WPR22FA311

The pilot purchased the experimental, amateur-built airplane on the morning of the accident. He was planning to fly the airplane to his home airport in a different state. That morning, the previous owner and the pilot reviewed the maintenance logbooks, airplane characteristics, checklists, and examined the airframe and engine. After a thorough review, they started the engine and completed a run-up. The previous owner offered to stay in the airplane so the pilot could practice taking off and landing. The pilot declined and the previous owner exited the airplane. Witnesses observed the airplane align with the runway centerline and begin to accelerate. The pilot appeared to be making a 3-point takeoff with all the landing gear remaining on the runway surface. The airplane then became airborne at a slow speed and climbed to about 50-75 feet above ground level (agl). The airplane assumed a nose-high attitude and stalled as the left wing dropped down and collided with terrain adjacent to the runway; the airplane erupted into flames. The 87-year-old pilot had over 20,000 hours of total flight experience but had never flown the accident airplane.

The airplane’s third owner recently sold the airplane online to the pilot. The sale closed on June 08, 2022, and the pilot intended to pick up the airplane and pay for the remainder of the airplane on the day of the accident. A pilot at the airport, who also witnessed the accident, stated that he had flown in the accident airplane on multiple occasions. He recalled that when performing maneuvers, the left-wing drop was prominent. He opined that the rigging or build gave a higher angle of incidence in the right wing. The input of the right aileron would further amplify the left-wing drop. He noted that there was no stall warning in the airplane, including no visual, audible, or aerodynamic (e.g., buffet) warnings. The airplane’s stall speed was about 60 kts. On August 20, 2022, about 1331 central daylight time, an experimental, amateur-built Smyth Sidewinder TD, N60JV, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Wichita Falls, Texas. The pilot was fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The airplane’s previous owner stated that he sold the airplane to the pilot on the morning of the accident. The pilot’s friend dropped him off in Wichita Falls around 0900 and the pilot was planning to fly the airplane to his home airport in Arkansas. That morning, the previous owner and the pilot reviewed the maintenance logbooks, airplane characteristics, checklist, operational features of the Garmin 560 GPS, and examined the airframe and engine. The airplane was fully fueled. After a thorough review, the pilot purchased the airplane. Thereafter, they started the engine and completed a run-up. The previous owner offered to stay in the airplane so the pilot could practice taking off and landing. The pilot declined and the previous owner exited the airplane. The previous owner and numerous other people at the airport witnessed the airplane depart runway 13. They observed the airplane align with the runway centerline and begin to accelerate. The pilot appeared to be making a 3-point takeoff with all the landing gear remaining on the runway surface. The airplane then became airborne at a slow speed and began a left turn, climbing to about 50-75 feet agl. The airplane assumed a nose-high attitude and the left turn tightened. The airplane impacted terrain adjacent to the runway and erupted into flames. An autopsy of the pilot was performed by the Office of the Medical Examiner in the County of Dallas, State of Texas. According to the autopsy report, the cause of death was blunt force and thermal injuries. The pilot stated that he had owned a similar airplane before (a Thorp T-18), but sold the airplane about 8 years before the accident. His recent flight experience is unknown. The accident site was located in a fallow cotton field adjacent to the runway. The debris field was on flat terrain with loose dirt and dry vegetation, distributed over 200 ft on a median magneticbearing of about 95° (see Figure 1 below). The main wreckage, consisting of the engine and the fuselage, came to rest inverted. The majority of the airframe was consumed by fire with the exception of the empennage and outboard right wing. Figure 1: Accident Site in Reference to the Runway The first identified point of contact consisted of disrupted dirt and paint chips. An approximate 6-inch-wide ground scar from the initial impact was continuous for about 19 ft, consistent with the left wing dragging along the terrain. Thereafter, there was an approximate 14 ft path of disrupted dirt. The remaining 25 ft to the wreckage, the disrupted dirt ended. The debris field contained part of the propeller, the right wingtip, and numerous pieces of fragmented canopy. The engine remained attached to the airframe by the engine mounts. The engine had been displaced left from the normal position due to the absorption of impact energy. Visual examination of the engine revealed that the engine sustained postimpact fire damage with no evidence of preimpact catastrophic mechanical malfunction. Investigators completely disassembled the engine. The cylinder’s combustion chambers remained mechanically undamaged, and there was no evidence of foreign object ingestion or detonation. The valves were intact and undamaged. There was no evidence of valve-to-piston face contact observed (see Figure 2 below). The gas path and combustion signatures observed at the spark plugs, combustion chambers and exhaust system components displayed coloration consistent with a postcrash fire. The left and right magnetos were thermally consumed, and timing could not be ascertained. The carburetor was secured at the mounting pad. The throttle/mixture controls were found securely attached at their respective control arms. The metal float pontoons exhibited moderate hydrodynamic crushing, consistent with there being fuel in the bowl at the time of impact. Figure 2: Engine Components Complete control continuity could not be verified due to the extent of the thermal damage to the cockpit. There was no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunction or failure that would have precluded normal operation.