The scoop on the Challenger
Bond
ultralight company, they make exagerated claims and don't tell you
what's wrong with it.
I'm wondering if anyone here who has flown one, and isn't selling
another aircraft, can give me the straight scoop.
--------------------------------------------------
"When the book hits the head and when the empty
sound is heard, it's not always the book's fault."
-- Arthur Schopenhauer
Jim Seals
easy to fly, a little slow on response, and only had a Rotax 447 single
carb. Still, it was not a bad flying plane. I am a little concerned by the
lack of AD's with Challenger, they do occasionally issue service bulletins
to their dealers, but ADs or not something they do. If you do end up with
an older Challenger, be sure to do a thorough inspection of all the anchor
hardware. Challenger recommends replacing all the aluminum brackets with
stainless steel. I have seen a number of the aluminum brackets crack in
use. Also on older Challengers, be sure there are jury struts between the
main struts and the wing. (The previous inspection suggestions should apply
to ANY plane you acquire.) I now fly a Flightstar, with a Rotax 503 dual
carb. It is much more responsive than the Challenger.
Good luck with your flying.. Jim Seals, Tuttle, Ok.
Bond <bke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c7d8d19.343981829@shawnews...
Curious
wrote:
>carb. Still, it was not a bad flying plane. I am a little concerned by the
>lack of AD's with Challenger, they do occasionally issue service bulletins
>to their dealers, but ADs or not something they do. If you do end up with
When did the FAA start issuing Airworthiness Directives for
ultralights?
- Curious
Jim Seals
can be found at http://www.ultralightnews.com/alerts1/al400.html
My problem with Challenger is that they DON'T issue the same type info. Jim
<Curious> wrote in message news:3c7e1e83...@news.frontiernet.net...
Bradley Johnston
> ultralight company, they make exagerated claims and don't tell you
> what's wrong with it.
>
> I'm wondering if anyone here who has flown one, and isn't selling
> another aircraft, can give me the straight scoop.
Check out...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyChallenger
Bond
wrote:
>I did my transition from General Aviation to UL in a Challenger. It was
>easy to fly, a little slow on response, and only had a Rotax 447 single
>carb. Still, it was not a bad flying plane. I am a little concerned by the
>lack of AD's with Challenger, they do occasionally issue service bulletins
>to their dealers, but ADs or not something they do. If you do end up with
>an older Challenger, be sure to do a thorough inspection of all the anchor
>hardware. Challenger recommends replacing all the aluminum brackets with
>stainless steel. I have seen a number of the aluminum brackets crack in
>use. Also on older Challengers, be sure there are jury struts between the
>main struts and the wing. (The previous inspection suggestions should apply
>to ANY plane you acquire.) I now fly a Flightstar, with a Rotax 503 dual
>carb. It is much more responsive than the Challenger.
>Good luck with your flying.. Jim Seals, Tuttle, Ok.
Thanks. I've heard they have an adverse yaw problem and their landing
gear doesn't absorb shocks very well, but I think having their parts
crack in flight is the clincher :-)
John Anderson
> gear doesn't absorb shocks very well, but I think having their parts
> crack in flight is the clincher :-)
> --------------------------------------------------
Don't know if they have an "adverse yaw problem", yes they exhibit a lot of
adverse yaw, but nothing that coordinated use of rudder and ailerons can't
handle. It does take a little getting used to though because you must use a
lot of rudder.
--
John Anderson
*******************
JUSTJEFFMC
challenger only better.
www.cgsaviation.com/
JM
Paul Westcott
a Warp propeller using the Challenger belt reduction. The airplane
flew well although no with the performance of my 582 powered Avid. We
flew the C II and the Avid Flyer side by side several times. With two
persons aboard each, the Avid was much the better performer but that's
to be expected with the larger engine.
This C II had the fiberglass nose pod and doors and was very nicely
built. The plan was to put it on Puddlejumper floats but I only flew
it on wheels. My only consideration was that it wasn't as robust in
construction as the Avid Flyer and would require a lot more
maintenance. Parts such as control hinges and control system were
more fragile and might show more wear from vibration and use. I don't
think the belt reduction will prove as trouble free as the Rotax
gearbox in the long run. Not a bad airplane and nice flying though.
