Magazine flight test articles

[Mr Wolfie]

I don't want to re-open the "are all mags are rubbish, or which mag is the most rubbish?" debate, but do any other prooners have the feeling we are being shamelessly misled with some of the "flight tests" in UK GA mags?

I don't want to name names as such, but in the current crop of magazines two particular articles stick in my mind for very different reasons (one for a production aircraft, the other for an experimental).

One article reads as a true account of the author getting enough handling time to evaluate the aircraft, in that it contains those little quirks and details that only someone who had flown the plane would know.

The other article, to my mind, appears to consist mainly of the author flying as passenger rather than handling pilot. As such the article reads as quite false.

Does anyone else suspect that some "flight tests" are a sham? The articles where the author can't make his mind up whether to write in the first, second or third person ("He took off, I did some general handling, we crossed the threshhold at ......") seem to be the clue that the flight test was cursory at best.

No prizes for guessing which articles I am referring to by the way!;)

Mr. W

[sunday driver]

Can't understand why so many flight tests occur a couple of weeks before the subject a/c appears in the "for sale" ads.

While I CAN understand the widespread interest in the recent review of the Diamond Twin Star, I wonder how much influence the "advertorial" aspect of such reviews has on the decision to commission / publish them?

S. Driver

[Keef]

I think I'm as cynical as most. I'm afraid I look to see who wrote the article, and decide whether to read it, or to believe it, on that basis.

As you say, if it appears like a cursory "pre-sale" checkride, I don't pay much attention to it. If I see "the donkey quit" or "dangling the Dunlops", I stop reading and move on to the next article.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Ideally, a flight test article - or perhaps more accurately, a 'what is this aeroplane like to fly and to own' article - would be written by someone with considerable experience of flying and owning that type. My own few such articles for 'Pilot' have been written from that background. They are of neccesity few, because there's a limit to the number of aeroplanes I have both owned and flown.

But the editors of flying mags have to publish flight tests every month, usually more than one such article, and they have to work with what is available, or what they can commission. I'm sure they would be delighted if owners of aeroplanes would submit well written articles each month for publication, together with good quality and relevant pictures. But it just isn't going to happen. Those aeoplane owners in all probablilty are either not interested in submitting such an article, or lack the journalistic skills so to do. So the editor has to send a writer/pilot he knows can produce usable copy to fly the aeroplane, interview the owner, and produce that copy and pictures.

It's not ideal because the impression given of the aeroplane will of neccessity be somewhat superficial, but how else could they do it?

SSD

[LOMCEVAK]

An interesting test is to look at the proportion of an article that covers the phase of the "test flight" from the start of the initial take-off run to the end of the final landing ground roll. Often this is less than 25%. I would suggest that if this is less than about 50% then you are not reading the work of someone who has the ability to describe accurately the flying qualities and performance of an aircraft.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If you want the unvarnished truth about an aircraft you cannot beat the US Aviation Consumer Report. It does not accept advertising and is not afraid of p***ing off manufacturer. The bad news is it is subscrition only and quite expensive. Fortunately for me, I can borrow it from a friend:ok:

[IO540]

In publishing there is often an odd relationship between the magazine and the manufacturer.

The magazine may want to review a product, but they often can't get it. Very few manufacturers are willing to provide a brand new demonstrator to a UK GA magazine to play with; just look at how many "UK GA" mags there are, how some are lacking in editorial talent, and how FEW new planes are sold each year in the UK. If there was just one magazine, adopting a fresh approach to the subject (rather than filling its pages with the endless stream of ex-CAA accident reports and "tips" on safe flying) then that mag would have much better access to planes to test. It could also afford to be more critical in its reviews, because the advertiser concerned would not be able to boycott the publication if they don't like the review.

This is why most reviews are of planes belonging to some private owner. With some old model there is obviously no other option but with a current-model product this is very bad, because the one reviewed will often not be a current model in e.g. avionics fit.

Also, there is always an unspoken (and occassionally spoken - privately) understanding that if a manufacturer purchases advertising space they are going to get editorial coverage. It may not be impartial editorial policy but it's reality. I now pay £200 for a £800-list-price 1/4 page colour advert (not aviation). With almost anyone nowadays (anyone with any money, that is) doing a web search first and looking elsewhere second, advertising in general is sure to decline, and this will stretch matters even more.

[Mr Wolfie]

Interesting that two people already have mentioned the Twinstar article. Seems it wasn't just me then that thought this article was a poor imitation of a flight test.

Mr. W

[dirkdj]

Try Aviation Consumer. It is totally ad-free, calls a horse a horse and a pig a pig. You get unlimited internet access to hundred of used aircraft reviews.

