Proposed new flightseeing rule

This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being flown
by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the
airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an acquaintance)
who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My
friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and severe
facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of blood
and was extremely lucky to have survived. It is a miracle that there
was no fire, as he and the immediate vicinity were soaked in fuel. He
smelled the fuel, crawled out of the airplane and lost consciousness.
Then he regained consciousness and stripped his coat and shirt and was
stumbling around a wheat field in frigid weather trying to use his
cell phone to summon help when the farmer drove up. He faces another
surgery Monday and possibly many more reconstructive surgeries
afterwards.
The pilot was practicing slow flight to familiarize himself and get a
better feel for the airplane. It pitched up instead of down and
entered an unrecoverable stall. He tried varying throttle position
and tried rolling out with aileron but the airplane came down flat
with little forward momentum from about 4500 feet agl. It did not
spin. According to my friend the main wing stalled. The canard must
have kept flying? I believe one of the original prototypes may have
been lost in the same way, with the test pilot surviving? I believe
that this may have been an early kit without aerodynamic improvements.

I would appreciate any information those of you in this group could
provide on the early Velocities and their development history. This
airplane did not have vortex generators installed on the canard.
Would that have helped or made the situation worse?

After the initial investigation and with approval, we loaded the
wreckage onto a trailer behind my pickup and hauled it to WWR today.
It was a very sobering experience that hasn't ended yet.

Please, please, be careful out there.


"Jerry Springer" wrote in message
k.net...

Richard what happened that the Velocity did not recover from a
stall?
I belive this is one you built?

Jerry


IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 57V Make/Model: VEL Description: EXP
VELOCITY
Date: 11/06/2003 Time: 2345

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Serious Mid Air: N
Missing: N
Damage: Substantial

LOCATION
City: FARGO State: OK Country: US

DESCRIPTION
AIRCRAFT CRASHED WHILE PRACTICING STALLS AND WAS UNABLE TO
RECOVER, OTHER
CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, FARGO, OK

JJS wrote:

This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being flown
by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the
airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an acquaintance)
who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My
friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and severe
facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of blood
and was extremely lucky to have survived.

Best wishes to your friend. Sounds like he has a long hard road to recovery
ahead of him.

Jerry

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:33:14 -0600, "JJS" jschneider@REMOVE THIS SPAM
BLOCKpldi.net wrote:

:This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being flown
:by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the
:airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an acquaintance)
:who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My
:friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and severe
:facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of blood
:and was extremely lucky to have survived. It is a miracle that there
:was no fire, as he and the immediate vicinity were soaked in fuel. He
:smelled the fuel, crawled out of the airplane and lost consciousness.
:Then he regained consciousness and stripped his coat and shirt and was
:stumbling around a wheat field in frigid weather trying to use his
:cell phone to summon help when the farmer drove up. He faces another
:surgery Monday and possibly many more reconstructive surgeries
:afterwards.
:The pilot was practicing slow flight to familiarize himself and get a
:better feel for the airplane. It pitched up instead of down and
:entered an unrecoverable stall. He tried varying throttle position
:and tried rolling out with aileron but the airplane came down flat
:with little forward momentum from about 4500 feet agl. It did not
:spin. According to my friend the main wing stalled. The canard must
:have kept flying? I believe one of the original prototypes may have
:been lost in the same way, with the test pilot surviving? I believe
:that this may have been an early kit without aerodynamic improvements.
:
:I would appreciate any information those of you in this group could
rovide on the early Velocities and their development history. This
:airplane did not have vortex generators installed on the canard.
:Would that have helped or made the situation worse?
:
:After the initial investigation and with approval, we loaded the
:wreckage onto a trailer behind my pickup and hauled it to WWR today.
:It was a very sobering experience that hasn't ended yet.
:
:Please, please, be careful out there.

Vortex generators on the canard would not have helped. They might
have contributed to the problem, by keeping the canard flying to a
higher angle of attack.

