WWI Replica Safety

[Machinbird]

It is time to give this thread a bump in a new direction.
Assuming we are not building replicas for museum static display, there comes that point in time when we must take the project into the medium it was designed to navigate, the air. Past experience of others has shown that this can be quite hazardous, particularly if we are not properly prepared.
The first flight is a high hurdle to jump, but even when that hurdle is in the rear view mirror, there can be additional unexpected hurdles. The recent Cessna experience with the Skycatcher spin characteristics shows that even experienced companies can encounter surprises.
The loss of the magnificent Hughes H-1 replica together with its creator just days after I had admired the exceptional quality of the workmanship stands in my mind as a tragedy that must not be repeated in the WWI replica community. With that thought in mind, I will provide the links to your next homework lessons. Flight Testing of Homebuilt Aircraft, 35th SETP Symposium and Amateur Built Flight Testing Handbook http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...ircular 90-89A

[Blue Max Aviation DR1]

Originally Posted by Machinbird

It is time to give this thread a bump in a new direction.
Assuming we are not building replicas for museum static display, there comes that point in time when we must take the project into the medium it was designed to navigate, the air. Past experience of others has shown that this can be quite hazardous, particularly if we are not properly prepared.
The first flight is a high hurdle to jump, but even when that hurdle is in the rear view mirror, there can be additional unexpected hurdles. The recent Cessna experience with the Skycatcher spin characteristics shows that even experienced companies can encounter surprises.
The loss of the magnificent Hughes H-1 replica together with its creator just days after I had admired the exceptional quality of the workmanship stands in my mind as a tragedy that must not be repeated in the WWI replica community. With that thought in mind, I will provide the links to your next homework lessons. Flight Testing of Homebuilt Aircraft, 35th SETP Symposium and Amateur Built Flight Testing Handbook http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...ircular 90-89A

I would hope that none of you will ever consider a full-power, cross controlled stall/spin. Cessna might try that in a test program but this is a formula for disaster.

[Joe Perkel]

Flight Testing of Homebuilt Aircraft

Funny thing,.... I just stood in that very same gallery last month, looked up at those very three aircraft, and thought about that very same sense of individuality.

That T.E. Lawrence quote from Seven Pillars of Wisdom 1922, is foremost on my mind lately.

[Flysafe]

Lots of valuable information in these documents. One area that requires careful thought is "who should conduct the initial test flights"?

There is a strong desire to test your own creation, having spent many years and dollars making the aircraft. For a number of reasons this may not be wise. The pilot that test flies the aircraft needs a number of important skills; strong "technical pilot" analytical skills, lots of tailwheel time, lots of similar aircraft time, and time on the same type if possible.

Then there is the whole discussion on pre-test inspections and preparation. Lastly a structured test schedule.

Sadly, there are many reports on destruction of aircraft, injury and death on initial test flights.

The testing process involves as much care and preparation as well as selection of the best pilot as any other part of the building process.

[hank jarrett]

One of the most important advantages of a non-builder test pilot is that he/she DID NOT build the plane. When the worst case happens and it is time to abandon those decades of hard work, a builder may wait just a moment too long and we would loose both the plane AND the builder pilot.
Less investment can allow clearer thinking.
Hank

The first thing to say to yourself in an emergency is "Fly the airplane".
The second is, "I sure hope the insurance companies plane comes through this". When the emergency happens, don't think of it as your plane, it's AUA's till the emergency is over.

[Machinbird]

Originally Posted by Blue Max Aviation DR1

I would hope that none of you will ever consider a full-power, cross controlled stall/spin. Cessna might try that in a test program but this is a formula for disaster.

So far, Cessna's decision to use the built-in BRS chute for their spin program has cost them two aircraft. In retrospect, they probably should have used a dedicated spin recovery parachute despite all the CG and technical problems such a solution would entail. I won't comment on their choice of data points to be achieved other than to state that spin characteristics are often very dependent on entry conditions and it is difficult to declare that all possibilities have been evaluated.
Perhaps an anti-spin rocket thruster solution would have been a simpler approach to ensure spin recovery. Once you zero the yaw rate, you can recover using normal controls.

[Joe Perkel]

= Testing syllabus for a WWI replica float plane, is best served initially with traditional wheeled undercarriage, and an appropriate pilot.

[j ferguson]

This is a good thread that Joe has sponsored.

