Narrative:

Regarding the description event/situation portion of the NASA report, I will describe the unfortunate occurrence which took place apr/xx/94 at XA50 EDT. The morning of apr/xx/94 I made a successful flight from merritt island airport (coi), north approximately 30 NM and then returned to merritt island. The flight took 1 1/2 hours. The fuel was topped off to its maximum capacity of 12 gallons before the flight. Upon return I noticed that approximately 8 gallons of fuel was used. The afternoon of apr/xy/94 another flight 30 NM north was made. On the second preflight the fuel quantity was noticed and again topped to 12 gallons. On the return leg back to coi I noticed that the fuel was low. It is important to mention that this is an experimental aircraft and there is not a fuel quantity gauge, nor specified cruise fuel burn information available. Fuel is monitored visually. There was still approximately 1 inch of fuel in the tank. This was incredibly less than what was in the tank upon the return of the first said flight to the same destination. Apparently a strong headwind on the return leg of the second trip was encountered. The airport was in sight and I was about 1 mi from the end of runway 11 lined up for a straight in approach at 1000 ft when the engine began to sputter. I instructed the passenger to pump the fuel bulb which is located just behind the right seat, engine power was then briefly restored, but not long enough. The engine continued to run for another five seconds and then quit. This aircraft is not equipped with an electrical system, so time and altitude did not permit a restart attempt, however, there was still fuel in the tank. It was apparent that an emergency landing was inevitable. I located a field approximately 300 ft in length and 1/4 of a mi off the approach end of runway 11 with pwrlines on the approach end of the field. The pwrlines cost me precious landing distance which caused the aircraft to hit an overgrown chain link fence and thick underbrush. Authorities were then notified. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that only 1 landing gear was sheared off and 1 wing slightly damaged as a result of this forced landing. The aircraft was an experimental, tigar ii with a rotex engine not built for aviation use! The engine only of course. Reporter further stated that it was a headwind that caused him to take longer on his second trip, causing more fuel to be consumed than the first. This incident was investigated by the FAA FSDO. Reporter did not know their classification of the occurrence.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF SMA EXPERIMENTAL ACFT LANDED SHORT OF ARPT DUE TO FUEL STARVATION. ACFT RECEIVED MINOR DAMAGE.

Narrative: REGARDING THE DESCRIPTION EVENT/SIT PORTION OF THE NASA RPT, I WILL DESCRIBE THE UNFORTUNATE OCCURRENCE WHICH TOOK PLACE APR/XX/94 AT XA50 EDT. THE MORNING OF APR/XX/94 I MADE A SUCCESSFUL FLT FROM MERRITT ISLAND ARPT (COI), N APPROX 30 NM AND THEN RETURNED TO MERRITT ISLAND. THE FLT TOOK 1 1/2 HRS. THE FUEL WAS TOPPED OFF TO ITS MAX CAPACITY OF 12 GALLONS BEFORE THE FLT. UPON RETURN I NOTICED THAT APPROX 8 GALLONS OF FUEL WAS USED. THE AFTERNOON OF APR/XY/94 ANOTHER FLT 30 NM N WAS MADE. ON THE SECOND PREFLT THE FUEL QUANTITY WAS NOTICED AND AGAIN TOPPED TO 12 GALLONS. ON THE RETURN LEG BACK TO COI I NOTICED THAT THE FUEL WAS LOW. IT IS IMPORTANT TO MENTION THAT THIS IS AN EXPERIMENTAL ACFT AND THERE IS NOT A FUEL QUANTITY GAUGE, NOR SPECIFIED CRUISE FUEL BURN INFO AVAILABLE. FUEL IS MONITORED VISUALLY. THERE WAS STILL APPROX 1 INCH OF FUEL IN THE TANK. THIS WAS INCREDIBLY LESS THAN WHAT WAS IN THE TANK UPON THE RETURN OF THE FIRST SAID FLT TO THE SAME DEST. APPARENTLY A STRONG HEADWIND ON THE RETURN LEG OF THE SECOND TRIP WAS ENCOUNTERED. THE ARPT WAS IN SIGHT AND I WAS ABOUT 1 MI FROM THE END OF RWY 11 LINED UP FOR A STRAIGHT IN APCH AT 1000 FT WHEN THE ENG BEGAN TO SPUTTER. I INSTRUCTED THE PAX TO PUMP THE FUEL BULB WHICH IS LOCATED JUST BEHIND THE R SEAT, ENG PWR WAS THEN BRIEFLY RESTORED, BUT NOT LONG ENOUGH. THE ENG CONTINUED TO RUN FOR ANOTHER FIVE SECONDS AND THEN QUIT. THIS ACFT IS NOT EQUIPPED WITH AN ELECTRICAL SYS, SO TIME AND ALT DID NOT PERMIT A RESTART ATTEMPT, HOWEVER, THERE WAS STILL FUEL IN THE TANK. IT WAS APPARENT THAT AN EMER LNDG WAS INEVITABLE. I LOCATED A FIELD APPROX 300 FT IN LENGTH AND 1/4 OF A MI OFF THE APCH END OF RWY 11 WITH PWRLINES ON THE APCH END OF THE FIELD. THE PWRLINES COST ME PRECIOUS LNDG DISTANCE WHICH CAUSED THE ACFT TO HIT AN OVERGROWN CHAIN LINK FENCE AND THICK UNDERBRUSH. AUTHORITIES WERE THEN NOTIFIED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT ONLY 1 LNDG GEAR WAS SHEARED OFF AND 1 WING SLIGHTLY DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF THIS FORCED LNDG. THE ACFT WAS AN EXPERIMENTAL, TIGAR II WITH A ROTEX ENG NOT BUILT FOR AVIATION USE! THE ENG ONLY OF COURSE. RPTR FURTHER STATED THAT IT WAS A HEADWIND THAT CAUSED HIM TO TAKE LONGER ON HIS SECOND TRIP, CAUSING MORE FUEL TO BE CONSUMED THAN THE FIRST. THIS INCIDENT WAS INVESTIGATED BY THE FAA FSDO. RPTR DID NOT KNOW THEIR CLASSIFICATION OF THE OCCURRENCE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.