Heard a Skycatcher crashed under ballistic chute. Possibly spin testing the new tail. Pilot ok. Anyone else have any details?
I wish they would give up the odd far back swept tail all their new model prototypes had.
The 150's and 152's were spun thousands of times. Put that tail on.
Second Skycatcher crash
Moderator: drseti
Hi Charlie - the first crash actually happened back in September 2008. According to reports, the BRS hadn't activated on that incident.
The second crash was March 19, 2009. Tail had been enlarged on this second prototype, and the BRS evidently did work. Here's some detail:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Se ... 991-1.html
And some details on the crash back in September:
http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/29718174.html
Aviation week has more details:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... nnel=busav
"Cessna spokesman Doug Oliver told AVweb. "He got into a flat spin and couldn't recover," Oliver said. The airplane, which was one of several used in the test program, remained intact until it hit the ground. The spin testing started at about 10,000 feet, and the pilot bailed out safely at about 5,000 feet above the ground. The kind of testing it was undergoing was beyond what is required for the airplane's intended ASTM light sport aircraft certification, Oliver said. He added that the accident is still under investigation but he doesn't expect the findings will result in any plans to modify the design. The airplane was equipped with a BRS ballistic recovery parachute, which was activated by the test pilot but failed to deploy.
Larry Williams, CEO of BRS, told AVweb this week it is too early to determine exactly why the chute didn't work."
The second crash was March 19, 2009. Tail had been enlarged on this second prototype, and the BRS evidently did work. Here's some detail:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Se ... 991-1.html
And some details on the crash back in September:
http://www.kake.com/news/headlines/29718174.html
Aviation week has more details:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... nnel=busav
"Cessna spokesman Doug Oliver told AVweb. "He got into a flat spin and couldn't recover," Oliver said. The airplane, which was one of several used in the test program, remained intact until it hit the ground. The spin testing started at about 10,000 feet, and the pilot bailed out safely at about 5,000 feet above the ground. The kind of testing it was undergoing was beyond what is required for the airplane's intended ASTM light sport aircraft certification, Oliver said. He added that the accident is still under investigation but he doesn't expect the findings will result in any plans to modify the design. The airplane was equipped with a BRS ballistic recovery parachute, which was activated by the test pilot but failed to deploy.
Larry Williams, CEO of BRS, told AVweb this week it is too early to determine exactly why the chute didn't work."
-
LightSportFlyer
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:44 pm
I think Cessnas style designers are giving the engineers an airplane to make fly well.
Same as when they switched from straight tails to swept and added back windows.
I'd like to know the details. I guess the ballistic chute worked this time. It was never clear if during the first accident a ballistic chute was fired or just a spin recovery chute before the pilot bailed out.
It also makes me wonder what spin testing has been done on other LSA designs? Have they had any spin testing?
Is it required?
It seems unlikely that all other LSA designs have been lucky enough to get away with no spin testing accidents.
I liked flying the ercoupe. I was just too tall for the cockpit. Summer with the door/windows slid down was fun. The airplane had odd structure. Some parts were very beefy and others very light. Wing attach points were huge. Horizontal tail bolts seemed small. Flew fine. I'd have one stock with no rudder pedals. When the pedals are added the nosewheel steering remains on the yoke. that would be more confusing.
Same as when they switched from straight tails to swept and added back windows.
I'd like to know the details. I guess the ballistic chute worked this time. It was never clear if during the first accident a ballistic chute was fired or just a spin recovery chute before the pilot bailed out.
It also makes me wonder what spin testing has been done on other LSA designs? Have they had any spin testing?
Is it required?
It seems unlikely that all other LSA designs have been lucky enough to get away with no spin testing accidents.
I liked flying the ercoupe. I was just too tall for the cockpit. Summer with the door/windows slid down was fun. The airplane had odd structure. Some parts were very beefy and others very light. Wing attach points were huge. Horizontal tail bolts seemed small. Flew fine. I'd have one stock with no rudder pedals. When the pedals are added the nosewheel steering remains on the yoke. that would be more confusing.
Light Sport Aircraft
Just looking at the resale value and studying a few of the light sport planes I have to wonder are these planes with Go Cart Brakes I kid you Not! Gona be around in 60
Years from now have a folowing like the J3 CUB, AERONCA, EUROCOUPE, ECT
Why do sport pilots put so much interest in them when we can fly proven designs?
Changed only for improvement not for fashion “sorry I do own a Porsche “ be around
For our kids and others who want to learn to fly??? Don’t get me wrong Cub crafters and
Legend Cub have great planes have good resale buy copying the wonderful Piper Cub
Design.
Years from now have a folowing like the J3 CUB, AERONCA, EUROCOUPE, ECT
Why do sport pilots put so much interest in them when we can fly proven designs?
Changed only for improvement not for fashion “sorry I do own a Porsche “ be around
For our kids and others who want to learn to fly??? Don’t get me wrong Cub crafters and
Legend Cub have great planes have good resale buy copying the wonderful Piper Cub
Design.