Of course it never occurred to me to let someone else do the first flight. But after conceding the wisdom of this idea, who should it be? Someone with a lot of experience with the type would be good, but is there another sort of experience that might be even better?

It took me three check rides to get my private. Although I soloed in 4 hours in a 150 and got most of the stuff down reasonably well, I was unable to recognize the onset of a stall, power on or off. They were looking for a sensitivity that could be measured by pulling back the wheel just slightly and having the plane stall. You were supposed to get the speed down to where all it took was a twitch. I simply couldn’t do it. Instructors and check-riders would fly me around and around and say “Can’t you feel the shudder?” "No." I don’t know if I ever did get to “feeling” it. But after dozens of hours of practice, I finally got to where I could detect it, however I was doing it.

I think this shortcoming of mine points to an important aptitude – sensitivity to symptoms of unusual flight characteristics. Clearly, I would not be a good candidate for this first ride and not only because of no experience in unusual planes.

Who would be better? I would look for someone who had flown a lot of different home-builts - someone who could tell me about rigging problems, strange vibrations, and other things whose correction or adjustment were required to make the plane “fly right”.

Clausewitz has a chapter on hiring generals in which he recommends going only with guys who have experienced, understood, and dealt with “adversity.” He mentions “mud.” I think you want the same sort of person flying your plane. This quality might be even more important than hundreds of hours in type.

So when you ask a candidate with dozens of first rides and thousands of hours in old slow airplanes, “What have you run into?” and you don’t hear a litany of problems, maybe you should keep looking. I would.

[Joe Perkel]

Originally Posted by j ferguson

This is a good thread that Joe has sponsored.

Of course it never occurred to me to let someone else do the first flight. But after conceding the wisdom of this idea, who should it be? Someone with a lot of experience with the type would be good, but is there another sort of experience that might be even better?

John

You see this time and again in the NTSB reports, "the board has determined that a contributing factor was lack of time in type". I suspect this to be the main point of Sid's original post on the matter.

A simple decision such as putting my float plane on wheels initially, can make all the difference as well. More guys to be found out there in the local fields, and EAA chapters with conventional gear rag wing biplane time, than there would be with biplanes on floats. My test pilot is more likely to be revealed locally in this way.

However, if I were to leave it on floats initially, then a worldwide search is on for an appropriate test pilot. Certainly, a bit more of a hurdle to overcome, and not without increased risks and or expense.

It's a conclusion I had come to months ago. With the appropriate time built up on floats with another aircraft, and after having flown the required hours on the Sopwith as a land plane, I can position myself then to be the most appropriate pilot to test it as a float plane.

[joepilot]

Having spent time in unusual attitudes and edge of the envelope of the aircraft, I intend to "do that again" in a Decathlon. Additionally, I intend to put a Cub through its paces. Both aircraft I am very comfortable in and will spend time in each at different stall attitudes, slips, etc. When I learned to fly in a Decathlon my father (my IP) would "fail" a flight control and tell me to land (like the elevator - he would block the fore and aft movement of the stick with his hands and tell me to figure it out - you quickly figure out what power does for the glidepath). Typically he would do this in the middle of an aerobatic maneuver. As I got better at feeling and flying, he would then do the same thing and simulate an engine failure. I have a great pilot friend who I will ask to do the same thing on my training flights to get ready to fly my Fokker Dr.1.

At the time my father did this I was not happy and just wanted to get done so I could take my check ride and get my Private. However, later in my flying career I found the wisdom of this out-of-the-box thinking. As I get close to flying my Dr.1, I will develop an aggressive flight training program with my friend in a Decathlon so as to "feel flight" again. Ideas of flight training that I have done in the past as a safety pilot in the backseat of different aerobatic rated airplanes are:

1. Have the backseater fly at different airspeeds while you are looking backwards and tell him what speed you think you are at.

2. Fly aerobatics looking backward and tell the backseater what speed and altitude you think you are at.

3. Fly simulated emergency landing patterns with a "flight control out" - like the rudder, ailerons, elevator.

The purpose is to remember the "feel of flight", using all your senses to fly. Lastly, I will "chair fly" in the cockpit my Dr.1 in the hanger based on what other Dr.1 pilots have said about the flying characteristics. I understand that the Decathlon is not a Dr.1, but the intention is to remember and feel the flying.

My 2 cents worth,
Joepilot
check 6