BD5B

[Big John]

NTBS posted today fatal BD5B crash in Traverse City, MI on 1 November.

Looked close as thought it might have been Juan trying to fly his bird
but was a 'B' not a 'J'.

No info on engine, first flight or ?????

Big John

[sean trost]

In my opinion that is in bad form John.
all the best
Sean

Big John wrote:
> NTBS posted today fatal BD5B crash in Traverse City, MI on 1 November.
>
> Looked close as thought it might have been Juan trying to fly his bird
> but was a 'B' not a 'J'.
>
> No info on engine, first flight or ?????
>
> Big John

[Ben Sego]

sean trost wrote:
> In my opinion that is in bad form John.
> all the best
> Sean
>

Sean,
Maybe I missed something, but that didn't particularly seem in bad form
to me. When a Fly Baby went down a couple of years ago, I wondered if
it was Ron. If I had heard of a BD5_J_ going down, I would wonder if it
were Juan. There might have been ill intent in Big John's heart, (to
poorly paraphrase a former peanut farmer) but I don't think I see it in
the posting.

B.S.

[Big John]

Let me start over.

My condolences to the family of the pilot. It is difficult to properly
express ones feelings to the family of pilots who lose their lives in
aircraft accidents (especially homebuilts).

I'm glad it was not Juan as I hold no personal animosities against him
even though I many times don't agree with what he says and his
actions. His loss would leave a big hole in the r.a.h. comunity and I
have heard him say a few things on the + side when he is not fighting
with Chuck.

I did look close to make sure it wss not his plane which I consider to
only be a normal thing after he has posted so much about this BD5 and
that he is going to fly it.

No one has posted a follow up with the name of the BD5 pilot, and
details of the accident (1000 ft short on final). You don't see many
BD5 accidents but there are not a lot flying so statically the
accident rate is probably pretty high vs other homebuilts with a lot
completed and flying?

Since Juan is active in the BD5 comunity, he may come on and give us
the details of this accident if no one else does?.

All fly safe.

Big John

Now, does that make everyone happy?


On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:57:19 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

>NTBS posted today fatal BD5B crash in Traverse City, MI on 1 November.
>
>Looked close as thought it might have been Juan trying to fly his bird
>but was a 'B' not a 'J'.
>
>No info on engine, first flight or ?????
>
>Big John

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>Read it again, Sean, and try to forget that Juan is what he is...
>
>I don't see any bad form in *what John wrote* - if you read it alone. If you
>think John believes Juan is a royal asshole and John would celebrate his
>untimely death, you might have a point.
>
>But that's not here, that I can see, anyway.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If a BD5 of any sort goes down...
it won't ever have Jaun in it.

If anyone believes otherwise...
What kind of odds are you giving?


Barnyard BOb -- wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

[sean trost]

Big John,
Seems I was shootin off at the mouth...er keyboard.
Sorry bout that.
Sean


Big John wrote:

> Let me start over.
>
> My condolences to the family of the pilot. It is difficult to properly
> express ones feelings to the family of pilots who lose their lives in
> aircraft accidents (especially homebuilts).
>
> I'm glad it was not Juan as I hold no personal animosities against him
> even though I many times don't agree with what he says and his
> actions. His loss would leave a big hole in the r.a.h. comunity and I
> have heard him say a few things on the + side when he is not fighting
> with Chuck.
>
> I did look close to make sure it wss not his plane which I consider to
> only be a normal thing after he has posted so much about this BD5 and
> that he is going to fly it.
>
> No one has posted a follow up with the name of the BD5 pilot, and
> details of the accident (1000 ft short on final). You don't see many
> BD5 accidents but there are not a lot flying so statically the
> accident rate is probably pretty high vs other homebuilts with a lot
> completed and flying?
>
> Since Juan is active in the BD5 comunity, he may come on and give us
> the details of this accident if no one else does?.
>
> All fly safe.
>
> Big John
>
> Now, does that make everyone happy?
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:57:19 -0600, Big John >
> wrote:
>
>
>>NTBS posted today fatal BD5B crash in Traverse City, MI on 1 November.
>>
>>Looked close as thought it might have been Juan trying to fly his bird
>>but was a 'B' not a 'J'.
>>
>>No info on engine, first flight or ?????
>>
>>Big John
>
>

[sean trost]

Is the bridge painted or not ?
How many hours does it got ?
is shipping included ?
Does is come with tool booths ?

Sean

- Barnyard BOb - wrote:

>>Read it again, Sean, and try to forget that Juan is what he is...
>>
>>I don't see any bad form in *what John wrote* - if you read it alone. If you
>>think John believes Juan is a royal asshole and John would celebrate his
>>untimely death, you might have a point.
>>
>>But that's not here, that I can see, anyway.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> If a BD5 of any sort goes down...
> it won't ever have Jaun in it.
>
> If anyone believes otherwise...
> What kind of odds are you giving?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge?
>
>
>
>

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>Is the bridge painted or not ?
>How many hours does it got ?
>is shipping included ?
>Does is come with tool booths ?
>
>Sean
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yes.
Yes.
Yes
AND....

Sorry.
No TOOL booths.

Check TV's... Home Improvement.
Tell Tim the Toolman Taylor, I sent ya.

http://www.morepower.com/tim.html


Barnyard BOb -- Who luvs New York?

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>>Is the bridge painted or not ?
>>How many hours does it got ?
>>is shipping included ?
>>Does is come with tool booths ?
>>
>>Sean
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Yes.
TT = 1,165,087.3 hours
ZERO, "O" Top Overhaul included
>Yes
>AND....
>
>Sorry.
>No TOOL booths.
>
>Check TV's... Home Improvement.
>Tell Tim the Toolman Taylor, I sent ya.
>
>http://www.morepower.com/tim.html
>
>
Barnyard BOb -- Who luvs New York?

[Corky Scott]

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:23:22 -0600, Big John >
wrote:


>
>No one has posted a follow up with the name of the BD5 pilot, and
>details of the accident (1000 ft short on final). You don't see many
>BD5 accidents but there are not a lot flying so statically the
>accident rate is probably pretty high vs other homebuilts with a lot
>completed and flying?