I really love the old designs but they have limitations. My favorite list is the J-3,PA-11 and PA-17 vagabond. The airplanes fly great but are range limited, slow compared to modern LSA and lacking starter, electrics and lights. But... They have really nice handling qualities and 60 years of fleet history. They are also cheap compared to a modern LSA.
The trouble is all the old airplanes have been rebuilt several times and the quality of the rebuild varies tremendously. Some are nice and others are "flying totaled" Also some modifications over the years make them downright dangerous.
The Legend and Cub crafters Cubs are very far from a J-3. They are closer to copies of the original PA-18 structure, wing incidence angles and tail geometry. That makes them fly quite different than an original J-3 or PA-11 and they are also a lot heavier. The Cub crafters in particular has a totally different design of most fittings and structure. I like a lot of there ideas but it adds cost and complexity.
Why beef up something that does not break.
I'd like to see something like the Carlson Sparrow two seat come to market or a good copy of the PA-11. Continental and Lycoming need to get the weight down on their engines to compete. What ever happened to the little KFM engine made during the 80's. We don't need 100 hp to be happy. 65 and 85 have worked fine for many years.
Where this all comes back to is Cessna doing tests not required by the LSA rules but for their own piece of mind. Have any other manufacturers done this? Extensive spin testing used to be required for all light airplanes. Most can spin if asked but I have yet to come close to an accidental spin. The Piper rigging can vary wildly depending on who reassembled the airplane. Rigged to Piper specs correctly they are very docile. Rigged incorrectly they can bite the unaware. It is easy to correct but most owners assume if it flies hands off the rigging must be correct.
The spin testing is just one of the reasons why I feel the LAMA audits are worthless unless they actually start flight test review the designs. Maybe not spins but other qualities similar to the CAFE testing that was done for NASA.
Right now it is only a paperwork review.
The trouble is all the old airplanes have been rebuilt several times and the quality of the rebuild varies tremendously. Some are nice and others are "flying totaled" Also some modifications over the years make them downright dangerous.
The Legend and Cub crafters Cubs are very far from a J-3. They are closer to copies of the original PA-18 structure, wing incidence angles and tail geometry. That makes them fly quite different than an original J-3 or PA-11 and they are also a lot heavier. The Cub crafters in particular has a totally different design of most fittings and structure. I like a lot of there ideas but it adds cost and complexity.
Why beef up something that does not break.
I'd like to see something like the Carlson Sparrow two seat come to market or a good copy of the PA-11. Continental and Lycoming need to get the weight down on their engines to compete. What ever happened to the little KFM engine made during the 80's. We don't need 100 hp to be happy. 65 and 85 have worked fine for many years.
Where this all comes back to is Cessna doing tests not required by the LSA rules but for their own piece of mind. Have any other manufacturers done this? Extensive spin testing used to be required for all light airplanes. Most can spin if asked but I have yet to come close to an accidental spin. The Piper rigging can vary wildly depending on who reassembled the airplane. Rigged to Piper specs correctly they are very docile. Rigged incorrectly they can bite the unaware. It is easy to correct but most owners assume if it flies hands off the rigging must be correct.
The spin testing is just one of the reasons why I feel the LAMA audits are worthless unless they actually start flight test review the designs. Maybe not spins but other qualities similar to the CAFE testing that was done for NASA.
Right now it is only a paperwork review.
Light Sport Aircraft
Cub flyer
You make excellent points, I was trying to stir up a little excitement it’s been
Too quiet here!
I could not have said it better I have flown the Cub Crafters Sport Cub and
TOP CUB at ANDOVER FLIGHT both are very confidence inspiring. I have been working with a good friend who Is also an IA Bob Hunt of Hackettstown NJ he has restored as of now 24 planes most have been Piper Cubs his restorations have that same taught feeling as the new modern versions He is A friend of the “Cub Doctor” CLYED SMITH JR we just came back from a Restoration Seminar, buy the way HIGHLY RECOMMENDED if you are looking to Have a cub restored to or are buying a used cub and want to know of all the things to Look for.
Looks like Cessna is just doing their homework maybe they are looking to make a
Safe Trainer that our kids will be flying 30 years from now I hope.
You make excellent points, I was trying to stir up a little excitement it’s been
Too quiet here!
I could not have said it better I have flown the Cub Crafters Sport Cub and
TOP CUB at ANDOVER FLIGHT both are very confidence inspiring. I have been working with a good friend who Is also an IA Bob Hunt of Hackettstown NJ he has restored as of now 24 planes most have been Piper Cubs his restorations have that same taught feeling as the new modern versions He is A friend of the “Cub Doctor” CLYED SMITH JR we just came back from a Restoration Seminar, buy the way HIGHLY RECOMMENDED if you are looking to Have a cub restored to or are buying a used cub and want to know of all the things to Look for.
Looks like Cessna is just doing their homework maybe they are looking to make a
Safe Trainer that our kids will be flying 30 years from now I hope.
The LSA spec requires SLSA's to be be recoverable after 1.5 revolutions of spin, along with various other stability requirements. As far as testing those requirement, well that's a very good question.Cub flyer wrote:I
It also makes me wonder what spin testing has been done on other LSA designs? Have they had any spin testing?
