Four to Tango
The Team Tango Foxtrot 4 holds the potential to be a true
four-place performer. Can it compete with the RV-10?
While the piston-powered, four-place
market was once a hotbed of activity,
it’s much cooler now, particularly at
the more affordable end. Back when
this magazine was born 25 years ago,
the four-seat market was warming up
rapidly even as the two-place contin-
6 KITPLANES November 2009
gent was clearly in charge. Today, we
count only 17 “real” kits for four-place
airplanes where the airframe kit itself
is less than $50,000. They range from
high-wing utility aircraft like the Bear-
hawk and Dream Tundra to sleek com-
posites like the Jabiru J400 and Velocity,
whose fixed-gear models come in under
the wire. Van’s RV-10 is, of course, the
overdog, based on the quality of the kit,
reputation of the company and perfor-
mance. The Team Tango Foxtrot 4 fits
into the affordable category perfectly—
it’s a full-size four-place airplane whose
airframe kit sells for $45,995.
At Sun ’n Fun this year, I met Pete
Mercuro, the Team Tango director of
business development, and he invited
me to fly to the company’s location at
Williston, Florida, (airport identifier
X60) for a flight in the Foxtrot 4 dem-
onstrator aircraft with Dennis Fun-
nemark, the director of operations and
chief test pilot.
A Bit About the Airplane
The Foxtrot 4 is kind to the eyes, with a
sleek side-by-side cockpit configured for
four places in a conventional layout. (No
one facing backward, for example.) This
composite airplane sits on a well-faired
fixed tricycle landing gear. The long
Flip-up doors make for easy ingress and
egress front and back.
By Chuck Berthe
nose required to hold the 300-horse-
power Lycoming IO-540 and Hartzell
three-blade propeller seems adequately
balanced by a generous vertical tail. You
can also save a few bucks and build the
Foxtrot with a four-cylinder IO-360.
The straight wing, with an 8:1 aspect
ratio, provides a reasonable wing load-
ing of 23.4 pounds per square foot at
maximum gross weight, and is matched
by a straight horizontal tail with conven-
tional elevator and trim surfaces. Fuel is
carried in a “wet wing” configuration
with a total capacity of 100 gallons with
up to 200 gallons as an option.
The Foxtrot 4 we would be flying,
N747F, is an earlier version the kit. It
is customer built and owned, and made
available to Team Tango as a demonstra-
tor. Later and current production kits
include some important changes. One
significant one was a ream alignment of
aileron and flap assemblies, which will
be discussed later. From appearances,
this could be a fun airplane to fly, and
with the ample 300-hp Lycoming, per-
formance could be quite interesting.
Ready to Aviate
Cabin entry requires a long stretch onto
the wing, and an entry step would be
welcomed by most pilots. The seats are
well positioned vertically, with fore and
aft adjustment. The sticks and rudder
www.kitplanes.com
Photos: Richard VanderMeulen KITPLANES November 2009 7
Foxtrot 4 continued

pedals were also well positioned with

reasonable motion and no stick/leg
interference. Seat position is a customer
choice, so the owner and I must be about
the same size.
Moving the controls indicated light
elevator friction (the control system in
this axis is through pushrods), normal
rudder friction (through typical cables)
and rather high aileron friction.
The flight example Foxtrot’s panel lay-
out was set up for the left seat, featuring
real gauges—you can tell I’m not a glass
guy—with the GPS as the only LCD
screen. Engine and pitch trim controls 2550 rpm provide an adequate climb the rather heavy roll forces. The aileron
are located on center panel. So far, this rate of 1200 to 1500 fpm, and good friction I noticed on the ground was not
Foxtrot is totally conventional. Cockpit over-the-nose visibility. apparent at this speed, probably due to
visibility is typical for a side-by-side con- Stability checks during the climb aerodynamic hinge moments providing
figuration, but it is especially good over showed control harmony to be ade- adequate centering. Good longitudinal
the nose. quate, with pitch forces lighter than (pitch) stability was verified by the pres-
Starting the big Lycoming required
the usual injected-engine maneuvers,
and runup was straightforward. Taxi
was easily controlled. Prop wash at
taxi power settings allowed some steer-
ing with rudder only. Tighter turns
required differential braking to move
the free-castering nosewheel. Again,
this Foxtrot 4 could be like any number
of homebuilts, and that’s a good thing.

