EAA Phase 1 Test Cards

[wirejock]

It's been asked before, but has anyone written an EAA Phase 1 Test Cards for Dummies book?

I figured out up to where I am, but clearly I am a "Dummy" because it took a long time to understand what they wanted. The test cards will stay with my airplane. It needs to be done correctly.

They really need to add to the book or sell a "Dummies" book. I'm not an engineer. A page for each test with a sample form and calculations would save a lot of cuss jar money.
I would gladly pay for a "Dummies" book.
Sorry, I will step off my soapbox.
What is a soapbox?

 

[Ironflight]

Do you have the “Book” as well as the “Test Cards” (book)….?

 

[wirejock]

Do you have the “Book” as well as the “Test Cards” (book)….?

Yes. I think so. Test card book and manual are both spiral bound.

EAA Flight Test Manual Version 2 and Test Cards

The EAA Flight Test Manual (Version 2) offers a comprehensive, step-by-step approach to testing your homebuilt aircraft. This manual is designed to ensure that your aircraft is thoroughly tested and understood by guiding you through each phase of the flight testing process. What sets this...

shop.eaa.org

I know I should know this stuff, but it would be so much easier if there were sample pages and examples of the calculations.

My concern is not me. I will figure it out. My concern is for those who are lost and won't seek out guidance. Maybe a non issue with an awesome airplane like Vans. As someone who wrote a few articles, things like this have to be written and tailored to a varied audience.

 

[Mikeyb]

To me the EAA stuff was generic to all EAB’s including designs that have never flown.
The RV is way beyond that.
I used the Vans flight test procedures in chapter 15.
Probably my favorite phase 1 task was performing the simple stability tests in that procedure.

 

[Untainted123]

To me the EAA stuff was generic to all EAB’s including designs that have never flown.
The RV is way beyond that.
I used the Vans flight test procedures in chapter 15.
Probably my favorite phase 1 jobs were the simple stability tests in that procedure.

I agree. I liked the idea of the FTM and potentially getting done with Phase 1 faster, but in the end, it doesn't save much time since if you have a new engine, the first chunk of hours is just getting it broke in enough to feel comfortable doing all the other maneuvers.

For learning the envelope of the airplane it's good, but unless you are testing a brand new design or some major change where you expect flight characteristics to change, it gets pretty boring pretty fast (oh, my numbers for test 4B, once again, exactly match what the other 3k other Van's airplanes have). There are a few tests you need to do even on an established design, like pitot/static calibration etc, but the rest are more like suggestions. Some of the test are actually multiple tests, like the stall tests are actually 12 tests if you do all the combinations. If you don't have a way to change CG loading during flight (water ballast?), by the time you load up, fly out, do test, come back, change load, fly out, test, come back, I bet you could burn off 12 hours just on those tests. In addition, there are some techniques that are better than what the FTM suggests, the one I am thinking of specifically is using level acceleration to determine climb performance

I also felt it was difficult to fly the airplane, keep a watch out, and try to go through a flight profile for the test by myself. Even with a glass panel recording everything, there's just too much to concentrate on that you lose situational awareness, and a 2nd set of eyes would have been helpful. I understand the APP, but my insurance wouldn't allow anything but solo during Phase 1, negating the benefit of APP.

For me, by the time I felt the engine was broke in enough to start real testing, I was probably not even half way through the official list of tests before I hit 40 hours, and just signed it off as Phase 2 (though the learning and tinkering never stops).

If you sign off your Phase 1 earlier than 40 hours based on the FTM, is there any rule that says the filled out FTM has to stay with/in the airplane?

 

[jjb]

In addition to all of the above, take a look at the FAA Advisory Circular AC 90-89C, referred to in the EAA materials you have. The EAA used that AC to develop the EAA Flight Test Manual and Test Card Book.

