Appendix 2 Airplane Model (Airplanes may be listed in more than one family of airplanes) Light Control Forces and/or Rapid Airplane Response (Appendix 3) Low-Inertia and/or High-Drag (Appendix 4) High-Inertia and/or Low-Drag (Appendix 5) Nontraditional Configuration and/or Controls (Appendix 6) Nontraditional and/or Unfamiliar Airplanes System Operations (Appendix 7) Nontraditional and/or Unfamiliar System Component Maintenance Requirements (Appendix 8) Specialty Airplane (Appendix 9) Fisher Celebrity X Zenair CH-801 X X
CHALLENGER II X X CHINOOK PLUS 2 X
CHRISTEN
EAGLE II X
CIRRUS VK30 X X X
COZY X X
DEFIANT RUTAN X X
DRAGONFLY II X Early Bird Jenny X X X EDGE 540 X X Emeraude X
Europa X
EXPRESS (Wheeler) X
F1 ROCKET X X Falco X Falcon X
FLY BABY X X X Giles/Aerotec X X
GLASAIR X Glastar X GP-4 X
HARMON X X
Appendix 2 Airplane Model (Airplanes may be listed in more than one family of airplanes) Light Control Forces and/or Rapid Airplane Response (Appendix 3) Low-Inertia and/or High-Drag (Appendix 4) High-Inertia and/or Low-Drag (Appendix 5) Nontraditional Configuration and/or Controls (Appendix 6) Nontraditional and/or Unfamiliar Airplanes System Operations (Appendix 7) Nontraditional and/or Unfamiliar System Component Maintenance Requirements (Appendix 8) Specialty Airplane (Appendix 9) ROCKET 2 Hornet X X
HUMMEL BIRD X X X JODEL D-9 X KELLY “D”
BIPLANE X
KitFox X Kolb X X Lancair 200/300 Series X X
LANCAIR ES X X
LANCAIR IV/IVP X X Lancair Legacy X Lancair Evolution/ Propjet X X X X
LIGHTNING X X Marquart Charger X M Squared X X Murphy Rebel X Murphy Moose X Long EZ X X One Design DR 107 X
ONEX X X
PITTS X X Pulsar (KIS) X
Appendix 2 Airplane Model (Airplanes may be listed in more than one family of airplanes) Light Control Forces and/or Rapid Airplane Response (Appendix 3) Low-Inertia and/or High-Drag (Appendix 4) High-Inertia and/or Low-Drag (Appendix 5) Nontraditional Configuration and/or Controls (Appendix 6) Nontraditional and/or Unfamiliar Airplanes System Operations (Appendix 7) Nontraditional and/or Unfamiliar System Component Maintenance Requirements (Appendix 8) Specialty Airplane (Appendix 9) Quickie Q-2 X X Quicksilver GT400 X X Quicksilver GT500 X X Quicksilver MX Sport X
Quicksilver MX Sprint X
Quicksilver MXII Sprint X
Quicksilver Sport 2S X
Quicksilver Sport 2SE X
RANS S-7 X RANS S-10 X RANS S-12 X X X X RANS S-14 X X RANS S-18 X RANS S-6ES X Rand KR-2 X
SEA REY X X SEAWIND 3000 X X
SKY RAIDER II X
SKYBOLT X
SLIPSTREAM
GENESIS X X
Appendix 2 Airplane Model (Airplanes may be listed in more than one family of airplanes) Light Control Forces and/or Rapid Airplane Response (Appendix 3) Low-Inertia and/or High-Drag (Appendix 4) High-Inertia and/or Low-Drag (Appendix 5) Nontraditional Configuration and/or Controls (Appendix 6) Nontraditional and/or Unfamiliar Airplanes System Operations (Appendix 7) Nontraditional and/or Unfamiliar System Component Maintenance Requirements (Appendix 8) Specialty Airplane (Appendix 9)
SONERAI II X X
SONEX X X
STARDUSTER TOO X
SUBSONEX X X X TAILWIND W-8 X X T-Bird II X X THORP T-18 X Titan Tornado II X X Van’s Aircraft RV- 3, RV-4, RV-6/6A, RV-7/7A, RV- 8/8A, RV-9/9A, RV-14/14A X X
Van’s Aircraft RV- 10 X
Van’s Aircraft RV- 12 X
Vari Viggen X WW-I Replicas X X Varieze X Velocity X
WAIEX X X
Appendix 2 Page 7 (and 8) Airplane Model (Airplanes may be listed in more than one family of airplanes) Light Control Forces and/or Rapid Airplane Response (Appendix 3) Low-Inertia and/or High-Drag (Appendix 4) High-Inertia and/or Low-Drag (Appendix 5) Nontraditional Configuration and/or Controls (Appendix 6) Nontraditional and/or Unfamiliar Airplanes System Operations (Appendix 7) Nontraditional and/or Unfamiliar System Component Maintenance Requirements (Appendix 8) Specialty Airplane (Appendix 9)
XENOS X X Zenair CH-601 HD X X Zenair CH-601 XL X X Zenair CH-701 X X
6/29/15 Appendix 3 APPENDIX 3. LIGHT CONTROL FORCES AND/OR RAPID AIRPLANE RESPONSE
1. DEFINITION. Light control forces coupled with strong control authority for rapid maneuvering about one or more axis. This section includes airplanes that have substantial disharmony between two or more axes.
