Time to smell the roses
I posted this blog on trikepilot social, but I seriously suspect that I will get any honest responses, but my questions are valid and I would like someone to answer me;
I am so sad at the news of Bill Crow passing away. His Revo crashed and he sustained many injuries. He was air lifted and passed away in the hospital.
Before we go any further, I want to be very clear in saying that all I want to do is to find some answers. This is a fact finiding mission and that is the only purpose here. As we know that in a year and a half (since last may 2014) This is the fourth Revo trike incident/accidents. Out of the four, three proved to be a fatal. This is not good statistical data. And I feel this is important to point out and discuss what caused them. I can think of atleast 6 or 7 Revo accidents.
Now I know many of you trike pilots are thinking this but I will put it in words that we would like some answers from the industry leaders and their mouth pieces who leave no stone unturned to promote their product via blogs as the best trike money can buy.
I hope you realize that every life lost affects many other lives. The pilots that perished flying your machines, their death impacted their children, spouse, friends and their entire life style. That is a huge cross to bear.
If I was to compile a data of total "top of the line trikes" sold and total accidents and fatalities of these trikes. The percentage so far would not look very favorably towards the manufacturer and the dealers. And hopefully we can find an answer for pilot safety, whether it is more training or some other solution, whatever it maybe.
So lets examine some of the accidents and what caused them.
First Gerry of Birds in Paradise perished last May, he had modified the vent system, that caught fire during the flight and we all know that much but no one has ever answered why he felt the need to modify the vent system? Was it a poor design?
Then Craig died and according to eye witnesses his Revo trike and the wing seperated. Should any trike (forget top of the line trike claims for a second) behave like that. Craig, like Gerry was an experienced pilot. I would like to know what happened there?
William in Virginia Revo stalled and crashed in five to six feet deep water. The trike was totalled but he should be counting his blessings that it didn't happen on asphalt or the outcome could have been fatal.
And now Bill Crow....this is very sad. These four accidents have happened in about one and a half year.
And while we mourn the loss of our good friend Bill, the loss of Scmidt's brother and near death experience of the gentleman flying Henry's trike with a Revo wing are fresh in memory.
I hope you can give us an explanation with the same enthusiasm as you promote your products. Because pilot lives are important too.
Another thing while we are at this topic is that majority of trike pilots already are talking about (and I am pretty sure that you are aware of this) your wing being prone to instability at high speed that could cause spirals, but what do I know. And if that is true, the solution should have been to fix the problem with a poor desinged or tuned wing rather than shoving Spiral Dive Recovery as PTS manuvers to protect yourself from impending law suits . So the question is that how many lives will be lost before we fix these problems?
I sincerely hope that I am not offending the manufacturer and the leaders, but firmly making my point that next time you aggressively promote or sell your product, please also be prepared to answer about the fatalities and imperfections too and what are you doing to fix them. Because pilot lives matter.
We all learn from our mistakes, the important question here is what have you done or are you doing to make sure that no more lives are lost.
Thank you,
Riz
Comments
Rizzy i hear what you say but let me say something here and i may open a can of worms. Ill say it without to much attack on manufacturers. I can see a few things that i personally have issues with. 1 trikes are becoming more exspensive,heavier, faster,with smaller wings. This alone is going to add more risk.exsessability to terrain and mc.glide ratio and sink rate. Piloting knowlege and demand. INSTEAD of newbies learning to fly in cubs they are learning in racecars. Now that is a problem that i see but i dont think it applies totally to the analitical thinking in your statement. First what defines a good pilot. That he is well known, puts out incredible videos, is very respected on social sites and looked up to. No iam a good pilot why. Because i follow the rules. I have fear, keep good airspeed, keep resonable alltitude within reachable lz, minimizing as much risk as i can. I keep within my resonable envelopes acording to my ability.Yes revo had been involved in the latest fatalitys but the statistics you are sugesting is flawed. Sprauge made some very serious errors in w/b and pulling high gs over water. Gerry had some very bad piloting issues as i have heard. Adams crash is very infortunant but air density doesnt discriminate that much but you do trade a poorer sink rate in heavy trikes. Ive been flying hang gliders scince 1979 and ga aircraft and sailplanes before that. I have witnessed many fatalitys and many were friends. And get this many were predictable. In defence of revo and you all no it is not my desired trike,I dont think it is a design problem
and northwing who makes the wing have very good designs and r and d. Revo is prob great for florida at asl.would not be my choice in montana. IF you took the average c- 150 pilot and put them in a saberliner your gonna have some fatalitys. Lets take a look at this how many of the latest crashes are x hang pilots prob not alot. I would say that a heavy fast trike with a bad sink rate in the hands of a newbie pilot who is a risk taker and flys low without options or knowlege of the risk is a problem? I would prefer that we had training in say birds like my redback and have newbies to the sport fly something more forgiving than jumping into a racecar. As far as iam concerned getting into this sort light trikes far 103 gets some good training have good judgement . You safer than going to wall mart?
