Hawker Fury Replica.

Thanks to say this David. The owner does appreciate these nice aircraft. By the way, the family flies those 6 other vintage planes from the late owner. Those other planes (such as the unique VL Viima II from 1938) fly around 50 hrs each year to attend events on the continent. All the aircraft which are owned by the family are of great importance to them and they are all kept in airworty condition and flown (except for the Fury which is the only one that is not flown at this point).

J.V.

Thanx Stieglitz….one word….Beautiful 🙂

Septic – I will clarify a few points. The Fury is owned by the family of her late owner. There isn’t any rush as such to use her. She is simply a possesion in a similar way to a vintage car that is used on nice summer days.
A great many vintage aircraft fly for very few hours a year. It’s not unusual for an aircraft to fly for five to ten hours a year. Some are treated as investments -some are purely because the owner appreciates it for what it is .

Thanks to say this David. The owner does appreciate these nice aircraft. By the way, the family flies those 6 other vintage planes from the late owner. Those other planes (such as the unique VL Viima II from 1938) fly around 50 hrs each year to attend events on the continent. All the aircraft which are owned by the family are of great importance to them and they are all kept in airworthy condition and flown (except for the Fury which is the only one that is not flown at this point).

J.V.

[QUOTE=Canada TDSo can I old chap….my Messerschmitt spends most of its time in my garage too!

If I owned a Messerschmitt mine would also be staying in the garage, its always seems far too scary to drive on the roads!
😮

Is yours the Tiger model.

Septic.

Nope, a KR200 built on the Regensberg production line 21 years after the BoB (same line as 109s!!). I have put a photo on SRPatterson’s hangar gems. The Tiger is extremely fast and expensive. They are also very unreliable unlike the KR200

[QUOTE=Canada TDSo can I old chap….my Messerschmitt spends most of its time in my garage too!

If I owned a Messerschmitt mine would also be staying in the garage, its always seems far too scary to drive on the roads!
😮

Is yours the Tiger model.

Septic.

[QUOTE=Septic
My earlier point about spending so long in the hangar related to Airbedanes recommendations after his initial flights. As the owner of a E type Jaguar I can fully understand why some vintage aircraft fly so infrequently, if I looked at the costs involved per mile travelled I would garage it and mount it on a plinth, I find its best not to count too much! snip.

Septic.[/QUOTE]
So can I old chap….my Messerschmitt spends most of its time in my garage too! Especially as I got its sister airborne (briefly) at the end of the runway of Boscombe Down after a head on smash. The policeman’s paper description of Type: Messerschmitt, Location: Low Flying Corner amused me now but not then!!

Incidentally, real Messerschmitts are powered by Fichtel Sachs!!! :diablo:

Septic – The classic example is an owner of a Gipsy powered aircraft who uses it a couple of times a year and wonders why he spends all day hand swinging it trying to start it after it’s been stuck in a cold damp hangar.

[QUOTE=David Burke] A great many vintage aircraft fly for very few hours a year. It’s not unusual for an aircraft to fly for five to ten hours a year. Some are treated as investments -some are purely because the owner appreciates it for what it is .

My earlier point about spending so long in the hangar related to Airbedanes recommendations after his initial flights. As the owner of a E type Jaguar I can fully understand why some vintage aircraft fly so infrequently, if I looked at the costs involved per mile travelled I would garage it and mount it on a plinth, I find its best not to count too much!

Aircraft are like cars they need to be used, regular use is by far the best form of maintenance, locked in a cold damp hangar/garage as an investment will rapidly see the airframe and systems condition deteriorate, which could turn any future investment in to a costly millstone.

Septic.

Septic – I will clarify a few points. The Fury is owned by the family of her late owner. There isn’t any rush as such to use her. She is simply a possesion in a similar way to a vintage car that is used on nice summer days.
A great many vintage aircraft fly for very few hours a year. It’s not unusual for an aircraft to fly for five to ten hours a year. Some are treated as investments -some are purely because the owner appreciates it for what it is .
If she was an commercial airliner she would be fixed and flying again very quickly. Historic aircraft by and large earn no money so the more it flies
the more it costs. Imagine a RR Kestrel total rebuild costs 80K and then add
insurance and fuel and you have something that can consume pound notes at a furious rate of knots.
Add to this the incredibly small market for a machine like the Fury and you can see why they are both rare in the air and likely to remain so.