It sounds like a CG problem. It's possible that the plane needed
balast in the front when flown solo - 4 seat canards often do. It
could be that was exaserbated by your friend being lighter than the
previous owner/pilot. The main wing of a canard aircraft will not
stall *provided* that the CG is within the envelope, and the angle of
incidence of the main wing and canard are correct. There are also a
few other oddball situations - picking up a lot of contamination or
ice on the main wing, but not on the canard, could cause the main wing
to stall first. But usually it's an aft CG. The pitch up makes it
sound like aft CG is the cause.

Try to find and keep track of the WB chart from the airplane.

IIRC, early Velocities, like early Vari EZ's, tried drooped cuffs on
the outboard ends of the wings. They were later replaced by
vortilons, sticking out from the main wing LE's. There were two deep
stall Velocity accidents that I know of. The one that was ridden into
the ocean was (I'm told) testing a gap seal on the elevator. The
other had removed the ballast from his nose, and got turned upside
down by a DC-10 wake.

See http://www.ez.org/cp76-p2.htm

Richard (the Berkut builder, not the Velocity builder) Riley.

Richard,
I sat in the cockpit of the Velocity a few days before the
accident. During our conversation the pilot mentioned that there was
a 50 pound bag of lead shot up front near the battery. I may go out
to the airport today and look to see if it is still there. The front
end was damaged when he hit trees and it may have been thrown clear,
or he may have removed it. I've seen pictures of the "Vortilons" you
mention. His airplane did not have them. It did have an extension
below the wing at the wing tips. I had not considered the wing or
canard incidence being off. The airplane had approximately 50 hours
TT with only 6 or so hours on an overhaul. Although it was very cold,
there was no ice that day. It was my understanding that the vortex
generators were added to the canard to combat a problem with loss of
canard lift when flying through rain because the laminar airflow
detached when the wing surface disturbed. Is that correct? He
received a vortex generator kit with the airplane but it was not
installed at the time of the crash. I'm not sure if it was for both
wings or just the canard. I'm currently a spam can pilot with a dream
of building an RV someday and trying to learn all I can about
homebuilts. I'll read the information at the link you sent me and do
a little more research. He is a very good pilot but I wish my friend
had done his homework on this particular airplane. He told me that he
had already contacted the current factory owner when I urged him to
talk to other builders and Velocity pilots. I'm not sure if that was
before or after the purchase or for that matter if it was not entirely
true and he was trying to relieve my concern. I believe he was over
confident in his abilities. We had actually discussed the loss of at
least one Velocity that I'd read about a long time ago. He thought he
might be able roll out of a deep stall. I tried to subtly convince
him otherwise. Others at the airport tried to caution him to be
careful as well. I appreciate your help very much. It is my hope
that this thread develops into something useful for other
homebuilders.


"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:33:14 -0600, "JJS" jschneider@REMOVE THIS
SPAM
BLOCKpldi.net wrote:

:This Velocity was purchased just over one week ago and was being
flown
:by a co-worker and personal friend of mine. He did not build the
:airplane. The pilot was picked up by a farmer, (also an
acquaintance)
:who saw the airplane was in trouble and went to investigate. My
:friend was medi-flighted to OKC. He suffered broken ribs and
severe
:facial injuries, and will lose his left eye. He lost a lot of
blood
:and was extremely lucky to have survived. It is a miracle that
there
:was no fire, as he and the immediate vicinity were soaked in fuel.
He
:smelled the fuel, crawled out of the airplane and lost
consciousness.
:Then he regained consciousness and stripped his coat and shirt and
was
:stumbling around a wheat field in frigid weather trying to use his
:cell phone to summon help when the farmer drove up. He faces
another
:surgery Monday and possibly many more reconstructive surgeries
:afterwards.
:The pilot was practicing slow flight to familiarize himself and get
a
:better feel for the airplane. It pitched up instead of down and
:entered an unrecoverable stall. He tried varying throttle position
:and tried rolling out with aileron but the airplane came down flat
:with little forward momentum from about 4500 feet agl. It did not
:spin. According to my friend the main wing stalled. The canard
must
:have kept flying? I believe one of the original prototypes may
have
:been lost in the same way, with the test pilot surviving? I
believe
:that this may have been an early kit without aerodynamic
improvements.
:
:I would appreciate any information those of you in this group could
rovide on the early Velocities and their development history.
This
:airplane did not have vortex generators installed on the canard.
:Would that have helped or made the situation worse?
:
:After the initial investigation and with approval, we loaded the
:wreckage onto a trailer behind my pickup and hauled it to WWR
today.
:It was a very sobering experience that hasn't ended yet.
:
:Please, please, be careful out there.

