 |
The Air Cam shown here is not the one Ken Armstrong describes in this column, however, it is a slightly customized Air Cam owned by David Wine (front seat) of Florida. Sitting in the back seat is COPA President Kevin Psutka. Photo courtesy Mark Psutka. |
Leza Lockwood Air Cam
The ultimate sportplane twin?
The Air Cam is unique. You can forget almost everything you've learned about single engine operation of twin engine aircraft when it comes to flying the Air Cam.
It's not because this unique aircraft is difficult to fly - it's quite the opposite. The single engine safety speed is a non-event because the 100 hp Rotax 912 engines are mounted very close to the centerline.
Moreover, the stall speed is so low, the aircraft will stall before it would decelerate to a speed that would have created single engine control problems.
This may be the safest aircraft ever created for the weekend sport flyer and his family.
Perhaps explaining its genesis will give you an idea of its capabilities.
The Air Cam was created for the National Geographic Society to be used in rugged bush areas as a camera platform. Its unusual appearance allows the pilot and photographer unparalleled visibility, since the tandem seats are essentially ahead of the overhead wing. The huge wing area of 205 square feet coupled with 200 installed horsepower ensure the Air Cam will leap off any airstrip very quickly and produce angles of climb unrivalled by most piston powered planes.
The fabric covered aluminium wing provides so much lift that a very low stall speed of 35 mph allows very short landings. The fabric covering is all pre-stitched and the leading edges, spars and ribs are all pre-formed aluminium.
The cockpit contains contoured seats and covers, four-point harnesses and an entry step to facilitate access to the comfy cockpit. Inside, you'll note full dual controls plus a large number of instruments and switches to monitor and control the two engines and electrical switches for elevator trim and flap actuation.
The main landing gear is spring steel with differential brakes that are toe actuated and the steerable Maule tailwheel is fully swivelling.
My flight in the Air Cam was accomplished at the 1998 Arlington Washington
Fly In with award winning company pilot John Hunter in the front seat (company policy) and myself in the rear seat where there is only an airspeed indicator installed.
Still, I was able to achieve a strong sense of the aircraft's immense capabilities without obtaining all of the data I normally have available after a lengthy flight test. (There was a line-up of prospective purchasers awaiting demonstration rides and my flight was limited to 20 minutes).
With a gross weight of 1600 pounds (1700 with turbo engines) and an empty weight of 1050 pounds, the Air Cam can legally haul a useful load of 650 pounds. This very conservative payload is set by the company to ensure extremely safe single engine parameters.
The wing has been tested to 1700 pounds with a six "g" loading without any failure attesting to the aircraft's ability to haul much larger loads - although extra weight would decrease the load factor and tolerance to "G."
The massive lift provided by the 36 foot span wing coupled with the high installed power will likely make the Air Cam very attractive to the float plane set. Leza Lockwood are currently installing a set of Full Lotus floats on their aircraft.
A large cargo bay placed near the center of gravity would permit operators to carry a large payload. In the case of the prototype I flew, a ferry tank was installed in this storage area in order to extend the range of the two standard 14 gallon tanks in the wing.
The addition of 28 gallons in the ferry tank allows a maximum range of 650 miles at an economy cruise of 80 mph with VFR reserves. That would be a long trip at 90 mph!
I forecast prospective owners would be those individuals flying off minimal airstrips beside their cottages and cabins or off tiny lakes or ponds that are unsuitable for other seaplanes.
The rough and rugged capabilities of the Air Cam combined with its performance will make it the only aircraft that can perform the functions required by many pilots who operate in areas where airports are non existent or the terrain forbids all, but the most basic runway.
Our flight began with a fuel load that placed us at gross weight. The tail wheel steering and differential brakes effectively brought us to the runway and the smiles of those watching us taxi by should have prepared me for the upcoming takeoff. (I had never seen the Air Cam take off and climb out before).
With a suitable warm up to ensure internal temperatures were normalized, we lined up on Arlington's ultralight runway with a 10 mph cross wind. John twisted the throttles forward and the acceleration strongly pushed my jowls rearwards.
"Hot Damn, this photo plane's in a rush!"
No sooner was the power applied than the nose was rotating very steeply as the ASI needle tried to keep up with the rapidly increasing airspeed. We were almost instantaneously indicating 55 mph and the after take of angle of climb was easily greater than any other aircraft attending the air show.