Following it somewhat. What does let it down is that not all Doctors are of the same calibre even though they reach the same standard of qualification.
That applies to all walks of life where a qualification is used to indicate a level of ability. If we could legislate by qualification we could have a perfect world. Engineers would never make mistakes and test pilots would never crash aircraft.
However in the years after attending a course procedures become slack and elements are either forgotten or ‘better’ ways found of doing things.
It’s great to say I have reached this level of attainment but in reality flying isn’t about reaching set goal posts.

snipped

4. While we’re on the subject of the French, they insist that all their test crews are suitably qualified and their licenses are marked accordingly. They differentiate between: Test Pilots, Flight Test Engineers, Flight Test Instrumentation Engineers, Flight Engineers (Test) and Maintenance Test Pilots – all have different qualifications. None are allowed to practice in their respective roles without the appropriate qualification. If only we could have the same ruling over here. We wouldn’t dream of going to an unqualified doctor, even if he had lots of experience in the role. We insist that our aircraft is engineered and signed off by a qualified engineer, but do we have it tested by a qualified test pilot. An approved test pilot, yes, but is he or she actually qualified – I’ll leave you to answer that one.

5.

hear hear Old chap!

Thanks Airbedane for the fascinating insight into your time in the Fury.

After reading through your notes, I can now see why the Fury spent so long in the hangar!

When I first saw the aircraft at Booker in the early 90’s I seem to remember that the aircraft had a very small fuel tank, which drastically limited the aircrafts range, was this still in place or has the tank been changed and has this had an effect on the Cof G.

Given that the Fury is still for sale, and that Chris Morris and his fellow engineering team at Old Warden know the Kestrel so well, would the collection contemplate such a purchase, or is it just too far away from the genuine Hawker product.

Although a replica it would surely be a lot cheaper than purchasing and then restoring another aircraft of similar standing.

Septic.

We all need Heroes

I’m not sure what point you are making here.

In fact, if a TP flew one of my machines on its first/ first post-restoration flight and stuffed it I think it would reinforce the ‘TP decision’ I made in the first place.HP

HP

Equally, said he controversially, ‘stuffing’ it on a basic manoeuvre might be said to reinforce the ‘other side of the coin’ that ‘familiarity can breed contempt’.

To wartime youngsters, ‘fighter pilots’ were their heroes. To a post war generation, and that includes myself, test pilots filled this void with graphic details in the press and comics of daring escapades as the envelopes were explored of the jet age aircraft, all amplified with several films, such as ‘Sound Barrier’. To a 1950’s generation of teenage enthusiasts these men were gods. Of course then came Elvis Presley, a couple of others and finally David Beckam. :rolleyes:

Over the past thirty five years of close association with the vintage aviation world I would estimate that over 70 pilots have lost their lives that I knew either closely or casually. Most were errors of judgement rather than mechanical failures. Some of those have been well respected ‘test pilots’ who I personally thought were immortal.

As the players, organisations and locations were almost identical in the case of the Pup and the Fury I thought it was worthy for comparison. This isn’t a knock at Shuttleworth or a personal axe being ground.

For my money, if I happened to be in the position of selecting a pilot to conduct a ‘first flight’, I would be looking for recent proven number of hours on type and/or powerplant. To me, I would rate knowing where the personal line is and staying within it, above the ability to explore right on the edge of the envelope. Sometimes those lines are coincident and sometimes, sadly, they are not.

Mark

Test Flying

I’m not going to be drawn into an argument over who should or should not test fly an aircraft – most of it has already been said on this thread, and in any event, most of those who know me already know my views on the subject. Nevertheless, you’ve asked for input, so here’s a few thoughts to ponder.