- 1 like
- hobie17j@hobie17j
Charlie Phobie17j liked this
The problem with Revo crashes is very simple. It has nothing to do with the machine and everything to do with the pilot skill level and the training the pilots receive. These sorts of accidents occur less frequently in other parts of the world and you should ask yourself why this is so? I think it is the training the pilots receive. In my opinion, trikes that fly at near GA airspeeds should be flown like a typical GA aircraft. If a new GA pilot were to go out in their c-150 and fly around at high bank angles over areas with no safe landing options the results would be the same. When flown conservatively with a safety concious attitude both the c-150 and Revo are very safe aircraft. With several hundred hours of experience the GA pilot and typical new Revo pilot could probably do it without killing themselves.
When a new pilot takes GA lessons or even an introductory flight the instructor very rarely takes the student out for joy rides that include extensive low level flying over areas that are not landable such as lakes and mountains with several cameras strapped to the aircraft to capture the excitement. This is common practice of some of the industry leaders in trike instruction. In my opinion, this lead by example trike instruction is what ends up killing new Revo pilots. They don't recognize the danger they are putting themselves into because that is how they are trained and how they see their highly experienced instructors operating their aircraft.
PS: I am looking for a new trike. If anyone has a used Revo-death-machine with less than 100 hours and wants to get rid of it I have $30k cash and am in the market. Please contact me privately. :-)
Charlie i hope your keeping your dragonfly? Well said
I have been flying trikes scince 2008 but hang gliders for a long time.In the mid 80s a hg instructor wouldnt think to put a newbie in a comet or a duck and send him over the hill.
In comparison to h/g where pilots iether have a healthy respect for M/C and flying high bank angles at low agl or pay the price and alot did. Things i noticed scince triking that i see as a detrement is .New pilots do not get enough knowlege of M/C conditions and the risk to flight. Ive seen pilots that dont understand cloud suck or gust fronts, wind sheer, severe sink. The other is in hang gliding you are preparing for landing most of the time at low agl. But triking afords us the ability to fly low and maintain.Even for a high time hang glider pilot this presents new risks when triking. If you are a low time triker exspesially flying a heavier big engine fast trike with a small wing. Stay within good bank angles fly with altituide ,altituide land with a good glidescope and some xtra airspeed. Leave the incredible top gun flying to the masters and enjoy the serenity of flight. Tanarg revo airborne astra 912s is 100 hp all are well designed machines that fit different applications. But turn that engine off and see how fast humpty dumpty comes down.so fly with that on mind as far as risk. Rizzy if you want xstra margine of safety . Fly a good soaring trike in calm conditions keep it off the deck, enjoy the serenity.Safety is relavent to the amount of risk you are able to handle and accept. Some people can handle a maserati just fine doesnt mean i want my grandma in one.