Paul Westcott
Frank Beagle
landing
gear doesn't absorb shocks very well, but I think having their parts
crack in flight is the clincher :-)>>>
If you use your feet the so-called adverse yaw doesn't feel any
different than in a J-3..... prb there is, how many people fly J-3's??
;>)
The gear will NOT handle Cessna 65mph @ 500fpm down landings very
well.... but if you're a taildragger pilot and understand "finess" not
a prb at all.
Now about the cracking in flight crap......
One fatal out of over 2500 sold.... and the guy put the bolt in the
wrong way...
I guess I should stop encouraging people to fly, sell my Challenger,
and take up knitting......
Right Dave????
Frank Beagle
Mark Smith
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> I guess I should stop,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> and take up knitting
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,>
> Frank Beagle
somehow, I just can't picture that !!
--
Mark Smith
Tri-State Kite Sales http://www.trikite.com
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620 mailto:ma...@trikite.com
1-812-838-6351
ChuckSlusarczyk
frank...@hotmail.com says...
>I guess I should stop encouraging people to fly, sell my Challenger,
>and take up knitting......
>
>Right Dave????
>
>Frank Beagle
Hey Woof!!
You couldn't even see the needles let alone knit LOL!! We could start a new
church .The church of the high holy Phoot ,I know where there is an out of work
High Priest with Phoot experience :-) But knitting ..NAH.....
See ya in FL
Chuck S
Fr. John
See ya in FL next year.
Fr. John
"ChuckSlusarczyk" <ChuckSlusar...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:a705c...@drn.newsguy.com...
Scrappman
it has tires or tits,,,,, sooner or later,,,,, its gonna be
trouble.........hehehe
Gonna make Sun'n Fun this year Frank? I know a couple of local chicks
that love deep voices,, will have to drive up to Dade co. though......
hehehe
Scrappman
Scrappman
Floats com'n to snf or Osh?
Scrappman
Frank Beagle
Scrappy, yer gonna haffa get those chicks from Dade to Oshkosh....I'll
whisper in their ears :>) !!!!!
Chuck, the way things are going w/church, wayward volunteers for our
"preisthood" ain't gonna be a prb. ;>)
Don't worry Mark.... playing w/needles just isn't my kinda thing :):)
Y'all give Vern a big hug for me, I luv that man.....
I'm outa here, just HAD to comment on that one mssg...(I just don't
suffer fools easily)
"WOOF!"
Scrappman <rap...@rconnect.com> wrote in message news:<3C940BBE...@rconnect.com>...
Bradley Johnston
> One fatal out of over 2500 sold.... and the guy put the bolt in the
> wrong way...
> I guess I should stop encouraging people to fly, sell my Challenger,
> and take up knitting......
Frank, let me know if I can help you out with that, eh? My wife has a
big basket of yarn she's not using. We could do an even swap. On the
Yarn that is, not the wife. :-)
Bradley
The One
Johnston) wrote:
>> Now about the cracking in flight crap......
>> One fatal out of over 2500 sold.... and the guy put the bolt in the
>> wrong way...
>> I guess I should stop encouraging people to fly, sell my Challenger,
>> and take up knitting......
>
Only one in 2500? I seem to have heard of more than that on the old
Challenger group postings. Some, no one could explain and don't get me
wrong I have a Challenger 2 place.
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>Hey, Chuck! You trying to horn in on my business? Phoot!
>
>See ya in FL next year.
>
>Fr. John
Hi Padre,
Nah!! your the professional I only work on dead dinosaurs feet LOL!!
Next year? Your not coming down this year? We have the guys that were on my
Junkyard wars team coming to the Hawk party. The Miami Gearheads are coming up
from ...where else..Miami... :-)
See ya
Chuck (former professional altar boy ) S
Stephen
Yes, there are more. I've been researching Challengers for possible
purchase, and have noted a few fatals. Mostly pilot error and other
common and non structural issues. I've come to the conclusion that
they are safe planes, only failing to that faults common to most
planes and UL's.
Stephen
Stephen
Johnston) wrote:
More like at least 15 times that!
