I would listen to my wife.

I have test flown 2 experimentals of my own design and a rebuilt Stearman which I wasn't proficient in. I don't like testing the engines and airframes on the first flight. After doing the fuel flow test can you find a test club or a unairworthy prop to cut down, make air scoops and ground run based on manifold pressure and RPM to seat rings. I then spend a lot of time seating in the airplane getting a sight picture and where everything is at. Do taxi test. Next be proficient in another plane preferably as close to what you are testing. Fly your proposed circuit in another plane around the airport numerous times picking emergency landing fields. Stay over the airport for the first 5 hours.

The Stearman has a ground adjustable prop, I set the pitch to fine and used a laser temp indicator to watch cylinder temps, I think you probably have all this information on the panel, is always interesting to watch the temps come down as the rings seat in. Took about 3 hours.

This seems like a lot but the how much time did you spend building, its yours or someone else's life.

Hey Whee,
You probably got more opinions than you were looking for, and they all make good sense in one way or another.
If you don't mind me throwing in my two cents, I would agree with Akshu.

You are obviously a talented guy to take on such a project in the first place. If you have any reservation about the initial flight at all, for you to pass on the task to an experienced test pilot just shows good decision making, which is part of being a good pilot! Many of us who have been in this business for a long time have lost friends and fellow pilots to their own ego.

In this case going against your better judgement, and your wife's wishes, may not be the better choice.

Ron

Whee,

Because I have been around a long time and have been known to have flown most everything, I have been involved in several first flights of homebuilt airplanes. Most were uneventful. Two were not. Hard feelings resulted. One was instruction in a Hyper-bype which is not a trainer. I was unable to talk him into dual in a Citabria. The other had a geared reduction lock up stopping the prop. I got it down in a pasture with little damage.

My point is that airplanes are machines and people are more important. I don't mind people being upset with me, but I hate to see them allow a machine to damage their world view so much.

Don't over think it and do whatever you and your wife are comfortable with. You are young and have a lot of life left in you. Even though you have invested a lot of time and money, this is a small thing compared to what has come before and what is in the future.

Good luck,

Contact

I have done the test flights on my plane for two major overhauls and one complete teardown of the airframe, wings off, empanage off, engine off, Float kit welded on and the whole thing put back together.

I don't know if I would have used someone else had I had someone available but I didn't so I didn't.
I suggest you do what you can to make sure of fuel flow, double and triple check flight controls, don't worry overmuch about complex props and such as if they have a problem it is nearly always just a return to fine pitch.

Do some ground runups, shut the engine off and let it heat soak while you look things over again.
Make some taxi runs but be real careful of overheating new cylinder assemblies.
Then when you are ready, take off and climb to get some distance from the ground.
I also agree with hotrod 180 in that the most dangerous part of the flight is when in close proximity to the ground,
The specified breakin for Lycoming cylinder assemblies was to climb at full throttle, full rich and watch the temps until they peak and begin to cool down, at this point cylinder breakin is complete. Keep the engine temps nice and warm, do not shock cool, as you make a gentle decent, land, check everything over and go fly some more.
Have it all done by this spring, I am coming south and would love to see it.
Shane

Thanks for sharing your thoughts guys. Lots to think about but one thing is for sure, I’m not going to go against my wife’s wishes.

I too had a goal of beating Z...then he had another kid[emoji38]

Shorton, spring starts in just a few days so I don’t think I’m going to make it. We hope to move the plan to the airport in April and be flying by June.

A few years ago after my son in law and I finished our Highlander, it was a no brainer for two low time pilots to look for someone to do our first flights. We were very fortunate to find out that a well known test pilot lived in our area. Len Fox agreed to meet us at our shop. At the time, we thought we were interviewing him for the job, but after 2-3 hours of him doing his mirror and flash light inspection it was pretty humorous to realize our project was what was being interviewed. Having a professional do your first flights is heads above finding a good stick with big balls fly something they didn’t build.

We were amazed at how much information Len documented on his knee pad in those short flights. Then helping with the adjustments that he recommended.

(google “Len Fox Test Pilot” and watch a couple of U-tube videos)

When considering our considerable investments in time and money, let alone the piece of mind of our loved ones, I feel it was money well spent to hire a professional.

Whee, been following your project and am excited for you coming down the home stretch.

Jim

Zzz wrote:I think the most valuable training you can get is in a high performance/complex/retractable aircraft. It demands that you actually use checklists and flows and put some thought into your next moves. A test flight should be approached methodically and procedurally instead of just "here goes!"

With my limited experience of two separate test pilot approvals, I would say Z is exactly right.
Particularly on the first flight, managing the unexpected distracts from flying the plane. The predetermined plans, procedures, and decision points are very important. I have felt overwhelmed, at times, when things happen during the first few flights. Certainly, if a second test pilot is allowed under AC90-116 to manage the engine systems and monitor the instruments, I would think it very helpful.

Our CAA (FAA) requires a detailed test plan be written, and I firmly believe this is necessary. You need to go through the process of anticipating as many problems as necessary, and what you'll do in each case.

Your emotional investment is also another stress-causing factor which needs to be considered seriously.

On the other hand, I also know "test pilots for hire" who have needlessly crashed someone's years of hard work through inattention or poor decision-making. It's not a good place to be.