Man those BD5's just don't seem like a good idea. Tiny, high stall
speed, tight engine compartment, and the pilot sits right on the
bottom of the fuselage.

The airplane has been discussed in this group previously and my
recollection is that it has a very high fatal accident rate. It's
first flight accident rate is also very high. Perhaps Ron Wanttaja
can step in with his always meticulous statistical analysis.

Corky Scott

[Big John]

Ron

Tnx for the stats. Validated my gut feeling from seeing scattered
reports through the years.

Of benefit to those thinking about building , if you massaged your
figures to show which birds had the best safety rate, might help some
rethink their possible choice of home built? Of course your gross
figures would include stupidly on pilots part but total percentage
number would still be a good indicator. As chinese say, "Hot airplane
and stupid Pilot, accident make" <G>

Robert (Borovec) made Crater Lake, OR last night on their way to boat
in FL. They started east through the mountains and with the bad Wx
(ice and snow and cold temp) that came up think they rethought and
moved west to get in the 'Valley' to go south to LA and east into the
dessert and stay south rest of 'voyage' :o)

Big John


On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:04:17 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:57:03 GMT,
>(Corky Scott) wrote:
>
>>Man those BD5's just don't seem like a good idea. Tiny, high stall
>>speed, tight engine compartment, and the pilot sits right on the
>>bottom of the fuselage.
>>
>>The airplane has been discussed in this group previously and my
>>recollection is that it has a very high fatal accident rate. It's
>>first flight accident rate is also very high. Perhaps Ron Wanttaja
>>can step in with his always meticulous statistical analysis.
>
>Damn, Corky, were you lurking in the back of the EAA Chapter 26 meeting
>last night? I'm in the process of doing a detailed homebuilt accident
>analysis, and presented my initial results.
>
>Unfortunately, the year I chose for my in-depth analysis didn't include any
>BD-5 crashes, so it's of no use for us in this case. Let's do a simpler
>comparison. I ran the NTSB database for the accidents since January 1,
>1990:
>
>Total Amateur-Built Accidents: 2881
>Total BD-5 Accidents: 22
>
>BD-5s were involved in 0.8% of all homebuilt accidents, and in 1.1% of all
>fatal homebuilt accidents. Due to the small size of the sample, this may
>not be a significant difference (it's only three accidents extra over 13
>years).
>
>Looking at the FATALITY rate:
>
>Total Amateur-Built Fatal Accidents: 837 (# of accidents, not fatalities)
>Total BD-5 Fatal Accidents: 9
>
>Homebuilt fatal accident rate: 837/2881, or 29.1%
>BD-5 fatal accident rate: 9/22, or 40.1%
>
>But what of the accident ratio in comparison to the size of the homebuilt
>fleet? Let me "Back Out" some data that might let us make a comparative
>analysis.
>
>The January 2003 FAA database listed 25,886 aircraft as being in the
>Experimental Amateur-Built category. The same database has listings for
>237 BD-5s, of which 81 are listed as having Experimental Amateur-Built
>certification.
>
>Before I go on, allow me to explain the difference. Database listings
>include a field for the category the aircraft is certified in. If the
>field is blank, the usual process is to assume the airplane has received an
>N-number but has not yet been approved for flight. My past analysis
>indicates this is not necessarily the case; for instance, John Ammeter's
>RV-6 (which flew something like ten years ago) STILL doesn't have an entry
>in the Certification block, and, with Juan's help, I uncovered one BD-5
>(not one of his, BTW) that made its first flight about five years after
>being listed as certified.
>
>Back when I did my first registration analysis, I found about 36,000
>aircraft listings with "homebuilt-like" names, but only about 22,000 of
>them (this was in 1997) were actually listed as certified. The FAA and EAA
>only count those listed as certified, so the published figure is in the
>20,000 range instead of in the 30,000s.
>
>So...officially, we should only use the 81 BD-5s for analysis. Due to the
>uncertainty, I'll list the figures for the full fleet as well. BTW, I used
>"BD-5", "BD 5", "BD5", and "BEDE 5" (with appropriate wild cards) as my
>search terms.
>
>Anyway, to the stats:
>
>Total homebuilts in 2003: 25886
>Total certified BD-5s: 81
>Total listed BD-5s: 237
>
>Lets compare the number of accidents over the past 13 years with the
>current number of homebuilts. We'll add the accident airplanes back into
>the current fleet for a baseline.
>
>This doesn't, in itself, produce a viable statistic. But it is useful in
>comparing between aircraft types.
>
>Total homebuilts plus accidents: 28767
>Total certified BD-5s plus accidents: 103
>Total listed BD-5s plus accidents: 259
>
>(Note that the NTSB accident listings make no differentiation whether the
>accident aircraft had a blank in the certification status field)
>
>Percentages:
>
>Total homebuilt accident rate: 10%
>Total certified BD-5 rate: 21%
>Total all-listing BD-5 rate: 8.5%
>
>So whether the BD-5 is twice as bad as the main fleet or a little bit
>better really depends on your interpretation of the certification data. By
>the FAA and EAA's interpretation, the BD-5's accident rate is twice that of
>the main homebuilt fleet.
>
>Ron Wanttaja

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:57:03 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>Man those BD5's just don't seem like a good idea. Tiny, high stall
>speed, tight engine compartment, and the pilot sits right on the
>bottom of the fuselage.
>
>The airplane has been discussed in this group previously and my
>recollection is that it has a very high fatal accident rate. It's
>first flight accident rate is also very high. Perhaps Ron Wanttaja
>can step in with his always meticulous statistical analysis.

Damn, Corky, were you lurking in the back of the EAA Chapter 26 meeting
last night? I'm in the process of doing a detailed homebuilt accident
analysis, and presented my initial results.

Unfortunately, the year I chose for my in-depth analysis didn't include any
BD-5 crashes, so it's of no use for us in this case. Let's do a simpler
comparison. I ran the NTSB database for the accidents since January 1,
1990:

Total Amateur-Built Accidents: 2881
Total BD-5 Accidents: 22

BD-5s were involved in 0.8% of all homebuilt accidents, and in 1.1% of all
fatal homebuilt accidents. Due to the small size of the sample, this may
not be a significant difference (it's only three accidents extra over 13
years).