1. A qualified Test Pilot, i.e. one who has succeeded on one of the four accepted military schools (USNTPS, USAFTPS, EPNER and ETPS), will have gone through at least the following:

– To be eligible to apply, the applicant must have at least 1000 hours as first pilot, have completed at least one operational tour and be assessed as above average or exceptional in the role. The applicant must also have a sound knowledge of mathematics, physics, English (or French) and aerodynamics.

– Selection for the school takes two days of written and oral tests.

– The successful applicant will then be taught how to assess an aircraft and more importantly report on the assessment. All aspects of flight are covered – stability, control, systems, handling, etc. The successful applicant will also fly 20+ diverse types during the course – i.e., he or she will be taught to fly different types with minimum dual or prior experience on type.

We can see, therefore, that the ‘qualified’ TP is of a high minimum standard.

2. First flights should be carried out by a qualified TP. Unfortunately, most owners tend to use one of their colleagues, or someone who appears to be a ‘good bloke’. For the most part, this suffices, but it’s when things go wrong that the right guy in the cockpit is essential. The right guy in this case is one who has proven ability and spare capacity, and one who has been taught and examined in that type of flying. Hairyplane was correct when he said that we should never confuse a good bloke with a good pilot. It may be that they are one and the same, but when things go wrong in the air is not the time to find out. It’s hard to appreciate, but hours and types in the logbook are not a measure of ability, they are only a measure of experience. Again, it may be that the non-qualified TP is of sufficient ability to cope, but the only way you can be sure before the event is to use the person with proven ability – it comes down to Hairyplane’s postulation of minimum risk. A qualification on type is not essential, but qualification on a similar type is.

3. Annual test flights – these are best carried out by a maintenance test pilot – the french call it reception test flying and it’s a different qualification to the normal TP. What we need here is a pilot current on type with, ideally, vast experience of different aircraft of the same type and mark. Spare capacity is required, but it is not as essential as that required by the qualified TP. The maintenance TP can then make a balanced judgement based on his prior knowledge of the type he is assessing. Qualified TP’s, by their nature, do not make the best maintenance TP’s.

4. While we’re on the subject of the French, they insist that all their test crews are suitably qualified and their licenses are marked accordingly. They differentiate between: Test Pilots, Flight Test Engineers, Flight Test Instrumentation Engineers, Flight Engineers (Test) and Maintenance Test Pilots – all have different qualifications. None are allowed to practice in their respective roles without the appropriate qualification. If only we could have the same ruling over here. We wouldn’t dream of going to an unqualified doctor, even if he had lots of experience in the role. We insist that our aircraft is engineered and signed off by a qualified engineer, but do we have it tested by a qualified test pilot. An approved test pilot, yes, but is he or she actually qualified – I’ll leave you to answer that one.

5. Back to first flights and what should be done on one. There seems to be an unofficial contest going on here, the winner being the one who gets the best photograph, carries the most ‘passengers’, does the most testing, or puts on the best show……… Personally, I close the airfield to other traffic, take the aircraft on the shortest route to the overhead, stall it to learn the approach speed, sideslip it, in case I need to on the approach, try some gentle handling of engine and airframe and learn how to fly it. The approach and landing are normally from a PFL pattern, just in case. The formulae has been built from experience. After landing, I give it back to the engineers for a good coat of looking at before the next flight. Photographers are kept well away, as are passengers – I don’t need the extra pressure either can cause.

As said, I don’t want to get into an argument on all this, it’ll be circular, it’ll go on too long, we’ll all fall out and we’ll end up not speaking to each other. It’s not meant to offend either, just treat it as food for thought.

