What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(.4)The Piper PA-25 (acft), being used to develop an STC, was modified by installing 2nd seat in hopper area & extending canopy forward. On 6/30/95, operator reported to FAA that flight conformance testing to date had reflected no change in acft performance versus original configuration. Acft was equipped with external airspeed calibration device for an airspeed calibration flight, & it was loaded with 560 lbs of ballast to meet max gross wt & forward CG requirements for STC testing. Wind was gusty, & temp was 64 deg (about 30 deg warmer than on day of previous test flight). Pilot reported that after takeoff from runway 21, he maintained best rate of climb speed & 2525-2550 engine RPM, then best angle of climb speed, but acft would not climb. He then turned downwind & attempted to return to same runway; however, acft collided with trees & crashed about 1/2 mi east of airport. A witness said that during takeoff, acft lifted off, then began a left turn about half way down the runway. Pilot said that a climbing turn was made to allow for more clearance from obstacles at south end of airport. Witnesses said acft then turned north & remained at low altitude & airspeed until it hit trees & crashed. Fire then erupted, & acft was demolished. Invesitgation revealed that standard (original) wing root& landing gear (strut) fairings were not installed. Piper reproted that removal of wing root faining would signigicantly reduce wing lifting capability & change airflow over horizontal tail, requiring more elevator deflection for maneuvering. Absence of landing gear fairings would have increased drag, slightly.
As the FAA filed it
(.4)THE PIPER PA-25 (ACFT), BEING USED TO DEVELOP AN STC, WAS MODIFIED BY INSTALLING 2ND SEAT IN HOPPER AREA & EXTENDING CANOPY FORWARD. ON 6/30/95, OPERATOR REPORTED TO FAA THAT FLIGHT CONFORMANCE TESTING TO DATE HAD REFLECTED NO CHANGE IN ACFT PERFORMANCE VERSUS ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION. ACFT WAS EQUIPPED WITH EXTERNAL AIRSPEED CALIBRATION DEVICE FOR AN AIRSPEED CALIBRATION FLIGHT, & IT WAS LOADED WITH 560 LBS OF BALLAST TO MEET MAX GROSS WT & FORWARD CG REQUIREMENTS FOR STC TESTING. WIND WAS GUSTY, & TEMP WAS 64 DEG (ABOUT 30 DEG WARMER THAN ON DAY OF PREVIOUS TEST FLIGHT). PILOT REPORTED THAT AFTER TAKEOFF FROM RUNWAY 21, HE MAINTAINED BEST RATE OF CLIMB SPEED & 2525-2550 ENGINE RPM, THEN BEST ANGLE OF CLIMB SPEED, BUT ACFT WOULD NOT CLIMB. HE THEN TURNED DOWNWIND & ATTEMPTED TO RETURN TO SAME RUNWAY; HOWEVER, ACFT COLLIDED WITH TREES & CRASHED ABOUT 1/2 MI EAST OF AIRPORT. A WITNESS SAID THAT DURING TAKEOFF, ACFT LIFTED OFF, THEN BEGAN A LEFT TURN ABOUT HALF WAY DOWN THE RUNWAY. PILOT SAID THAT A CLIMBING TURN WAS MADE TO ALLOW FOR MORE CLEARANCE FROM OBSTACLES AT SOUTH END OF AIRPORT. WITNESSES SAID ACFT THEN TURNED NORTH & REMAINED AT LOW ALTITUDE & AIRSPEED UNTIL IT HIT TREES & CRASHED. FIRE THEN ERUPTED, & ACFT WAS DEMOLISHED. INVESITGATION REVEALED THAT STANDARD (ORIGINAL) WING ROOT& LANDING GEAR (STRUT) FAIRINGS WERE NOT INSTALLED. PIPER REPROTED THAT REMOVAL OF WING ROOT FAINING WOULD SIGNIGICANTLY REDUCE WING LIFTING CAPABILITY & CHANGE AIRFLOW OVER HORIZONTAL TAIL, REQUIRING MORE ELEVATOR DEFLECTION FOR MANEUVERING. ABSENCE OF LANDING GEAR FAIRINGS WOULD HAVE INCREASED DRAG, SLIGHTLY.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.