First Flight: Keep it Close to Field, or Venture to 11,000' rwy?

[CarlOrton]

Hi, All;

I thought I'd start another contentious discussion.

My home field is 3,500 x 40'. 5 miles from the field is an 11,000' Class Delta field.

Compounding issues at the home field are fences & trees at each end of the runway.

"Conventional" wisdom says that for a first flight, I should just remain in the pattern to monitor engine conditions, etc., so that if I had to put 'er down, it would be no prob.

However, I received a suggestion this week that sounds intriguing. Since the big runway is relatively close, I could take off from my local field, check out slow flight, etc., and make sure the engine is running well, then take it over to the big runway for the first landing. That way, if I take a bit of runway to put 'er down, I'll have plenty of room to see first-hand sink rates, deceleration, etc.

I am just completing my tailwheel endorsement. This will be the first time I've flown this model aircraft (Sonex). Obtaining time in type is impractical.

Your thoughts?

[hydroguy2]

my thought....go get some transition training. you owe it to yourself, your family and every pilot out there.

[Frank Giger]

I think you're over thinking it.

First, if it's not windless or nearly windless on the day, don't fly for the first flight. That throws the width of the airfield out as a consideration, as you won't have a crosswind.

Second, if you can't put it down in 3,500, go around. It's a Sonex, not a B-17. Heck, you should plan on the first one being a go-around anyhow.

Third, your support crew will be at your home airfield. They won't be much help five miles away. If you find a problem on landing, you'll be stranded and have to do repairs away from your hangar and tools.

Fourth, what's the traffic like at the Class D airport? If it's fairly busy, give them a break by not having a first flight experimental to deal with when there's an alternative.

[Dana]

If there were an advantage to the longer field, then the logical thing would be to transport the plane to the long field for the first flight. This might be the case if it was a faster aircraft, or an entirely new design where an extended crow hop or two might be appropriate before taking it up higher. A class D field means no (or less) worries about other traffic while you need to focus on the first flight. But I don't think it's wise flying 5 miles, or getting out of gliding distance from the field, on the first flight.

[Green Goggles]

I tend to agree with Frank. I also love the familiarity of my home airport. I'll always feel most comfortable at home. :)

Now, if you're home field was 2,000ft, I might think differently. But 3,500 ought to give you plenty of comfort zone, I would think.
Either way, keep up us informed, and best of luck! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:forums.corvetteforum.com/get/images/smilies/cheers2.gif

[Joe LaMantia]

There is an excellent article in this month's "Sport Aviation" on the first flight process. Read it, the suggestion to get some time in type is spot-on and as usual Frank has laid out some excellent points to consider. I hope you have been flying something while your building project was underway, if not get current with an instructor b/4 jumping into the "test pilot" mode.

Joe
:cool:

[CarlOrton]

Hi, All;

Thanks for the responses thus far.

Hydroguy, I agree with the need to get transition training. However, gross weight considerations make this all but impossible given Sonex in this area (owner weight and/or completed a/c weight). I fully agree with "owing it" to self/family/pilots. But I take relative comfort that the first Sonex builders had no transition training as well, so in the grand scheme of things, I'm OK.

Frank: Already planned to do early AM or late PM in order to handle the wind situation. Best solution/point you made was about the support crew not being able to be at the longer field. The longer field is relatively low-volume of traffic, which is why I'd even consider it in the first place. My only concern with going around is if I only have one shot at landing due to engine quitting. And you're right, I'm over analyzing it.

All: Thanks for the encouragement. I've flown some since I've been building, but naturally it's been spaced-out a bit. I've been flying twice weekly since January (well mostly, wx permitting) working on my tailwheel & BFR in a Decathlon. I've attended first flight presentations at AirVenture, online, and have read the articles. Naturally, that does not make me an expert. I just thought that the idea of the longer field sounded intriguing; I hadn't even considered it until my instructor suggested it. Seemed to go against the grain of conventional wisdom, which is why I posted it here; I thought that perhaps there might be some benefit in doing it that way.