Looking at the FATALITY rate:

Total Amateur-Built Fatal Accidents: 837 (# of accidents, not fatalities)
Total BD-5 Fatal Accidents: 9

Homebuilt fatal accident rate: 837/2881, or 29.1%
BD-5 fatal accident rate: 9/22, or 40.1%

But what of the accident ratio in comparison to the size of the homebuilt
fleet? Let me "Back Out" some data that might let us make a comparative
analysis.

The January 2003 FAA database listed 25,886 aircraft as being in the
Experimental Amateur-Built category. The same database has listings for
237 BD-5s, of which 81 are listed as having Experimental Amateur-Built
certification.

Before I go on, allow me to explain the difference. Database listings
include a field for the category the aircraft is certified in. If the
field is blank, the usual process is to assume the airplane has received an
N-number but has not yet been approved for flight. My past analysis
indicates this is not necessarily the case; for instance, John Ammeter's
RV-6 (which flew something like ten years ago) STILL doesn't have an entry
in the Certification block, and, with Juan's help, I uncovered one BD-5
(not one of his, BTW) that made its first flight about five years after
being listed as certified.

Back when I did my first registration analysis, I found about 36,000
aircraft listings with "homebuilt-like" names, but only about 22,000 of
them (this was in 1997) were actually listed as certified. The FAA and EAA
only count those listed as certified, so the published figure is in the
20,000 range instead of in the 30,000s.

So...officially, we should only use the 81 BD-5s for analysis. Due to the
uncertainty, I'll list the figures for the full fleet as well. BTW, I used
"BD-5", "BD 5", "BD5", and "BEDE 5" (with appropriate wild cards) as my
search terms.

Anyway, to the stats:

Total homebuilts in 2003: 25886
Total certified BD-5s: 81
Total listed BD-5s: 237

Lets compare the number of accidents over the past 13 years with the
current number of homebuilts. We'll add the accident airplanes back into
the current fleet for a baseline.

This doesn't, in itself, produce a viable statistic. But it is useful in
comparing between aircraft types.

Total homebuilts plus accidents: 28767
Total certified BD-5s plus accidents: 103
Total listed BD-5s plus accidents: 259

(Note that the NTSB accident listings make no differentiation whether the
accident aircraft had a blank in the certification status field)

Percentages:

Total homebuilt accident rate: 10%
Total certified BD-5 rate: 21%
Total all-listing BD-5 rate: 8.5%

So whether the BD-5 is twice as bad as the main fleet or a little bit
better really depends on your interpretation of the certification data. By
the FAA and EAA's interpretation, the BD-5's accident rate is twice that of
the main homebuilt fleet.

Ron Wanttaja

[Big John]

Corky

A bit of BD5 trivia.

When Jim first built the bird and during the test phase (which
continued after he had started selling kits) they experienced a number
of engine failures with the German/Austrian (forget the name) engine.

Basic problem, as I remember, was that when throttle was put in idle
for long period in landing pattern, there was not enough oil going
through the engine to keep it from freezing up. As bird made pattern
the prop would keep engine RPM up and with only the oil from idle
throttle bad happened. In a snowmobile application (which engine came
out of) this never happened because engine was not spun up like it was
with the prop..

Was going back to Iowa to visit family and stopped by and spoke with
Jim about this. Suggested that he use an engine that had oil injection
vs the mixed fuel/oil normally used in a two cycle. Would have solved
his problem.

The only problem was that he had a contract (with a low price) with
the engine manufacturer that he couldn't get out of and they didn't
want to or couldn't make (without making major redesign $$$$$) changes
to the engine (or something like that) so history came to pass.

If the original engine had worked and Jim had delivered with all the
kits sold, would have been a lot more built (and possibly deaths as
you say, hot bird, high stall speed, even with the 'B' wing, etc.)

Thought seriously about building one (ex Fighter Pilot) but then all
the problems came up and decided against (I'm dumb but not stupid and
know when to cut my losses).


Big John


On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 13:57:03 GMT,
(Corky Scott) wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:23:22 -0600, Big John >
>wrote:
>
>
>>
>>No one has posted a follow up with the name of the BD5 pilot, and
>>details of the accident (1000 ft short on final). You don't see many
>>BD5 accidents but there are not a lot flying so statically the
>>accident rate is probably pretty high vs other homebuilts with a lot
>>completed and flying?
>
>Man those BD5's just don't seem like a good idea. Tiny, high stall
>speed, tight engine compartment, and the pilot sits right on the
>bottom of the fuselage.
>
>The airplane has been discussed in this group previously and my
>recollection is that it has a very high fatal accident rate. It's
>first flight accident rate is also very high. Perhaps Ron Wanttaja
>can step in with his always meticulous statistical analysis.
>
>Corky Scott

[RobertR237]

In article >, Ron Wanttaja
> writes:

>
>Total homebuilt accident rate: 10%
>Total certified BD-5 rate: 21%
>Total all-listing BD-5 rate: 8.5%
>
>So whether the BD-5 is twice as bad as the main fleet or a little bit
>better really depends on your interpretation of the certification data. By
>the FAA and EAA's interpretation, the BD-5's accident rate is twice that of
>the main homebuilt fleet.
>
>Ron Wanttaja
>
>

What would be more telling would be the accident rate per hours flown. Even if
the 236 BD-5s were accurate, I suspect the accident per hour would be
significantly higher for the BD5 than your figures indicate. Unfortunately,
there is no available database that would give that information.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

In article >,
(Corky Scott) writes:

>
>Man those BD5's just don't seem like a good idea. Tiny, high stall
>speed, tight engine compartment, and the pilot sits right on the
>bottom of the fuselage.
>
>The airplane has been discussed in this group previously and my
>recollection is that it has a very high fatal accident rate. It's
>first flight accident rate is also very high. Perhaps Ron Wanttaja
>can step in with his always meticulous statistical analysis.
>
>Corky Scott
>
>

AHHHH Sheet! Now you have gone and opened that stinking can of worms again.
This will bring jaun back big time once again defending that piece of crap
plane and it's crooked designer. Why not just let it die?