Of the three types of aircraft I have owned so far, their description of strong/weak points, caveats, etc.. corresponds perfectly with my experience.

It is not a glossy pictures magazine. You can start with a three month internet subscription and cancel any time you want. I have it since about 5 years and don't regret it at all.

Interesting to read their review about a certain pressurized single or a two-seat trainer from the same manufacturer.

If you were to accept ads in your magazine, how much truth could a reader expect?

[2Donkeys]

I haven't read the Twinstar article being alluded to, but I was one of a number of people lucky enough to be invited on one of the pre-certification flight tests of the aircraft.

Whilst Diamond are a superb company in many ways, they do tend to hog the left hand seat of that particular aircraft, and the invitee is given a certain amount of "hands-on" time, but never enough to do the job properly.

I wouldn't have wanted to have to write up a flight test on that basis, but what I saw, I enjoyed a lot.

[Genghis the Engineer]

No respectable magazine, in my opinion, should publish a full write-up on an aircaft that's not yet been certified - there's no guarantee that they are writing about what will actually reach the market. That is potentially misleading their readers quite badly.

Also from a safety viewpoint, I'd say that nobody but a company test pilot should be in the left hand seat of a pre-certification prototype.



But, having said that, you have a difficult situation here. First you have to find a pilot with both the test flying skills to make a meaningful assessment of the aircraft, and the journalistic skills to write about it in a sufficiently readable manner. The editor also wants to be the first to hit the newstands with a write-up on the latest toy.

Then you need an Editor prepared to publish criticism of an aircraft which, in all likelihood, is being sold by one of their advertisers. One could regard this as an integrity issue, but it's in reality much more complex than that - a very large proportion of the profit of any of the mainstream flying magazines comes from advertising, not from sales directly. If, a couple of major companies decide to withdraw their advertising it could quickly kill a magazine off. Add into that, even if a magazine isn't reliant upon circulation, then if it gets a reputation as being routinely less than enthusiastic about the aeroplanes it's reviewing, then very quickly it will find access to the new types coming along severely restricted.

I don't think that there's a clear solution to this, but I'd suggest that ways of making things better might be:-

- Magazine editors declining to accept reports on unapproved aircraft.
- Assessing pilots who are competent test pilots first; if they haven't the writing skills they should be working with somebody who has, rather than the job going to somebody without the understanding of how to assess an aeroplane.
- Allow aircraft owner / salesman to see the manuscript first and comment upon any criticisms or innacuracies. If a disagreement remains - publish the company's response alongside and let the reading public make their own minds up.

Incidentally, I have a slight disagreement with what Lomcevak has said above. I think that the write-up on an aeroplane doesn't start with the take-off, it starts with getting the aeroplane out of the hangar, there's much in ground handling, pre-flighting, W&CG, etc that are relevant to a prospective aircraft owner / renter. But on the other hand, I agree entirely than an article which is mostly about history / aesthetics / company, etc. shows either a lack of assessment skills, or a lack of contact time with the aircraft.

Whilst I won't allow him total praise, I think one of the best places to look for high-quality aircraft write-ups is Alan Bramson's "book of flight tests", which in my opinion should be owned and regularly read by anybody involved in this sort of journalism.

G

[IO540]

The other thing which any review of a current-model plane should include is warranty details and the arrangements for getting warranty and other work done away from the dealer's workshop.

There can be REALLY BIG issues in this department, as I have found out the hard way.

A part of it could be the need for specialised engineer training, and this should be easy enough to check out. This would perhaps be the case with composites and diesels.

Another, much less easy to check out, is that so many firms in GA have severe cash problems that CWO (cash with order) is normally demanded by parts suppliers but the client won't be told that the repair shop cannot get the part because the repair shop is unable to send off the cheque to the supplier; he will be told there is a long delay in it arriving.

When I spoke to certain dealers in last year's N Weald airshow about this, I was pretty horrified to hear their casual responses. I won't mention names but not many people are selling new composite planes :O

[Flyed]

10540 said >Also, there is always an unspoken (and occassionally spoken - privately) understanding that if a manufacturer purchases advertising space they are going to get editorial coverage. <

Might just say that as far a Flyer is concerned this is not true; we pride ourselves highly on our independence; we never offer editorial coverage for the purchase of advertising space.

Nick
Flyer Ed

[LOMCEVAK]

Genghis,

I agree that the assesment starts when you pull an aircraft out of the hangar, but what I said (albeit phrased in a different way)was that at least 50% of an article should relate to the take-off to landing phase, but I never said that all of it should.