Airbedane – Thank you for your notes . The collection has come in for critism rightly and wrongly over the years. I can dig out quite easily a letter written by a Shuttleworth volunteer years ago incensed that he had spent years of his free time drilling out rivets on Spitfire PR.XI only for it to be put up for auction without any consultation. Maybe diplomacy has changed since then.
You rightly mention the various additions. The Piston Provost is indeed an ‘addition’ but it replaces the example sold many years before again at auction. At the same time the Auster AOP.9 and Jet Provost Mk.1 also moved on . A collection in flux clearly isn’t a totally bad thing but many would argue
that the Jean Batten’s Gull was of national importance and clearly couldn’t be
replaced.
As for the D.H 88 Comet I am getting rather confused on this one !
A few short weeks ago it was heralded by a ‘roll out’ post restoration. Clearly
a large amount of her is new and substancially reworked . However the same
could be said of a number of Spitfire restorations. I believe that having a clear lineage makes her still G-ACSS. The percentage for something to be considered still as ‘original’ is in reality quite small.
So do we say that based on the fact a large amount of her has been replaced she isn’t really that historic and not much of a risk? Or should we use the notion that we have ‘x ‘percentage of the the historic D.H. 88 Comet left post various incidents and rebuilds and therefore we should ensure that that percentage stay’s the same by giving her a deserved retirement followed by reworking to make her more true to her 1934 form.
The loss of many of her original parts has been the result of a rebuild to fly and all that it entails and use in the Festival Of Britain.As for the risks involved in aircraft hangars. Well the Comet survived being under sheets at Gravesend and shuttled around on the ground for years more than the hours she has spent aloft. Through general neglect she did indeed suffer but when
you examine the damage sustained on the ground versus the percentage
that has been renewed for her to fly it’s tiny. The policy of everything flies is fine – however is it better to have a complicated aircraft which is unique flying or would something else which is easier to maintain,better at low speed
i.e can be kept nearer to the crowd for longer and not completely irreplaceable be a better idea

Shuttleworth Collection Policy:

I must say that I do take exception to the constant barrage that Shuttleworth gets in criticism of some of the disposals made over the past few years. I was not party to the early disposals, but I have had a say in those more recent. It is part of the general and essential management of a unique Collection of aircraft that some aircraft may have to be sold. The whole is a compromise of engineering time, overhead costs, space, etc. The decisions are difficult, but they have to be made. Further, it is always a surprise to me that those who criticise the disposals never mention the recent acquisitions: the Chipmunk, Provost, Lysander, Comper Swift, Jungmann, Bristol M1C, Sopwith Triplane, Prentice, Primary Glider, and RAF primary Glider for example. They also fail to mention the aircraft that have been restored to flying condition: Sea Hurricane, Desoutter Monoplane, Martlet, and ANEC II. Finally, the current private owner policy has gained the following for use during Shuttleworth displays: Magister, PT-22, Falcon, DH60, Anson, Gemini, Tiger Moth, Turbi, Luscombe Silvaire, Cygnet, etc. There may be a few I’ve missed, but I’m sure you get the point.

Regarding accidents and incidents, and in particular that to the DH-88. It is the Collections policy that all the aircraft will fly. We try to do it at minimum risk by operating in the middle of the envelope, using only appropriate manoeuvres and with the ‘right’ pilots, but there will always be a risk. Paradoxically, the risk of loosing the aircraft whilst operating it as a flyer is probably not much different to the risk of loss by putting it in the back of a museum and letting it rot there. Incidentally, are you really aware of how much of the original airframe survived in a useable state following it’s static period up to the restoration to flight in the 80’s?

The accident to the DH-88 was unfortunate, but it was minor and the repairs were straight forward. After all, the aircraft was designed and built in only three months, so there can’t be anything in it that’s difficult or time consuming to replicate.

It will fly again, as will all the other Shuttleworth Aircraft.

Septic,

You asked for it, so here’s my flight report from the two flights I carried out in the Replica Fury (It’ll be interesting to see how the tables come out in the final print!):

Summary Report on Flights carried out on Fury Replica G-BKBB
Data:

Date: 4 Oct 01
Airfield: Old Warden, 110ft amsl
Weather: 210-220/10-15 kts, nil sig cloud, nil weather, temp ~16degC, QNH1010
Aircraft weight at start: 3541.4 lb
Aircraft C of G at start: 4.72 ins fwd of datum (based on pilot weight of 205 lbs)
Profile: Ground run, and 2 flights.