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[Curious Question]

> RobertR237 > wrote:

> Why not just let it die?


why don't you do the world a favour and take your own advice.

[Gig Giacona]

"RobertR237" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Ron Wanttaja
> > writes:
>
> >
> >Total homebuilt accident rate: 10%
> >Total certified BD-5 rate: 21%
> >Total all-listing BD-5 rate: 8.5%
> >
> >So whether the BD-5 is twice as bad as the main fleet or a little bit
> >better really depends on your interpretation of the certification data.
By
> >the FAA and EAA's interpretation, the BD-5's accident rate is twice that
of
> >the main homebuilt fleet.
> >
> >Ron Wanttaja
> >
> >
>
> What would be more telling would be the accident rate per hours flown.
Even if
> the 236 BD-5s were accurate, I suspect the accident per hour would be
> significantly higher for the BD5 than your figures indicate.
Unfortunately,
> there is no available database that would give that information.
>

I haven't spent that much time looking at the accident reports but it seems
that TTAF and TTE might be listed somewhere on, if not all, a good number of
accident reports. While you wouldn't get a total time for the fleet you
could get a total time for the accident involved fleet. Might be telling.

[Big John]

Bob

I got put in my place so that's it for me. Juan may have me 'plonked'
????????? so no reply to my postings <G>.

Big John


On 14 Nov 2003 16:41:52 GMT, (RobertR237)
wrote:

>In article >,
(Corky Scott) writes:
>
>>
>>Man those BD5's just don't seem like a good idea. Tiny, high stall
>>speed, tight engine compartment, and the pilot sits right on the
>>bottom of the fuselage.
>>
>>The airplane has been discussed in this group previously and my
>>recollection is that it has a very high fatal accident rate. It's
>>first flight accident rate is also very high. Perhaps Ron Wanttaja
>>can step in with his always meticulous statistical analysis.
>>
>>Corky Scott
>>
>>
>
>AHHHH Sheet! Now you have gone and opened that stinking can of worms again.
>This will bring jaun back big time once again defending that piece of crap
>plane and it's crooked designer. Why not just let it die?
>
>Bob Reed
>www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
>KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....
>
>"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
>pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
>(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[- Barnyard BOb -]

"Gig Giacona" wrote:

>I haven't spent that much time looking at the accident reports but it seems
>that TTAF and TTE might be listed somewhere on, if not all, a good number of
>accident reports. While you wouldn't get a total time for the fleet you
>could get a total time for the accident involved fleet. Might be telling.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Any body ever see a BD5 flying cross country?
Anybody ever see a BD5 fly?

I'd ask jaun for some figures, but I doubt he
would ever confirm that most flying BD5's have
far less than 50 hours TT on 'em.....
and this would be a lot of taxi time. <g>

At one time jaun did claimed there was one
with over 350 hours. However, if credibility is
an issue, the figure should be considered bogus.


Barnyard BOb -- over 713 hours TT on my RV3

[Bart D. Hull]

Yo Bob,

There was a BD-5J that was used as the "Coors Silver Bullet" and then was used
for shows at Oshkosh, etc. I could see that particular BD-5 as having more than
350 hours on it. I don't know if this particular bird is still flying.

After each airshow, the wings were pulled off and it was put in a trailer. Makes
sense as far as having a car and tools at the airshow as well as your plane.

I think a BIG indication of how difficult it is to fly is that a Ex- Blue Angel
was flying it for the demos! There is a gentleman in my EAA chapter that has one
and is rebuilding it after bleeding too much speed and ending up a bit high on
landing. He did mention that he really couldn't see the ground from the almost
fully reclined position that is the pilot seat. His BD-5 uses a Turbomecha
turbine with a PSRU prop reduction for power.

As with all things if it goes hellishly fast it probably doesn't do slow very well.

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.


- Barnyard BOb - wrote:

> "Gig Giacona" wrote:
>
>
>>I haven't spent that much time looking at the accident reports but it seems
>>that TTAF and TTE might be listed somewhere on, if not all, a good number of
>>accident reports. While you wouldn't get a total time for the fleet you
>>could get a total time for the accident involved fleet. Might be telling.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Any body ever see a BD5 flying cross country?
> Anybody ever see a BD5 fly?
>
> I'd ask jaun for some figures, but I doubt he
> would ever confirm that most flying BD5's have
> far less than 50 hours TT on 'em.....
> and this would be a lot of taxi time. <g>
>
> At one time jaun did claimed there was one
> with over 350 hours. However, if credibility is
> an issue, the figure should be considered bogus.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 713 hours TT on my RV3
>
>

[RobertR237]

In article >, Curious Question
> writes:

>
>> RobertR237 > wrote:
>
>> Why not just let it die?
>
>
>why don't you do the world a favour and take your own advice.
>
>

I had DUMB ****! I wasn't the one who brought it up. Now try doing the same!

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[RobertR237]

In article >, Big John
> writes:

>
>Bob
>
>I got put in my place so that's it for me. Juan may have me 'plonked'
>????????? so no reply to my postings <G>.
>
>Big John
>
>

Hell John, I really don't give a hoot one way or the other. I got burned once,
learned a valuable lesson and moved on. The only reason I ever get involved in
the BD5 discussion it to remind people to look at the records before getting
involved with anything regarding the BD5 or BEDE.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

[- Barnyard BOb -]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:34:32 -0700, "Bart D. Hull"
> wrote:

>Yo Bob,
>
>There was a BD-5J that was used as the "Coors Silver Bullet" and then was used
>for shows at Oshkosh, etc. I could see that particular BD-5 as having more than
>350 hours on it. I don't know if this particular bird is still flying.

Hmmm.
Come to think of it....
I've seen the Coors Silver Bullet fly.
Maybe it has 350 hours, maybe it doesn't...
given the trailering operation.

>After each airshow, the wings were pulled off and it was put in a trailer. Makes
>sense as far as having a car and tools at the airshow as well as your plane.

By any stretch of the imagination, the
BD5J is hardly an amateur endeavor and
it's value is mostly as an oddity. As you have noted,
it ain't no poor boy or rich boy cross country machine.