Here is a file I had on disk with a listing of Challenger Fatal
accidents. Something to note. All were related to pilot error, or
engine stoppage. Nothing structural that I found, other than the
lexan coming off the plane and hitting the prop. It was put on
with velcro! Is that recommended in the manual, or was that
done by the builder? I wouldn't think velcro would be the
material of choice, for the obvious reasons.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HISTORY OF FLIGHT On July 2, 1996, at 0855 hours Pacific daylight
time, a Davis Challenger I CW, N75489, owned and operated by the
pilot, crashed during its maiden flight at the Paso Robles Municipal
Airport, Paso Robles, California. The experimental amateur built
airplane was destroyed, and the private pilot was fatally injured
during the personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed, and no flight plan was filed. The flight was originating at
the time of the accident.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: NYC90DHJ01 . The docket is stored on NTSB
microfiche number 52877.
Accident occurred Saturday, May 12, 1990 at EAST MORICHES, NY
Aircraft:TOUSSAINT/QUAD CITY CHALLENGER II, registration: NONE
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
THE QUAD CITY CHALLENGER II, AN UNREGISTERED AIRCRAFT THAT WAS BUILT
AND OWNED BY THE PILOT, COLLIDED WITH THE GROUND DURING FINAL APPROACH
TO LUFKER'S AIRPORT IN VFR WEATHER. THE AIRCRAFT WAS DESTROYED, AND
THE UNLICENSED PILOT WAS FATALLY INJURED. THE OWNER/PILOT WAS OBSERVED
EARLIER THAT DAY COMPLETING FINAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PLANE. AN
EYEWITNESS, WHO WAS A PILOT AND DISTRIBUTOR OF THE AIRCRAFT (WHICH WAS
SOLD IN KIT FORM TO HOMEBUILDERS), OBSERVED THE AIRCRAFT TAXIING
BEFORE TAKEOFF. HE SAW THE AIRCRAFT TAKE OFF AND CLIMB TO ABOUT 2000
FEET, THEN HEAD SOUTH. THE AIRCRAFT RETURNED FOR LANDING ABOUT 30
MINUTES LATER. THE EYEWITNESS OBSERVED IT ON A GO-AROUND AFTER AN
UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO LAND. THE AIRCRAFT REENTERED THE PATTERN AND
TURNED ONTO FINAL APPROACH. AT ABOUT 150 FEET ON FINAL APPROACH, THE
AIRCRAFT PITCHED NOSE DOWN AND CRASHED. ACCORDING TO THE WITNESS, THE
ENGINE WAS OPERATING AT A HIGH POWER SETTING, WHEN THE AIRCRAFT
PITCHED DOWN & CRASHED.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
FAILURE OF THE UNLICENSED PILOT TO MAINTAIN AIRSPEED ON FINAL
APPROACH, WHICH RESULTED IN A STALL AND COLLISION WITH THE GROUND.
FACTORS RELATED TO THE ACCIDENT WERE: THE PILOT'S LACK OF FLIGHT
TRAINING, EXPERIENCE, AND QUALIFICATION.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: ATL85MA282B. The docket is stored on NTSB
microfiche number 30237.
Accident occurred Sunday, September 22, 1985 at AUBURN, AL
Aircraft:CHALLENGER II, registration: NONE
Injuries: 2 Fatal, 5 Serious, 1 Minor.
DRG ARRIVAL, THE AIRCREW OF A GATES LEAR JET 35A, N873LP, CANCELED
THEIR IFR CLEARANCE & CONTACTED THE AUBURN UNICOM, THEN ENTERED THE
TRAFFIC PATTERN TO LAND ON RWY 18. THE UNICOM OPERATOR RPRTD THAT THE
LEAR JET CREW HAD RPRTD THEIR POSITION ON EACH PORTION OF THE TRAFFIC
PATTERN. AT APRX THE SAME TIME, THE PLT OF AN UNREGISTERED,
EXPERIMENTAL, CHALLENGER II WAS IN THE TRAFFIC PATTERN FOR RWY 10. THE
2 RWYS INTERSECTED AT THEIR APCH ENDS. JUST BEFORE LANDING, THE 2 ACFT
COLLIDED AS THEY WERE CROSSING OVR THE INTERSECTION & CRASHED ON THE
ARPT. THE CHALLENGER (A 2 PLACE VERSION OF AN ULTRALIGHT VEHICLE) WAS
NOT EQUIPPED WITH A RADIO & THE UNICOM OPERATOR WAS UNAWARE OF ITS
PRESENCE IN THE TRAFFICPATTERN. THE LEAR JET PLT STATED THAT NEITHER
HE NOR HIS COPLT HAD SEEN ANY OTHER TRAFFIC AT THE ARPT. NO INDICATION
WAS FOUND THAT EITHER CREW HAD TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION. AN EXAM OF THE
CRASH SITE REVEALED EVIDENCE THAT THE COLLISON HAD OCCURRED APRX 50 FT
ABV THE INTERSECTION.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT IN COMMAND
VISUAL LOOKOUT..INADEQUATE..PILOT OF OTHER AIRCRAFT
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: BFO95LA079 . The docket is stored in the
(offline) NTSB Imaging System.
