So........ ya wanna be a Test Pilot Eh ?

[GoBoy]

Recently at my Field we have had an increasing number of restored/ rebuilt  aircraft come to life .
Most of these aircraft have ended up being flight tested by a local pilot with no test experience other than the fact that he has lots of tail dragger time which of course does not mean he is capable.
I watched this person take  few first post restoration / rebuild flights and do nothing more that a couple of circuits and landings and then declare the aircraft safe . Then hand it over to the owner
Not being a test pilot myself, I should not judge but his method seems far from adequate to me .
Can some of you share your experiences / methods from past testing ?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Did he do all the slow flight and stall tests in the circuit?

[GoBoy]

Chuck
That's the kicker
This guy does nothing but a couple of circuits and landings....that's it .
Call me crazy but this is going to catch up to him or someone else in the long run
He has been lucky so far

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Unfortunately the truth is this kind of activity is seen as normal because the owners/builders are ignorant of the why a newly built airplane requires a dedicated flight test that will demonstrate how the airplane reacts to the edges of its flight envelope.

The penalty for incorrect, incomplete flight testing can be death.....for the owner builder.

These forums are worth their weight in diamonds as teaching/ learning tools for pilots.

[Colonel]

Let's look at the positives.  Your local
Ace Of The Base is a good enough stick
to fly an unfamiliar aircraft without altering
it's appearance, and that is a very good thing.

Flying a circuit for the first flight is also a
very good thing, because after you land
you can pull the cowls and inspect it for
anything horrible going wrong (leaks, etc).

However, after this a longer flight is required
to seat the rings, and to check the temperatures,
and the accuracy of the engine gauges
and flight instruments and nav equipment.

I spend a lot of time chasing temperature
problems on weird airplanes, and you need
to fly them long enough to make sure they
have stopped climbing.  Are the CHT's and
oil temps acceptable after a sustained 75%
cruise flight?

Another really important thing to check (which
should be done before first flight) is fuel
venting and flow.  If you can't feed fuel to
the engine, you will have a bad day.  Take
the horsepower of the engine, knock off a
zero, that's your fuel flow at takeoff.  Add
50% for margin.

Aircraft rigging and trimming will be obvious
during the first flight.  It is easy to screw this
up.  I know of a Pitts S-2C which was rebuilt
by a pro which flew 15 knots slower afterwards.

Now it's time to explore airspeeds.  It needs
to be flown slowly (stall characteristics) and
to check the airspeed indicator and stall
warning indicator.  Does it drop a wing?  How
violently?  Is that typical of the type?  Recheck
with power and flaps and gear config.

I do not recommend performing spins or
aerobatics unless you have an airframe
chute and you have a parachute and can
get out, and you know what you are doing.

It needs to be flown fast.  This can instantly
kill you.  If there is any flutter, the onset can
be instantaneous.  Killed Andy Phillips, two
hangars down from me.

Pilots need to understand flutter, and how
Vd and Vne are calculated.



Back in 1931, they went faster and faster,
and didn't have a clue about flutter:



I would happily trade both of your testicles
for a Gee Bee Racer!

The 1930's was a strange time for aviation
in North America.  Isolationist governments
resulted in civilian aircraft being the fastest
and making advances that today we associate
with trillion-dollar government research.

[img]https://www.tinmantech.com/assets/image ... cer_lg.jpg[/img]

Most people here would hate him, but what
an achingly beautiful aircraft, compared to
what else was flying at the time!

With a revisionist engineering eye, we can
comment about it's wetted area and need
for more of a waspish-waist and wing-fuselage
drag (mid-wing would work better) and
horrendous drag from the excessively large
cowl inlet area ...

But what an airplane!

Let's look at a more modern speedy prop
airplane, and see what differences crop up:

[img]http://images1.americanlisted.com/nlarg ... 438565.jpg[/img]

Zivko Edge 540, popular in Red Bull air racing.

Sure, it's fixed-gear but:

Note the low-drag mid-wing configuration
with a very flat fuselage side.

Note the tiny, low-drag cowl inlets.

Note the attempt to reduce the wetted area
by severely tapering the fuselage after the
wings.

What great fun:

[Colonel]

[quote]The 1930's was a strange time for aviation
in North America.  Isolationist governments ...[/quote]

Reminds me of a funny story.  After WWI the
entire aviation branch of the US Military consisted
of one airplane and eleven pilots.

They asked for some money to buy another airplane
and the President of the United States replied,

"Can't they just share the one airplane that they already have?"

For some more incredible reading about the
WWI - WWII interregnum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell

[quote]William "Billy" Mitchell (December 29, 1879 – February 19, 1936) was a United States Army general who is regarded as the father of the United States Air Force.

Mitchell served in France during World War I and, by the conflict's end, commanded all American air combat units in that country. After the war, he was appointed deputy director of the Air Service and began advocating increased investment in air power, believing that this would prove vital in future wars. He argued particularly for the ability of [b]bombers to sink battleships[/b] and organized a series of bombing runs against stationary ships designed to test the idea.

He antagonized many people in the Army with his arguments and criticism and, in 1925, was returned from appointment as a brigadier general to his permanent rank of Colonel.

Later that year, he was court-martialed for insubordination after accusing Army and Navy leaders of an "almost treasonable administration of the national defense" for investing in battleships instead of aircraft carriers. He resigned from the service shortly afterward.

Mitchell received many honors following his death, including a commission by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a Major General. He is also the only individual after whom a type of American military aircraft, the North American B-25 Mitchell, is named.[/quote]

He was court-martialled for being right -
see Pearl Harbor (which was the end of
the battleship era) and the Battle of Midway
which ushered in the carrier era, for even
the densest of military commanders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor

[quote]The base was attacked by 353 Japanese fighter planes, bombers, and torpedo planes in two waves, launched from six aircraft carriers.

All eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged, with four being sunk.[/quote]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

[quote]All four Japanese heavy aircraft carriers—Akagi, Kaga, Soryu and Hiryu, part of the six-carrier force that had attacked Pearl Harbor six months earlier—and a heavy cruiser were sunk at a cost of the (USA) carrier Yorktown and a destroyer. [/quote]

[Colonel]

The Hughes Racer must have looked like
a UFO, sitting on the ramp in 1935  ;D

It still looks good (albeit a tad draggy)
today, but in 1935 it must have looked
like a spaceship to all the guys flying
tube and fabric biplanes!

I still think a mid-wing config and reducing
the cowl inlet area would have helped it.

Ever seen all the old Mooneys and Comanches
with their huge cowl inlet areas?  There
are mods to severely reduce that ...

[Colonel]

[quote]The low wing is a trade off for having retractable gear[/quote]

Sure, but they could have gone gullwing like the Corsair:

[img]http://www.air-and-space.com/19910915%2 ... ng%20l.jpg[/img]

Again, notice the severely reduced cowl
inlet area.  Think of how fast the H-1
could have been!

Low drag is how you go fast ...