Technoavia SM-92 Finist

Since The Breakup Of The Soviet Union, The Russians Have Been Struggling To Gain Significant Access To The Lucrative Western General Aviation Markets.

In 1991 he courageously decided to break away and set up his own company, Technoavia. To finance its formation he obtained the rights to the dormant Yak-18T, returning the type to production at Smolensk. Increasing sales of this aerobatic four seater have provided sufficient funds to develop and build the first two prototypes of his new venture and start along the road to FAA and JAR certification (the Finist is one of the first Russian aircraft designed from the beginning to both FAR 23 and JAR 23). The two prototypes have now amassed over 100 hours of testing, and recently visited the UK. The company’s chief test pilot Mikhail ‘Misha’ Moltchaniouk invited me to fly it with him and obviously I was not about to decline. Although apparently previously disregarded in the former USSR, good looks are very important in the West, and I was pleased to see that the aircraft has attractive lines under its snazzy blue and yellow paint scheme, with a gently tapering snout and sleekly raked windscreens reminiscent of the Cessna Caravan.

The Finist Is A Big, Benign, Economical, And Capable Utilitarian Stol Bushplane With Simple Systems, Straightforward And Predictable Handling With Similar Performance To The Beaver.

It is a big, elegant machine, standing high on long, spindly, faired tubular steel landing gear legs with a wide 3.2 metre track. Although its slim, medium pressure wheels and tyres seem a little narrow for use on soft tundra or sand, the steerable, semi-castoring tailwheel unit is a masterpiece of engineering, and currently suspended from a single titanium leaf spring. Naturally wheel/ski or float landing gear will be options, and there seems plenty of room for a ventral pannier should one be wanted. With a conventional modern stressed skin, semimonocoque all-aluminium structure, the Finist’ high (10.5) aspect ratio wing has a special aerofoil jointly developed by Technoavia and the Russian Aerodynamic Institute, and is supported by a single strut each side. It is optimised for both slow flight and a projected 124kt (230kmh) cruise speed. Four section, three position Fowler flaps have neatly faired external hinges and are powered by a beefy sounding electric motor. They occupy 56% of the trailing edge and extend to 20° for takeoff and 40° for landing. Big Frise ailerons take up most of the rest of the 14.6 metre span. It was originally intended that these should droop with flap extension (like the Beaver’s) but, since this gave no reduction in stall speed, the mechanism was logically deleted to save weight. Integral wing tanks hold 400 litres of fuel, sufficient for up to eight hours flight for a 540nm (1000km) range.

The attractive swept fin has a small dorsal fillet and supports a high set tailplane, braced on each side by a single strut. The fuselage has three doors, a wide one for each cockpit occupant, fastened by an upper bolt as well as the main latch, and hinging forward through 90°. Both can be jettisoned using a red handle between their hinges, but neither has a stay or catch to hold it open. The big left side main cabin door pulls out to slide aft and reveal a gaping 1.35 by 1.12 metre opening to the roomy five seat cabin. Entry to the high floor is via a removable two rung tubular steel ladder, and three big windows on each side provide good internal light. The seats and upholstery are sturdy and comfortable, with folding arms and backs. I was impressed by the general standard of finish of what is still only a prototype.

As well as the seven seat passenger interior, the aircraft can be converted in the field to carry six parachutists or up to 600kg of freight, and can quickly be reconfigured as an air ambulance or crop sprayer. Range with six passengers is published as 440nm (820km), but with a full 600kg payload the fuel capacity would be reduced to 210 litres for a 280nm (520km) range. RA-44484’s airframe weighs 1450kg so for our flight, with three aboard and nearly full fuel, we totalled around 1950kg of an available 2200kg, and could have taken another three passengers.

Ascent to the Caravan-high cockpit is facilitated by steps protruding from the main gear legs and cable hand holds inside the forward pillars. Once seated, one’s immediate impression is of the excellent all round visibility afforded by the M-14P’s tapering cowlings and the doors’ deep windows which extend down below waist level and, like those in the cabin, are bulged so that one can lean into them to look directly up, down, fore or aft. Solid, square shaped black control yokes protrude from both panels, and the wide-set adjustable rudder and brake pedals have a parking lock between the left pair. All controls have very little static friction, although the big ailerons exhibit some inertia. A long, low, flat centre console holds no less than six levers for, from the left: quadrant friction, propeller pitch, engine inlet iris, carburettor heat and oil cooler shutters. Perhaps some of these will be deleted on production aircraft. Aft of this porcupine are a small elevator trim wheel and the flap selector.