Times (local):

Ground Run Flight 1 Flight 2
Engine Run 1403-1414 (11 mins) 1409-1434 (25 mins) 1615-1655 (40 mins)
Taxi to Stop – 1413-1433 (20 mins) 1617-1655 (38 mins)
Take off to Land – 1416-1429 (13 mins) 1622-1652 (30 mins)

Ground Run:

Start, warm up, gentle handling, two high power runs, mag checks, idle stability, shutdown.

Flight 1:

Take off, climb, stalling, steady heading side slips at medium and low speed with medium and low throttle settings, idle glides, circuit and landing.

Flight 2:

Take off, performance climb, High speed run level and in dive, general handling including stability assessment, 2 circuits: go-around and glide landing.

Summary of Engine Data:

Phase of Flight RPM Boost
(psi) Oil Pres
(psi) Oil Temp
(deg C) Coolant Temp
(deg C) Fuel Press
(psi) Remarks
Gnd run 1,000 – 75 18 25 1 start
1,200 – 70 26 60 1.25 rad flaps open
2,000 – 70 40 80 – mag drop ~ 80 on each, smooth
2,500 6 75 40 80 1.25 2xfull throttle runs, both satis
2,200 1.5 75 40 80 1.25 throttle at gate
idle – 45 40 90 1 shutdown

Flight 1 1,000 – 65 42 50 1 start
1,500 – – – – – mag check, ~20 rpm drop, smooth and satis
2,300 1.5 60 55 80 1.2 Take off
2,555 0 60 58 60 1.5 145 mph, 2000ft level run about 5 mins into flight
1,000 – 40 59 75 0.9 shutdown

Flight 2 – – 0 55 65 – pre-start
1,000 – 60 50 58 0.7 start
2,100 0 70 51 62 1.1 static boost, mag drop, 50 each, smoooooth.
? 1.5 55 60 90 1.1 climb aborted
2,700 1.5 155 mph, 5500 ft, level hi-speed run
2,700 about -4(?) 200 mph in dive, about one third to half throttle
2,000 – 35 70 70 – level flight 3000ft
2,400 0 45 68 70 – 20 mins into flight, 120 mph, 2700ft
1,800 -5 35 68 70
idle – 25 60 75 – after landing

Handling Comments:

– Engine starts well, particularly when hot. Primer stiff to operate, impossible to tell when charged, However, number of pumps was taken from uncharged state and worked well.
– Engine coolant tends to overheat on ground and in the air at higher powers.
– Aircraft moves off with about 1200 rpm set.
– Tail skid was effective brake, hi-power required for taxi.
– Wheel brakes good for taxi, but hoops on rudder bar interfere with pilot’s ankles when operating brakes.
– Take off was brisk, trim set to neutral, 1.5 psi boost, little tendency to swing, tail comes up (very) quickly, risk of prop strike.
– Engine vibration noted in flight at prop rpm.
– Cockpit environment in flight very windy, knee pad papers must be secure, helmet tends to lift off head.
– Stall has little pre-warning and occurs at 58 – 60 mph indicated.
– Aircraft appears to have adequate flight stability, sideslips are normal.
– Aircraft was flown without incident with load factors between about 0.5 to about 2.5 G.
– High speed run was limited to 200 mph as control cables were assessed as slack before flight. During run, excessive vibration was noted on two lift wires, the aileron control cables and one landing wire.
– Except for a propensity to overheat at high power, the engine was satis, behaviour was similar to Hind in sideslip and at idle – e.g., a little ‘lumpy’ at low speed, no hint of failure in sideslip, and slow, but sure pick up from prolonged idle. All throttle movements were slow and progressive, no slams were (or should be) carried out (damage may result to weak accessory drive shaft in Kestrel engine, accessories include supercharger, etc). Oil pressure was initially high at 70 – 75 psi, but fell progressively through flights to a steady 45 – 50 psi at medium rpm.
– Engine overheated in climb after 1.5 minutes, see table at end of this section.
– Given high stall speed, first landing approach was made at 75 mph, min 70 over hedge. Glide approach was carried out at 80 – 90 mph. The glide angle was steep and the extra speed was necessary to provide enough energy for the flare. The aircraft sat down well in the three point attitude, using about 100 – 150 yards of runway for decel to touchdown followed by an an un-braked ground roll of less than 100 yards – good tail skid.
– On taxi in, tail wheel/skid assembly activated in both directions, satis.
– Engine breather outlet is at tail, therefore drip tray should be placed at rear rather than front of aircraft (?).