Unfortunately, there is no hangar space available at the Class D field to allow wing attachment, fiddling, inspection, etc. over the span of a few weeks. Another option would be to trailer it to another field 10 miles away (also Class D / 6000') where I have fairly good chances of begging/renting some hangar space for a short duration. All in all, though, I'd prefer to keep it at the local field. Just a bit concerned with engine failure on initial takeoff though (fences & trees as I noted).

[Bill]

Just a bit concerned with engine failure on initial takeoff though (fences & trees as I noted).

Unnecessary apprehension is not what you need on a first flight.

I'd take it to the field when you can get hangar space for final assembly and there do the first flight plus get enough time to feel comfortable with the airplane before coming back to your home field. You haven't lost anything by doing this,other than a little time, and your first flight will be more enjoyable. You should be grinning after getting out of the airplane after your first flight, not wiping the sweat off your brow:D.

[hydroguy2]

another option, would be to have an experienced Sonex pilot do the first flight or 2. No shame in hiring an experienced pilot to do the shakedown, then once you are certain the plane has no bad habits, you can make Your first flight.

I know it's tough call and I may be offending you. But given the increased attention and focus on Experimentals safety record, I still think transition training or checkout in a similar model is paramount...... I'll shut up now.

[Mike Switzer]

If I ever get this thing I'm working on built, I plan on doing the initial "flight test" on runway 6 at DEC (8496 x 150) on a windless day - and see how it handles within 10' of the ground, where I can get it back down if something is squirrely, I don't want to end up dead in a field east of the airport like that guy a year or 2 ago.

[steveinindy]

I don't want to end up dead in a field east of the airport like that guy a year or 2 ago.

That's simple. Make sure you don't do anything to cause the wing to fail and especially don't fall out of the plane like he did. http://www.herald-review.com/news/local/article_76c6c31d-eaa9-5a94-8a4b-eb10a8af7607.html

[Mike Switzer]

Steve, I had to listen to the whole ordeal on the scanner, I don't ever want to hear anything like that again - and contrary to what the article says, the weather conditions were not ideal. Someone more experienced was supposed to test fly it & he wanted to wait for better conditions.

[Eric Witherspoon]

This will be the first time I've flown this model aircraft (Sonex). Obtaining time in type is impractical.

Your thoughts?

Start working on the TX contingent of Sonex operators to get you a ride. Here - I'll get you started by offering you a ride in Tucson if you get over this way.

Though I too had zero on first flight - couldn't shame any of the Phoenix Sonexers into any rides either. I've since tried to make up for this by giving rides to people from as far away as Hawaii, as well as some in-town builders.

But for the first so many flights, if you do 3-point takeoffs and landings, other than the nose-high sight picture, it won't act like a taildragger much at all. About the only time it's tail-dragger-ish is with the little wheel off the ground. After I got about 100 3-point landings, I felt out wheel landings & takeoffs and now only do the 3-pointers for demo purposes.

I know, there's one extra-highly-experienced Sonex flier over on the type-specific group who swears by 3-pointers all around, always. But the main advantage to a wheelie takeoff is forward visibility (there can be animals and other stuff on the runway), and wheel landings in the Sonex are the slickest, smoothest landings I've ever made in anything, once I learned to anticipate the tail swing-down when the mains touch, plus wheelies minimize the racket from the tailwheel. One of the other guys recommended trimming somewhat nose-heavy in the landing phase, then when the wheels touch, just release the back pressure and it stays stuck, no bounce.

Not that you're anywhere near ballasting it with a bunch of weight in the seat for gross-weight testing, but beware - the tail is a LOT heavier with the 2nd "person" on board. First wheel landing like this is likely to have the tail swing down, bouncing the plane back into the air.