Also, you recommend that the assessing pilot should be a competent test pilot but that they may not have the writing skills. For a test pilot to be competent, he/she MUST have good writing skills!

Rgds

L

[Genghis the Engineer]

Granted, but what you'd mark as "above average" on the school is unlikely to gain much credit with Nick at Flyer, and similarly articles that he'd pay top whack for might well go back to one of your students covered in obscene amounts of red pen.

The phrase I used was "journalistic skills", not quite the same as writing up concisely a piece of development, experimental or certification test flying. Without doubt there are talented individuals who can do both well, but there are equally some excellent professional TPs who don't necessarily have the particular writing style to sell to Flyer or Pilot.

G

[Mr Wolfie]

Genghis, 2D and others -

I fully take on board what you are saying about certain limitations that may be imposed on the journo in a flight test. A manufacturer, understandably, is not going to want their factory demonstrator or production prototype "bent".

My gripe though, is that where this is the case, why can't the magazines be honest enough to admit it is only a superficial ride in the plane - an "advertorial" rather than a proper evaluation & flight test.

Going back my original point, and to the TwinStar article in Pilot: Can anybody tell me, with any certainty, just from reading the article, at what stages of flight the author actually flew the aircraft?

And finally, journos - check your facts: ..."Set up for maximum range, it will cruise at 110K TAS using just 1.4 USG per hour". Come on - even my petrol lawnmower uses more than that! (Endurance is described as being variously 25 and 35 hours, too).

Seeing as we are talking about school reports -
Presentation C+ (too many factory photos)
Content D-
Could do better:sad:

Mr. W

[smarthawke]

I totally agree with your points, Mr Wolfie.

I think this 'test' would have benefitted from a bit of proof reading - one picture caption says it is a normal occurence at Wiener Neustadt for piston twins to be refuelled from the avgas pump - the opposite of what was intended me thinks!

Estimating the accuracy of the manufacturers MAUW climb figures is not really on given a light weight aircraft in turbulent conditions.

As for the fuel consumption, it is 1.4USG per side given the 26 hour endurance - albeit it is up to 36 hours a few paragraphs later! Mind you I felt it's all a bit confusing with fuel measured in USG, Gallons and Litres within a single paragraph.

Rolling a twin? Silly statement really and as for it being strong enough to survive a slow roll - that'll be 1G then?!

Personally I like plenty of clear, pretty pictures in an article and for that I still think Today's Pilot has the best shots - not surprising given their photogs experiences in everything from GA to warbirds for FlyPast.

Come to think of it, I like their air tests as well - a thorough introduction to the aircraft from the (experienced) tester even before the engine starts and then a thorough apparaisal of the machine through all stages of flight.

[Aerohack]

<<Set up for maximum range, it will cruise at 110K TAS using just 1.4 USG per hour". Come on - even my petrol lawnmower uses more than that! (Endurance is described as being variously 25 and 35 hours, too).>>

I haven’t seen the article in question, but there is indeed a variant of the Twin Star in development — the DA 42 MPP (Multi-Purpose Platform) as ordered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police — whose target loiter endurance with optional 74 US gallon tanks is 24+ hours at 27% power, so consumption roughly 1.5 usgph. The ’35 hours’, unless an error, might refer to the endurance of the planned Unmanned Aerial Vehicle version, though I've seen no figure (or anything else much) quoted for this.

[LOMCEVAK]

Genghis,

I take your point, but I could be a real cynic and say that you are implying that magazines do not want the level of integrity and fact that is required in a technical report! However, I do agree that experimental flight test reports do not, to the uninitiated, immediately give a balanced overall impression. The aspects where there are no problems are referred to as just "satisfactory" as the best category (if you ignore "enhancing feature") rether than "outstanding", "excellent", or even just "good" which are more descriptive to potential purchasers.

Rgds

L

[Genghis the Engineer]

About a year ago I was dropped after four years as a columnist with one of the US monthly flying magazines, the reason being not that the editor or his readers didn't like my prose, but because what I wrote about didn't interest the market that his advertisers wanted to sell to any more. So, a change in advertising makeup lost me a nice steady second income. Not, I'll grant you, the same as modifying editorial to keep the advertisers happy (no editor has ever done that to me, or done anything but ask me to check and justify my facts to them, which is far enough).

So, no I'm not suggesting that, but one should be realistic about the pressures that editors are under.

Having said that however, look up the reviews on the Piper 6X in GA Buyer and Flyer, both early last summer (about June?). I found the tone and depth of analysis somewhat different, as were the conclusions.

G