Performance Climb Data:

Time
(mins) Altitude
(ft) Airspeed
(mias) Oil T
(degC) Oil P
(psi) Rad T
(degC) Fuel P
(psi)
0:00 1,300 100
0:30 2,700 100
1:00 4,000 100
1:30 5,000 100 60 55 90 1.1

Unserviceabilities and Unacceptables:

– Rudder bar hoops too small.
– Fuel gauge inop. on second flight.
– Pilot’s harness buckle unacceptable – opens on one action only, no positive lock.
– Limitation placard in cockpit not accurate.
– Cockpit placards required on: 2 times starter engage levers, primer pump, cockpit light switch, start (?) CB, Skid Pump Handle,
– Starter engage light required.
– Start master required.
– Radio Inop.
– Airframe vibration noted in flight at prop rpm.
– A/H cannot be uncaged.
– Electrical system indicators required – I’m not sure as to the nature of the system, so cannot recommend a fix.
– At high speed, the following wires vibrated: right front lift wire ~ 130 mph+, and at a higher speed: rear right landing wire, left front lift wire, aileron control cables.
– Cof G Schedule: the value of aircraft weight times moment arm does not does not equate to the value of moment given. Promulgated weight and moment used for CofG calc, arm assumed to be in error – should be 7.95 and not 7.9 as stated.
-The C of G range is too small for useful flight operations.

Recommendations:

The flight test form has been completed as far as was possible. I recommend that the aircraft be retested after the above anomalies have been rectified.

The C of G range is small, a heavy pilot or a light pilot with kit will take the machine beyond it’s aft limit. The aircraft is stable. A test program to increase the Cof G limits should be considered.

I believe the current status of the aircraft is non-aerobatic. The good handling characteristics and high excess performance beg that the aerobatic status be reinstated. An appropriate test program is desirable. It would enhance the sales potential.

The overheating in the climb is of concern. Given that the climb rate is high, and the only reason to demonstrate a climb is to create a datum for future comparison, I would suggest that the climb boost be reduced to, say zero. This would reduce the overheating and also allow a full five minute climb to be carried out below 10,000 ft agl.

I’ll see how this comes out on the thread, then I’ll give you a few thoughts on test flying.

The Fury replica wasn’t operated by Shuttleworth or indeed owned or even maintained by them. If heaven forbid it did crash whilst being operated from Old Warden I can only conceive that runway condition could reflect in any way against the collection. All the pilot’s who flew her were CAA approved
– indeed detailed notes on her were passed from Andy Sephton to Dennis
based on his findings.
If I follow your logic should I include the crash of the Beech Musketeer
onto the Fox Moth G-ACEJ at Old Warden as reflecting on the collection ?
Were the collection to blame for the crash and was the an outcry against the collection for letting one of their loan machines be destroyed? Of course there wasn’t! Whilst it would be deeply regretable if the Fury was lost – it’s a collection of a few original Fury parts,some 1980’s steel tube and wood and a very nice Kestrel engine. It’s not priceless nor is it irreplaceable.
I think most people would consider that the loss of a machine such as the Fury whilst operating from Old Warden would be an accident and hopefully without loss of life of little consequence. The greatest outcry against Shuttleworth over the last twenty years has been the loss of aircraft by leaving the gates on the back of a lorry. Examples include the Spitfire PR.XI,
Cierva C.30A, Percival Gull,Anson C.19,Blake Bluetit and the future sale of the Hornet Moth. The Spitfire PR.XI was a priceless example with a fascinating history.
Now if we examine the operation of the Fury replica and compare that
to the D.H.88 Comet we can make some interesting comparisons. The Comet
is completely priceless and irreplaceable and I think few people would argue that point. It has suffered a chequered history of minor accidents which whilst not seriously damaging her have meant that replacement of original components has taken place. She is not a benign type – indeed she isn’t forgiving in the landing/slow speed handling department. We can also add to that expert judgement from a former test pilot who is widely considered to be the one person who really got to grips with her and has a lifetime of experience . His call is that it’s not a risk worth taking. Now inspite of the fact that the machine is priceless ‘we’ decide to fly it and inspite of having the best test pilot,perfect weather and everything mechanically right it gets stuffed would that still be a risk worth taking ?
I am not in a position to predict what will happen next week to any degree of certainty. I admire your ability to state what will and what won’t happen at Shuttleworth in the next few decades . Hopefully it will be years and years of safe flying -but you already know that!