For distances, my 3300 will be airborne in 500' or less, at 2000+' Density ALT. You've probably watched the Huebbe videos - even w/ the Aerovee, if it's not off the ground in 1000', just pull power and roll to a stop - something's wrong. You've heard it's heavier on ailerons and lighter in pitch - that will take about 2 seconds to figure out. My first flight was 1x around pattern - saw high temps on climb, pulled power, made the pattern, and landed. I don't recall if I used flaps or not - 6900' runway here. But it floats like crazy w/o flaps. For your field, I wouldn't recommend no flap landings until after you're ready to just go around. So I would recommend checking flaps on the first flight. I don't know if you built with the left hand lever or center controls. If center controls, then use the "full" position for landing. If left-side flap lever, I use a position between the two shown on the plans for all landings. The "full" position there is harder to pull the lever into, and adds a LOT of drag. Though it seems a lot of people are getting it in & out of some pretty small places with the full flaps.

Good luck...

[jam0552@msn.com]

I don't know alot about the Sonex except I watched a guy almost kill himself in one at the Arlington Airport, Everett, WA last summer. Seriously it looks like quite a handfull for a pilot who just got his tailwheel endorsement. There is an excellent source of information available from the FAA, AC 90-89A, Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook. You should be taxiing around getting the feel of it on the ground, in quartering tailwinds, etc. Once you are thoroughly confident in your skill, advance to high speed taxiing down the runway with the tail flying only. Again once you are thoroughly confident in your ability, try once with the main wheels a few feet off the ground, then land and stop before the end of the runway. Do it over and over, then stop, go home, get some rest, reflect on what you have learned. You are using the building blocks of practice and experience to build up your confidence and skill. This is the safest approach to a test flight in an unknown aircraft. Have you considered getting some dual insomething that closely approximates the handling of the Sonex? Good luck and please be careful.
-Joel Marketello

[steveinindy]

and contrary to what the article says, the weather conditions were not idea

I know. I've heard a recording of the radio traffic and seen most of the reports related to this case. I can't say anymore than despite having been to more crashes than most folks, this one was bad even by plane crash standards.


Good luck and please be careful.

That's sound advice for any flight, not just the first one.

[rosiejerryrosie]

If I ever get this thing I'm working on built, I plan on doing the initial "flight test" on runway 6 at DEC (8496 x 150) on a windless day - and see how it handles within 10' of the ground, where I can get it back down if something is squirrely, I don't want to end up dead in a field east of the airport like that guy a year or 2 ago.

But if somethng goes wrong and you're 10 feet off the ground, there is not much time to react. Eighty miles per hour is eighty miles per hour whether you are 10 feet off the ground or on the ground -- a sudden stop is gonna smart....'

[Mike Switzer]

a sudden stop is gonna smart....'

I'm gonna be inside a steel cage with a full race harness :) I think I will be better off than someone in an ultralight.

You ever see pics after a Mooney crashes? The cabin is usually pretty much intact.

[rosiejerryrosie]

I'm gonna be inside a steel cage with a full race harness :) I think I will be better off than someone in an ultralight.

You ever see pics after a Mooney crashes? The cabin is usually pretty much intact.

My point was that if you have problems at 10 feet or 1000 feet the impact is gonna be about the same, except at 1000 feet it gives you more time to react - or to think about it.

[Mike Switzer]

After the last accident here, what scares me is something similar happening - he had something either not rigged correctly or the W&B was out of whack, as soon as it lifted off it went nose high. If he had set it back down right away he probably would have been OK, but full power kept it flying for a while, and the more altitude he got the worse the situation became, until it stalled/spun & the wing came off.

I plan on making sure things are controllable in ground effect before the situation can get out of control.

[steveinindy]

I'm gonna be inside a steel cage with a full race harness :) I think I will be better off than someone in an ultralight.

You ever see pics after a Mooney crashes? The cabin is usually pretty much intact.

Mike, can I be of assistance with regards to that design?

[Mike Switzer]

Mike, can I be of assistance with regards to that design?

I might need someone to review it later, I'm still giving myself a refresher course in some basic statics & mechanics of materials concepts I haven't used since the late 90s - most of the structural work I have done lately was for commercial or industrial buildings, and that is mostly span & load tables. Let me get it a little farther along & I will get with you.

[steveinindy]

Not a problem. Let me know how I can be of assistance. That's what I am here for and that goes for everyone designing and building an aircraft, not just yourself.