From: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Subject: Re: Velocity Crash (Was: Impending Velocity factory visit)
Reply-To: venky@thelonious.bellcore.com (G A Venkatesh)
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown NJ
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 15:35:59 GMT

In article <1hcpjqINN5og@transfer.stratus.com> spenny@sw.stratus.com (Steve Pennypacker) writes:
>> In the Dec (current) issue of Sport Aviation there is a small piece about
>> a fatal crash of a Velocity.  It would be interesting to know if the Velocity
>> people know any more about this. 
>
>US Aviator had a somewhat more detailed description of this accident, since
>they had just had an article featuring the Velocity pilot.  According to 
>them, the accident was caused by a near-miss with an airliner with both 
>planes under positive control.  Just before the accident, the pilot radioed 
>something about vortices and turbulence.  The implication is that ATC put
>the Velocity directly into the wake of the jet.
>
>According to USA, the FAA initially tried to cover up its error and blame
>the accident on the homebuilt and/or pilot (an easy target, of course).  
>Gradually the facts came out and they were forced to admit their fault.
>
>Anyone else know more?

Yes. I just got back from a Velocity factory visit and there are two aspects
to this unfortunate story. The first one seems to be the ATC instructions that
placed Neil Hunter's Velocity below and behind a 727/737 where he might have
run into the wake turbulence as described above. The other aspect is the
configuration of that particular plane at the time that may have made it
impossible to recover.

Neil had modified his fuel strakes to carry about 100 gallons of fuel rather
than the normal 65 gallons. If the fuel tanks were reasonably full, the CG
would be within prescribed limits. However, if the last 30 gallons or so,
for whatever reason, ended up in the aft portion of the tank, it could move the
CG aft as much as 2.5". Apparantly, this modification was a point of 
contention between Dan Maher and Neil but Neil was free to do whatever he
pleased. This configuration was also partly responsible for the first
"deep stall" incidence in Neil's plane although at that time that phenomenon
was repeatable even within the normal envelope. A wing cuff was designed to
guarantee that a "deep stall" would not occur when the plane was within
the normal envelope (and with original fuel strakes).

From what the Velocity folks have so far determined from Neil's accident, his 
plane apparently got inverted with the tail down when he ran into the wake
turbulence of the jetliner. The conjecture from the Velocity folks is that
he had less than 40 gallons of fuel left which collected at the aft portion
of his modified fuel cell and shifted the CG far enough that the main wings
stalled (the loss of lift on the canard wasn't sufficient to make it pitch 
"down") and the engine soon quit in the inverted position. There was nothing 
Neil could have done to recover from that position since he no longer had
aileron and elevator control.

As in most accidents, it seems to  be a combination of two factors each of 
which by themselves would not have been fatal that created this one. Very 
unfortunate.

venky
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt