http://www.kval.com/news/national/100797614.html

It is not clear if this was a high speed taxi, pre first flight, gone wrong or if the plane had flown before.

It had not flown before and I don't think he intended to get off the ground this time. I guess he got a crow hop or two and the nosewheel collapsed. It went skidding on it's nose until it hit the dirt and then it flipped. There sure isn't much to protect the pilot from impact on a low wing plane when it is upside down. They had me bring my crane out to turn it back over. Not a fun job to do.
Steve

There has been a lively discussion about this on the Van's AirForce forum. As an Experimental builder, I really don't see the value of a high speed taxi test. The information you need, when building such a proven design, is evident at well below flying speed. There are still lots of reputable resources that indicate that a High speed taxi test is indicated prior to flight. Most of those recommendations are daated and refer to true untested designs. High speed taxi is in a grey zone when none of the machine is working in it's sweet spot. It's not flying, (much or at all) the aerodynamic serfaces are not fully effective, and the gear is light so the brakes and steering are not 100%. Personally, I want to stay out of that zone as much as possible. I feel for the family and friends of the pilot, and wish we could all learn these lessons without such serious consequences. As an additional note the RV6 is a terrific and proven airplane. A loss for all involved.

KB

Kind of scary..How many people do you know that have flipped a Cessna over at landing speed and walked away? It looks as if the airplane basically pile drove him into the ground when it flipped over. Condolences to the family...it only takes second people...stay safe out there.

tejasflyer wrote:There has been a lively discussion about this on the Van's AirForce forum. As an Experimental builder, I really don't see the value of a high speed taxi test. The information you need, when building such a proven design, is evident at well below flying speed. There are still lots of reputable resources that indicate that a High speed taxi test is indicated prior to flight. Most of those recommendations are daated and refer to true untested designs. High speed taxi is in a grey zone when none of the machine is working in it's sweet spot. It's not flying, (much or at all) the aerodynamic serfaces are not fully effective, and the gear is light so the brakes and steering are not 100%. Personally, I want to stay out of that zone as much as possible. I feel for the family and friends of the pilot, and wish we could all learn these lessons without such serious consequences. As an additional note the RV6 is a terrific and proven airplane. A loss for all involved.

KB

I'd like to add my support to this theory. I'm definitely not a test pilot, however the logic is quite correct to me... during high speed taxi the airplane is in a gray area between flying and driving, and it's not doing either one well. On an airplane like an RV, which has very well known "big picture" characteristics (control authority, longitudinal stability, tail volume, sufficient wing and tail areas, a known airfoil) this is really not necessary. On a brand new never-tested or exotic configuration design, it may help some. But on those exotic projects, sub-scale model testing and the latest/greatest computer airflow modeling will carry the biggest part of the load in terms of "will it fly". If a qualified test pilot knows better, let us all know. But in awful hindsight, to me it is likely that a standard liftoff and climb to 20 feet, basic control authority check, and touchdown... all in one pass down a long runway or dry lake bed, would have prevented this kind of tragedy. It is worth discussing here if this discussion (regardless of the result) stops this from happening to someone in the future.

taildrgfun wrote:It had not flown before and I don't think he intended to get off the ground this time. I guess he got a crow hop or two and the nosewheel collapsed. It went skidding on it's nose until it hit the dirt and then it flipped. There sure isn't much to protect the pilot from impact on a low wing plane when it is upside down. They had me bring my crane out to turn it back over. Not a fun job to do.
Steve

I kinda thought that might be your rig, a job you could have done without I'm sure.

taildrgfun wrote:It had not flown before and I don't think he intended to get off the ground this time. I guess he got a crow hop or two and the nosewheel collapsed. It went skidding on it's nose until it hit the dirt and then it flipped. There sure isn't much to protect the pilot from impact on a low wing plane when it is upside down. They had me bring my crane out to turn it back over. Not a fun job to do.
Steve

Actually there is a rather stout roll bar that surrounds the windscreen and in this mishap the pics show it holding up well. My guess is he didn't strap on his seatbelts and was thrown up against the inside of the canopy. I also disagree with the notion of not doing any high speed taxi tests. One needs to practice that area as you pass through it twice on every flight. Once when taking off and again when landing. I assume the moral of this story is to not do any high spped stuff when the winds are gusting. Just leave it in the hangar till a better time. IMHO.

Ben.

When it comes to airplane accidents, I usually think to myself, well you got to go sometime and some way but It saddened me a little that the guy never got to successfully fly the plane after probably spending months and years building it.

Oh, what one wouldn't give for ten seconds ago.......very sad indeed. Lost a friend a couple of years ago in an experimetal airplane crash..with a passenger. Condolences to famliy and friends.
HC