Bob White wrote:

>Hi Buly,
>
>There's a few things on the list he sent that doesn't sound quite
>right.  As long as I can do it without too much of a hassle, I guess I
>will.  The actual wording is "a ground run to max power in a nose high
>attitude approaching an in flight stall".  That sounds like an
>invitation to do an inadvertent take-off if I ever heard one.  When I
>flew with the previous owner, the time from full power application to
>lift off was about 5 seconds.
>
>I think the A&P may be a problem also.  I need one because I didn't
>build the airplane.  He sounded OK when I first talked to him, but more
>recently he's been talking about checking to make sure the plane was
>built to plans and stuff.  I think he's supposed to check the brakes,
>make sure the flaps aren't falling off, etc.  I think his implication
>is that the original builder could modify anything he wanted to, but
>that I can't.  This view seems to me to go beyond the roll of the A&P
>as I understand it.  I may have to find another one that understands
>experimentals.
>
>Bob W.
>

"The actual wording is "a ground run to max power in a nose high
attitude approaching an in flight stall". "

Hi Bob,

That phrase is a fairly common one in documents about prep for 1st flight. It normally means to find a ditch, put the tail in it & tie it down. Then do your full throttle ground run. The idea is to test both the engine & fuel delivery systems with the plane in its max climb attitude without having to discover any limitations in flight. The key words are 'ground run' meaning to do it *on the ground*, not in flight. Remember that almost any homebuilt can achieve a much higher attitude in climbing flight than it can achieve in any takeoff roll.

Hope that helps....
Charlie