It is 130 pages, and may contain some information that you feel may be lacking in the EAA Test Cards and book. AC 90-89C is more comprehensive than the EAA materials and provides step by step details on how to perform specific tasks.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-89C.pdf

 

[wirejock]

To me the EAA stuff was generic to all EAB’s including designs that have never flown.
The RV is way beyond that.
I used the Vans flight test procedures in chapter 15.
Probably my favorite phase 1 task was performing the simple stability tests in that procedure.

That is exactly correct. The EAA FTM is intended to cover any EAB. Vans is clearly head of the pack. Still, the documents are lacking in guidance.

 

[jjb]

Still, the documents are lacking in guidance.

Much congratulations on reaching the flight test stage of your build, which has been helpful for me and others to follow here and in your articles.

Respectfully acknowledging your frustrations, and also that your critique may be valid, but exactly what kind of guidance is lacking?

I am having trouble understanding the concept that the EAA (or the FAA in an AC) should be expected to publish a flight test regime tailored to one specific make/model of homebuilt (i.e. Van's). As noted above Van's already does that it the flight testing portion of the build manual.

Apologies if I am the only one who doesn't "get it."

Please expand on your thoughts.

 

[bjdecker]

To me the EAA stuff was generic to all EAB’s including designs that have never flown.
The RV is way beyond that.
I used the Vans flight test procedures in chapter 15.
Probably my favorite phase 1 task was performing the simple stability tests in that procedure.

Ditto -- I always felt that the EAA liturgy was geared more toward the "Hey I put some coat hangars and cardboard together with a Briggs&Stratton motor -- it'll fly" category of experimentals and not something as well defined/refined/produced as Van's products.

 

[wirejock]

Much congratulations on reaching the flight test stage of your build, which has been helpful for me and others to follow here and in your articles.

Respectfully acknowledging your frustrations, and also that your critique may be valid, but exactly what kind of guidance is lacking?

I am having trouble understanding the concept that the EAA (or the FAA in an AC) should be expected to publish a flight test regime tailored to one specific make/model of homebuilt (i.e. Van's). As noted above Van's already does that it the flight testing portion of the build manual.

Apologies if I am the only one who doesn't "get it."

Please expand on your thoughts.

No worries. I'm just ranting.
My comments are specific to the EAA Test Cards and Manual. If I have difficulty understanding EAA, the FAA test is beyond my level. I'm not saying the book should be tailored to one manufacturer. Much to the contrary. The test cards are fine. I'm saying each test card should have a sample card in the manual with a data worksheet example. I'm a "dummy". I want/need IKEA instructions. I want something this important to be very concise. It's the basis for the POH.

My concern is a builder who doesn't understand and just skips over or flies the 40. I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but I'm not an aeronautical engineer. It's probably less of a worry with a proven design, but without gathering the test data, that builder has to rely on someone else's POH data. I'm probably way off base. I hope so.

EAA needs to write a magazine series on the Phase 1 Test Cards. Did I miss it?

 

[Bearman]

I agree. I liked the idea of the FTM and potentially getting done with Phase 1 faster, but in the end, it doesn't save much time since if you have a new engine, the first chunk of hours is just getting it broke in enough to feel comfortable doing all the other maneuvers.

For learning the envelope of the airplane it's good, but unless you are testing a brand new design or some major change where you expect flight characteristics to change, it gets pretty boring pretty fast (oh, my numbers for test 4B, once again, exactly match what the other 3k other Van's airplanes have). There are a few tests you need to do even on an established design, like pitot/static calibration etc, but the rest are more like suggestions. Some of the test are actually multiple tests, like the stall tests are actually 12 tests if you do all the combinations. If you don't have a way to change CG loading during flight (water ballast?), by the time you load up, fly out, do test, come back, change load, fly out, test, come back, I bet you could burn off 12 hours just on those tests. In addition, there are some techniques that are better than what the FTM suggests, the one I am thinking of specifically is using level acceleration to determine climb performance

I also felt it was difficult to fly the airplane, keep a watch out, and try to go through a flight profile for the test by myself. Even with a glass panel recording everything, there's just too much to concentrate on that you lose situational awareness, and a 2nd set of eyes would have been helpful. I understand the APP, but my insurance wouldn't allow anything but solo during Phase 1, negating the benefit of APP.

