In Flight USA Article Categories
In Flight USA Articles
Flight Test: The Theory of Evolution
By David Brown
Many years ago, I was involved in production testing of a jet trainer in the UK. Initially we had unpressurized jets and used to climb to 30,000 feet for our production testing as a matter of course. With the exuberance of youth, we ignored the occasional sinus problems, the bends, fatigue, and other such inconveniences, while accepting the rock-hard cushions of the Martin-Baker ejection seats as part of the cost of doing business. A couple of years later, we had progressed to a pressurized version of the same jet, as by now the powers-that-be had realized that the Royal Air Force CFIs were having problems with the day-after-day effects of climbing to high altitude two or more times a day without the benefits of pressurization. From our flight-test point of view, we soon realized that life was much better in a pressurized aircraft.
Fast forward a decade or two, and I was ferrying a military turboprop trainer west across the USA, part of a two-ship formation. Again we were unpressurized, and at 24,000 feet, I was monitoring my oxygen blinker rhythmically opening and closing. Occasionally, I would have to give control to my colleague in the other cockpit, unclip my military-style oxygen mask, blow my nose, eat a sandwich, take a sip of water, etc. before clipping the mask back on. Again, we were on the same Martin-Baker ejection seats, and again the cushions were rock hard after a couple of hours droning west over Texas and the Arizona desert.
I liked the speed, as we were covering the ground at a true airspeed of almost 300 knots, better than doing the trip at low altitude in a general aviation aircraft with TAS of just over a hundred knots, as I was doing on weekends. But the discomfort of mask, bonedome, seat, harness, and parachute straps was a different matter
“One day,” I said over the intercom, “We will be able to do this trip in pressurized luxury and comfort.”
“But not today,” came the answer from our imperturbable test pilot in the front cockpit. A moment later, he resumed humming Willie Nelson’s “ …on the Road again…”
I have news for the world. That day has arrived with the introduction of the pressurized Evolution.
The turbine-powered demonstrator N424SM was the race pace plane for the Sport racing class at Reno Races in Sept. 2016. (David Brown)I first saw the Turbine Evolution at Reno last September when it was used as the pace plane for the Sport Racing class. I was impressed by the speed and intrigued by the fact that this was a kit-built plane.
In February, I was fortunate enough to meet up with Evolution Aircraft’s President, Kevin Eldredge, at Cable Airport in Southern California, get the inside story of the Turbine Evolution, and take a short flight in between the storms battering Southern California.
Editorial: Spring Has Sprung
By Ed Downs
Earl Downs’ handcrafted Zenith CH601 XL-B. (Earl Downs)To be sure, there is plenty to complain about as this writer once again attacks the keyboard. Civil unrest, recent questionable rulings by the FAA, the second version of the pilot’s Bill of Rights now in process, emerging safety concerns about the basic flying skills of pilots and of course, the high cost of playing with our beloved flying toys. But let’s take a break and just go flying. It is, after all, spring and airshows, fly-ins, and breakfast flights are blooming all over the country. Occasionally this writer actually takes to the air for reasons other than business. Such was the case week ago.
EAA Clears Confusion Over Training in Restricted Category Aircraft
Uncertainty surrounding flight training in restricted category aircraft, and potentially experimental exhibition aircraft, has been clarified following EAA efforts to reach out on behalf of those who own these unique aircraft and train pilots to fly them.
EAA received reports from specialty aircraft examiners of restricted category aircraft that the FAA was considering policy changes that would prohibit the aircraft from being used for initial type rating exams, recurrent proficiency exams, and other flights necessary to operate as pilot in command of the aircraft. The restrictions would have put owners in the awkward position of not being able to qualify pilots to fly their unique airplanes.
While aircraft in the restricted category are generally not associated with EAA members, such as agricultural and firefighting aircraft, any policy change could have an unintended effect on experimental exhibition category aircraft, including warbirds and unique vintage airplanes.
Winners Announced for the 16th Annual EAA AirVenture Cup
Race 91, Bruce Hammer, taking off in his Glasair I TD from Mount Vernon Airport on the morning of July 28. Mr. Hammer won 1st Place in the Formula FX Blue division. (Photo courtesy of Geoff Sobering).The winners have been announced for the 16th Annual EAA AirVenture Cup cross-country air race.
