If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being flown
by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an acquaintance) who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and severe facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of blood and was extremely lucky to have survived. It is a miracle that there was no fire, as he and the immediate vicinity were soaked in fuel. He smelled the fuel, crawled out of the airplane and lost consciousness. Then he regained consciousness and stripped his coat and shirt and was stumbling around a wheat field in frigid weather trying to use his cell phone to summon help when the farmer drove up. He faces another surgery Monday and possibly many more reconstructive surgeries afterwards. The pilot was practicing slow flight to familiarize himself and get a better feel for the airplane. It pitched up instead of down and entered an unrecoverable stall. He tried varying throttle position and tried rolling out with aileron but the airplane came down flat with little forward momentum from about 4500 feet agl. It did not spin. According to my friend the main wing stalled. The canard must have kept flying? I believe one of the original prototypes may have been lost in the same way, with the test pilot surviving? I believe that this may have been an early kit without aerodynamic improvements. I would appreciate any information those of you in this group could provide on the early Velocities and their development history. This airplane did not have vortex generators installed on the canard. Would that have helped or made the situation worse? After the initial investigation and with approval, we loaded the wreckage onto a trailer behind my pickup and hauled it to WWR today. It was a very sobering experience that hasn't ended yet. Please, please, be careful out there. "Jerry Springer" wrote in message k.net... Richard what happened that the Velocity did not recover from a stall? I belive this is one you built? Jerry IDENTIFICATION Regis#: 57V Make/Model: VEL Description: EXP VELOCITY Date: 11/06/2003 Time: 2345 Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N Missing: N Damage: Substantial LOCATION City: FARGO State: OK Country: US DESCRIPTION AIRCRAFT CRASHED WHILE PRACTICING STALLS AND WAS UNABLE TO RECOVER, OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, FARGO, OK |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
JJS wrote: This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being flown by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an acquaintance) who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and severe facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of blood and was extremely lucky to have survived. Best wishes to your friend. Sounds like he has a long hard road to recovery ahead of him. Jerry |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:33:14 -0600, "JJS" jschneider@REMOVE THIS SPAM
BLOCKpldi.net wrote: :This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being flown :by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the :airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an acquaintance) :who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My :friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and severe :facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of blood :and was extremely lucky to have survived. It is a miracle that there :was no fire, as he and the immediate vicinity were soaked in fuel. He :smelled the fuel, crawled out of the airplane and lost consciousness. :Then he regained consciousness and stripped his coat and shirt and was :stumbling around a wheat field in frigid weather trying to use his :cell phone to summon help when the farmer drove up. He faces another :surgery Monday and possibly many more reconstructive surgeries :afterwards. :The pilot was practicing slow flight to familiarize himself and get a :better feel for the airplane. It pitched up instead of down and :entered an unrecoverable stall. He tried varying throttle position :and tried rolling out with aileron but the airplane came down flat :with little forward momentum from about 4500 feet agl. It did not :spin. According to my friend the main wing stalled. The canard must :have kept flying? I believe one of the original prototypes may have :been lost in the same way, with the test pilot surviving? I believe :that this may have been an early kit without aerodynamic improvements. : :I would appreciate any information those of you in this group could rovide on the early Velocities and their development history. This :airplane did not have vortex generators installed on the canard. :Would that have helped or made the situation worse? : :After the initial investigation and with approval, we loaded the :wreckage onto a trailer behind my pickup and hauled it to WWR today. :It was a very sobering experience that hasn't ended yet. : :Please, please, be careful out there. Vortex generators on the canard would not have helped. They might have contributed to the problem, by keeping the canard flying to a higher angle of attack. It sounds like a CG problem. It's possible that the plane needed balast in the front when flown solo - 4 seat canards often do. It could be that was exaserbated by your friend being lighter than the previous owner/pilot. The main wing of a canard aircraft will not stall *provided* that the CG is within the envelope, and the angle of incidence of the main wing and canard are correct. There are also a few other oddball situations - picking up a lot of contamination or ice on the main wing, but not on the canard, could cause the main wing to stall first. But usually it's an aft CG. The pitch up makes it sound like aft CG is the cause. Try to find and keep track of the WB chart from the airplane. IIRC, early Velocities, like early Vari EZ's, tried drooped cuffs on the outboard ends of the wings. They were later replaced by vortilons, sticking out from the main wing LE's. There were two deep stall Velocity accidents that I know of. The one that was ridden into the ocean was (I'm told) testing a gap seal on the elevator. The other had removed the ballast from his nose, and got turned upside down by a DC-10 wake. See http://www.ez.org/cp76-p2.htm Richard (the Berkut builder, not the Velocity builder) Riley. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Richard,