2. DISCUSSION.
a. Example Accident from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Records.
(1) Accident. The pilot had constructed the homebuilt aircraft, and had flown it twice before, totaling 1.2 hours. After rotation and liftoff on his third flight, the aircraft pitched up and down several cycles then settled down. The airplane climbed slowly, and at 200 feet altitude, the pitch oscillation began again. The aircraft climbed another 50 feet, then rolled to the left and impacted the ground.
(2) Probable Cause. The pilot not maintaining aircraft control during the initial climb after takeoff and the inadvertent stall/spin. A factor to the accident was the pilot’s total lack of experience in the accident airplane.
b. Analysis and Avoidance.
(1) Unfortunately, it is impossible to understand the exact cause of this accident. One possibility is the pilot’s lack of experience with the accident airplane, as stated by the NTSB.
Airplanes like the Extra 300 and Pitts are safe airplanes, with some versions holding FAA type certification. However, most pilots would not be safe flying these airplanes without training because they maneuver quickly with low control forces. Of course, most pilots can look at these airplanes and understand that they will probably want additional training in them before trying to fly them solo.
(2) There are many more experimental airplanes that may look more like type-certificated (TC) airplanes, but they actually have light control forces and/or very quick maneuvering response. Lightweight and lightly wing-loaded airplanes can also have the same quick, light response as many aerobatic airplanes. The hazard of light forces and rapid response is that without some level of training, the pilot may over-control the airplane. This can manifest itself during any phase of flight. The risks can vary from frustration to damage during takeoff and landing, to loss of control up to and including overstressing the airframe and structural failure.
(3) Unfortunately, there are control characteristics like these frequently on airplanes with poor stall handling characteristics. This is a deadly combination when aggressively maneuvering close to the ground. Too large a percentage of fatal experimental accidents fit in this category.
Pilots considering purchasing an experimental airplane need to appreciate how much effort TC’d airplane manufacturers expend to ensure good handling characteristics. It may take weeks of trial and error flight testing to get an airplane to handle the way the manufacturer desires. This effort may include redesigning parts of the wings and tails, and their control surfaces. The General Aviation (GA) pilot community is very familiar with the handling characteristics of TC’d airplanes that have been around for decades, like the Cessna C-172 and the Piper PA-28. That
6/29/15 Appendix 3 same level of widespread familiarity does not exist with the small number of experimental airplanes. Transferring conventional GA handling techniques to aircraft with light control forces and/or rapid maneuver response can result in inadvertent stalls, loss of control, or structural failure.
3. RECOMMENDED FLIGHT TRAINING. Pilots transitioning from any one of the majority of TC’d airplanes may tend to over control an experimental airplane with light controls and quick responses. Design the pilot training needed for an airplane with light control forces and/or rapid maneuvering capability, to tailor control inputs appropriately. This cannot be simulated in an airplane that does not have similar characteristics. There are several avenues that would help to prepare you for your experimental airplane.
a. Best Training. The best training is accomplished in the specific airplane the pilot intends to fly with a well-qualified instructor who has recent experience in the specific make and model.
b. Second Best Training. The second best choice would be in the same model as the one the pilot is planning to fly.
c. Third Best Training. The third best choice is to fly an airplane with similar characteristics.
6/29/15 Appendix 4 APPENDIX 4. LOW-INERTIA AND/OR HIGH-DRAG
1. DEFINITION. Airplanes which rapidly lose energy (airspeed and/or altitude) when there is a loss or reduction of power.
2. DISCUSSION.
a. Example Accident from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Records.
(1) Accident. It was the first flight of a newly completed homebuilt airplane. The 600-hour private pilot had no previous time-in-type. On his first landing, he misjudged the amount of power required during the landing flare and the airplane struck the runway nose-first.
The nose gear collapsed.
(2) Probable Cause. The pilot misjudged the power required during the landing flare, which resulted in a hard landing on the nose wheel. A factor associated with the accident was the pilot’s lack of experience in the airplane.
b. Reduction of Drag.
(1) One major theme throughout aircraft development over the past 100 years of aviation is the reduction of drag. Airplanes with less drag require less thrust for the same performance, requiring less fuel and thus increasing efficiency and utility. High-drag airplanes have all but disappeared in the production-airplane world. However, they still exist in surprising numbers in the experimental airplanes ranks.