The race started at 9:30 a.m. July 28 departing from Mount Vernon, Ill. with two turn points before ending in Waupaca, Wis. for a total mileage of 460 nm. The fastest aircraft of the day was a Turbine Legend, flown by Marty Abbott who came in at a time of 1:17:55 and an average speed of 354.30 mph.
A total of 48 aircraft raced in the event, which included experimental and certified aircraft categories. Two of the aircraft, both Glasair I TDs, where flown by Steve and Bruce Hammer, who have been competing against each other in the race since 1998. Bruce beat his bother this year by just under six minutes.
Editorial: It Would Have Been a Good One
By Ed Downs
A funny thing happened on the way to this month’s editorial view. The topic was going to be a treaties on words buried in the text of Title 49 of the United States Code of Federal Law. Title 49 deals with transportation in the U.S. and defines the fundamental responsibilities of the FAA. Within Title 49 is the Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, known by us aviators as the Federal Aviation Regulations. Title 49 contains five basic mandates with which the FAA must comply, including the need to “protect the right to navigable airspace.” Yes, flying in the U.S. is a right, not a privilege. Not all “rights” in this country are contained in the Constitution’s “Bill of Rights.” Many are buried deep within millions of legislative legal words, often lost and alone. The danger to aviators, and many others, is that these rights can be quickly, almost secretly, taken away by amendments added to almost any legislation working its way through congressional committees. This month’s rant was going to warn readers of just how important it is to actively support and understand this “right to fly,” remembering that the United States is the only country in the world that views their airspace in this manner. Then this writer’s cell phone lit up.
The Pylon Place - April 2012
Secret Pete Law
By Marilyn Dash
Pete Law tells his tales for the NAG membership.Last month, the attendees of the National Air Racing Group’s annual meeting had a real treat in the form of guest speaker, Secret Pete Law. The aviation engineer has helped nearly every winning unlimited racer and even some sport racers along his amazing career path.
Starting in 1959 at Lockheed when Law worked on the F104 program he was immediately identified as someone worth knowing, and quickly recruited by Ben Rich to join Lockheed Skunk Works. To be brief, Pete is a specialist in heat transfer and systems. Commonly referred to as “ADI” in the air racing community, it is much more than that.
ADI stands for Anti Detonation Injection. Detonation occurs when a fuel/air charge within a cylinder ignites by something other than the sparkplug. The flame front in the burning charge collides with the flame front initiated by the sparkplug. Where this collision occurs, the pressure rises much higher than would normally occur when the cylinder is firing properly. The added pressure has a runaway effect, causing the fuel/air in that zone to burn so rapidly as to appear to detonate. The pressure spike caused by this can damage pistons, valves, connecting rods, etc.
Light Sport Flying With In Flight USA - January 2011
What the Heck is an E-LSA?
By Ed Downs
The subject of aircraft certification, be it standard, special or experimental can make even the most geeky tax lawyer think they have fallen down the rabbit hole, especially when talking about Experimental aircraft. So let’s keep this month’s column about the real world of buying, selling and using an E-LSA airplane. The fact is, one is very likely to come across a “for sale” ad featuring an E-LSA that can look inviting. The price may be quite attractive, but just what the heck is an E-LSA?
First, let’s take a general look at any airplane that is certified as an “Experimental” airplane. Actually, there is no such thing as simply an “Experimental” airplane, even if the word “Experimental” is clearly written on the side of the plane. Experimental certification always carries a second word (or two) which describes what sub-part of Experimental we are talking about, and there are numerous sub-parts. For example one might see a nifty little RV-12 (it meets the FAA definition of an LSA) from Van’s Aircraft sitting on the ramp with the word “Experimental” prominently displayed. This RV-12 may have been sold as a kit that meets the new FAA “51% rule” and was certified as Experimental-Amateur Built. This means the builder of the plane can perform all of his/her own maintenance, make changes to the design (including engine changes) conduct the annual condition inspection and pretty much fly when and where he/she wants. Sitting next to that RV-12 might be a weird looking war bird from some country whose name you cannot pronounce, made by a manufacturer best known for cranking out refrigerators that do not work. Our “war bird” will also have the word “Experimental” clearly displayed, but is certified as Experimental-Exhibition. This critter may have significant maintenance issues and require each and every flight to be approved by the FAA. Get the point?