For me, by the time I felt the engine was broke in enough to start real testing, I was probably not even half way through the official list of tests before I hit 40 hours, and just signed it off as Phase 2 (though the learning and tinkering never stops).

If you sign off your Phase 1 earlier than 40 hours based on the FTM, is there any rule that says the filled out FTM has to stay with/in the airplane?

I agree. By the time you test run and get all the bugs worked out in the process of using the Phase I test cards I was close to my 40 hours.

 

[plehrke]

. In addition, there are some techniques that are better than what the FTM suggests, the one I am thinking of specifically is using level acceleration to determine climb performance.

Thanks for the link. Somehow I missed that article. Just for fun I have been redoing my climb charts I generated in Phase 1 over 19 years ago. I like having another process to check my numbers and then worry for months why they do not agree. But love more data and more reasons to go fly.

 

[Kyle Boatright]

I'm annoyed that EAA sells a valuable safety resource as opposed to providing it free as a download to the membership.

"We're all about homebuilt safety. Send us more money and we'll prove it to you."

 

[Ironflight]

EAA needs to write a magazine series on the Phase 1 Test Cards. Did I miss it?

It was on Marc and my video “To Do” list at our previous affiliation….just never had to time to do it! Maybe in the future, in another venue.

Meanwhile, I have this column in Sport Aviation called “Flight Test”….. I just added a note to my idea list….

 

[wirejock]

It was on Marc and my video “To Do” list at our previous affiliation….just never had to time to do it! Maybe in the future, in another venue.

Meanwhile, I have this column in Sport Aviation called “Flight Test”….. I just added a note to my idea list….

Happy to collaborate if I can offer anything. I'm "knee deep in the weeds".

 

[mike_tailwind]

I flew the EAA flight test cards right after the task-based phase 1 was approved. I found them quite helpful. Figuring out the order and grouping of the flights was my biggest challenge. You will find that you won't fly them all in order, or only one time. The first few cards, through pitot-static calibration, should be done in sequence. Then as you put your flight test program together you will want to fly them grouped, based upon aircraft weight and CG and weather conditions. You will also find that you can easily fly many of the stability cards together in one flight and then repeat for different weight & CG configurations.

 

[Gino230]

I stole some test cards that someone shared on this site, and was flying a bunch of them to get to know my RV8. The aircraft came with no POH, so my idea is to run some of these test cards and then use that info to create a POH. Just a fun project and a way to get to know my airplane.

Every time I do one of the tests, I'm impressed with the airplane. Did you know you can pull a 2.5 G 45 degree banked turn at 80 MPH without so much as a burble? These airplanes are pretty capable and I'm enjoying exploring the envelope a bit.

It can be a little rote going through some of them, for example the climb rate tests and best glide speed tests, which basically end up proving that it's the same as every other RV8 to the knot. When that happens I get distracted and just do some rolls.

 

[Ironflight]

Happy to collaborate if I can offer anything. I'm "knee deep in the weeds".

Well Larry, while you’re waiting on me, you’ll have time to read the USAF Flight Test Manual…all 1,000 pages….

Flight Test Handbook. Flying Qualities Theory and Flight Test Techniques. | National Technical Reports Library - NTIS

(I got my first copy when I showed up at NASA-JSC as a Coop student - still find some sections excellent for curing insomnia….)

Paul

 

[scsmith]

...Did you know you can pull a 2.5 G 45 degree banked turn at 80 MPH without so much as a burble? ..

Uhm, no, not without climbing. A level 45 degree banked turn will result in 1.4 g's. And it will require a speed at least 1.18x your level 1-g stall speed.

 

[dmn056]

Thanks for the link. Somehow I missed that article. Just for fun I have been redoing my climb charts I generated in Phase 1 over 19 years ago. I like having another process to check my numbers and then worry for months why they do not agree. But love more data and more reasons to go fly.

