Since the untimely death of our friend (and chief charter pilot at the
local FBO) while ferrying a Spencer Air Car back from Seattle, WA last
week, our local pilot community has been roiled with speculation about
the cause of the crash.

Of course we won't know anything definitive for a long while, but the
facts we can discern are as follows:

- The plane was a Spencer Air Car, a homebuilt flying boat that looks
like a Republic SeaBee made out of wood.

- The landing gear was down when they crashed

- Witnesses say the engine sputtered, then failed.

- Witnesses say they hit very hard, and "bounced like a rubber ball"
before hitting again and exploding into a million pieces.

- There was no fire.

- The wreckage was hardly recognizable as an aircraft, evidence of how
hard they hit.

- The area they landed in could not be better for an off-airport
landing: Flat, frozen, open Iowa farmland.

- The pilot was a CFII who flew daily, in everything from a Pietenpol
(he learned to fly in one, with his dad), to a CitationJet. This was
NOT an inexperienced pilot.

Speculation about the way an amphib like this would fly after an
engine failure (with the dead engine way up high above the fuselage)
seems to indicate that it could make the elevator forces much lighter
than with power on, and could lead to an inadvertent stall by over-
flaring. In the absence of a mechanical failure, this would seem to
explain the eye-witnesses account of the crash.

We're all devastated by the loss of someone who could arguably be
described as our best local pilot, and I'm trying to understand the
(very unusual) type of homebuilt aircraft they were flying. Does
anyone here own one? Or, has anyone ever flown one? Comments on the
flight characteristics would be appreciated.

Thanks,
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Go here to learn more about the air car including a picture.
http://www.pilotfriend.com/experimental/acft6/37.htm

Was there a covering of snow where they crashed? Was it a bright sunny day?


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ups.com...
: Since the untimely death of our friend (and chief charter pilot at the
: local FBO) while ferrying a Spencer Air Car back from Seattle, WA last
: week, our local pilot community has been roiled with speculation about
: the cause of the crash.
:
:

I'll pipe up a little bit, although ultimately I think speculation,
including my own, mostly just fuels rumors and we probably are best served
by waiting for the ntsb to do their job. I have been building a Spencer
Aircar for the last 9+ years, it is close to flying and will likely fly this
spring. I usually have a homepage up but I have removed it temporarily as
people were contacting me thinking that I was the owner of the Aircar
rights, owner of the kit company, etc. To be clear this aircraft is plans
built, I am a builder but otherwise not a purveyor. I have not personally
flown one myself, although I have had several lengthy conversations with a
couple of gentlemen who have flown them extensively. Most of the active
flying Aircars are flying in Florida, although there is one currently
buzzing around Canada and one flying is San Diego.

As far as flying characteristics, the aircar is not known for any particular
bad habits when properly loaded. The engine is a pusher mount but it is not
on a pylon. It is mounted behind and only about 12" above the center of
lift, and also behind and approximately 24" above the CG. However, the
engines thrust is directed down onto the top of a Stabilator - yes a flying
tail. When the thrust is increased it is designed to be directed at the top
of the tail, counteracting the thrust induced downward pitching moment.
Because the aircraft is designed for water operations the stabilator has a
lot of authority. It is set for 15 degrees of up travel and 6 degrees of
down travel. The large amount of up travel is to provide the authority to
get the aircraft off of the water effectively. The aircraft is high drag,
it does not glide well.

Some V numbers:
Vs 53 mph
Vso 43 mph (its a seaplane)
Vx 62 mph
Vy 70 mph
Vfe 100 mph
Va 140 mph
Vd 180 mph

The hull is very stoutly built with truss type bulkheads every 10-11". The
keel + keelson alone are 1 1/2" wide by 3" tall and has a 1/4" metal strip
on the bottom, mine is stainless, some people use aluminum. Basically a
truss structure boat is built, and then boxed using 1/4" and 3/8" plywood,
bonded to all sides and the top with what becomes the floor of the cabin, in
addition it is covered with a 8 oz layer of fiberglass. The construction is
strong, people have intentionally landed these aircraft in snow with the
gear up, the hull acting as a sled. Several have also landed gear up on
runways with no damage. The floor of cabin to keel is about 22" I would
think that the nature of this construction would actually act a "crush zone"
in the event of an accident. Hearing the description of the event, they
must have hit pretty hard.

Two critical things to mention that caught my attention. Primarily, The
fuel system consists of a main tank, of welded aluminum, with a capacity of
46 gallons, and auxiliary tanks in each float with a capacity of 25 gallons
each. At the time of sale the aux tanks were said to be disconnected, this
from one of the prospective buyers, I have no way on knowing if this was
true. Most of these tanks were built by Spence in the 70s and the
fiberglass construction was not of the quality that kit aircraft see today.
In general they were constructed using polyester resin and a lot of glass
matt due to the complexity of the shape. If the tanks saw a lot of time in
the sun they could have been in less than serviceable shape. Do the math:
using the main tank only, and a conservative fuel burn, the aircraft would
have run out of fuel short of KIOW. Perhaps they were planning on using the
aux tanks, perhaps they didn't know they were not connected, perhaps they
were connected and the lines froze, its all speculation. But it is my
belief that if they were only operating on the main tank that they would
have been in trouble.