Finally Flying
Funnemark demonstrated the first take-
off, rotating at 70 mph IAS, with liftoff
at 75 mph IAS. Ground roll on the paved
runway with 10 knots of headwind was
about 400 feet. On subsequent takeoffs,
I found that directional and pitch con-
trol for rotation required only normal
techniques.
When initial climb is set to the best
airframe climb speed of 90 mph IAS,
the rate is better than 2000 fpm, but the
deck angle is a little too spectacular for
good visibility forward. A cruise climb of
110 to 120 mph IAS, and power setting
of 24 inches of manifold pressure and

A slick cowling, complete with snorkel-

style air inlet lower right, ends with a
substantial Hartzell three-blade, constant-
speed prop. Behind it is 300 horsepower
waiting to be unleashed.

8 KITPLANES November 2009 www.kitplanes.com


That’s the aft wing spar under the tape,
with the inboard ends of the all-metal
landing gear poking into the lower cabin
structure. This is a naturally strong part of
the airplane.
ence of a long period mode, moderately
low frequency short period mode, and
adequate pitch force per G of 3 to 4
pounds. Pitch force velocity gradients
(pitch force per speed change) were light
but adequate.
Adverse yaw was light, and there was
good lateral (roll) stability. Yaw (direc-
tional) stability checks displayed a low
Dutch roll frequency but with adequate
damping. The Dutch roll consisted of
equal amounts of roll and yaw; pilots
like that.
Doing the Cruise
The Foxtrot showed it was made to
cruise fast. Leveling at 8000 feet MSL,
we set power at 22 inches of mani-
fold pressure and 2230 rpm—this is
approximately 60% to 62% power for

TRUTRAK - ®

AN UNBEATABLE PANEL UPGRADE FOR THE E-AB RV-12

LEFT CENTER RIGHT
EFIS - AUTOPILOT 696 GPS EMS - BACKUP INST.
SL30 NAV/COM TRANSPONDER

TruTrak Flight Systems Note: As of February 2008, the FAA stopped reviewing new Toll Free: 866-TRUTRAK
kits for compliance with Experimental - Amateur Built category.
1500 S Old Missouri Rd E-AB certication is still allowed on an individual basis. It is the FAX: 479-751-3397
Springdale, AR 72764 builder’s responsibility to show compliance with the 51% rule. www.trutrakap.com

KITPLANES November 2009 9

Foxtrot 4 continued
the brawny Lycoming, providing an
IAS of 168 mph. With the OAT at 15°
C, this calculated to 196 mph TAS. A
set of GPS ground speed runs revealed
almost no wind, and verified a TAS of
195 mph, or 169 knots true. This perfor-
mance, on approximately 14 gph, will
match or exceed that of many four-seat,
retractable-gear aircraft, which are (do
we have to say it?) considerably more
expensive.
OK, so a good aircraft is not just about
pure speed. Trimability was good in this
flight condition as was visibility, except
in the direction of the opposite seat,
With the Lycoming IO-540 started and
ready to go, the Foxtrot 4 heads for the
runway.
Typical oil-door access limits preflight inspection possibilities. Note the spinner exten-
sion fairing as part of the top cowling, which helps place the narrow air inlets low enough
to improve pilot sightlines.
10 KITPLANES November 2009
Just Say No
to Friction
Nearly all of the kit aircraft I’ve evalu-
typical of side-by-side configurations.
ated that have high aileron friction
Pitch force per G was 4 to 6 pounds. The
were composite designs. The most
velocity gradient (pitch force per speed
friction-free designs I’ve flown have
change) was light but adequate. There
been metal, and used pushrods and
was a low level of adverse yaw and bank
bearings for aileron control. Easy to do
angles were easy to attain (roll damping
with a metal airplane, not so easy with
was good) and maintain (spiral stability).
composite.
As with the climb condition, aerody-
Most of the early composite designs
namic hinge moments were countering
had wings with foam cores. A common
aileron friction. The directional axis was
method was to use cables running
moderately stable as demonstrated by
through plastic conduits. This was OK
a moderately low Dutch roll frequency
for boat steering, but way too much
with five to six overshoots required to
friction for ailerons.
damp sharp yaw inputs.
More current designs are wet wings
Regardless of all these technical com-
with strength coming from carbon-fiber
ments, the Foxtrot 4 has stability and
spars and skins. It’s difficult to put a
handling qualities well suited to cruise
pushrod through a wet wing, possible
flight tasks. Attitude, heading, altitude
but too complicated. A good option
and speed control were easy to achieve
is to control the ailerons and flaps by
and maintain. Pilot workload was low
concentric torque tubes running behind
in this flight regime.
the rear spar. This is a good idea, but
Next on the list: clean stalls. The 1 G
using bushings on the torque tubes
(unaccelerated) stall occurred at 75 mph
because bearings are more expensive
IAS with a normal nose-down break,
and complicated to install is not.
Many composite kit aircraft come
out of the design box with an aft-CG
problem, causing light pitch forces, and
ailerons controlled by bushed torque
tubes with high friction, causing heavy
roll forces. Actually, the best control
harmony is with the pitch force slightly
higher than roll force, just the opposite
of what seems to happen.
The first kit I built was a BD-5 with
concentric torque tubes running behind
the rear spar for aileron and flap
control. But it used ball bearings on the
torque tubes. True, they were a pain to
build, but they provided very little fric-
tion. The BD-5 had many problems, but
aileron friction was not one of them.
—C.B.
www.kitplanes.com
 The Foxtrot 4 kit, as displayed at the
airshows. Virtually the entire wing can be
wet with fuel; standard capacity is 100
gallons total.

