do to it at home. I've taken over most of the 2 car garage plus the guest room, but I make daily progress on it.

Dave
(Eastside EAA 1440 VP)
 
Congestion and flight testing

Auburn is not any further than Monroe, which is where I currently fly out of. I guess I discounted airports in congested areas. I'm not clear on the requirements for flight testing and congestion. Maybe Auburn is not that congested. I will have to fly down there next time I go flying. As has been sugested it would be good to meet with a DAR and find out what airports around would be options.
 
Seattle Area

The big issue with S50 (Auburn) is going to be the overlying Class B and the ground congestion. Directly overhead it's 3000' (minimum for a first flight) but that dips to 1600' about .5 miles west. Also a consideration is that there's very few places to put the airplane back down, other than the airport itself, if you run into problems.

I'm not quite there yet, but I'd consider doing a first flight at Arlington and move to closer when you've flown off the hours.

Either Dave Parsons or myself can get you in touch with our local Flight Advisor. He's given a good presentation on the local airports and suitability for first flights.

Jim
 
So here's the story on Auburn. I'm based there with my 9A. We have 5-6 RV's on the field and recently both a 7A & 9A did their first flights out of Auburn. So it's possible for sure. We are part of EAA Chapter 326 at Thun field in Puyallup which is where I initially did my first flight before moving to Auburn when I got a hangar there.

I'd be happy to show you around sometime, or take you flying if you want to see a 9.
 
Runway Length?

I do not see what all the bother about the runway length is about. These things fly fast and climb fast. The amount of time that an extra 1000 to 1500 feet of runway is significant is microscopic. If there are good fields around the shorter runway and no fields (houses, trees etc.) around the longer runways I would definitely opt for the shorter field that has good emergency places to put the plane. Problems are apt to present at the worst possible time. That rarely means that you will have the time to shut down and use the remaining runway unless the thing is 10,000' long. IMO I would look at the geography surrounding the airport of choice a lot harder than I would look at the runway length. Remember: "the runway behind you and the sky above you do you no good." In an RV the runway is QUICKLY behind you.
I would recommend getting a well experienced RV pilot to do the first flight. This is a good idea no matter what the final runway length. :)
 
gvgoff99 said:
I do not see what all the bother about the runway length is about. These things fly fast and climb fast. The amount of time that an extra 1000 to 1500 feet of runway is significant is microscopic. If there are good fields around the shorter runway and no fields (houses, trees etc.) around the longer runways I would definitely opt for the shorter field that has good emergency places to put the plane. Problems are apt to present at the worst possible time. That rarely means that you will have the time to shut down and use the remaining runway unless the thing is 10,000' long.
Click to expand...
I aborted my 2nd takeoff in my RV-7 from 75-100' off the ground. It was a non-event because I had thousands of feet of runway in front of me. You could argue that if I didn't have the runway in front of me I would have kept flying. Sure. But would that have been the best course of action? Not in my book.
 
gvgoff99 said:
I do not see what all the bother about the runway length is about. These things fly fast and climb fast. The amount of time that an extra 1000 to 1500 feet of runway is significant is microscopic.
Click to expand...
The issue concerns me mostly with landing.

As for test flight under Class B, I've test flown two under the Houston airspace with no issues and a fed signed off one of these.

Congestion shouldn't be that big of an an issue. If it's that congested, stay close to the airport for as long as you need to in order to feel better about the reliability. I wouldn't venture beyond runway gliding distance even with cow pastures and dirt roads under me until I felt like it was going to hold together.
 
Runway length

dan said:
I aborted my 2nd takeoff in my RV-7 from 75-100' off the ground. It was a non-event because I had thousands of feet of runway in front of me. You could argue that if I didn't have the runway in front of me I would have kept flying. Sure. But would that have been the best course of action? Not in my book.
Click to expand...
Dan, It sounds like you had a lot of runway in front of you. The original post seems to be looking at the difference between a 3000' runway and a 2000' runway with a 500' grass overrun. ("The closest 3000' runway to my home is 1 1/2 hours away. The field where I current fly out of is 1/2 hour away. It has a 2000' runway with a 500' grass overrun.")
We are not talking about the "Thousands of feet" you said you had in front of you. We are talking about 500' and a lot of inconvenience in travel time while finishing the plane. The 500' "breather room" offered at the distant airport would not be a deal maker for me.
I would recommend a test pilot to do the first flight. Flight proficiency in an RV is valuable in weeding out the real problems from the "worry" problems that make us builders imagine the worst on that first or second flight which might lead to an unnecessary abort.
I also mentioned that having good alternate emergency landing areas after the runway is gone is good to look at. The extra 500' feet in the original question is not a big deal IMO. :)
 
Low Pass said:
The issue concerns me mostly with landing.
Click to expand...

I agree! Again I would get a test pilot and have him fly it to a longer runway and base it there until I was comfortable with my short field technique. For a takeoff and possible abort I do not see much difference in the 500' the original post mentioned. This is especially true for an experienced RV pilot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.