The second issue is that this aircraft tends towards an aft CG. In fact,
empty the aircraft is at the aft CG limit. The fuel sits close to the CG,
pilots in front. There are usually two batteries and anchor in the nose of
the aircraft. The aircraft needs to be loaded carefully and is generally
test flown with extra weight in the front of the aircraft. Again
speculation, but if improperly loaded it may have been difficult to recover
from an aft cg stall. This may have been compounded with light stick forces
from a balanced stabilator and aft CG.

The design has been around, in some form since before WWII. Spence was an
artist draftsman, quite prolithic, and was piloting aircraft into his 90s.
He was a test pilot for Republic. His documentation of the Aircar flight
characteristics was thorough. The Aircar design was awarded the NASAD seal
of quality in the 70s. To receive the "Seal of Quality" from NASAD the
Aircar was required to meet quality standards as formulated by NASAD. These
standards include:
General Specifications.
Plans and drawings standards with complete
details on all Systems.
Manual standards.
History of experience supported by complete
test records.
Complete analysis by professional aeronautical
engineers as to construction, engineering, and materials.

NASAD is an independent, non-profit organization of aircraft designers
who are dedicated to the development and improvement of aircraft and related
components. NASAD works closely with the aviation and ultralight industry,
EAA, AOPA, and the FAA to formulate high quality aircraft standards.

While I certainly carry a bias in favor of the aircraft. I have no idea how
well constructed the accident aircraft was. It did have over 2500 hours of
flight time so it had some time on it. The journey was halted in Idaho as
they waited for a fuel pump and alternator. This from the purchaser, who
incidentally was the father of Joshua Reynolds the second victim.

I understand that your local community is in mourning and shock and looking
for some tangible answers in this tragedy. I hope that the NTSB can provide
those answers. I do know from personal experience that even very good
pilots can have a bad day. Two on our field have perished in the last
twenty years, both excellent pilots. I think if anything, it should remind
us that aviation is a activity that doesn't easily forgive being tired, in a
rush, on medication, not physically fit, essentially not being at our peak.
Imagine yourself tired, wanting to get home, cold, (did the heat work? the
engine is way back there, remember the old VW bus in winter), in an
unfamiliar aircraft with an unusual set of flying characteristics, not a
forgiving environment.

I hope this helps is some manner,
My condolences to anyone who has been affected by this tragedy.
Doug Palmer

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Since the untimely death of our friend (and chief charter pilot at the
> local FBO) while ferrying a Spencer Air Car back from Seattle, WA last
> week, our local pilot community has been roiled with speculation about
> the cause of the crash.
>
> Of course we won't know anything definitive for a long while, but the
> facts we can discern are as follows:
>
> - The plane was a Spencer Air Car, a homebuilt flying boat that looks
> like a Republic SeaBee made out of wood.
>
> - The landing gear was down when they crashed
>
> - Witnesses say the engine sputtered, then failed.
>
> - Witnesses say they hit very hard, and "bounced like a rubber ball"
> before hitting again and exploding into a million pieces.
>
> - There was no fire.
>
> - The wreckage was hardly recognizable as an aircraft, evidence of how
> hard they hit.
>
> - The area they landed in could not be better for an off-airport
> landing: Flat, frozen, open Iowa farmland.
>
> - The pilot was a CFII who flew daily, in everything from a Pietenpol
> (he learned to fly in one, with his dad), to a CitationJet. This was
> NOT an inexperienced pilot.
>
> Speculation about the way an amphib like this would fly after an
> engine failure (with the dead engine way up high above the fuselage)
> seems to indicate that it could make the elevator forces much lighter
> than with power on, and could lead to an inadvertent stall by over-
> flaring. In the absence of a mechanical failure, this would seem to
> explain the eye-witnesses account of the crash.
>
> We're all devastated by the loss of someone who could arguably be
> described as our best local pilot, and I'm trying to understand the
> (very unusual) type of homebuilt aircraft they were flying. Does
> anyone here own one? Or, has anyone ever flown one? Comments on the
> flight characteristics would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

("Doug Palmer" wrote)
> I'll pipe up a little bit, although ultimately I think speculation,
> including my own, mostly just fuels rumors and we probably are best served
> by waiting for the ntsb to do their job. I have been building a Spencer
> Aircar for the last 9+ years, it is close to flying and will likely fly
> this spring.


Thank you for that write up.


Montblack

("Richard Riley" wrote)
> No matter what else and investigation shows, it indicates the extreme
> caution with which a buyer of a homebuilt must approach his first flights.
> There are surprises in every airplane. If they're bad, they're really
> bad.