requiring only normal stall recovery

procedures; however, directional stabil-
ity was somewhat loose, requiring addi-
tional attention to aileron and rudder
inputs. Accelerated stalls were not con-
ducted, as spin testing is not complete.
Slow flight was conducted at the same
altitude and temperature conditions as
cruise. Power was set at 14 inches and
2360 rpm to hold 80 mph IAS in the
full flap configuration. The 80-mph IAS
required full nose-up trim. Slower speeds
required some back pressure, but as the
velocity gradients were low, this was not down to 1 to 2 pounds. Those responses damp directional disturbances. Adverse
a problem. What really got my attention are at the very bottom of the acceptabil- yaw had increased to a level that any
was the poor pitch/roll harmony. Pitch ity scale, it’s true, but coupled with high mismanagement of pilot compensation
forces were even lighter at this speed, roll friction and forces some inadvertent would result in excitation of the Dutch
and roll forces were excessively high, pitch inputs were inevitable. The pilot’s roll. This coupled with the high aileron
and with the lower aerodynamic hinge workload is much greater in this flight forces made directional control more
moments no longer providing center- regime. difficult. A relatively high level of pilot
ing, aileron friction was quite apparent. The directional axis was stable, but compensation was required to accom-
There was positive static and dynamic at a reduced level. The Dutch roll was plish maneuvering tasks such as turns to
pitch stability, but pitch force per G was somewhat sluggish with a longer time to a precise heading.

KITPLANES November 2009 11

Foxtrot 4 continued

The unaccelerated landing-config-

uration stall occurred at 65 mph IAS.
Normal stall recovery techniques were
effective with little loss of altitude. As
in the cruise configuration, directional
stability was somewhat loose, requir-
ing aileron/rudder coordination with
higher than normal force in both axes.
The pitch axis was well behaved in the
recovery. Accelerated stalls were not con-
ducted in the landing configuration.

RTB 1
The descent back to X60 was with the
power set at 20 inches/2200 rpm, giving
a descent speed of 200 mph IAS. Flying
qualities were good in this flight phase.
1. While the airplane our test pilot flew
Finally, landings. Slow flight pro- had little glass, it’s expected most newly
vided a good prediction of how things built Foxtrot 4s will have electronic dis-
would go in the landing phase. Funne- plays. (Probably not the now-defunct Blue
Mountain brand shown here.)

2. Conventional surfaces out back. Design

changes are likely to increase the size of
the horizontal tail to widen the Foxtrot 4’s
Team tango CG range.
Foxtrot 4 3. A conventional tab handles pitch trim,
Price...............................................................................$45,995 while there is a fixed tab on the rudder.
Estimated completed price.......................$100,000 - $160,000
Estimated build time.............................................. 3000 hours 4. A wide central tunnel holds a manual
Number flying (at press time)..................................................2 flap lever, palm-ready trim wheel and
quadrant power controls.
2
Powerplant....................Lycoming IO-540, 300 hp at 2700 rpm
Propeller........................Hartzell three-blade, constant-speed
Powerplant options...........................Lycoming IO-360, 200 hp
5. The ailerons carry mass balances
Airframe outboard, and will, in current kits, be
Wingspan...........................................................................32 ft reworked to reduce friction and increase
Wing loading......................................................... 23.4 lb/sq ft stick leverage.
Fuel capacity....................................100 gal (200 gal optional)
Maximum gross weight.................................................3000 lb
Typical empty weight.....................................................1710 lb
Typical useful load..........................................................1290 lb
Full-fuel payload..............................................................705 lb
Seating capacity.......................................................................4
Cabin width.................................................................... 46.5 in
Baggage capacity.............................................................100 lb

Performance
Cruise speed.............................................218 mph (189 kt) TAS
7000 ft @ 75% of max-continuous, 17.0 gph
4
Maximum rate of climb..............................................1600 fpm
Stall speed (landing configuration).............62 mph (54 kt) IAS
Takeoff distance, ground roll...........................................600 ft
Landing distance, ground roll..........................................800 ft

Specifications are manufacturer’s estimates and

are based on the configuration of the demonstrator
aircraft. As they say, your mileage may vary.

