Airtest – Glasair II-S

The aircraft is small on the outside but a surprisingly relatively roomy two seater on the inside, with sufficient cockpit width to sit comfortably without elbow jostling. Gaining access however, needs a little agility. The technique is to step up onto the small wing tread strip, carefully put one foot on the cockpit floor, sit on the back of the seat and then slide forward. Neatly fitting clamshell doors are closed by rotating a locking lever forward, somewhat similar to the Trinidad.

Once in, the cockpit is very user-friendly with all ancillary controls falling easily and naturally to hand. Because of the excellent control response, very little control movement is required and hence stick throw is less than might be expected. The seating position is reminiscent of older style sports cars with your legs almost horizontal, enabling the stick to be held with your forearm resting on your thigh. Cockpit layout in homebuilts such as the Glasair is a matter for the individual owner and in the case of the Jansen’s aircraft, throttle, pitch and mixture are push-pull controls with a friction ring for the throttle.

The one area where Glasair builders really express their individuality is in the panel layout. I’m told that no two Glasair panels are alike and that they have ranged from the totally exotic to the bare minimum, some even including a wood fascia. The most striking aspect of the Jansen’s panel is the Vision Micro Systems EPI 800 (Electronic Powerplant Instrumentation) engine management system. This consists of eight 6cm circular instruments which display in graphic analog and digital format complete information on the engine’s operating conditions.

In addition to total fuel remaining, the system provides fuel flow, fuel burnt, and hours of flight remaining based on present flow rate and fuel remaining. The system has a facility for adding fuel to the computer memory after refuelling. There are no actual tank sensors in the system, the computer relying on accurate initial calibration of tank capacity and subsequent fuel flow, the latter having an accuracy of 1%. There are of course separate fuel gauges for the wing tank system and the fuselage tank. The former holds 165 litres and the latter which is in effect a reserve holds 31 litres.

Once settled in and having had a run round the cockpit, Jake primed and started the Continental 160hp (119kW) O-320, which drives a constant speed prop, and we were on our way. Taxying appeared to be straightforward and ground manoeuvrability with the fully castoring nosewheel was excellent. However, as the nosewheel is not connected to the rudder bar, a little care needs to be exercised to ensure that too much brake doesn’t cause a rapid castoring action.

As we taxied out, the Canberra Tower controller, uncertain as to what the small white aircraft was, advised another aircraft behind us to follow the “homebuilt”. I couldn’t help an inward chuckle; I had already reached the conclusion that the Glasair was a far more advanced aircraft than most of the “spamcans” parked in the GA area. Pre-takeoff checks and engine run-up gave me the opportunity to observe the EPI 800 in closer detail; it certainly provides a quantum improvement in engine management. Once cleared to roll, the acceleration was brisk with the aircraft off at 65kt (120kmh) and reaching its climbing speed of 100kt (185kmh) shortly after. I took over on the climbout and found the aircraft pleasant and easy to fly with good stability in all planes. Lateral and directional trim appeared to be spot on, however I found the elevator trim control somewhat slow.

Control loads in medium and steep turns were relatively light but without any tendency to induce overcontrolling; all in all a very pleasant aircraft to fly. Stalls are a non-event with adequate warning for both clean and full flap, but a high rate of descent can develop. After our brief upper air work Jake demonstrated the aircraft’s handling in the circuit where the overall higher speed compared to a 172 or Warrior was apparent. The good visibility provided by the clamshell canopy doors, particularly upwards, was a big safety plus in the busy circuit. Final approach was flown at 75kt (139kmh) with the aircraft showing little tendency to float which is understandable considering the size of the wing.

Performance figures achieved to date show that the aircraft is capable of truing out at 155kt (287kmh) TAS for a fuel burn of 30 litres/hour at 70% power. Observing that the aircraft has a fixed tricycle undercarriage, albeit very well faired, this is certainly testimony to a clean aerodynamic design. My impressions? The Glasair is my first experience of composite construction aircraft. Despite all the assurances, it was hard to overcome my conditioned state of mind which said that rotor heads had to be fully articulated to cope with the stresses and strains of flight. Likewise, the little imp of reactionary thinking was sitting on my shoulder; aircraft should really be made of metal, shouldn’t they?

Of course that is well-proven nonsense as the growing percentage of composite material in modern aircraft will attest. About the only problem with an aircraft like the Glasair is that it is advisable to keep it hangared out of the sun to limit exposure to ultraviolet rays. Taking into account its well-balanced handling and excellent cross-country performance, the Glasair would appear to be a very good choice for a homebuilt for anyone with the time and $80,000 to spend.

Modern “homebuilts” are now in the high-performance category and in many cases a better option than a secondhand factory-built aircraft. This has led to the growth of so-called “co-builder” shops in the US, where the owners of the kit have little involvement in the actual construction of their aircraft. The US FAA, concerned that aircraft are being manufactured without production approval, has now taken steps to ensure that the rules requiring the owner to complete at least 51% of the construction are complied with.