I didnt fly Revo yet. The Revo European Tour wasnt realized, because their Polish dealer crashed his Revo before the RET. Then I cant to say if Revo is dangerous or not. In general I think it isnt dangerous. But it fly in diferent envelope than our wings. WE told it very right: small wing, too heavy trike, pilot, copilot. If engine stopped, we say: "It flies like a door from a toilet" (Humor only, please) In Europe Revo cant fly as ultralight. It have to be in other, higher (GA) category. Why? Because EU ultralight category determines min flying speed to 65km/h. Revo has 86km/h. Then I think a lot of crashes were caused by speed. If the pilot, good pilot, experienced pilot flew his "ordinary" trike for many years, he had learned flying procedures and he did it automatically, he didnt have to think about, he feels it and does it- full automat. But he bought new small, very fast, very light maneurovable wing. The flying automat in his mind doesnt work correctly. he feels a lot of speed and he doesnt think about it... But... for his old wing it was high speed flight, but for small new wing it can be near stall speed. If he does it in a bank, the catastroph is very close. I think the most of Revo crashes was caused by pilots mistake. Trabant vs Maserati... And Charlie told it very exactly. If the pilot flies and follows rules, all rules - ALT, max speed ranges, max load, weather ...etc etc The Revo is very safe. If I remember, Revo wings were testet in DULV in Germany at test car. If it could be dangerous at flying envelope, it couldnt got a certificate.
Its right Rizzy, too much crashes at last 2-3 years was Revo. We talked about with guys in Australia last year. I cant to say about trike destructions during flights. Eyewitnesses wasnt there. Did pilot maneuver over "an envelope"? But yes, guys from Evolution trikes, should be publish results from Revo trike crash investigations.
Joz you have such a gift with english language.door from a toilet iam going to remember that everytime i hit sink holes.funny! The revo where the wing seperated was in a tumble after proceeding into ifr conditions into cloudbase.pilot was warned many times. The tumble was severe.
On a different note joz sonya and i were covering up wood yesterday .as we were shaking the tarps a big ol bear came running up to us within feet caught me by supprize. Wasnt agressive but i think he thought we were going to give him something to eat. Glad it wasnt us.
- 1 like
- Ken@knussear
Tony CastilloKen liked this
The increased performance on trikes do not make it more dangerous at all, on the contrary, makes them safer when used for the purpose intended, and more capable. Us pilots, not knowing how to manage increased performance ... that could be problems.
For example, improved performance means we can now go places that we would not go before... I can fly faster and longer and still very safe in my P&M 912 QuikR... that I could not even attempt in my Airborne 582 Wizard Wing ... that does not make my P&M with higher performance less safe! that could only be less safe if of course I am flying in terrain that I used to not fly before... but that is the nature of flying, we manage risk and make decisions - that is not the aircraft job.. it is the pilot's job.
If you believe that you are safer because your trike does not allow you to wonder past 6 miles radius of your place of departure then practical aviation would have never existed if you were in charge of advancements!
If you believe higher aircraft performance is not safe you should reconsider your flying career, or please call me and we can discuss in detail. I will also be happy to take you for a flight in a High Performance trike and go over the characteristics in detail ... and show you why I believe it can be actually safer.
Flying performance is key to advance in directions that some of us want to go. For me, higher performance and endurance is key to x-country flying which I enjoy. So, I have no problem with improvements in design that make our high performance trikes today allow for exploring. Even the Wright Brothers strived to increase performance of their very first flying machines... discussion about performance decreasing safety is non sense! Tell that to the corporate guys flying their corporate jets!
Get trained and fly what you can afford and brings you joy ... 35mph cruise or 100mph cruise ... either is fine to reach your personal goal.
With all respect
Tony C
- 2 likes
- Ken@knussear
- hobie17j@hobie17j
Tony CastilloKen liked this
hobie17j liked this
Riz, your questions are valid but the tone that you chose to present the questions is a bit disturbing and sounds a bit bias or with another intended agenda. That is what it sounds to me personally. And the way you reply to Paul... well, Riz, that sounded more personal attack than trying to find facts and answers. Sorry to tell you that but I tell you as I see it.
Also, to generalize all accidents in one ... in my opinion, that is not the best way to find answers. Each accident will be review based on its individual facts and set of circumstances, pilots experience and decisions. That is what will bring more answers. So if you truly searching for answers, take the know facts more serious and look at each accident individually.