I sat in the cockpit of the Velocity a few days before the accident. During our conversation the pilot mentioned that there was a 50 pound bag of lead shot up front near the battery. I may go out to the airport today and look to see if it is still there. The front end was damaged when he hit trees and it may have been thrown clear, or he may have removed it. I've seen pictures of the "Vortilons" you mention. His airplane did not have them. It did have an extension below the wing at the wing tips. I had not considered the wing or canard incidence being off. The airplane had approximately 50 hours TT with only 6 or so hours on an overhaul. Although it was very cold, there was no ice that day. It was my understanding that the vortex generators were added to the canard to combat a problem with loss of canard lift when flying through rain because the laminar airflow detached when the wing surface disturbed. Is that correct? He received a vortex generator kit with the airplane but it was not installed at the time of the crash. I'm not sure if it was for both wings or just the canard. I'm currently a spam can pilot with a dream of building an RV someday and trying to learn all I can about homebuilts. I'll read the information at the link you sent me and do a little more research. He is a very good pilot but I wish my friend had done his homework on this particular airplane. He told me that he had already contacted the current factory owner when I urged him to talk to other builders and Velocity pilots. I'm not sure if that was before or after the purchase or for that matter if it was not entirely true and he was trying to relieve my concern. I believe he was over confident in his abilities. We had actually discussed the loss of at least one Velocity that I'd read about a long time ago. He thought he might be able roll out of a deep stall. I tried to subtly convince him otherwise. Others at the airport tried to caution him to be careful as well. I appreciate your help very much. It is my hope that this thread develops into something useful for other homebuilders. "Richard Riley" wrote in message ... On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:33:14 -0600, "JJS" jschneider@REMOVE THIS SPAM BLOCKpldi.net wrote: :This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being flown :by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the :airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an acquaintance) :who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My :friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and severe :facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of blood :and was extremely lucky to have survived. It is a miracle that there :was no fire, as he and the immediate vicinity were soaked in fuel. He :smelled the fuel, crawled out of the airplane and lost consciousness. :Then he regained consciousness and stripped his coat and shirt and was :stumbling around a wheat field in frigid weather trying to use his :cell phone to summon help when the farmer drove up. He faces another :surgery Monday and possibly many more reconstructive surgeries :afterwards. :The pilot was practicing slow flight to familiarize himself and get a :better feel for the airplane. It pitched up instead of down and :entered an unrecoverable stall. He tried varying throttle position :and tried rolling out with aileron but the airplane came down flat :with little forward momentum from about 4500 feet agl. It did not :spin. According to my friend the main wing stalled. The canard must :have kept flying? I believe one of the original prototypes may have :been lost in the same way, with the test pilot surviving? I believe :that this may have been an early kit without aerodynamic improvements. : :I would appreciate any information those of you in this group could rovide on the early Velocities and their development history. This :airplane did not have vortex generators installed on the canard. :Would that have helped or made the situation worse? : :After the initial investigation and with approval, we loaded the :wreckage onto a trailer behind my pickup and hauled it to WWR today. :It was a very sobering experience that hasn't ended yet. : :Please, please, be careful out there. Vortex generators on the canard would not have helped. They might have contributed to the problem, by keeping the canard flying to a higher angle of attack. It sounds like a CG problem. It's possible that the plane needed balast in the front when flown solo - 4 seat canards often do. It could be that was exaserbated by your friend being lighter than the previous owner/pilot. The main wing of a canard aircraft will not stall *provided* that the CG is within the envelope, and the angle of incidence of the main wing and canard are correct. There are also a few other oddball situations - picking up a lot of contamination or ice on the main wing, but not on the canard, could cause the main wing to stall first. But usually it's an aft CG. The pitch up makes it sound like aft CG is the cause. Try to find and keep track of the WB chart from the airplane. IIRC, early Velocities, like early Vari EZ's, tried drooped cuffs on the outboard ends of the wings. They were later replaced by vortilons, sticking out from the main wing LE's. There were two deep stall Velocity accidents that I know of. The one that was ridden into the ocean was (I'm told) testing a gap seal on the elevator. The other had removed the ballast from his nose, and got turned upside down by a DC-10 wake. See http://www.ez.org/cp76-p2.htm Richard (the Berkut builder, not the Velocity builder) Riley. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 08:09:57 -0600, "JJS" jschneider@REMOVE THIS SPAM
