ERA17TA233

The accident flight was the first flight of the Phase 1 test period for the experimental amateur-built airplane. The private pilot stated that, during the flight, while on the crosswind leg of the airport traffic pattern, the engine experienced a total loss of power and that he noted that there was no fuel pressure indication or electrical system charge. He unsuccessfully attempted to restart the engine with the secondary electric fuel pump and then maneuvered to land the airplane. The pilot reported that the airplane touched down longer and faster than "normal due to a no flap condition" and that the airplane overran the runway, impacted a fence, and came to rest on its nose. The engine mounts and fuselage were substantially damaged. According to the pilot, the total loss of engine power resulted from an electrical problem due to the use of a lithium motorcycle battery on the airplane, which was not designed for such use, and to his attempt to charge the battery with a charger that was specifically not recommended for use on lithium batteries. The pilot reported that this likely resulted in the battery having a "low charge" at the beginning of the flight. When the alternator subsequently attempted to recharge the battery during the flight, it overheated the battery, which then shut down and resulted in a loss of electrical power and the subsequent loss of engine power.

On July 2, 2017, about 1325 eastern daylight time, an experimental amateur-built Zodiac CH650B, N650LN, was substantially damaged during landing at Lazy B Ranch Airport (0P8), Dover, Pennsylvania. The private pilot was not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 test flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident, and no flight plan was filed for the local flight.According to the pilot, the accident flight was the first flight of the Phase 1 test period for the experimental airplane. During the flight, while on the crosswind leg of the airport traffic pattern for runway 5, the engine lost total power and the pilot noted that there was no fuel pressure indication or electrical system charge. He attempted to restart the engine with the secondary fuel pump, however, the engine would not start. He maneuvered the airplane to land on runway 5 and stated that the airplane touched down longer and faster than "normal due to a no flap condition." The airplane overran the runway, impacted a fence, and came to rest on its nose. According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector who examined the airplane, the firewall and engine mounts were substantially damaged. In addition, the alternator and main circuit board were tested with no anomalies noted. The electrical wiring was examined on the airplane with no anomalies noted. According to FAA records, the airplane was issued an experimental airworthiness certificate on December 16, 2016. The two-seat, low wing, monoplane was equipped with a Continental Motors Inc. O-200 series, 100 hp, engine. According to the airframe maintenance logbook, the most recent condition inspection was performed on June 17, 2017, at a total time of 0 hours. At the time of the accident, the airplane had accumulated 0.8 hours. According to the pilot, the airplane was equipped with primary and secondary electrically-driven fuel pumps. The airplane was not equipped with an engine-driven fuel pump. In addition, the flaps were electrically actuated. The pilot reported the battery that was used on the amateur-built airplane was a lithium motorcycle battery and "not intended for use on aircraft." In addition, he had charged that battery with a charger that was specifically not recommended for use on lithium batteries. Since he was attempting to charge the battery with an incompatible charger, he thought that he probably started the flight with "low battery charge." Then, when the alternator was trying to recharge the battery, it overheated, and the battery subsequently shut down, resulting in a loss of electrical power to the airplane. Furthermore, the airplane was not equipped with a backup battery, which he reported could have prevented the accident if it was installed. Lastly, he stated that there was no mechanical malfunction of the airplane, that there was an electrical problem "due to the use of a battery not designed forthis application and improper maintenance on that battery."