Now I knew why the spectators had surged to the runway barrier to watch our departure. It was all John could do not to exceed the ultralight circuit altitude limitation. We levelled off in the cool morning air and accelerated to a cruise speed of 90 mph and I noted it was very windy in the aft cockpit as the cool morning air attacked me. However, the view was exceptional and the large cockpit otherwise comfortable - if you don't count the copious air flow
As might be expected the wind noise was moderate to high; however, the fixed pitch props and engines were far enough behind as to virtually eliminate their noise.
John showed the aircraft was reasonably manoeuvrable by making large control displacements that resulted in moderate rates of turn.
When my turn came, I found the controls and response was similar to many factory built aircraft. To be succinct, the Air Cam is more a load carrier than a sportster.
Gentle turns could be made with one's feet flat on the floor; but quicker entries required the coordination of some rudder input.
The full flap stall occurred at 38 mph indicated with a moderately steep nose pitch down and a little bit of right wing drop, but the recovery was immediate with power application.
Stability checks were very briefly accomplished and John commonly flies by the crowd in level trimmed flight with his hands off the controls. The Air Cam's light wing loading would provide a rather active ride in turbulence. To its credit, John has accomplished numerous lengthy flights including this cross country trip from Florida for the Arlington show.
He accomplished this kitty corner cross country flight in 30 hours. John crossed the highest mountain barriers at 14,000 feet at which point he claims he was able to maintain altitude on one engine and his maximum enroute altitude was 18,000 feet - at which time John states the aircraft was still climbing at 300 feet per minute.
During our flight, with one engine retarded to idle, the other was able to provide a ROC of 400 fpm at 1000 feet ASL with an OAT of 65 degrees Fahrenheit. Moreover, John put the aircraft into steep turns and was still able to eke out a reasonable S/E rate of climb. For the ultimate act in controllability, John turned the aircraft towards the dead engine (normally a major no-no during S/E operation) and there was no trouble rolling out of the turn.
This all proves the Air Cam is a very safe and simple to fly twin at the gross weights approved by the company.
The S/E handling is so docile, the company has even conducted one engine takeoffs by slowly increasing power to allow rudder authority which increases with speed to overcome the asymmetric thrust of the engine.
Although this isn't a technique recommended for operators, it's indicative of the very forgiving and manageable single engine handling.
CONCLUSIONS
On the downside, the Air Cam is a large airplane to find a hangar for, rather expensive to complete and it doesn't carry much of a useful load when you consider the power installed and the large wing.
However, the Air Cam possesses many attributes. With the reliability inherent with two engines - and two very reliable Rotax 912's at that, the Air Cam will appeal to those who are prepared to trade the higher initial purchase and operating costs associated with twins for increased safety. (Some would argue that the miserly fuel flow of the 912's will help offset the long term operating costs).
In a 10 mph headwind, the take off roll is virtually non-existent as the aircraft is airborne by the time full power is applied. With a reasonable load hauling capability and floatplane possibilities, it's likely to become a favourite of the bush plane aficionados who need a plane that can land almost anywhere.
It's not cheap, but then safety often does come at a premium. One might ask what the premium payment should be on your life or that of your passenger?
For further information, contact the company at 1 Leza Drive, Sebring, FL,
USA, 33870 or phone (941) 655-4242 or Fax 655-0310.
Ken is a COPA director who lives in Victoria, BC. He provides services internationally in advanced training, expert witness, flight test and aircraft sales. He has logged 15,000 hours on 375 types of fixed wing and rotary aircraft. Soaring his Diamond Xtreme is what he does for pleasure.
SPECIFICATIONS
(All specifications supplied by the factory. Look to the flight report for confirmation)
AIRFRAME COST
ENGINE TYPE Rotax 582 912 914
HORSEPOWER 64 100 115
SEATS 2
EMPTY WEIGHT 880 1050 1100
GROSS WEIGHT 1500 1600 1700
USEFUL LOAD 620 550 500
STALL SPEED 35 38 38
TOP SPEED 100 VNE VNE
CRUISE SPEED 80 100 100
VNE 110 110 110
RATE OF CLIMB 1200 1300 1500
S/E ROC 200 250 350
FUEL CAPACITY 28
NORMAL RANGE 250 325 325
MAX RANGE (56 GAL) 500 650 650
TAKE OFF ROLL LESS THAN 200 FEET FOR ALL
LANDING ROLL 200 250 300
Return to Ken Armstrong Articles