Return-Path: Received: from mail1.halnet.com ([32.97.163.253]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-52269U2500L250S0V35) with SMTP id com for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 03:55:49 -0400 Received: from lonconn001.halexchange.halnet.com [34.14.40.7] by mail1.halnet.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-4.06) id AAB83DE50080; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 03:00:56 CST Received: by lonconn001.lea.uk.hal with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:59:25 +0100 Message-ID: From: Michael Holland To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Subject: Re: The efficacy of Taxi Tests Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:59:26 +0100 X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> I am just now accessing my e-mail again after spending a few weeks in the USA and being able to make the Lancair Fly In at Redmond. On reading Lancair Mailing Lists numbers 94 and 95, I am compelled to comment on some inaccuracies written therein. Firstly my Lancair 320 did not have a test flight incident. The aircraft in question is owned by Dr. Michael Fopp and he has already advised via the LML of the circumstances that caused that unfortunate event. I.e. the fact that he had been supplied a nose strut that had been discontinued by the factory as unsuitable for use due to shimmy problems. The choice not to make high speed taxi runs was NOT born out of our certifying authorities restrictions but out of Michael's personal choice. I decided to conduct high speed taxi tests on my aircraft and was able to use the main runway at an international airport with the controllers being extremely helpful in arranging other traffic and my runs so as to cause minimum disruption to all concerned. The biggest problem I had was resisting the urge to pull back and FLY but I heeded the advice of getting a factory pilot to perform the initial testing and the maiden flight was performed by Don Goetz a few weeks later. Also, the day after it's maiden flight, the CAA's chief light aircraft test pilot Bob Cole who was also the person at the controls of Michael Fopp's aircraft during the incident, test flew my plane with Don Goetz in the right hand seat and gave it an excellent report. He did however comment on a noticeable stability improvement, compared to a version with the small horizontal stabiliser that he had conducted comprehensive test flights on previously. Let us not forget that the Australian CAA had prior to any UK registered "320" being flown, deployed a professional test pilot to conduct comprehensive test flights on a 320/360 with the original small tail. Their conclusions ( Not the UK CAA's ) and restrictions were what made the factory come out with the Mk II version and then standardise as such and admit that it was an improvement over the original. The expanded CG envelope seems to justify this. Yes we have restrictions placed on us in UK compared to other countries, some very frustrating and others understandable, however, let us not disparage the authorities for issues that are not of their making. I was issued a full permit to fly by our CAA with only 5 hours total time on the aircraft, not bad for a bureaucratic bunch of Brits suffering from " NIH " syndrome. It was good meeting up with a lot of the contributors to this list in Redmond, hope to be back there again next year. Fly Safely, Michael Holland, G-PJMT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML homepage: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html