(a) First, some pilots do not want to be in an enclosed fuselage; they want the wide-open freedom of an open-structure airplane like a Breezy or a Quicksilver MXL.
(b) Second, many pilots want to build a good-quality airplane in the least amount of construction time and at the lowest cost. For example, consider a high-drag round aluminum tube that would be exposed to the airstream when the aircraft is in flight. A builder could spend tens of hours sculpting a low-drag fiberglass fairing to cover the tubing, or elect just cover the tubing with fabric and move on to the next part of the project. While the streamlined fairing adds time and money to the construction, it would result in an aircraft with less overall drag. A builder should consider a structure’s effect on drag when designing and building the aircraft.
(c) Third, some pilots want to get off the beaten path in Short Takeoff and Landing (STOL) airplanes like the Zenith CH-701 or the Highlander. The highly cambered airfoils used by these airplanes produce a lot of lift, allowing the airplane to safely fly slowly, but with a high-drag penalty.
(d) Finally, there are people who prefer the look of airplanes designed before drag reduction became popular. There is something special about flying open cockpit biplanes like the Hatz or Baby Great Lakes, or classic monoplanes like the Pietenpol or Fly Baby. These airplanes are often light in weight. When combined with high-drag, this means the airplanes slow quickly when reducing power or when the G Load rises.
6/29/15 Appendix 4
(2) Most pilots don’t take their initial training in these types of airplanes. They become accustomed to the drag characteristics of the type-certificated (TC) airplanes in which they learned to fly. Many “low and slow” experimental airplanes glide at a much steeper angle than these pilots are accustomed to, and this can cause problems.
(3) In the accident described in the beginning of this appendix, the pilot was flying a popular, low-cost STOL airplane with a fat, high-lift airfoil. He reduced the power for landing, and probably expected a glide path like the TC’d airplane he had learned to fly in. Instead, he got a much steeper approach than he expected, and found himself nearing the ground at a high rate of descent. He undoubtedly attempted to flare to flatten the approach, and probably tried to add some power. But the lightweight airplane quickly decelerated and kept descending at an excessive rate.
(4) Since power is often the method of compensation for the effects of low-inertia and high-drag airplanes, engine reliability can be critical. Light, low-cost homebuilt airplanes often use non-TC’d engines. These can provide more power in a smaller, lighter package, but reliability may suffer. The consequences of an engine failure in this family airplane may be significant.
(5) These characteristics affect a surprising number of pilots. Half the accidents involving one popular low-inertia/high-drag airplane occur during landing, versus about 30 percent of homebuilt accidents overall. Half the pilots involved had less than 12 hours in type versus 60 hours for the overall homebuilt fleet.
3. RECOMMENDED GROUND TRAINING. Pilots operating low-inertia/high-drag airplanes with experimental engines should avail themselves of any available training on operating their engine. For example, to minimize the chances of power interruption, operators of two-stroke engines should receive training on how to avoid cold seizures and how to properly manage the engine to maximize reliability. Another example is that pilots operating airplanes using propeller speed reduction units should understand the power modes and revolutions per minute (rpm) ranges to avoid.
4. RECOMMENDED FLIGHT TRAINING.
a. Choice of Aircraft. The following lists methods of flight training, in preferred order, when seeking to transition to an experimental and/or unfamiliar airplane:
(1) Best Training. The best training is accomplished in the specific airplane the pilot intends to fly with a well-qualified instructor who has recent experience in the specific make and model.
(2) Second Best Training. The second best choice would be in the same model as the one the pilot is planning to fly.
(3) Third Best Training. The third best choice is to fly an airplane with similar characteristics (which may include a TC’d airplane).
6/29/15 Appendix 4 Page 3 (and 4)
b. Simulating. In some cases, simulating the drag characteristics of these airplanes using a TC’d training airplane, such as a Cessna C-150 maneuvering with 40 degrees of flaps (in accordance with the airplane limitations), is possible. The deceleration upon power loss can be similar, and the steeper descent rates can help prepare them for operation of their own airplanes.
This is especially important for simulated forced landings after engine failures. By flying the conventional airplanes in a high-drag configuration, pilots can experience how fast the speed decays and how lowering the nose further achieves a normal approach speed.
c. Power Landing. Pilots should also consider using power-on, controlled approaches with power maintained throughout the transition to touchdown. Use of power during landings can approximate the glide angle that the pilot is used to flying. Delay experimentation with throttle-closed approaches and landings until the pilot has sufficient experience with the airplane.
d. Other Hazards. Hazards of low-inertia/high-drag airplanes are not limited to power management issues. While all airplanes experience an increase in stall speed with an increase in load factor, such as during turns, these airplanes may also experience significant airspeed decay with increased load factor. This, coupled with low cruise speed to stall speed margin, make these airplanes particularly susceptible to unintentional stalls.