>I think a BIG indication of how difficult it is to fly is that a Ex- Blue Angel
>was flying it for the demos! There is a gentleman in my EAA chapter that has one
>and is rebuilding it after bleeding too much speed and ending up a bit high on
>landing. He did mention that he really couldn't see the ground from the almost
>fully reclined position that is the pilot seat. His BD-5 uses a Turbomecha
>turbine with a PSRU prop reduction for power.

I've been told that the "B" wing is NOT at all difficult to fly.

Keeping a liquid cooled engine running without it spewing it's
contents on the inhabitant is but one of the many frightful engine
reliability challenges. Landing out with tiny wheels and NO
crush room rounds out the rest of a very plague ridden machine.

The reclined position is no big deal for any high performance
sailplane jockey.

The BD5 in the hangar next to me does not recline as much
as my old sailplane. This is a beautiful BD5 that is just waiting to
hurt anybody that dares think its untested Kawasaki watercraft
engine is worth risking life and limb in lieu of a proven engine.

>As with all things if it goes hellishly fast it probably doesn't do slow very well.

How fast is hellishly fast?
A prop powered SX 300 can do 300...
and actually GO SOMEWHERE.... RELIABILY.

From what I've read about the "B" wing,
it's pretty much of a pussycat with a nice
stall around 65 mph?

For me, the problem is that no proven cost
effective engine exists for this aircraft, and landing
out dead stick is very risky business since you wear
this little rascal without an inch of room to spare.
None for your feet. None for ass. None for your
rib cage. None for your head... and the engine
sits at the back side of it. Hardly engineered
for human longevity in case of emergency.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[Del Rawlins]

On 14 Nov 2003 12:57 PM, Big John posted the following:
> Bob
>
> I got put in my place so that's it for me. Juan may have me 'plonked'
> ????????? so no reply to my postings <G>.

Juan wouldn't use a killfile, since it would deny him the opportunity to
have the last word.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Ron Wanttaja]

[Answering two postings in one message]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:59:19 -0600, Big John > wrote:

>Ron
>
>Tnx for the stats. Validated my gut feeling from seeing scattered
>reports through the years.

I did a quick scan of the BD-5 accident reports. Due to my recent analysis
work, I'm a bit attuned...it seemed to me that the BD-5 had a higher
percentage of "Builder Error" accidents than I was used to seeing, and
lower pilot error. This may be a function of people buying kits on the
cheap and trying to finish them; it might be a function of the aircraft not
having a "standard" power package. I may take an in-depth slice at the
BD-5s and compare them to the Fly Baby, whose accident reports I already
have.

Still, though, the actual number of cases make a pretty small statistical
sample.

>Of benefit to those thinking about building , if you massaged your
>figures to show which birds had the best safety rate, might help some
>rethink their possible choice of home built? Of course your gross
>figures would include stupidly on pilots part but total percentage
>number would still be a good indicator.

Had that experience at EAA last night. I presented a list of the airplanes
that had the highest rate (I used a criteria of having a minimum of 5
accidents in that year), and one of the guys had been interested in that
design. But when we looked at the individual reports, nothing really stood
out. Mostly pilot error, one pilot incapacitation (!). Nothing in common,
in any of the accidents, that one could point at as indicating there was
something wrong with the design. And it was an amphibian, which gave more
opportunity for problems (e.g., hitting a sunken log...).

In another example, there were two similar aircraft produced by opposing
companies. Similar fleet sizes on the registration database, but one type
had five accidents and the other had nine (in a single year). Almost
identical designs, the same engine(s).

So I'm not sure how useful the by-aircraft rates are. Fun to look at,
though.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:23:27 -0600, - Barnyard BOb wrote:

] Any body ever see a BD5 flying cross country?
] Anybody ever see a BD5 fly?

Actually, other than at fly-ins, I actually see very few of ANY homebuilts
other than the ones based at my home field. I don't think I've ever been
at an airport when a Lancair dropped in, nor a Wheeler, nor a Venture, nor
a Rotorway Exec, nor a Rans, nor a Pietenpol, or dozens of other common
homebuilts. Maybe I just don't get out much. :-)

But when you think about it, about one in ten small aircraft you see should
be a homebuilt. Doesn't seem that way. Probably because of all those 152s
and 172s with students flying 'round and 'round.

Ron Wanttaja

[Jeff Schroeder]

A few comments from a BD-5 builder & pilot.

I know of at least two with 300+ hours on them as I've talked with the
owners. One is in Canada with turbo Honda power, the other back east
somewhere with a KFM engine. Two in N. California are at 140 or so. Another,
with a VW engine, had well over 100 as I recall. However, most that have
flown, like mine, have just a few hours on them.

General BD-5 advice:

Difficult and fussy to build. However, kits, parts, and support are
available. NOT a beginner project. Not a practical airplane due to
limitations in size, safety, and reliability.

Easy to build overweight. (the BIG problem with most alternative engines
used in it) Most BDs are from 50 to 250# over the original design empty
weight. Bede says 450 pounds E.W. should be the max. Few have achieved this.
Imagine tossing a couple bags of cement into something as small as a BD-5,
and how that would change the flying qualities!

Original airfoil has hysterisis in stall recovery. You have to reduce angle
of attack well below the stall angle to get the airflow to reattach. Most
BDs being built today have a thicker % section or a L.E. cuff to prevent
this.

No crashworthiness.

Difficult to get most engines to cool properly with the mid-fuselage buried
location. Several early crashes were caused by overheat seizures in
overgross planes. This was exacerbated by a pitchup at power failure that
would put the plane near or in a stall if not corrected by forward stick and
retrimming! . (high thrustline)

A very easy plane to fly! Delightful handling and control harmony. (at a
reasonable weight) Very stable. It can also outmaneuver a hummingbird on
amphetamines. Has a nearly 15/1 glide ratio at 120 mph.

Posters disclaimer! I've had four deadsticks in my 5. I think that I
finally found the problem in the fuel system and corrected it. I am being
careful not to fly again until ground testing convinces me that everything
is fine. The plane flies great, but the silent birdman thing has gotten
really old. One was into a field where I hit an irrigation pipe (hidden in
weeds) and ripped off the gear. Plane has flown several times since that
one.