They did have a number of hours on the plane, plus a number of landings. How
much of a feel for the plane would a cross-country flight give them?

http://www.seabee.info/

Very well organized site!
http://www.seabee.info/seabee.htm
Click on Safety
Click Accident List
Click on the dates for a summary


Montblack

> So if the fuel was exhausted and the engine quit, there would be a
> pitch forward, until the pilot re-trims?
> <snip>

I personally don't know, I will ask my friend in Canada who is flying his
and find out the -engine out from cruise- trim adjustment. I would presume
that there is still some upward pitch if the engine is cut.

> If there were 2 people on board, what is the likelyhood that the plane
> was aft CG? It sounds like with 2 on board you're at or close to the
> forward CG limit. <snip>

No, the aircraft empty, with one 160 lb pilot, is at the aft limit. Most
put lead in the nose to balance the plane to this condition. As people and
baggage are added it moves forward till at gross it is nears the fwd limit.
My speculation was that if the anchor, one of the batteries, or any other
ballast at the front of the aircraft was removed, AND they loaded up the aft
baggage compartment (which is slightly aft CG), or, being a homebuilt
something else over the years was done to shift the CG aft without the
proper W&B being re-worked, the aircraft could be loaded such that it was
close to the aft CG limit.

>
> No matter what else and investigation shows, it indicates the extreme
> caution with which a buyer of a homebuilt must approach his first
> flights. There are surprises in every airplane. If they're bad,
> they're really bad.

Roger that. The plane was being sold for the widow of the builder (natural
causes). It is unfortunate that the builder was not available to
familiarize the two gentlemen with that particular A/C.
>

> Was there a covering of snow where they crashed? Was it a bright sunny day?

Yep.

Why?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

> I'll pipe up a little bit, although ultimately I think speculation,
> including my own, mostly just fuels rumors and we probably are best served
> by waiting for the ntsb to do their job.

Thanks, Doug. I normally agree with you, but this accident is so
bizarre and unexpected that I came here seeking input. Your excellent
post answers many of my questions -- including who the buyer of the
aircraft was. I am deeply saddened to hear that it was Josh's
father.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination

On 10 Feb 2007 17:45:58 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> Was there a covering of snow where they crashed? Was it a bright sunny day?
>
>Yep.

I suspect the OP is suggesting depth perception issues... smooth white covering,
little contrast, bright sun to reduce the irises and make it even tougher to
make out detail to judge height with.

I flew a month ago on a sunny day right after a snowfall...and they don't plow
the GA runways in this neck o' the woods. Had about 4" on the ground, and the
tracks from my own takeoff were the only feature I could lock on to. If I'd had
unbroken snow and an unfamiliar field, it would have been interesting.

(And since the runway had been indistinguishable from the grass due to the even
coat of snow, the tracks from the takeoff wiggled a bit....)

The accident airplane had been based at my field, I'd seen it several times.
Its hangar was right down the row from that of a friend of mine.

Ron Wanttaja

Depth perception on final above the bright snow, may have misjudged altitude before the flair. Just like trying to land
on a glass smooth lake in an amphib - you basically fly a rate of descent until contact...


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message ups.com...
:> Was there a covering of snow where they crashed? Was it a bright sunny day?
:
: Yep.
:
: Why?
: --
: Jay Honeck
: Iowa City, IA
: Pathfinder N56993
: www.AlexisParkInn.com
: "Your Aviation Destination
:

> The accident airplane had been based at my field, I'd seen it several times.
> Its hangar was right down the row from that of a friend of mine.

Thanks for the info, Ron.

A fellow pilot who initially went to the accident scene reported that
the first impact zone had ruts 8 to 10 inches deep in the (frozen
solid, at 10 below zero) field where the landing gear hit.

Anything that could punch a hole that deep in frozen Iowa farmland was
coming down extremely fast. You can't dig the ground here with a
bulldozer right now, it's frozen so hard.

The next impact was hundreds of feet down the field.

None of this makes any sense, of course. What could cause an aircraft
to come down so hard, so fast, but still with that much flying
speed? With that kind of energy, they could easily have flown on
quite a ways, and the terrain was not an issue.

This has been a tough one to take. We all like to believe that fatal
accidents only happen to bad pilots, but in this case the pilot was
arguably our *best* pilot. Understanding and studying what happened
in this bizarre crash will go a long ways toward improving flight
safety, IMHO, simply because it proves that it can happen to any of
us.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
> None of this makes any sense, of course. What could cause an aircraft to
> come down so hard, so fast, but still with that much flying speed? With
> that kind of energy, they could easily have flown on quite a ways, and the
> terrain was not an issue.


Were there any radio calls heard?

CO poisoning?


Montblack

> Were there any radio calls heard?

I don't know.

> CO poisoning?

I would assume they've done an autopsy, but I haven't heard.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Were there any radio calls heard?
>
> I don't know.
>
>> CO poisoning?
>
> I would assume they've done an autopsy, but I haven't heard.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

I was going to suggest ice. Perhaps mosture in a critical control area
allowed the stabilizer to freeze. But if they had already lost an engine,
that would be a double failure of two unrelated systems at the same time,
and that would be very, very unlikely.