Test flying the Fury replica

Hi David,

More interesting stuff.

I struggle to follow the logic of, ‘it didn’t crash so the decisions must have been the right ones.’

The OW rules on test flying involve a full risk assessment for approval by the OW Chief Pilot, who then makes the decision whether or not to allow it based on his assessment of the risks.

Privately owned aircraft are based there on the proviso that the rules – and there are always rules – will be complied with. Those rules extend to test-flying. OW has an excellent safety record. This is not achieved through sheer good fortune. Can you imagine what the outcry would have been if the thing had ended up in a smoking hole? Can you imagine the criticism that would have been levelled at OW for ‘allowing it to happen’? – which of course they didn’t….

It was therefore not Skysports call at all. It was their place only to satisfy themselves that it was fit for flight and thereafter discuss and agree a programme with the CP.

The ‘programme’ raised many issues at the time, not least because the safety issues that did arise could only be debated afterwards by those who should have been involved before.

So…wrong decisions were made, OW rules were not complied with, safety was compromised as a result.

Suffice it to say, this will never happen again.

HP

Sorry chaps, feel I must add my bit!!!

You need to be careful about the definition of a test pilot. A professional test pilot is exactly that…a graduate of a recognised test pilot school, just like a Flight Test Engineer is a graduate of a recognised test pilot and FTE school. A maintenance test pilot is an mtp…..an mtp has the job of testing an aircraft to ensure that it has been modified or ‘serviced’ correctly. MTP’s normally have a qualification in terms of type approval and knowing the ins and outs of check test flight schedules. To that end a post restoration flight can and should be conducted if at all possible by an mtp or the equivalent of. You want someone who is capable of flying the aircraft, hopefully knowing what one should fly and feel like so that he (or her) can fully check out the aircraft and systems. To that end a professional test pilot is not necessarily what you want. Put another way, a fixed wing test pilot can assess an aircraft against a role, tell you about handling, but may not be able to tell you if it flys like other examples of that aircraft type.

A true test pilot is specially trained to fly either fixed wing or rotary wing and tell you what is right and what is wrong with it. They often have high hours, but low experience on type. Sure they push boundaries and (often) define envelopes but this is not necessarily what you want! Accidents do happen in flight test, but it is certainly risk mitigation….just because an aircraft is new or an envelope is to be defined does not mean you cannot mitigate risks to the lowest possible level.

I too know many professional test pilots. Many of them fly warbirds. This is mainly because they have had an inroad to that part of flying. Professional test pilots can make good ‘mtp’ as they can bring another dimension to the first post maintenance/restoration flight. They also bring a good deal of risk assessment and mitigation to the flying.

Summed up, its horses for courses! If I had a spitty for test flying, I would use a high houred spit test pilot or Paul Day. Paul Day is not a test pilot graduate, however, there is no-one better qualified to conduct post restoration test flights.

Just two more things……test pilots are just part of a team….don’t forget the flight test engineers…..and the oldest and first test pilot and FTE school is ETPS at Boscombe Down…..’Learn to Test, Test to Learn’. Graduates of ETPS (and the other schools are justly proud of their profession and school).

Regards and sorry if I have bored anyone or everyone!

Canada TD

Thanks DB,Hairyplane and all for making this thread so interesting, all we need now is Airbedane to fill in the details of flying the Fury.

Its hard to believe a request for the clarification of a few dates has turned into such a debate!

what i found most strange about the whole Fury saga was why the aircaft failed to display in the UK after gaining its permit, a great pity.

Septic.