Hello, Tom.
You are right. The ground loop was last Saturday, and my first flight
,which I had no qualms about and which went just fine, was exacty 8
years ago.
And your last paragraph is my point exactly, because no matter how
extensively your Europa has been test flown by another person, your
first flight will still be your first flight.
But I think - if I am not remembering wrong - that Graham and Paul
Mcallister's poin was that the safest way was to have some experienced
hand at your side initially.
Niels
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Friedland
To: europa-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: builder test flying his own creation?
Hi Niels
I am sorry to hear about your ground loop. I don't understand your
regrets about doing your first flight. Evidently that was ok and you
had the loop problem on a subsequent flight. Is that correct?
If someone else had done the first flight and you flew afterward,
would you not have been just as likely to have the aircraft get away
---From you?
What am I missing here?
Tom Friedland, A 079, N96V
On 6/10/07, Niels Kock <nielskock@get2net.dk> wrote:
<nielskock@get2net.dk >
Mike,
It just proves that one cannot rely on one's own experience alone,
but
should benefit from those of others, before opening one's big mouth.
The message is that what is true for some is not for others.
regards,
Niels
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Parkin" <mikenjulie.parkin@btopenworld.com>
To: < europa-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Europa-List: builder test flying his own creation?
> <mikenjulie.parkin@btopenworld.com>
>
> What I mean is that
> 1. All Europas having been cleared by their inspectors will,
almost per
> definition, be
> well behaving when airborne.
> 2. I seriously doubt that an eventual accompanying
flying-instructor can
> prevent a ground
> loop if the builder has initiated one. The extra weight of the
> instructor only increases the
> inertia.
> 3. The ongoing horror stories about the proneness of the mono to
> groundloop are, I feel, somewhat
> exaggerated, and, what is worse, they will unavoidably add to
the
> likely pre-take off apprehension
> of the builder. Which may increase his concentration, but as
likely
> will deteriorate his flying perfor-
> mance. And weeks or months of waiting for the availability of
a
> suitable test pilot serves
> only to increase the apprehension .
> 4. Finally, one should not ignore the significance of the
marvellous
> moment where you yourself take
> that blasted, expensive, beautiful toy, gestated, perhaps, in
spite of
> your wife's silent misgivings,
> aloft for the very first time. And,afterwards, having parked
and shut
> down the engine, can lean back,
> shut your eyes and enjoy one of the rare moments in life,
where you
> are truly in awe.
>
>
> Niels,
>
> Just goes to show how wrong you can be. You are not the first and
you
> will not be the last. I didn't test fly my mono, but with a good
measure
> of overconfidence in a 20 knot crosswind, it bit me also.
>
> At least you are safe and just have the embarrassment of paying
for a new
> prop.
>
> How would you now modify your previous statements --
repeated
> above.
>
> regards,
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Jeg beskyttes af den gratis SPAMfighter til privatbrugere.
Den har indtil videre sparet mig for at f=E5 432 spam-mails.
Betalende brugere f=E5r ikke denne besked i deres e-mails.
Hent gratis SPAMfighter her:
http://www.s=====================
===
ef="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List";>http://www.matronic
s.======================
=========
|