Accident occurred Thursday, August 10, 1995 at MADISONVILLE, KY
Aircraft:HUGHLETT CHALLENGER II, registration: N890JH
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
Witnesses reported that they heard intermittent engine sounds and
observed the airplane descending towards the ground at a steep angle.
Postaccident examination revealed that it had impacted with little
forward movement. No evidence of preimpact airframe anomaly was found.
The accident flight was the first flight after the student
pilot/owner/builder converted the engine to a dual ignition/spark plug
system. Examination of the ignition system revealed that the wires
going to the magnetic pickups were pinched between the housing and the
crankcase mounting surface, and the wire insulation was broken. An FAA
Inspector stated that the owner/builder had not followed the
manufacturer's recommendation to file a bevel into the edge of the
housing during the ignition system conversion. FAA records indicated
that the owner/builder had approximately 30 hours total flight time,
and relatives reported that he had not flown the accident airplane for
about two years.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
an intermittent short of the ignition system, due to improper
maintenance/modification of the engine, which resulted in partial loss
of engine power; and failure of the pilot to maintain adequate
airspeed, which resulted in an inadvertent stall and collision with
the ground. A factor relating to the accident was: the pilot's lack of
recent flight experience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: SEA95LA211 . The docket is stored in the
(offline) NTSB Imaging System.
Accident occurred Friday, September 08, 1995 at SCAPPOOSE, OR
Aircraft:GIFT CHALLENGER II, registration: N838TG
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
Witnesses observed the homebuilt aircraft depart from runway 15, and
then they heard the pilot announce his intentions to return to land on
runway 33 with no suggestion of any difficulty. The aircraft was
observed to roll off from a turn into a spin and descend to the
ground. An on-site examination revealed no evidence of flight control
or powerplant malfunction. Investigation revealed the aircraft's
weight equaled or exceeded its maximum gross takeoff weight limit. The
aircraft was equipped with a recovery parachute system. The parachute
system had been activated, but it had not fully deployed before ground
impact.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
Failure of the pilot to maintain adequate airspeed, while maneuvering,
which resulted in a stall/spin. Although the aircraft recovery
parachute had been activated, there was not enough time (or altitude)
for it to fully deploy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: FTW96FA239 . The docket is stored in the
(offline) NTSB Imaging System.
Accident occurred Friday, June 07, 1996 at LONGVIEW, TX
Aircraft:Fredenburg CHALLENGER II, registration: N2087P
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
During the landing, the ultralight kit airplane struck a ditch
trencher, trailer, and trees. Prior to the impact, witnesses heard the
engine at idle, the pilot 'gave a little gas' and the 'motor revved.'
Flight control continuity was confirmed. Examination did not reveal
any water or debris in the fuel system nor engine anomalies that would
have contributed to the accident. The commercial pilot-in-command, who
held neither an FAA medical certificate nor a flight instructor
certificate, was flying with the owner/student pilot until the owner
became familiar with the Challenger II. In 1991, the commercial
pilot-in-command received a 0.5 hour introductory flight in a
Challenger II airplane. He had flown a single seat ultralight vehicle
for 85.5 hours in the 15 months prior to the accident. In May 1996, he
had completed '3 or 4 landings' solo in the Challenger II and flown
2.5 hours with the current owner/student pilot. The student
pilot/owner had received 7.4 hours dual instruction in an ultralight
vehicle and was endorsed to solo the Challenger ultralight. The owner
had signed the document to place the Challenger under an ultralight
vehicle registration; however, the airplane was still registered with
the FAA as an experimental airplane at the time of the accident.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
the pilot-in-command's failure to maintain airspeed. A factor was the
pilot's lack of total experience in the make/model.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: LAX96LA258 . The docket is stored in the
(offline) NTSB Imaging System.