For general aviation aircraft, the "level accel run" technique is likely to generate less accurate climb performance data than the older "sawtooth climb" approach.

This is because even the highest powered RV's have much lower specific excess power than things like T-38s and F-14s, so they accelerate slower over the mid range of their speed envelopes. Therefore, the airspeed gradient which we get from a sequence of airspeed readings is much lower and more affected by disturbances of all sorts (eg air mass movements and imprecise aircraft trajectory control). Long ago, I compared the "level accel run" uncertainty for a small piston engined trainer aircraft with that for a turbojet trainer (both flown by highly trained flight test crews), and the results convinced me that there is still a place for the "sawtooth climb" in general aviation.

Try both techniques, plot the results graphically, and see which is smoother. Let us know.

 

[Gino230]

Uhm, no, not without climbing. A level 45 degree banked turn will result in 1.4 g's. And it will require a speed at least 1.18x your level 1-g stall speed.

I was actually descending to maintain the energy with power at idle. We see so many stall/ spin during a turn to final type accidents that I wanted to know how much G is available in that part of the envelope. I fly my pattern at 80 which is slightly more than 1.3 clean stall speed so it's relevant to how I fly the airplane, not that I would pull into a tight turn during approach, but it's the same reason we practice other forms of stalls. Getting comfortable flying in all corners of the envelope.

 

[David Paule]

Well Larry, while you’re waiting on me, you’ll have time to read the USAF Flight Test Manual…all 1,000 pages….

Flight Test Handbook. Flying Qualities Theory and Flight Test Techniques. | National Technical Reports Library - NTIS

(I got my first copy when I showed up at NASA-JSC as a Coop student - still find some sections excellent for curing insomnia….)

Paul

I downloaded that manual and it's a remarkably good book -- for an aeronautical engineer. The first chapters are a nice math refresher and then the book is more oriented to the art of aeronautics. All in all, I'm impressed. But it won't be something needed if I ever get my RV-3B project in the air. It's more for background. And as Paul, notes, for curing insomnia.

Still, if you want an excellent math book, here it is.

Dave

 

[wirejock]

I was actually descending to maintain the energy with power at idle. We see so many stall/ spin during a turn to final type accidents that I wanted to know how much G is available in that part of the envelope. I fly my pattern at 80 which is slightly more than 1.3 clean stall speed so it's relevant to how I fly the airplane, not that I would pull into a tight turn during approach, but it's the same reason we practice other forms of stalls. Getting comfortable flying in all corners of the envelope.

Isn't that the purpose for an AOA indicator? Not being smarty. I though it shows remaining lift before stall regardless of attitude.

 

[Dave S]

I found that Ithe handbook that accompanies the cards, as well as this site helpful. One of the things that I found helpful, is to 'edit' the cards. The cards are well organized but by task, and each task may involve multiple configurations, heavy weight fwd CG,heavy aft CG, light fwd CG, ect. AWhen I got totheis phase I created a plan foreach flight. I would configure the aircraft W&B wise then go fly and do the respective parts from several cards during that flight. I also found the data dump from Garmin data into the Numbers (Excel for the window folks) and asking it to plot helped a lot. My data what seemed more like a Rorchsach Ink Blot test, but the program was able to plot the curve and made finding L/D max a lot easier.

 

[PhatRV]

No worries. I'm just ranting.
My comments are specific to the EAA Test Cards and Manual. If I have difficulty understanding EAA, the FAA test is beyond my level. I'm not saying the book should be tailored to one manufacturer. Much to the contrary. The test cards are fine. I'm saying each test card should have a sample card in the manual with a data worksheet example. I'm a "dummy". I want/need IKEA instructions. I want something this important to be very concise. It's the basis for the POH.