Jeff Schroeder
N525JS


"- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:34:32 -0700, "Bart D. Hull"
> > wrote:
>
> >Yo Bob,
> >
> >There was a BD-5J that was used as the "Coors Silver Bullet" and then was
used
> >for shows at Oshkosh, etc. I could see that particular BD-5 as having
more than
> >350 hours on it. I don't know if this particular bird is still flying.
>
> Hmmm.
> Come to think of it....
> I've seen the Coors Silver Bullet fly.
> Maybe it has 350 hours, maybe it doesn't...
> given the trailering operation.
>
> >After each airshow, the wings were pulled off and it was put in a
trailer. Makes
> >sense as far as having a car and tools at the airshow as well as your
plane.
>
> By any stretch of the imagination, the
> BD5J is hardly an amateur endeavor and
> it's value is mostly as an oddity. As you have noted,
> it ain't no poor boy or rich boy cross country machine.
>
> >I think a BIG indication of how difficult it is to fly is that a Ex- Blue
Angel
> >was flying it for the demos! There is a gentleman in my EAA chapter that
has one
> >and is rebuilding it after bleeding too much speed and ending up a bit
high on
> >landing. He did mention that he really couldn't see the ground from the
almost
> >fully reclined position that is the pilot seat. His BD-5 uses a
Turbomecha
> >turbine with a PSRU prop reduction for power.
>
> I've been told that the "B" wing is NOT at all difficult to fly.
>
> Keeping a liquid cooled engine running without it spewing it's
> contents on the inhabitant is but one of the many frightful engine
> reliability challenges. Landing out with tiny wheels and NO
> crush room rounds out the rest of a very plague ridden machine.
>
> The reclined position is no big deal for any high performance
> sailplane jockey.
>
> The BD5 in the hangar next to me does not recline as much
> as my old sailplane. This is a beautiful BD5 that is just waiting to
> hurt anybody that dares think its untested Kawasaki watercraft
> engine is worth risking life and limb in lieu of a proven engine.
>
> >As with all things if it goes hellishly fast it probably doesn't do slow
very well.
>
> How fast is hellishly fast?
> A prop powered SX 300 can do 300...
> and actually GO SOMEWHERE.... RELIABILY.
>
> From what I've read about the "B" wing,
> it's pretty much of a pussycat with a nice
> stall around 65 mph?
>
> For me, the problem is that no proven cost
> effective engine exists for this aircraft, and landing
> out dead stick is very risky business since you wear
> this little rascal without an inch of room to spare.
> None for your feet. None for ass. None for your
> rib cage. None for your head... and the engine
> sits at the back side of it. Hardly engineered
> for human longevity in case of emergency.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[Ron Wanttaja]

On 14 Nov 2003 21:26:44 -0800, wrote:

>I'm very surprised by this. My impression of the BD-5, from the early years,
>was that something like 1 in 4 crashed on it's first flight, and the fatality
>rate was 10,000 per 100,000 flight hours.

The original "A" wing is, from what I understand, a killer. The upgraded,
longer, "B" wing has a lot better record. Jeff Schoeder gave his personal
positive experience with the handling, and his comments are similar to
those I've heard from Dave "Hammer" Harris, who used to fly a -5J in
airshows (and is currently flying a jet-powered Caproni sailplane).

The problem with the BD-5 is that it was marketed as a homebuilt everyone
would be able to build and everyone would be able to fly. Those aspects
never came true, but it's apparently a pretty good plane if you can make
the powerplant reliable.

I've got the accident reports downloaded, and hopefully will post a cursory
analysis in a day or so. I may download the RV-3 reports as well, so I can
contrast the accident statistics for three single seaters: BD-5, RV-3, and
Fly Baby.

Ron Wanttaja

[- Barnyard BOb -]

"Jeff Schroeder" > wrote:

> A few comments from a BD-5 builder & pilot.
>
>I know of at least two with 300+ hours on them as I've talked with the
>owners. One is in Canada with turbo Honda power, the other back east
>somewhere with a KFM engine. Two in N. California are at 140 or so. Another,
>with a VW engine, had well over 100 as I recall. However, most that have
>flown, like mine, have just a few hours on them.
>
>General BD-5 advice:

<Absolutely great stuff snipped only for brevity>

>A very easy plane to fly! Delightful handling and control harmony. (at a
>reasonable weight) Very stable. It can also outmaneuver a hummingbird on
>amphetamines. Has a nearly 15/1 glide ratio at 120 mph.
>
>Posters disclaimer! I've had four deadsticks in my 5. I think that I
>finally found the problem in the fuel system and corrected it. I am being
>careful not to fly again until ground testing convinces me that everything
>is fine. The plane flies great, but the silent birdman thing has gotten
>really old. One was into a field where I hit an irrigation pipe (hidden in
>weeds) and ripped off the gear. Plane has flown several times since that
>one.
>
>Jeff Schroeder
>N525JS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Kudos, Jeff...
For what gotta' be the most forthright post I've
ever read from a BD5 builder - owner - pilot.
You got big 'balls', my man.
My hat's off to ya'. <g>

This post is a KEEPER fer me.
Outstanding and a pure delight to read.
[Even if you're pulling my leg.]

You will keep us posted on how things go, right?


Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight

[Dan Thomas]

Ron Wanttaja > wrote in message >...
>
> ] Any body ever see a BD5 flying cross country?
> ] Anybody ever see a BD5 fly?
>
> Actually, other than at fly-ins, I actually see very few of ANY homebuilts
> other than the ones based at my home field. I don't think I've ever been
> at an airport when a Lancair dropped in, nor a Wheeler, nor a Venture, nor
> a Rotorway Exec, nor a Rans, nor a Pietenpol, or dozens of other common
> homebuilts. Maybe I just don't get out much. :-)
>
> But when you think about it, about one in ten small aircraft you see should
> be a homebuilt. Doesn't seem that way. Probably because of all those 152s
> and 172s with students flying 'round and 'round.
>
> Ron Wanttaja

I think most homebuilts end up sitting in some hangar because the
builder spent way too much time and money on it, and now his family
(and all the other things that went uncared-for) won't let him spend
any more.
Some builders are thoroughly fed up with the project by the time
it's done, and others don't trust their workmanship enough to fly
much.
Some used poorly designed auto conversions that just drove them
nuts or dollared them to death.
In 30 years of being around homebuilts and homebuilders, I've
seen all of these. The guy interested in building an airplane would be
wise to anticipate and deal with them. Most of us are tempted to bite
off way too much.