If I were building a Lancair pressurized turbine or some such that I have no business flying anyway, I'd hire a professional. For the caliber of stuff I fly and build, I'd prefer to do it myself. I'm for sure no Chuck Yeager either.

To be frank, if my loved ones lacked confidence in my piloting skills, I'd understand. If they lacked confidence in my building skills and expected me to risk someone else's hide in my flying heap instead of mine because of that, well...I'll just say I'd probably be spending several nights in the guest room in the after math.

This is a good topic worthy of consideration. Thanks for bringing it up.

Most everything I would recommend has already been said, so I will just pile on...

Hiring somebody that has a lot of time in similar and more complex aircraft is a good idea. It is remarkable how experience slows down the airplane for you. That can especially be important as you are trying to get information from an unfamiliar panel...a little prep time in ground run makes for easy work in the air, and that is usually something that is ingrained by experience.

It is pretty cool that you are getting close to the end of the build. Just remember to finish it as a skeptical maintenance manager, not as an excited pilot/owner.

I'd consider the test pilot. A significant benefit of a pilot with a lot of time in type is that they will also be highly familiar with what the finished product is supposed to look like, and will likely do a detailed inspection that can reveal anomalies. My Uncle built a Lancair; the test pilot was highly familiar with the airframe, and he found things on his inspection that weren't obvious, but were important. They were all simple to fix in a few hours, but things you wouldn't want to discover in the air.

I appreciate everyone's thoughts. I've been excited about the first flight for a long time and you guys are helping me take an honest look at the best path forward.

Jim 541 wrote:Whee, been following your project and am excited for you coming down the home stretch.

Me too! I just hope the 'home stretch' doesn't turn into another year

Battson wrote:Our CAA (FAA) requires a detailed test plan be written, and I firmly believe this is necessary. You need to go through the process of anticipating as many problems as necessary, and what you'll do in each case.

Your emotional investment is also another stress-causing factor which needs to be considered seriously.

I agree with developing a test plan. I didn't do that for the other BH and it's phase 1 was pretty pointless.

My emotional investment is actually my main concern. I need to get into the frame of mind where I'd be focused on saving my life rather than trying to save the plane should something go wrong. I don't think I'm there yet.

gbflyer wrote:To be frank, if my loved ones lacked confidence in my piloting skills, I'd understand. If they lacked confidence in my building skills and expected me to risk someone else's hide in my flying heap instead of mine because of that, well...I'll just say I'd probably be spending several nights in the guest room in the after math.

Yep. It is a lack of proficiency on my part. I have confidence in what we have built but something could still go wrong and I'm not sure I'm the right guy to handle that unknown.

Troy Hamon wrote:It is pretty cool that you are getting close to the end of the build. Just remember to finish it as a skeptical maintenance manager, not as an excited pilot/owner.

For sure.

jcadwell wrote:I'd consider the test pilot. A significant benefit of a pilot with a lot of time in type is that they will also be highly familiar with what the finished product is supposed to look like, and will likely do a detailed inspection that can reveal anomalies. My Uncle built a Lancair; the test pilot was highly familiar with the airframe, and he found things on his inspection that weren't obvious, but were important. They were all simple to fix in a few hours, but things you wouldn't want to discover in the air.

It would be great to find a test pilot that has lots of BH experience but none exist around here. However, since Idaho is on many BH owners hit list I may be able to find someone willing to stop and give it a look before the first flight. Having someone else familiar with the type look it over would be a good thing.

Thanks again guys!

If I were building a new plane and had a fresh engine, I'd 100% break the engine in on a test stand. This gives you:

1- a controlled environment for break-in
2- a proven engine for your test flight
3- the ability to take off and land to make any aircraft or engine adjustments as much as you want without concern over a proper engine break-in (read: don't reinvent PilotRyan's goat-roap)

TradeCraft wrote: If I were building a new plane and had a fresh engine, I'd 100% break the engine in on a test stand......

Most if not all engine overhaul specialty shops have a test stand.
I wouldn't say they "break it in",
but they generally do a 1-to-2 hour engine run-in which is the most critical part of the break-in process.
A guy I know had the local mechanic overhaul his Lyc 320 (he helped),
but then he took it down to a nearby engine shop and paid them to run it in on their test stand.
Very good idea IMHO.

An engine test stand would be great and that's what I'd prefer but the only outfit around here that might have one is the A&P school. They are nice folks but they "get to it when the get to it" and all work is done by students. A friend used to let them do the annuals on his 'spare' airplane which took them 3-4months. I don't want to wait that long nor do I want to let students abuse my engine. I feel that my best option is to follow the post overhaul procedure outlined in the overhaul manual.

This is one of the major reasons I reused the cylinders on my engine. I didn't want to cook a $10K set of new cylinders while working out all the other possible issues. Bottom end was built to new specs so that when the cylinders start to go soft I can just have new cylinders installed and be good to go for a while. It's possible these cylinders will last along time since they all measured to almost new limits and since they have steel bores they should break-in pretty quickly.

Heck jon, whomever suggested circling the airport...thats a great idea after some taxi runs...and add a safety pilot in the right seat and break it in...!
i have a couple of good local suggestions if that interests you....congrats on all the effort...how cool to build your own airplane....!!