I did post my opinion in the thread in trikepilot social as well.
- 3 likes
- Ken@knussear
- hobie17j@hobie17j
- ULtrikepilot@ULtrikepilot
Tony CastilloKen liked this
hobie17j liked this
ULtrikepilot liked this
This is what I wrote in TrikePilot Social in the similar thread open in that blog:
"Riz, even though I fly P&M trikes, but based on the known facts, I still would not hesitate for a second to take my kids flying in a Revo and I am sure it will be as fun as always. I think the Revo trike is very safe and as safe as any other well respected manufactured Light Sport, and not a contributor to the accidents in question. Not sure that helps answer your question.
Also, I know personally many of the manufacturers, including those involved with the Revo brand, and I know they all take safety very seriously and it is #1 priority.
I think that generalizing does not really help the cause, or pilots that sadly lost their life in an accident and the rest of us. It is best to look at each individual instance and the set of facts and circumstances. Most times is more than one issue that contributed to the accident.
The price of the trike has nothing to do with the accidents so I am not sure what was that even brought in this conversation, unless there was another agenda in mind which is not respectful or fair to those involved.
Last but not least, yes, high performance aircraft need transition training. That is true for pretty much all aviation. It is even in the Sport Pilot book as pointed out earlier .. based on the speed of the aircraft. All the trikes I fly are within that category and they are all safe and fine. I just need to understand better what flying a 100mph differs from flying at 45mph. It does make a difference. Try blasting your way through heavy turbulence in at trike at 100+ mph (above maneuver speed) and you will see what I mean. So is best to transition and discuss the differences with an experienced instructor.
I am very sad and my condolences to family and those close to the pilots involved in these sad events.
Regards
Tony C"
Tony, I have high level of respect for the way you communicate your thoughts. One day when I get down to GA I would love to take a ride with you in the new high end P&M trike. It has to be very impressive.
However I wish to comment on a phrase you have used multiple times both here and on TPS, and that is "high performance". I am sure you are aware that there are different views or definitions of high performance. I will not argue that very fast trikes have high performance if that is the way you wish to define it. I am sure many on TPS and even here will agree to that definition. However, one definition of high performance to me is based on glide ratio and sink rate and fuel consumption. If one can get the maximum glide ratio, and the lowest normal sink rate, and low fuel consumption (perhaps measured in miles or hours/gallon vs gallons/hour) then you have an ultimate performance trike for a pilot that is interested in soaring. And with this view maximum speed possible does not play into the definition. On TPS Abid seemed proud to comment that the minimum sink rate on the DJ II with his Cheval is close to 450fpm vs over 500 fpm for Revo. Well what if you can get a minimum sink rate of <200 fpm and glide ratios in excess of 15:1 and perhaps burn around a couple liters/hour depending on pilots success in working natural lift, well to me THAT is PERFORMANCE.
As an example, below is a candidate for the ultimate performance trike based on this different definition. This is not a cheap trike since the ATOS VRS190 could be at least 28 to 29,000 $US. Extremely aerodynamically clean carbon fiber pod, etc. I will acknowledge that this is not WSC like flexwing but it is a trike with performance. It would likely require considerable transition training (like the Revo) for your typical LSA trike pilot. Perhaps not for you since you are a former (maybe even current) accomplished HG pilot. Just a bit ago I saw you suggest a new blog on "high performance" trikes and that is fantastic and I would encourage you to do it. Just remember that there are some different opinions on what a "high performance" trike is. I decided not to post this response on TPS as it may stir up more discussion that I would not be able to respond to in a timely way as I am headed out early tomorrow to west coast for the week on business. Also, frankly I doubt there are many on TPS that may share a different definition of what high performance may mean to others.
So please do not interpret this comment in any way as disrespectful to you. I already indicated I have high respect for you. I just want you and others to remember that not all trike pilots will define higher performance in the same way.
Well I can't seem to remember how to embed a link or paste in a picture as my embed content link does not seem to be working. In any case the example picture is referenced as "Two for the Sky" in the main activity page.