Dan

[Jeff Schroeder]

With all of the invective, misinformation, pie in the sky hope, personal
grudges, and ignorant opinion that has made its way into the BD-5 dialogue
over the years, I've tried to state the facts as I know them, and help
others avoid mistakes. (like choosing to build a 5 in the first place,
rather than something more useful for the labor involved)

This plane, regardless of its faults, will be with us for some time as it
is one of the most facinating , notorious designs ever created. As many of
us have discovered, a rational examination of your abilities and needs has
little to do with the homebuilt design chosen. For example, I mostly fly
locally, but still want a ViperJet, Turbine Legend, or L-39. I ended up with
the 5 because I got the basic Bede incomplete kit for $ 500 from someone
who never started it. I figured it was like a big model, and could be
finished in a year or so. I was bullheaded enough, (and had a lot of shop
experience) to be able to keep going until it was done. I was curious
enough, and fortunate, to research it fully, and make several critical mods
during construction. This plane REQUIRES that the builder thoroughly
understand its history, and the experiences of others over the years, before
doing your own.

For photos of mine, and some experiences testing it, go to the
HomebuiltAirplanes.com site and look under the Completions and Flying
Techniques forum headings.

I'm not sure how big mine are by comparison, but want to keep them just the
same! ;-)

Jeff Schroeder



"- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Kudos, Jeff...
> For what gotta' be the most forthright post I've
> ever read from a BD5 builder - owner - pilot.
> You got big 'balls', my man.
> My hat's off to ya'. <g>
>
> This post is a KEEPER fer me.
> Outstanding and a pure delight to read.
> [Even if you're pulling my leg.]
>
> You will keep us posted on how things go, right?
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight
>
>

[Richard Isakson]

"Bart D. Hull" wrote ...
> There was a BD-5J that was used as the "Coors Silver Bullet" and then was
used
> for shows at Oshkosh, etc. I could see that particular BD-5 as having more
than
> 350 hours on it. I don't know if this particular bird is still flying.
>
> After each airshow, the wings were pulled off and it was put in a trailer.
Makes
> sense as far as having a car and tools at the airshow as well as your
plane.

There's a dirty little secret about the Microturbo TRS 18 engine used in the
BD-5J that the owners don't like to talk about. It only gets 50 hours
between hot section overhauls and a hot section overhaul costs $5,000. The
plane is trailered to airshows because the owners don't want to pay the $100
per hour in maintenance costs for the hot section. Well, that and the fact
that the airplane doesn't even have enough fuel for VFR reserves when it
takes off.

Juan's engine, the Microturbo Cougar, on the other hand is a different sort
of animal. It was designed for target drones and has a much lower thrust
rating. Basically it's a disposable engine but if he ever gets it flying
he'll sell it and the airframe to you for $100,000.

Rich

[Big John]

Jeff

Excellent looking bird (and flies to :o).Unless you told someone, your
mods still let it look 'classic' and not like some of the ones with
'warts all over them.

How do you cool. Scoop looks small. Do you have a fan on radidtor or
some other method? I see the louvers just ahead of the tail skid but
such a small area wonder how you get enough air out to keep all cool
and exit properly?

Big John


On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 03:43:46 GMT, "Jeff Schroeder"
> wrote:

>With all of the invective, misinformation, pie in the sky hope, personal
>grudges, and ignorant opinion that has made its way into the BD-5 dialogue
>over the years, I've tried to state the facts as I know them, and help
>others avoid mistakes. (like choosing to build a 5 in the first place,
>rather than something more useful for the labor involved)
>
> This plane, regardless of its faults, will be with us for some time as it
>is one of the most facinating , notorious designs ever created. As many of
>us have discovered, a rational examination of your abilities and needs has
>little to do with the homebuilt design chosen. For example, I mostly fly
>locally, but still want a ViperJet, Turbine Legend, or L-39. I ended up with
>the 5 because I got the basic Bede incomplete kit for $ 500 from someone
>who never started it. I figured it was like a big model, and could be
>finished in a year or so. I was bullheaded enough, (and had a lot of shop
>experience) to be able to keep going until it was done. I was curious
>enough, and fortunate, to research it fully, and make several critical mods
>during construction. This plane REQUIRES that the builder thoroughly
>understand its history, and the experiences of others over the years, before
>doing your own.
>
> For photos of mine, and some experiences testing it, go to the
>HomebuiltAirplanes.com site and look under the Completions and Flying
>Techniques forum headings.
>
>I'm not sure how big mine are by comparison, but want to keep them just the
>same! ;-)
>
>Jeff Schroeder
>
>
>
>"- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Kudos, Jeff...
>> For what gotta' be the most forthright post I've
>> ever read from a BD5 builder - owner - pilot.
>> You got big 'balls', my man.
>> My hat's off to ya'. <g>
>>
>> This post is a KEEPER fer me.
>> Outstanding and a pure delight to read.
>> [Even if you're pulling my leg.]
>>
>> You will keep us posted on how things go, right?
>>
>>
>> Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight
>>
>>
>

[Jeff Schroeder]

Mine cools great even on a 90 deg. day. This, however, took a lot of work.
Total air inlet area is 12 sq. in. divided between flush wingroot openings.
Air exits through an adjustable P-51 style outlet under the tail (30 sq.
in.) A standard Rotax radiator in mounted in a plenum behind the seat.
There is a second one (postal truck heater core) mounted horizontally under
the quill shaft in the back of the engine compartment. Both have ground
cooling fans. The airpath diverges from the inlets to the exhaust with
smooth curves and ramps for the air to follow. Cooling airflow can stall
around sharp corners and cause drag and poor flow internally. This is why
many installation of this type don't work well. The louvers, and a small
air outlet on the left side of the engine compartment door allow some air to
flow around the exhaust pipe and muffler and take that heat away from the
rear radiator.

