High-speed taxi testing

[RVNewsletter]

I sent out an RV Hotline over the weekend, but I'm pretty sure nobody got it. Sometimes this e-mailer says it's sending stuff when it's really not.

There was an article in there on high-speed taxi testing and had linked back to a forum post on VAF to try to start a follow-up discussion on the subject, but because the article was off the VAF site, it was suggested I was disingenuous and duplicitous, so I removed it.

But I'm curious how people are or have approached this issue. It certainly appears split.

[Spike]

I don't think the taxi test really is the fundamental issue. The problem seems to be from a lack of planning on the parts of the pilots, whether its being prepared to handle the aircraft (when it will fly and how to handle it) or whether its having preplanned contingency plans if it comes off the ground, etc.

Going fast along the ground isn't a bad thing, I believe many of the manufacturers do it with their new designs. They however, are totally planned and briefed with loads of engineering data.

Spike

[rob]

I didn't do any high speed taxi tests in my -7, and I am glad I didn't. With my engine/prop combo, the plane is only on the ground for a VERY short time during takeoff roll. My take is that if it was an untested design, then there is probably some value in doing a high speed taxi test. However, these things are tried and true (unless you deviated from the plans).

Another consideration is how comfortable you are in the plane. I didn't have hardly any time (in type, tailwheel, or otherwise!) prior to my maiden flight, but the bottom line is that I felt comfortable and confident in my abilities. If I didn't, rest assured that I wouldn't have been the test pilot.

[svanarts]

I never did a high speed taxi test on my RV-4. I was never sure what it would show me. I planned for problems during the takeoff run. None were ever encountered. I figured it I was going fast and everything felt right, why not just fly it?

[Thermos]

Spike, you're right. Boeing and Airbus do high-speed taxi tests because they have to meet certain certification requirements that require that type of test. But I think for most RV builders this would be a risky event. How many of us have the skills and resources to do it safely?

So for me at least the question is...why do I need to do it? Is there something to be learned that justifies the risk? For me the answer is no, but others may see it differently. YMMV

Dave

[painless]

A colleague of mine bought a beautiful Bellanca Super Cruisemaster and felt he needed to do some highspeed taxi to get aquainted with the airplane.

Unfortunately, during one of those tests in gusty conditions, he ran it off the runway and proceeded to remove one of the gear. Fortunately the damage to the plane was repairable, but the whole thing was just a shame.

No high speed tests for me.........

[Spike]

Good points Dave, but it still is a problem with pilots, and not the act of taxing at a high rate of speed. Boeing and those guys do it for certification reasons, agreed. However, it does show that in and of itself it is not dangerous. Its the unprepared pilots who screw it up and damage things.

For the record I doubt I will do it as I won't have much experience in the airframe and probably wouldn't learn anything. I am just trying to say that the problems with these tests lie behind the stick, not in the tests themselves.