Only the left panel has flight instruments, using metric units in an easily assimilated layout, with a line of annunciator lights above. Similarly metric engine dials are in a vertical column to their right. Electrics and light switches occupy a small, easily missed panel in the roof, and the guarded magneto switches are to the left of the control yoke, while a central stack of modern Western radios includes a useful Garmin GPS150. Above these, an LCD fuel gauge has a scale on each side for individual tank contents in kilos, with total quantity displayed numerically at its bottom. At the push of a couple of buttons each tank’s contents can also be revealed digitally to the nearest kilogram.

Starting on this prototype is by the usual Vedeneyev pneumatics, but these will be replaced by an electric starter on production models. The nine cylinder single row radial drives a licence built version of the Muhlbauer MT three bladed constant speed prop at the standard ratio of 17 to 11. Taxying was easy using 40 to 60% rpm, and the forward view was exceptionally good for a radial engined tailwheeler. The brakes were gentle and progressive, and the steering very light, with only a slight lag. Although the soft tail spring did cause some nodding, this was not uncomfortable. Engine checks at 70% rpm were normal, but confirmed the Vedeneyev’s characteristic slight hesitation at around 60%. Takeoff uses the first stage of flap.

The aircraft’s audio system was wired so that we could talk on either the intercom or the radio, but not on both at once. The sunny Sunday evening traffic made radio monitoring imperative, so internal communication was conducted in short bursts, supplemented by hand signals. During the takeoff Mikhail would not let me raise the tail but, with my hands full, I was unable to ascertain whether this was because of limited prop clearance, his lack of confidence in my flying ability, or because three point takeoffs are normal Russian practice. Engine power quickly built to 97% (2850rpm) and 880mm (34.5in) manifold pressure, acceleration was brisk, and it was easy to keep straight with a little left rudder pressure but, with all three wheels on the ground, the aircraft tended to bounce on its soft undercarriage as speed increased and the wings took our weight. Lift off came after about three hundred metres in a 5kt (9kmh) headwind, and flap retraction took two seconds and caused a slight sink, requiring some nose-up trim. I was unable to time our climb accurately, but it seemed to be a little under 1000ft/min in near ISA conditions at 120kt (940kmh). Control response was good in all axes; pitch, roll and yaw stability were all excellent in the climb at our forward centre of gravity, and the view ahead was fine.

Levelling at 1000ft, we reduced to the normal cruise power of 730mm (29in) manifold pressure and 64% (1900rpm), allowing airspeed to build to 180kph. Fuel consumption at this relatively low power setting should work out at an economical 11 to 50 litres per hour, and British importer Richard Goode reckons the M-14P’s oil burn to be a comparatively low (for a radial) three litres per ten hours of running. The noise level at this speed was still pretty high with our headsets removed, the slightly firm seats were quite comfortable, vibration levels were low and the view was utterly superb except over our shoulders. My only unfavourable comment is that, although the heating is effective, the ventilation could be improved; a known problem that should be easy to fix.

Rolling on some bank revealed a magnificent vista of the ground directly below, but did show up some slight blindness into the turn, although by loosening the shoulder harness one could easily lean forward to look ahead of the leading edge. Control response, harmony, effectiveness and required pressures in all axes were exactly as one would expect them, not light, but not over heavy, and with plenty of authority. (Although perhaps not quite as excellent as in the remarkable Beaver). Stability was positive in all axes, and the Finist’s handling reinforced my earlier impression of its being like a piston engined tailwheel version of the Caravan. The roll rate was something more than 30° per second, which is what one would expect from such a long winged, heavy aeroplane and, although it does need a little rudder to coordinate large aileron inputs, it is easy to fly for a tailwheeler.

