1 Fatal ...r.a.h or r.a.p?

Tater Schuld wrote:

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Tater Schuld" wrote


heck that sounds like a good idea. wasn't there a time that engineers
would tow a plane behind a ground vehicle to see if it would fly?

sounds like a way to avoid risking getting hurt if some design flaw comes
up. make sure to sandbag for CG!

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.
Is there no limit to what some *don't* know?


yeah, I'll admit it. I'm interested in flying, in too remote of a place to
get a mentor, and too cheap to afford instruction.

I also looked at the prices of buying a certified plane, and the prices of
renting one, and was disheartened.

one of my biggest complaints is that there is no possible flying potential
for someone who works at minimum wage. EAA wants bigger and bigger
memberships, and wonders why it is so hard. I believe that if they could get
the price of flying down so that a minimum wage a afford it (minimum wage
income, not minimum wage IQ), you could get a LOT more people interested. a
plane in every garage and that sort of thing.

so I am looking at homebuilt plans, trying to see what would fit that
criteria. still looking for the perfect one plane. might still be looking 5
years from now.

ok, back on the topic. tow the plane, use sandbags to simulate the pilot,
and you eliminate what percentage of first flight failures? wrong control
throws, broken or stuck cables, improper wing incidence, incorrect control
surface areas, improper structural load theories..

and you KNOW that plane can get airborne. a big confidence builder for the
first time builder/flyer


Sorry Tater, old boy, that's just not going to work.

Or, do you have some way of controlling said towed aircraft that we haven't
heard of yet?

There are two schools of thought on first flights.
Both have merit.

One is to "go for it!". Take off and climb to altitude where you can become
safely aquatinted with her "personality" safely.

The other is to make several short hops down the runway to get the feel first.

The latter, at first, scared the dickens out of me - just on principle.
Going from low and slow lift off to low and slow landing *seemed* like a bad
idea. But in the end, I've come to think this is safer than I originally
thought, and had become my standard approach to testing a new plane.

I like it because 1) we are low and slow and if anything does go wrong, at
least we are low and slow. And 2) we are expecting to "abort" the take off
soon after lift off. We will not have the danger of the engine possibly
quitting on climb out, and the attendant difficulties that presents.

And 3!) it let's you skip the first flight! When you finally are comfortable
with the plane and take it around the pattern for the first time, it's really
not the first flight! (how 'bout that for a plan!)

And, frankly, this turned out not to be the pilot challenge that I first
thought it would be. Although YMMV?


One other thing, Tater. If you can't afford lessons, wait until you can.
I know people who have tried. Most of them got smarter after dinging a
few airplanes (and themselves!). My own opinion is that teaching yourself
to fly is dumber than going into a Tiajuana whore house without a condom.
You are just begging to get hurt.

So, until then?

richard