Is it required?
It seems unlikely that all other LSA designs have been lucky enough to get away with no spin testing accidents.
It's very sad that about the S.C. Crash, but you have to give Cessna props for doing full testing. I really wish Cessna the best with the SC, but I have serious doubts about it based on the specs.
Ron
I hope they continue. The airplane should fly and handle well once finished and should last a long time. It really needs a gross weight increase to be useful with todays adults.
I'm hoping Cessna can get with engine manufacturers and pull off some kind of weight reduction to be competitive.
Based on the low number of failures with the Cessna single engine airframes they must have some good ideas to look at.
Wish LSA gross limit was 1650 lbs.
I'm hoping Cessna can get with engine manufacturers and pull off some kind of weight reduction to be competitive.
Based on the low number of failures with the Cessna single engine airframes they must have some good ideas to look at.
Wish LSA gross limit was 1650 lbs.
I think the Legend Cub is actually based on the PA-11, not PA-18. Also, there are youtube videos of test pilots spin testing the Legend Cub (or may be the Cubcrafters version).
Lastly, there is currently a proposal by AOPA to the FAA in getting the Cessna 150 into the sport pilot rule. Of course, with Cessna's new skycatcher, they will try to block that.
Lastly, there is currently a proposal by AOPA to the FAA in getting the Cessna 150 into the sport pilot rule. Of course, with Cessna's new skycatcher, they will try to block that.
That would be great if the 150 was let in. It's cheap and available. Not too bad to fly. I don't think it would hurt new airplane sales. The people who want a new airplane won't settle for a 150. It will also help get a lot more sport pilots in the air.
The Legend is a mix of 11 cowl and other parts. The cabin structure has the PA-18 wing attach system and incidence angles. It also has the PA-18 style small tubes between all the diagonal tubes in the aft fuselage.
Look at the photos of a Legend cub and you'll see diagonal tubes visible in the windshield. The PA-11 has tubes that go from the fuselage sides to the center of the roof. The 18 and Legend have tubes that go from center instrument panel to the outside of the roof. The PA-11 and J-3 wing spars extend to the center of the cabin. The PA-18 and Legend spars are bolted outside the cabin.
The PA-18-95 and PA-11 have unbalanced elevators. All the later PA-18's with larger engines have the balanced horizontal tail. Cub Crafters has a balanced tail but Legend does not.
If you put a O-200 in a J-3 you run out of up trim to hold 60 mph while landing. The PA-11 is a little better with no nose tank but with the O-200 engine it takes full up trim to land. If you fly the 11 front seat solo with the O-200 and a metal prop you don't have enough trim. Since they wanted front seat solo capability in the PA-18 and Legend they needed the increased wing incidence. It also adds more downthrust for the added power and negative incidence on the horizontal tail. (more effective up trim)
Look at a side view of a cub and keeping the wing level just rotate the entire fuselage slightly nose down. You can see the effect on everything. That is what Piper did when updating from the 11 to the early PA-18. Plus other changes.
It gives great over the nose visibility in cruise.
All the PA-11 airframes left the factory with A-65 power. Big engines came later. Given the choice I'd take the C-90 over the O-200. The 90 is lighter, swings a larger prop at slower RPM and has less fuel burn.
But the O-200 is the only current production.
The Legend is a mix of 11 cowl and other parts. The cabin structure has the PA-18 wing attach system and incidence angles. It also has the PA-18 style small tubes between all the diagonal tubes in the aft fuselage.
Look at the photos of a Legend cub and you'll see diagonal tubes visible in the windshield. The PA-11 has tubes that go from the fuselage sides to the center of the roof. The 18 and Legend have tubes that go from center instrument panel to the outside of the roof. The PA-11 and J-3 wing spars extend to the center of the cabin. The PA-18 and Legend spars are bolted outside the cabin.
The PA-18-95 and PA-11 have unbalanced elevators. All the later PA-18's with larger engines have the balanced horizontal tail. Cub Crafters has a balanced tail but Legend does not.
If you put a O-200 in a J-3 you run out of up trim to hold 60 mph while landing. The PA-11 is a little better with no nose tank but with the O-200 engine it takes full up trim to land. If you fly the 11 front seat solo with the O-200 and a metal prop you don't have enough trim. Since they wanted front seat solo capability in the PA-18 and Legend they needed the increased wing incidence. It also adds more downthrust for the added power and negative incidence on the horizontal tail. (more effective up trim)
Look at a side view of a cub and keeping the wing level just rotate the entire fuselage slightly nose down. You can see the effect on everything. That is what Piper did when updating from the 11 to the early PA-18. Plus other changes.
It gives great over the nose visibility in cruise.
All the PA-11 airframes left the factory with A-65 power. Big engines came later. Given the choice I'd take the C-90 over the O-200. The 90 is lighter, swings a larger prop at slower RPM and has less fuel burn.
But the O-200 is the only current production.
"Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away." Antoine de Saint Exupery