3 5

12 KITPLANES November 2009 www.kitplanes.com

You can only really see it from this view, but the boxy cabin is that way for a reason: to
improve interior volume.

mark demonstrated the first landing to a
full stop. I followed with a touch and go,
and a full stop. The pattern was flown
slowing to 120 mph IAS downwind,
100 mph IAS abeam with flaps lowered
to the first detent (10°) and the rest of
the landing checklist completed. By the
90° position to the runway, the IAS was
90 mph, and another notch of flap (20°)
was set. Turning on final the IAS was
slowed to 80 mph, and the last notch of
flap (30°) was selected. Target airspeed
on short final was 70 mph IAS, with
some power carried to touchdown.
The weather was clear with good vis-
ibility below a 2500-foot scattered-to-
broken layer. Wind was pretty much
down the runway at 10 knots, slightly
gusting to 12 to 15 knots. There was A roomy aft cabin holds two full-size,
front-facing seats. Central tunnel encloses
light turbulence all around the pattern elevator pushrod and rudder cables; in
with some moderate gusts on short general, the Foxtrot’s control system is
final due to trees. All in all, pretty good conventional.

Won’t fade.
Won’t wash off.
Won’t go away.

Seen whenever
a new RV flies.

Now occurring
an average of
eleven times a
week at airports
all over the
world.

VAN’S AIRCRAFT, INC.

14401 Keil Rd NE, Aurora OR 97002
503-578-6545 www.vansaircraft.com
KITPLANES November 2009 13
Foxtrot 4 continued

conditions for evaluating landings—

certainly a lot more useful than a glassy
day, where handling deficiencies have a
place to hide.
The three landings were similar in
pilot performance and achievement of
desired landing parameters, which were
to touch down in the first third of the
runway, on centerline, aircraft aligned
with the runway and low sink rate at
touchdown. Our touchdowns were in
the first third of the runway, but none
was exactly on centerline, none had the
aircraft perfectly aligned with the run-
way, and no touchdown was smooth
enough to elicit glowing comments
from passengers. On all three, we were
both doing our best to get it right, and Think About Loading four-place airplane. It certainly has the
all three were safe, but none was as good The loading on this flight was two aver- load-carrying capability as evidenced by
as my landing in the RV-4 an hour previ- age size pilots, with 65 gallons of fuel takeoff and climb performance. It’s also
ous under the same wind conditions. on board and no baggage. As flown, fast for a fixed-gear, four-place airplane,
I can’t blame the difference on experi- the pitch stability was adequate, but I and at 75% power should achieve close
ence with the two aircraft. In the Fox- felt the CG was not far enough forward to advertised cruise speeds.
trot, the landing tasks were dominated considering the two empty rear seats. I Overall, I like this aircraft. The defi-
by very high roll forces and friction, was concerned about CG positions with cient flying qualities I observed are being
combined with light pitch forces. The one or two passengers in the back and properly addressed, meaning that cus-
task was both mentally and physically some baggage. Would this good balance tomer airplanes should fly better than
demanding. An aircraft with so many go out the door with a full load? Experi- the example I tried. Besides, if I had
other outstanding characteristics should ence says it very likely would. one of these I could look pretty sporty,
be easier to land, and I don’t think it’s Funnemark and I discussed this issue, cruise slightly faster than my RV-4, and
far from achieving that goal. and he said a larger horizontal tail has carry my bicycle as well as my wife…I’ll
been designed for the Foxtrot 4. It was have to think about that one. J
being produced, and would be included
in future kits. A larger horizontal tail For more information, call 352/528-
would increase the CG range of the air- 0982 or visit www.teamtango.com. Find
craft, and probably increase pitch forces a direct link at www.kitplanes.com.
somewhat. I think he’s definitely on the
right track.
CHUCK BERTHE

The company is working to further is a retired Naval avia-

reduce aileron friction by replacing tor, civilian test pilot, and
bushings with bearings, though an aeronautical engineer, with
interim step is to ream-align the flap and ATP, CFII, Helo, A&P
aileron controls to reduce friction. It is ratings and two Repairman
fair to say N747F is probably the worst Certificates. He has logged
case scenario in that regard. 16,600 pilot hours, and is
Also on the table: Increasing the gear- an Associate Fellow in the
ing (mechanical advantage) in the aile- Society of
ron control system and decreasing the Experi-
gearing in the elevator system, according mental
to Funnemark. Both could significantly Test
improve pitch/roll control harmony. Pilots.
The Foxtrot 4 is a great performer
with the potential to be an honest

www.kitplanes.com