ULtrikepilot, When I go on long multiday XC trips with my flying friends, the "performance" prize goes to whoever puts the least gas in the tank when we refuel. The trikes always wins, and I love it when I beat another trike by a half gallon.
ULTrikepilot, I often read about people inferring that high performance trikes are somewhat dangerours, or that the high performnace of the trike somewhat contributed to a particular incident. I am not sure those that have such belief are talking about a very high L/D or very low sink rate, or cruise below 60 mph.
I think that before a meaningful discussion can be made on the subject, the definition must be established more precised. I am assuming they are talking about 2 seat LSA trikes that, per FAA ,require additional endorsement based on its speed performance. But, I may find they are talking about anything other than a very light single seat soaring trike... I really do not know.
For sure, and as younpointed out, besides being a Weight-Shift, We need to at least specify if we are talking about 1 seat or 2 seat, part 103 or LSA when discussing its performance.
Ah, also powered, meaning a Powered Weight-Shift...
And since I am in the subject, this thought came to mind, perhaps those that have mentioned high performance trikes are more dangerous are actually pilots flying trikes with lower cruise speed and sink rate... More towards the soaring trike, and refer to high performance as faser and heavier... Requiring, of course, a higher speed for approach and landing. Hopefully a conversation regarding the subject will help clarify.
One thing I find confusing about the whole discussion is the quote in the original inquiry
"Another thing while we are at this topic is that majority of trike pilots already are talking about (and I am pretty sure that you are aware of this) your wing being prone to instability at high speed that could cause spirals, but what do I know. And if that is true, the solution should have been to fix the problem with a poor desinged or tuned wing rather than shoving Spiral Dive Recovery as PTS manuvers to protect yourself from impending law suits . So the question is that how many lives will be lost before we fix these problems?"
Here the assertion is made that spirals are occurring at high speeds due to wing instability, when in fact spirals are happening at low speeds - with the stalling on 1 wing. Just looking at some stall speeds for wings that I have flown, and a few others out there I don't see that the smaller "high performance" wings have markedly different specs on the low end than the others (e.g. some of the not so small wings also have stall speeds around 40 mph). So I'm not sure how the "high performance" part of this is being implicated in the danger. Perhaps "high performance" trikes are drawing in thrill seekers that are flying a little more outside their envelope than others?
Northwing Mustang - 1m5 = single surface
Website indicates a stall speed of 25, The manual gives no stall speed, only this warning. "MUSTANG 3-15 may stall as high as 44 mph depending on your trim setting and tuning" Interesting... and I hadn't seen that before.
Vne 70mph
Air creation iXcess 15m = double surface
Manual lists stall speed at 40 mph, Vne 96 mph
Northwing Quest GT5 = 13.5m double surface
Stall speed per manual is 37-40 mph depending on loading, Vne 85 mph
Aeros Profi TL = 14.5m double surface
Stall speed 32 mph Vne 99 mph
Comparable Gibbo wings (I have not flown these)
Manta H 12m RST single surface "high performance Wing"
Stall speed 38 mph
Manta H 15m RST single surface wing
Stall speed 35 mph
Two wings that I have not flown, but are implicated in the original posing are the ones typically used on the Revo
Looking at their specs I see the
Revo 12.4m Rival S has a stall speed of 44mph, and similarly even their 10.9 m competition wing has the same at 44 mph. The only thing changing spec wise on their wings from the general envelope above is the Vne going up to 115mph
Ken, you are pretty much right on ... and that is why there is such a myth and perhaps confusion. I can tell one thing ... regardless of performance (whatever than means) the behavior of a weight-shift flex wing wing can vary dramatically based on its design characteristics and tuning.
In my hang gliding days we used HANG ... for the level required to fly a particular wing. If you are a HANG 1 pilot... you should not be flying a HANG 3 wing! ... without additional experience in flying. Normally the HANG 3 wing would be faster ... requiring more precise take off and landing... and perhaps the feedback received from the wing itself, among others.
The word ... "Less Forgiving" or "More Forgiving" comes to mind.... depending on the subject of the conversation, these were commonly used.