Accident occurred Tuesday, July 02, 1996 at PASO ROBLES, CA
Aircraft:Davis CHALLENGER I CW, registration: N75489
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The accident occurred during the pilot's maiden flight of the
homebuilt following completion of construction the preceding week.
According to a witness, the pilot took off and climbed 100 feet above
the runway surface. During the climb, an airframe component separated
from the wing and contacted the wood pusher propeller. A blade
separated and all engine power was lost. The airplane then porpoised
several times, turned 90 degrees from its runway heading, and collided
with the ground in a 45-degree nose-down pitch attitude. A bent
plastic (Lexan) strip was found about 300 feet downwind of the main
wreckage and in close proximity to the separated propeller blade. The
strip had been attached to the center section of the wing, forward of
the engine, with Velcro self-adhesive tape. The adhesive remained
attached to the wing, but it failed to adhere to the Lexan. In
November, 1994, the FAA denied the pilot's last application for an
aviation medical certificate because of his cardiovascular condition.
Toxicology tests on the pilot revealed the presence of tranquilizers
chlordiazepoxide (Librium) and diazepam (Valium), and the
antidepressant amitriptyline (Elavil). Use of these drugs could
adversely influence the pilot's mental processes, reaction time, and
ability to control the airplane.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
the owner/builder/pilot's impairment of judgment and performance due
to drugs which led to his improper handling of the airplane and
failure to maintain an adequate airspeed margin above stall speed,
resulting in an inadvertent stall/spin. A factor which contributed to
the accident was the owner/builder/pilot's use of an inadequate
adhesive material in the construction of the airplane which resulted
in a portion of the wing root surface skin to debond, separate, and
impact a propeller blade, which also separated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: ATL97LA073 . The docket is stored in the
(offline) NTSB Imaging System.
Accident occurred Tuesday, May 20, 1997 at SOUTHERN PINES, NC
Aircraft:Capstaff CHALLENGER II, registration: NONE
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Minor.
The airplane collided with power lines after takeoff and crashed into
a pond. According to witnesses, the airplane was seen flying 1 to 2
feet above the ground before it struck the power lines. When it
collided with the power lines, the passenger stated 'there was a loud
pop and the plane went belly up'. The passenger was able to escape the
aircraft, but he reported that he was unable to release the pilot's
lap belt. The pilot received multiple mild internal injuries and
drowned. The pilot's toxicological report revealed 186.000 mg/dl
ethanol in blood, and 218.000 mg/dl ethanol in vitreous fluid.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
The pilot's impairment of judgment and performance due to alcohol
which led to his failure to maintain clearance from obstacles.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: CHI97LA231 . The docket is stored in the
(offline) NTSB Imaging System.
Accident occurred Monday, July 28, 1997 at BELLAIRE, MI
Aircraft:Stratton CHALLENGER II, registration: N44LS
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
Challenger II, N44LS, was the last of seven airplanes to depart from a
taxiway that was oriented toward west-northwest. The pilots of all
previous airplanes departed with a right turn out to the north. Wind
conditions at the time were observed to be gusty, with several
airplanes having difficulties taking off. After liftoff, the airplane
was observed turning towards the left while increasing its angle of
bank. The airplane went into a steep left bank followed by a high
descent rate that continued until the airplane collided with the
terrain. About 5 minutes before the accident, the wind was reported to
be from 340 degrees at 7 gusting 15 knots. On-scene investigation
revealed no pre-impact mechanical anomaly with the engine or the
flight controls.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
failure of the pilot to maintain control of the airplane during
takeoff. The gusty wind condition was a related factor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: CHI97FA272 . The docket is stored in the
(offline) NTSB Imaging System.
Accident occurred Tuesday, August 26, 1997 at SCOTTSBURG, IN
Aircraft:Kellums SONERAI 1, registration: N76457
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
A witness on the airport saw the student pilot takeoff to the south
and perform a normal climbout. The witness said that the pilot was a
'stickler for following the rules' and felt that the pilot turned
eastbound to enter the traffic pattern. Another witness who was near
the accident site said she 'heard the airplane's engine cut out.' The
witness said that when she looked south toward where she heard the
sound, she 'saw the airplane come straight down.' The student pilot
had approximately 9.0 hours total flying time in the airplane. All 9.0
hours was as pilot-in-command. The student pilot had accumulated
approximately 200 to 300 hours in ultralights. Examination of the
airplane's engine revealed an 'unusually large amount of carbon in the
cylinders. The carbon was dry - a type associated with too rich of a
fuel mixture.' No other anomalies were found with the airplane.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
a loss of engine power for undetermined reasons, and the student
pilot's failure to maintain airspeed greater than the stalling speed
for the airplane. A factor relating to this accident was the student
pilot's lack of total experience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: ATL98LA018 . The docket is stored in the
(offline) NTSB Imaging System.