Bearing in mind that we were towards the forward edge of the C of G envelope, the Finist’s stalling manners were impeccable. Clean, it broke away straight ahead at 57kt (105kmh) with little warning buffet and the cowling just above the horizon in an attitude about 15° nose up. Behaviour with 20° flap was very similar at 51kt (94kph), while full flap induced a slight, but easily arrested left wing drop occurred at 48kt (88kmh). Recovery was immediate in all cases and height loss throughout was less than 330ft, most of this being due to sink prior to the G-break. Handling at speeds just above the stall was still good, if a little ponderous. Mikhail recommended a circuit speed of 75kt (140kph), reducing to 70kt (130kmh) with twenty flap on base leg and 65 to 62kt (120 to 115kmh) with full flap on final. Each stage of flap took only a couple of seconds to run. The Finist’s glide was remarkably good, even with full flap, making a power off approach almost mandatory to give a usefully steep angle for a short landing. More drag from the flaps would not go amiss for use into the many North American super short tree surrounded strips and lakes. Visibility was still excellent all around the circuit.

Aiming just short of the threshold as instructed enabled us to land right on the numbers after a brief float. Although I needed full aft trim at 59kt (110kmh), even with our extreme forward C of G there was still plenty of elevator travel available for a full flare, but we were not quite stalled when we touched down, and the tailwheel arrived significantly before the mains. A more nose high ground stance would allow the yoke to be brought right back for a slower, full stall landing. The wide, flexible undercarriage proved forgiving, and it was easy to keep straight during the rollout. Touch and goes were simple, with near immediate liftoff and little trim change having half retracted the flaps on the roll, while a fullstop landing used less than 400 metres without brakes.

The Finist is a big, benign, economical, and capable utilitarian STOL bushplane with simple systems, straightforward and predictable handling with similar performance to the Beaver. Development continues, with FAA and JAA certification expected by the end of 1995, after which the company will explore the possibilities of a higher performance PT6 engined turboprop version. While Technoavia intends completing development inhouse, and has the technical resources to do so, the concern remains open to advances from possible investors since they are marketing the Finist as a direct replacement for the Beaver, it is of interest to compare it with that old warhorse which is a very special aeroplane, and a hard act to follow. The Beaver is not just a big, tough airframe allied to a powerful and dependable engine, but a very carefully optimised aircraft, using sophisticated aerodynamics to endow it with remarkable short takeoff and landing performance. Having had the foresight to poll potential operators for their exact needs, DHC also incorporated many carefully thought out and innovative features to simplify its use in the world’s more remote areas and exactly suit it to its highly specialised role. This is why, even after nearly half a century, nobody has yet been able to better it.

The Finist is equally big externally, but somewhat longer internally, and has the advantage of being a couple of hundred kilograms lighter, so carrying a greater payload at a slightly higher economy cruise speed. It also has larger transparencies, giving much better visibility for both pilots and passengers. However, Beaver intimates would immediately notice the Finist’s less accessible wing fuel tanks, its slightly heavier control forces, its skinnier wheels and its smaller flaps, which do not extend through such a great angle. Despite giving it a slightly lower stall speed, these produce a less usefully steep approach and, combined with its lower wing loading, would probably need somewhat longer takeoff and landing distances, particularly in hot and high conditions. However, any Beaver user would be delighted at the Vedeneyev’s reduced fuel and oil consumption (the latter is as little as one tenth that of a R-985). More importantly, Finists will soon be available new, and in large numbers, for just $US150,000, which is far less than the $US200,000 to $US500,000 often asked for a well looked after used Beaver, and about the same as ten year old Cessna 185s, 206s and 207s fetch.

But the Finist is not just a Beaver replacement. I am sure it will be snapped up by parachute clubs, outback supply companies, sightseeing firms, and a host of other operators needing a tough, dependable, low cost, high volume aircraft for civilized climes as well as in the more hostile parts of the world. I predict that Finists will also replace Helio Couriers, Cessna 206s, 207s, 180s and 185s, and even double sized Pilatus Porters, Caravans and An-2s. And it will probably open up niches of its own in markets where such aircraft have yet to be used. Look out Western GA, the Russians are coming.