Could there be weight shift flex wings out there, with Vh 87+ capable of carrying 450KG+ MTOW and yet more forgiving? or, as a trade off for such "performance" we pay a price of having less forgiving flight characteristics?
I can speak from what I am very familiar with, and that is my P&M wings. They are all Vh 87+, capable of carrying 450KG + not designed for soaring but more for long distance x-country ... under power I may add... and very stable at speed. Yet, I consider them very forgiving and in cases more forgiving that others that I have flown even with slight less performance. My opinion of course.
Now, like anything in aviation, to make the wing more forgiving, you must design and tune with such purpose in mind. Then test the results to make sure that the intended was achieved. That will come with some trade off... and in the case of P&M, the trade for extremely stable flight at 100mph, with a very well balance roll at pitch, is the roll is a bit heavy at slow speed. P&M added a dynamic START trim system to balance the performance and handling at high speed vs low speed ... with the STARS trim, the overall handling, mostly the roll rate, has now been equalized without having to change the stable behavior at high speed. The usable speed range of these wings is simply amazing.
Another important characteristics that, in my opinion, makes a wing more forgiving, is the feedback that it offers to its pilot at all speed ranges. That is another area that must be looked very carefully if you are to look into performance from all angles. Again, you can tune a wing in ways that maximizes certain characteristics at the cost of decreased feedback.
Like a well flavored balanced wine, the perfect wing for me will balance all those... not just one or the other. That will make the wing perform at its best, yet be "more forgiving". I want to know the wing is about to stall long before it does... that is why I like trikes and weight-shift flex... they tend to do that!
But we can go on and on ... for safer aviation in general, because we human pilots seem to be prone to make mistakes, more forgiving is almost always better.. unless you are doing some kind of competition or show ...
In my limited experience, I think the equipment I've flown and received instruction in (Revo,Tanarge, Northwing and Airborne) are all built to very high standard. I would put the blame on the shoulders of the Pilot and of course maintence. I personally fly a one off home built, and I'm always very cautious in my limits. In the examples mentioned above, most important to me is, how many hours did the pilots have? How many were veteran Trike pilots, and how many where new-be's?
That being said. The question that I put to the discussion is one of level of training. Should a a pilot with a Light Sport Cert that has less training time than a Private, be flying an aircraft that has a Stall speed of 44, when the limit for Sport is 45 max? I know this number is arbitrary, but for discussion? ( I don't like that this sounds anti Revo, I'll be clear here and say, I want one!) My point is,...We all know, because of the rental situation most CFI's can't solo a student until they buy their own rig. So I see new pilots buying Race cars before they take the first driving test. This situation makes me wonder... Is this still about a Light Sport category... or?
I would like to throw the following into the mix and invite comment.
I posted earlier that here in Australia we don't have the regs in place to enable us to mix and match wings and carry out pretty much any mod we want.
Am I right in assuming that you guys in the U.S. Can do that and do you think that this ability to deviate far from what the manufacturer intended has contributed to some of these accidents. Especially when training and skill levels may not be keeping pace with all the mixing and matching.
Martin my friend in oz (av8or) we have met , we have flown together, i understand you mates you know that.let me give you some insights here. I follow accident data pretty well. I can think of one crash ending in a fatality that may fit that discription. That was one that happend up here in polson montana thast year. The bloke selling an older wing not designed for a 912 put it on a students trike. He had bragged that he was the best pilot around. Doing low level aerobatical manevers in someone elses trike he spiraled into the ground.it was the end of the students trike, the end of the best pilot in the world. I do not know weather the wing had failed but it shouldnt have been put on that trike performing high g manuvers.I can say if there is a problem in mixing and matching wings here it is clearly not presented in the evidence. Trust me martin if anything in these recent fatalitys facts show.Its attributed to pilot error. Many changes or switching of different wings are clearly acceptable by us and over seas manufactuers. Well at least i think?
Good stuff Dave, thanks for your input.