Accident occurred Saturday, December 06, 1997 at RAINBOW CITY, AL
Aircraft:John T. Simpson CHALLENGER II, registration: N11644
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
Witnesses stated that the airplane appeared over the tops of the
trees, flying towards them. The witnesses saw the airplane gain
altitude, then stall into the trees, and nose dive into the ground.
The pilot had about 5 hours of flight training in another airplane.
According to the co-owner of the airplane, the non-certificated pilot
had no formal training in the airplane.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
The pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed which resulted in a
stall and subsequent impact with the ground. A related factor was the
pilot's lack of flying experience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: ATL98LA073 . The docket is stored in the
(offline) NTSB Imaging System.
Accident occurred Sunday, May 03, 1998 at SAVANNAH, GA
Aircraft:Quad City Ultralight Aircraft CHALLENGER II, registration:
NONE
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The airplane collided with the ground near the Savannah River.
According to the FAA, there were no witnesses to the accident. The
previous owner stated that the pilot had just purchased the airplane
that week and was taking it for a test flight. The pilot had no
previous experience with this type of airplane. The pilot departed the
area and was not heard from again. The pilot's medical certificate was
not current at the time of the accident and the pilot's logbook was
not recovered. His last reported flight time on his medical
certificate was 2400 total civilian hours. Examination of the airplane
by the FAA found it destroyed and the aircraft logbooks were not
recovered.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
In flight collision with terrain for undetermined reasons. A
contributing factor was the pilot's lack of familiarity with the
aircraft.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: FTW99FA022 . The docket is stored in the
(offline) NTSB Imaging System.
Accident occurred Sunday, November 08, 1998 at SAN ANTONIO, TX
Aircraft:CHALLENGER II, registration: NONE
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
The pilot of the ultralight vehicle inadvertently stalled the
ultralight vehicle on his first flight while turning from crosswind to
downwind. The 70 year old passenger/co-owner of the vehicle had been
experiencing cardiovascular problems, and as recently as 2 days prior
to the accident, fainted and passed out while working on the vehicle
with the other owner. He refused to go to the hospital with the
responding paramedics for a checkup; however, he agreed to 'ground
himself' until his next visit with a cardiologist scheduled for the
day after the accident. A long time friend and pilot was asked to fly
the ultralight. The co-owner elected to accompany the private pilot as
a 'backseat pilot' in the tandem vehicle. Several runups and high
speed taxi checks were conducted by the private pilot, who had not
previously flown the vehicle, to 'get the feel of the machine.'
Witnesses observed the nose of the ultralight gradually pitch down
during the turn to the downwind leg. The vehicle impacted the ground
in a nearly vertical nose down attitude, in a slight right turn,
coming to rest in the inverted position.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows.
The pilot's inadvertent stall. A factor was the pilot's lack of
experience in type of vehicle.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: CHI01LA194
Accident occurred Monday, July 02, 2001 at Sedalia, MO
Aircraft:Houston Challenger II, registration: N902GH
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.
On July 2, 2001, at 1859 central daylight time, an experimental
Houston Challenger II, N902GH, was destroyed when it impacted trees
located .5 miles east of the Sedalia Airport (DMO), Sedalia, Missouri.
The private pilot was fatally injured. The experimental airplane had
departed from a private airstrip located one mile south of DMO. The
intended destination is unknown. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed and no flight plan was filed.
An examination of the airplane revealed flight control continuity. The
engine inspection revealed the two stroke Rotax engine exhibited
cylinder compression. Fuel was found in the carburetors. The spark
plugs exhibited normal wear and coloration.
The two seat experimental airplane did not have a Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) registered "N" number painted on the airplane. No
data plate or serial number was found on the airplane. The FAA issued
no Special Airworthiness Certificate in the experimental category for
amateur built aircraft for the airplane. The airplane held 12 gallons
of fuel and the gross weight of a Challenger II airplane is listed at
800 pounds.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTSB Identification: NYC02LA014
Accident occurred Monday, October 22, 2001 at Midland, VA
Aircraft:Nicolosi Challenger II, registration: N843C
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain
errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final
report has been completed.