My concern is a builder who doesn't understand and just skips over or flies the 40. I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but I'm not an aeronautical engineer. It's probably less of a worry with a proven design, but without gathering the test data, that builder has to rely on someone else's POH data. I'm probably way off base. I hope so.

EAA needs to write a magazine series on the Phase 1 Test Cards. Did I miss it?

Before my Phase 1, I studied the EAA test cards and tailored them with respect to the modern EFIS its data collection capability. That mean I want to fly a prescribed flight profile, at specified gross weight, and CG range and collect data to be analyzed at a later time using flysto.net. I determined most of the testing for performances are more or less verification against Vans published data, such as stall speed, speed calibrations, etc. Once you are done with these, you are almost 50% done. The rest is to determine the cruise performance, glide ratio, etc. For my case, determine the 3 flight profiles for each before take off and do them and playback the data on flysto.net for post-flight analsys. This will simply the test tremendously.

However, the EAA test card procedure assumes everybody is still flying with steam guage and the test goals got lost in the weeds, and unless you have some prior flight test experience, the instructions are incomprehensible. I wish EAA would edit the content for the modern EAB with modern EFIS, GPS, and modern post-flight analysis tool such as flysto.net. Imagine how easy to compute the glide ratio just by looking at the playback on flysto.net

In my opinion, if the EAA test cards are re-edited, the flight testing procedures would be simplified with fewer tests because using the tools from flysto.net makes it easier to extrapolate the test data. Doing Vx, Vy testing would be a breeze with this tool. Same for take-off distance and landing distances.

Finally, the precision of your testing depends 100% on your flying skills. How precisely you can fly your brand new RV contributes to the accuracy of the data collection. If you only barely have over 100 hours total time on the log book like I had when I first flew my RV8, the skills of a low time pilot of learning to fly the new airplane does not make a good test pilot. I did a lot of testing post Phase 1 because I knew more about the airplane after flying it for 100 hours, instead of the first 10 hours. Just to put it into perspective.

 

[wirejock]

Before my Phase 1, I studied the EAA test cards and tailored them with respect to the modern EFIS its data collection capability. That mean I want to fly a prescribed flight profile, at specified gross weight, and CG range and collect data to be analyzed at a later time using flysto.net. I determined most of the testing for performances are more or less verification against Vans published data, such as stall speed, speed calibrations, etc. Once you are done with these, you are almost 50% done. The rest is to determine the cruise performance, glide ratio, etc. For my case, determine the 3 flight profiles for each before take off and do them and playback the data on flysto.net for post-flight analsys. This will simply the test tremendously.

However, the EAA test card procedure assumes everybody is still flying with steam guage and the test goals got lost in the weeds, and unless you have some prior flight test experience, the instructions are incomprehensible. I wish EAA would edit the content for the modern EAB with modern EFIS, GPS, and modern post-flight analysis tool such as flysto.net. Imagine how easy to compute the glide ratio just by looking at the playback on flysto.net

In my opinion, if the EAA test cards are re-edited, the flight testing procedures would be simplified with fewer tests because using the tools from flysto.net makes it easier to extrapolate the test data. Doing Vx, Vy testing would be a breeze with this tool. Same for take-off distance and landing distances.

Finally, the precision of your testing depends 100% on your flying skills. How precisely you can fly your brand new RV contributes to the accuracy of the data collection. If you only barely have over 100 hours total time on the log book like I had when I first flew my RV8, the skills of a low time pilot of learning to fly the new airplane does not make a good test pilot. I did a lot of testing post Phase 1 because I knew more about the airplane after flying it for 100 hours, instead of the first 10 hours. Just to put it into perspective.

Could you expand on how you utilized Flysto?
I am familiar, just haven't used it yet.
I have a Dynon HDX two screen system with single ADAHRS. Pretty capable but almost too much info at this point.
I am trying to eliminate multiple flights to gather similar data. There seems to be a lot of overlap. I too am a low time pilot so I'm pretty busy in the cockpit. Anything that simplifies this testing would be greatly appreciated.