Av8or, I should apologize if I gave you the impression that here in the US a Sport Pilot can make changes willy nilly on their trike. Others here can give you a better description of what all is required. My understanding is that major changes to the ELSA category require the owner/pilot to put the certificated aircraft back into phase 1 and fly off a minimum of 5hrs. I am not really sure what is considered "major". Clearly putting on a new/different wing is. I have a trike pilot friend that put his trike back into phase I after replacing his prop.
When I described that I really enjoyed experimenting with changes to my trike, those kinds of changes only apply to our part 103 category which defines what a true ultralight is. I can give you the details on requirements if your interested but in a nutshell it is single seat, total aircraft weight dry does not exceed 254 lbs, carry no more than 5gal of fuel and there are some stall speed and max speed limitations. When a trike meets all the criteria then it is a true ultralight. Also the FAA here does not even consider a true ultralight as an aircraft, rather they label it a vehicle. There is no airworthiness certificate and no registration needed for true ultralights. And yes an UL pilot is free to make what ever changes they wish to their UL as long as it still meets the part 103 criteria.
We also have a category here called SLSA (or Special Light Sport Aircraft). Unlike ELSA, these are certified to more stringent standards. These are used by instructors. SLSA trikes can only be modified if the change is "blessed" by the manufacturer. In other words it still conforms to required standards.
So I apologize if I gave you the impression that any pilot of a certificated LSA can make what ever changes they please to their trike. The greatest freedom to make changes to their trike (or vehicle) is in our part 103 category.
As I said before, Im sure the most of crashes were caused by pilot mistakes.
I dont think that in US are slack wing manufacturers or certificate offices. Then certificated wings must be good and safe for sport and recreational pilots. Every one wing has determined point of gravity or their range - trimmed wings and speed and weight limits. If you respected the range, you can to use whatever wing to whathever trike. Sure dont mix part 103 wings with 2 seats trikes!
For example: my trike is Czechian Cross 5 Sport, my wing is the Ukrainan Aeros Profi, my engine is Czechian Verner, my props are Polish Peszke and Ukrainan AERO... Its a mix, what was never seen before in our country. We used recommended center of gravity, the control bar was in a perfect position and it has great range of moving to all sides. Then my Ukrainan friend Vitalik - one of Aeros dealer and test pilot - made first take off. Now is very often seen similar mix wings and trikes here.
Like Tony said I neither think that small wings are dangerous. Im sure, the Revo wing is fast and its flying envelope is at higher speed, than my profi (for example). It cant be dangerous. I very agree with Tony about XC flights at fast wing. I love my Megafauna experience, all wings I flew there was about 1/3 fastest than my Aeros...
ULtrikePilot, my trike is ELSA. The rule regarding changes is basically, that we must go back into Phaze 1 if any changes effect Flight Characteristics. Anything that changes weight, balance, drag or thrust, like adding or subtracting equipment. Adding a different wing requires a one time Phaze 1. Once that test time is flown, the wing is listed in the aircraft log ( by me) then I can swap back and forth at will. Different make of prop, wheels, fairing, power plant, etc...requires flying off the 5 hour test time. It must be done in the specific geographic area (usually inside 5 miles of a home airport) this is specifically named in our operating limits. A replacement prop or even an engine of the same make/model does not require Phaze 1 as this is maintence, not modification.
Doug can you say what is the specific 5 hours of flight test for phase 1 or os that just 5 hours of general flight?
White eagle, the Phaze 1 for my Trike is specificity written in my Opperating limitations that was issued by the DAR that filed the paperwork to register it. There are several Advisory Circulars that talk about test programs and plans for experimental aircraft, you can read them. They basically want log entries, showing testing and that's up to the builder owner. I guess a ramp check could challenge those entries, but there are no set rules as each experimental is in theory a one off. My Phaze 1 area is within 25 mile radius (not 5 as I mentioned... Duh) my Op limits has the exact language for the final log entry that goes...
"I certify that the prescribed flight hours have been completed and the aircraft is controllably throughout the normal range speeds and throughout all maneuvers to be executed has no hazardous operating characteristics blah blah blah blah..." Sorry for the long answer to your question.
Thanks doug i apprieciate that