Vortex generators on the canard would not have helped. They might
have contributed to the problem, by keeping the canard flying to a
higher angle of attack.

It sounds like a CG problem. It's possible that the plane needed
balast in the front when flown solo - 4 seat canards often do. It
could be that was exaserbated by your friend being lighter than the
previous owner/pilot. The main wing of a canard aircraft will not
stall *provided* that the CG is within the envelope, and the angle
of
incidence of the main wing and canard are correct. There are also a
few other oddball situations - picking up a lot of contamination or
ice on the main wing, but not on the canard, could cause the main
wing
to stall first. But usually it's an aft CG. The pitch up makes it
sound like aft CG is the cause.

Try to find and keep track of the WB chart from the airplane.

IIRC, early Velocities, like early Vari EZ's, tried drooped cuffs on
the outboard ends of the wings. They were later replaced by
vortilons, sticking out from the main wing LE's. There were two
deep
stall Velocity accidents that I know of. The one that was ridden
into
the ocean was (I'm told) testing a gap seal on the elevator. The
other had removed the ballast from his nose, and got turned upside
down by a DC-10 wake.

See http://www.ez.org/cp76-p2.htm

Richard (the Berkut builder, not the Velocity builder) Riley.

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 08:09:57 -0600, "JJS" jschneider@REMOVE THIS SPAM
BLOCKpldi.net wrote:

:Richard,
: I sat in the cockpit of the Velocity a few days before the
:accident. During our conversation the pilot mentioned that there was
:a 50 pound bag of lead shot up front near the battery. I may go out
:to the airport today and look to see if it is still there. The front
:end was damaged when he hit trees and it may have been thrown clear,
r he may have removed it. I've seen pictures of the "Vortilons" you
:mention. His airplane did not have them. It did have an extension
:below the wing at the wing tips.

I can't find any pictures of vortalons on line, but they are an
important item, and if he didn't have them, that's probably a
contributing factor. If the plane had 50 lbs in the nose, it sounds
like he was at least fighting an aft CG. The WB chart is going to be
significant. How much does your friend weigh?

:I had not considered the wing or
:canard incidence being off.

It's just something to throw into the mix. Also remember, every
airplane has wings that are slightly different in profile. Foam wings
- like most canards - are particularly susceptible. Minor builder
errors lead to minor changes in airfoil, which may or may not have an
effect on how the plane flies.

:The airplane had approximately 50 hours
:TT with only 6 or so hours on an overhaul. Although it was very cold,
:there was no ice that day. It was my understanding that the vortex
:generators were added to the canard to combat a problem with loss of
:canard lift when flying through rain because the laminar airflow
:detached when the wing surface disturbed. Is that correct?

It's correct on the GU airfoil canard used on the Vari-Eze, 3 place
Cozy and earlier Long EZ's. The Roncz canard (1145MS airfoil) didn't
have those problems. I don' t know about the Velocity canard airfoil,
I've never seen one with vortex generators attached. None the less,
VG's keep attached flow at a higher angle of attack, and adding them
would have made it more likely that the elevators could drive the main
wing to stall.