 

[PhatRV]

I posted a Flysto.net playback of my impossible turn testing in this post

Testing the Impossible Turn

I was testing the the impossible turn last weekend. I planned to take off and climb to 1000' AGL and tried to land back at the opposite runway heading. This was the first time of me trying to fly this turn by taking off from the runway. All previous simulations were performed at higher...

vansairforce.net

I saved the flight logs to the USB card connected to the Dynon EFIS. I downloaded the flight logs to Flysto.net website. I then playback the flight using the tools provided in the website, I can set up for different views showing the climb profile, descend profile and many more. From the video, the tool also annotate the ground roll of the take-off. Also from the profile view, you can calculate your climb angle at specific speed different speed and different gross weight. In the video, I set the display to show the HUD view and the flight profile in the same screen.

Here is another example where I used Flysto.net to display my approach speed performance for a landing. The playback was setup to show the look-down view and the speed profile for the approach. This could be use to test the landing distance for a specific speed profile. For example, the landing ground roll would be different if you were using full flap or no flap for the same approach speed.

Dynon AoA utility?

Ivan, That's exactly the right approach to take. And you ask a great question: yes a 60% lift condition is "on speed" in any airplane. Here's the aero and math...this is actually explained in the fractional lift discussion in the paper linked in the previous post: Fractional Lift. We tend...

vansairforce.net

IM me if you want to talk more on the details.

 

[plehrke]

Finally, the precision of your testing depends 100% on your flying skills. How precisely you can fly your brand new RV contributes to the accuracy of the data collection. If you only barely have over 100 hours total time on the log book like I had when I first flew my RV8, the skills of a low time pilot of learning to fly the new airplane does not make a good test pilot. I did a lot of testing post Phase 1 because I knew more about the airplane after flying it for 100 hours, instead of the first 10 hours. Just to put it into perspective.

Completely agree with the flying skills required. What I lacked in flying skills during phase 1 with very limited time in type, I made up for in my data manipulation and spreadsheet skills to get a decent set of data.
Since then, Every time I have the itch to fly, and no place to go, I tend to pick some sort of flight test to redo. Over the 19+ years I have been flying I have redone most of the flight test stuff at least once, somethings multiple times. This time I was paying much more attention to sensor calibration and data integrity.
There were No EAA test cards when I did my phase 1. I have since gotten a copy and a little disappointed in the lack of data plotting shown in the manual. As an aero engineer and have worked on multiple new design flight tests, test data plots are everything and make it much more understandable.
A few other books I have collected over the years of some value listed below. Not great books but do have some good stuff in them.
“Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft” by Vaughan Askue, Iowa State University Press 1992
“Understanding Performance Flight Testing - Kitplanes and Production Aircraft” Hubert C “Skip” Smith, McGraw-Hill 2002

 

[dmn056]

I downloaded that manual and it's a remarkably good book -- for an aeronautical engineer. The first chapters are a nice math refresher and then the book is more oriented to the art of aeronautics. All in all, I'm impressed. But it won't be something needed if I ever get my RV-3B project in the air. It's more for background. And as Paul, notes, for curing insomnia.

Still, if you want an excellent math book, here it is.

Dave

And if you want lots more reading, try:

Test Pilot Literature | Test Pilot School Textbooks

Download test pilot literature and test pilot school textbooks available legally freely in the public domain. Links to relevant archives and documents.

academicflight.com

Nearly everything you'll ever need to know about performance and flying qualities flight test, from many different sources.

Also, the attached chapter of the old AGARD FTM is the one I most often go back to when looking at reciprocating engine driven performance. It was state of the art in about 1960, and has lots of the fine detail which people who mostly test jets tend to forget about.

 

[Gino230]

Isn't that the purpose for an AOA indicator? Not being smarty. I though it shows remaining lift before stall regardless of attitude.

Which would be great if I had one! I plan to install the AOA pitot and hook it up to the Dynon- that's on my list of projects. Although I like the flyonspeed one better.