On October 22, 2001, at 1609 eastern daylight time, a homebuilt
Challenger II, N843C, was destroyed when it impacted terrain near
Midland, Virginia. The certificated private pilot was fatally injured.
Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the local flight that
departed Warrenton-Fauquier Airport (W66), Warrenton, Virginia. No
flight plan was filed, and the flight was conducted under 14 CFR Part
91.
According to a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector, a
witness telephoned the airport manager and reported that the engine on
the accident airplane sounded "unusual." While the witness was on the
phone the airplane crashed. Examination of the wreckage revealed that
all the major components, including the flight control surfaces, were
accounted for at the accident site. Flight control continuity could
not be confirmed because of impact damage. The airplane was equipped
with a wooden propeller. Both blades had separated about 4 inches from
the propeller hub. The fuel tank was compromised, but still contained
about 1/4 of a tank. During the examination, no pre-impact failures or
malfunctions were identified.
According to FAA Advisory Circular AC 20-27D, Certification and
Operation of Amateur-Built Aircraft, "the amateur-built program was
designed to permit person(s) to build an aircraft solely for
educational or recreational purposes. The FAA has always permitted
amateur builders freedom to select their own designs. The FAA does not
formally approve these designs since it is not practicable to develop
design standards for the multitude of unique design configurations
generated by kit manufacturers and amateur builders." It also stated,
"Since 1983, FAA inspections of amateur-built aircraft have been
limited to ensuring the use of acceptable workmanship methods,
techniques, practices, and issuing operating limitations necessary to
protect persons and property not involved in this activity."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Castleberry
Am I missing something here?
Ken Kennedy
>
> So - Pilot error is the fault of the airplane.
>
> Am I missing something here?
Obviously not. However, a well designed aircraft makes it easier for a
pilot to avoid errors, and then is forgiving when he does make them.
In the case of the Challenger, an excellent all-round performer for the
$, I would venture to say that some pilots have crashed in it, who would
not have done so in another craft.
There have been several instances of serious Challenger crashes where
the pilot obviously couldn't handle the directional stability issues in
the Challenger (especially the C2 with doors on). These were definitely
pilot error. Most of the error derived from a macho attitude that didn't
allow for proper training and experience before going solo. However, I
still don't understand why Quad City hasn't designed this problem out of
the aircraft. Perhaps, to do so would tacitly "admit" there was a
problem, and leave themselves open to lawsuit. Perhaps it would save a
few lives in the future. "Not the plane's fault! Pilot Error!!!!" A high
price to pay for "error".
kk
Stephen
If you are referring to my post on the fatal incidents, then maybe its
me missing something, or misinterpreting your post. I didn't mean to
imply pilot error was the fault of the airplane. Quite the contrary in
fact. I found most of the errors would translate to just about any
aircraft out there, rather than being Challenger specific.
Lack of training, low time in type, alcohol, medical, failure to
maintain control, stall/spin, etc.
Steve
pilot
Ken, I like the info that Steve put together, but it doesn't list the
crashes that didn't make the NTSB. I know of some that they tried to
get Quad City to look at but they wouldn't do it. Your right, Quad
City should quietly fix the problems they know about instead of
expecting the buyer to add all of the little fixes listed by various
pilot/owners. Thats what makes Chuck's planes great, he is always
improving on them. Quad City could take a lesson from this. I don't
think they can list any major improvments in the last ten years.
Fr. John
away in April, but I've got a deacon who keeps clammering for things to do.
We'll see. When's the party. (Thank God I'm an Episcopalian.)
Shalom,
John+ (Tech Rep for the Lord)
ChuckSlusarczyk
>
>Ooh! Ooh! OOH! I've just about changed my mind.... That would make two trips
>away in April, but I've got a deacon who keeps clammering for things to do.
>We'll see. When's the party. (Thank God I'm an Episcopalian.)
>
>Shalom,
>John+ (Tech Rep for the Lord)
Hey John
What I would do is give the Deacon more to do :-) At least enough to give you
time for the Hawk party. It's on monday at our booth right after flying.
See ya
Chuck (always in need of a tech rep ) S