:He
:received a vortex generator kit with the airplane but it was not
:installed at the time of the crash. I'm not sure if it was for both
:wings or just the canard.

It could have been for both, VG's on the main wing and the canard at
50% of chord can increase lift considerably. If you're using them
just on the canard, for rain, you want them at about 20-25% of chord.

:I'm currently a spam can pilot with a dream
f building an RV someday and trying to learn all I can about
:homebuilts. I'll read the information at the link you sent me and do
:a little more research. He is a very good pilot but I wish my friend
:had done his homework on this particular airplane. He told me that he
:had already contacted the current factory owner when I urged him to
:talk to other builders and Velocity pilots. I'm not sure if that was
:before or after the purchase or for that matter if it was not entirely
:true and he was trying to relieve my concern. I believe he was over
:confident in his abilities. We had actually discussed the loss of at
:least one Velocity that I'd read about a long time ago. He thought he
:might be able roll out of a deep stall. I tried to subtly convince
:him otherwise. Others at the airport tried to caution him to be
:careful as well. I appreciate your help very much. It is my hope
:that this thread develops into something useful for other
:homebuilders.

Mike Mellville - Burt Rutan's test pilot - got in a deep stall in a
Long EZ at 10,000 feet. He was barely able to bring it out by using
the rudders to get the nose swinging back and forth like a pendulum,
with greater and greater swings on each cycle. Eventually the nose
dropped and he started flying again, but it took something like 8000
feet. If you're nibbling at the lower end and you're not absolutly
sure what the envelope is, wear a parachute and don't be afraid to use
it.

This is obviously a CG and/or missing vortilons problem.
This is an old story problem and designers/builders should have
learned the lesson a long time ago.

Adding vortex generators to canards may make it even worse, since
it would have the canard stall at lower speed. The current solution
to the rain problem is the Roncz cannard design - which I assume
all recent designs use.

-----------------------------------------------------
Paul Lee, SQ2000 canard project: www.abri.com/sq2000

"JJS" jschneider@REMOVE THIS SPAM BLOCKpldi.net wrote in message ...
Richard,
I sat in the cockpit of the Velocity a few days before the
accident. During our conversation the pilot mentioned that there was
a 50 pound bag of lead shot up front near the battery. I may go out
to the airport today and look to see if it is still there. The front
end was damaged when he hit trees and it may have been thrown clear,
or he may have removed it. I've seen pictures of the "Vortilons" you
mention. His airplane did not have them. It did have an extension
below the wing at the wing tips. I had not considered the wing or
canard incidence being off. The airplane had approximately 50 hours
TT with only 6 or so hours on an overhaul. Although it was very cold,
there was no ice that day. It was my understanding that the vortex
generators were added to the canard to combat a problem with loss of
canard lift when flying through rain because the laminar airflow
detached when the wing surface disturbed. Is that correct? He
received a vortex generator kit with the airplane but it was not
installed at the time of the crash. I'm not sure if it was for both
wings or just the canard. I'm currently a spam can pilot with a dream
of building an RV someday and trying to learn all I can about
homebuilts. I'll read the information at the link you sent me and do
a little more research. He is a very good pilot but I wish my friend
had done his homework on this particular airplane. He told me that he
had already contacted the current factory owner when I urged him to
talk to other builders and Velocity pilots. I'm not sure if that was
before or after the purchase or for that matter if it was not entirely
true and he was trying to relieve my concern. I believe he was over
confident in his abilities. We had actually discussed the loss of at
least one Velocity that I'd read about a long time ago. He thought he
might be able roll out of a deep stall. I tried to subtly convince
him otherwise. Others at the airport tried to caution him to be
careful as well. I appreciate your help very much. It is my hope
that this thread develops into something useful for other
homebuilders.

That's only true if the CG is within design limits.

Del Rawlins wrote in message ...
Practicing stalls in a canard? I thought the whole point of the canard
was an unstallable/unspinnable aircraft.