BLOCKpldi.net wrote: :Richard, : I sat in the cockpit of the Velocity a few days before the :accident. During our conversation the pilot mentioned that there was :a 50 pound bag of lead shot up front near the battery. I may go out :to the airport today and look to see if it is still there. The front :end was damaged when he hit trees and it may have been thrown clear, r he may have removed it. I've seen pictures of the "Vortilons" you :mention. His airplane did not have them. It did have an extension :below the wing at the wing tips. I can't find any pictures of vortalons on line, but they are an important item, and if he didn't have them, that's probably a contributing factor. If the plane had 50 lbs in the nose, it sounds like he was at least fighting an aft CG. The WB chart is going to be significant. How much does your friend weigh? :I had not considered the wing or :canard incidence being off. It's just something to throw into the mix. Also remember, every airplane has wings that are slightly different in profile. Foam wings - like most canards - are particularly susceptible. Minor builder errors lead to minor changes in airfoil, which may or may not have an effect on how the plane flies. :The airplane had approximately 50 hours :TT with only 6 or so hours on an overhaul. Although it was very cold, :there was no ice that day. It was my understanding that the vortex :generators were added to the canard to combat a problem with loss of :canard lift when flying through rain because the laminar airflow :detached when the wing surface disturbed. Is that correct? It's correct on the GU airfoil canard used on the Vari-Eze, 3 place Cozy and earlier Long EZ's. The Roncz canard (1145MS airfoil) didn't have those problems. I don' t know about the Velocity canard airfoil, I've never seen one with vortex generators attached. None the less, VG's keep attached flow at a higher angle of attack, and adding them would have made it more likely that the elevators could drive the main wing to stall. :He :received a vortex generator kit with the airplane but it was not :installed at the time of the crash. I'm not sure if it was for both :wings or just the canard. It could have been for both, VG's on the main wing and the canard at 50% of chord can increase lift considerably. If you're using them just on the canard, for rain, you want them at about 20-25% of chord. :I'm currently a spam can pilot with a dream f building an RV someday and trying to learn all I can about :homebuilts. I'll read the information at the link you sent me and do :a little more research. He is a very good pilot but I wish my friend :had done his homework on this particular airplane. He told me that he :had already contacted the current factory owner when I urged him to :talk to other builders and Velocity pilots. I'm not sure if that was :before or after the purchase or for that matter if it was not entirely :true and he was trying to relieve my concern. I believe he was over :confident in his abilities. We had actually discussed the loss of at :least one Velocity that I'd read about a long time ago. He thought he :might be able roll out of a deep stall. I tried to subtly convince :him otherwise. Others at the airport tried to caution him to be :careful as well. I appreciate your help very much. It is my hope :that this thread develops into something useful for other :homebuilders. Mike Mellville - Burt Rutan's test pilot - got in a deep stall in a Long EZ at 10,000 feet. He was barely able to bring it out by using the rudders to get the nose swinging back and forth like a pendulum, with greater and greater swings on each cycle. Eventually the nose dropped and he started flying again, but it took something like 8000 feet. If you're nibbling at the lower end and you're not absolutly sure what the envelope is, wear a parachute and don't be afraid to use it. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
This is obviously a CG and/or missing vortilons problem.
This is an old story problem and designers/builders should have learned the lesson a long time ago. Adding vortex generators to canards may make it even worse, since it would have the canard stall at lower speed. The current solution to the rain problem is the Roncz cannard design - which I assume all recent designs use. ----------------------------------------------------- Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000 "JJS" jschneider@REMOVE THIS SPAM BLOCKpldi.net wrote in message ... Richard, I sat in the cockpit of the Velocity a few days before the accident. During our conversation the pilot mentioned that there was a 50 pound bag of lead shot up front near the battery. I may go out to the airport today and look to see if it is still there. The front end was damaged when he hit trees and it may have been thrown clear, or he may have removed it. I've seen pictures of the "Vortilons" you mention. His airplane did not have them. It did have an extension below the wing at the wing tips. I had not considered the wing or canard incidence being off. The airplane had approximately 50 hours TT with only 6 or so hours on an overhaul. Although it was very cold, there was no ice that day. It was my understanding that the vortex generators were added to the canard to combat a problem with loss of canard lift when flying through rain because the laminar airflow detached when the wing surface disturbed. Is that correct? He received a vortex generator kit with the airplane but it was not installed at the time of the crash. I'm not sure if it was for both wings or just the canard. I'm currently a spam can pilot with a dream of building an RV someday and trying to learn all I can about homebuilts. I'll read the information at the link you sent me and do a little more research. He is a very good pilot but I wish my friend had done his homework on this particular airplane. He told me that he had already contacted the current factory owner when I urged him to talk to other builders and Velocity pilots. I'm not sure if that was before or after the purchase or for that matter if it was not entirely true and he was trying to relieve my concern. I believe he was over confident in his abilities. We had actually discussed the loss of at least one Velocity that I'd read about a long time ago. He thought he might be able roll out of a deep stall. I tried to subtly convince him otherwise. Others at the airport tried to caution him to be careful as well. I appreciate your help very much. It is my hope that this thread develops into something useful for other homebuilders. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
That's only true if the CG is within design limits.
Del Rawlins wrote in message ... Practicing stalls in a canard? I thought the whole point of the canard was an unstallable/unspinnable aircraft. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New proposed electronics merger | Jerry Wass | Home Built | 4 | August 26th 03 01:25 PM |
51% rule | Robert Bates | Home Built | 12 | August 1st 03 09:06 PM |