The main external mods visible are a raised stabilator, and making the aft
fuselage trailing edge match the rudder TE. This BD also has a wing LE cuff,
and fuselage stretch.

These little planes are somewhat of an obsession to those of us who should
have some more common sense!

Jeff

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Jeff
>
> Excellent looking bird (and flies to :o).Unless you told someone, your
> mods still let it look 'classic' and not like some of the ones with
> 'warts all over them.
>
> How do you cool. Scoop looks small. Do you have a fan on radidtor or
> some other method? I see the louvers just ahead of the tail skid but
> such a small area wonder how you get enough air out to keep all cool
> and exit properly?
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 03:43:46 GMT, "Jeff Schroeder"
> > wrote:
>
> >With all of the invective, misinformation, pie in the sky hope, personal
> >grudges, and ignorant opinion that has made its way into the BD-5
dialogue
> >over the years, I've tried to state the facts as I know them, and help
> >others avoid mistakes. (like choosing to build a 5 in the first place,
> >rather than something more useful for the labor involved)
> >
> > This plane, regardless of its faults, will be with us for some time as
it
> >is one of the most facinating , notorious designs ever created. As many
of
> >us have discovered, a rational examination of your abilities and needs
has
> >little to do with the homebuilt design chosen. For example, I mostly fly
> >locally, but still want a ViperJet, Turbine Legend, or L-39. I ended up
with
> >the 5 because I got the basic Bede incomplete kit for $ 500 from someone
> >who never started it. I figured it was like a big model, and could be
> >finished in a year or so. I was bullheaded enough, (and had a lot of
shop
> >experience) to be able to keep going until it was done. I was curious
> >enough, and fortunate, to research it fully, and make several critical
mods
> >during construction. This plane REQUIRES that the builder thoroughly
> >understand its history, and the experiences of others over the years,
before
> >doing your own.
> >
> > For photos of mine, and some experiences testing it, go to the
> >HomebuiltAirplanes.com site and look under the Completions and Flying
> >Techniques forum headings.
> >
> >I'm not sure how big mine are by comparison, but want to keep them just
the
> >same! ;-)
> >
> >Jeff Schroeder
> >
> >
> >
> >"- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Kudos, Jeff...
> >> For what gotta' be the most forthright post I've
> >> ever read from a BD5 builder - owner - pilot.
> >> You got big 'balls', my man.
> >> My hat's off to ya'. <g>
> >>
> >> This post is a KEEPER fer me.
> >> Outstanding and a pure delight to read.
> >> [Even if you're pulling my leg.]
> >>
> >> You will keep us posted on how things go, right?
> >>
> >>
> >> Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[Big John]

Thanks Jeff

Your comments all make sense and understand what you did.

Someone in a prior post commented about vision, particularly landing,
due to reclined position in the '5. People forget that in the heavy
iron in WWII there wasn't any forward vision on the take off (until
you got tail up) and landing to clear ahead. When we flared and lost
runway at 12 o'clock we transitioned to a quartering side view (I
normally used the left side). Adjusted height as needed looking at R/W
surface and tracked using the edge of the R/W or lines on R/W.
Thousands did this so I'd not think it a unsurmountable problem now in
the '5.

Fly safe. Have fun

Big John


On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 18:31:10 GMT, "Jeff Schroeder"
> wrote:

>Mine cools great even on a 90 deg. day. This, however, took a lot of work.
>Total air inlet area is 12 sq. in. divided between flush wingroot openings.
>Air exits through an adjustable P-51 style outlet under the tail (30 sq.
>in.) A standard Rotax radiator in mounted in a plenum behind the seat.
>There is a second one (postal truck heater core) mounted horizontally under
>the quill shaft in the back of the engine compartment. Both have ground
>cooling fans. The airpath diverges from the inlets to the exhaust with
>smooth curves and ramps for the air to follow. Cooling airflow can stall
>around sharp corners and cause drag and poor flow internally. This is why
>many installation of this type don't work well. The louvers, and a small
>air outlet on the left side of the engine compartment door allow some air to
>flow around the exhaust pipe and muffler and take that heat away from the
>rear radiator.
>
>The main external mods visible are a raised stabilator, and making the aft
>fuselage trailing edge match the rudder TE. This BD also has a wing LE cuff,
>and fuselage stretch.
>
>These little planes are somewhat of an obsession to those of us who should
>have some more common sense!
>
>Jeff
>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Jeff
>>
>> Excellent looking bird (and flies to :o).Unless you told someone, your
>> mods still let it look 'classic' and not like some of the ones with
>> 'warts all over them.
>>
>> How do you cool. Scoop looks small. Do you have a fan on radidtor or
>> some other method? I see the louvers just ahead of the tail skid but
>> such a small area wonder how you get enough air out to keep all cool
>> and exit properly?
>>
>> Big John
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 03:43:46 GMT, "Jeff Schroeder"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >With all of the invective, misinformation, pie in the sky hope, personal
>> >grudges, and ignorant opinion that has made its way into the BD-5
>dialogue
>> >over the years, I've tried to state the facts as I know them, and help
>> >others avoid mistakes. (like choosing to build a 5 in the first place,
>> >rather than something more useful for the labor involved)
>> >
>> > This plane, regardless of its faults, will be with us for some time as
>it
>> >is one of the most facinating , notorious designs ever created. As many
>of
>> >us have discovered, a rational examination of your abilities and needs
>has
>> >little to do with the homebuilt design chosen. For example, I mostly fly
>> >locally, but still want a ViperJet, Turbine Legend, or L-39. I ended up
>with
>> >the 5 because I got the basic Bede incomplete kit for $ 500 from someone
>> >who never started it. I figured it was like a big model, and could be
>> >finished in a year or so. I was bullheaded enough, (and had a lot of
>shop
>> >experience) to be able to keep going until it was done. I was curious
>> >enough, and fortunate, to research it fully, and make several critical
>mods
>> >during construction. This plane REQUIRES that the builder thoroughly
>> >understand its history, and the experiences of others over the years,
>before
>> >doing your own.
>> >
>> > For photos of mine, and some experiences testing it, go to the
>> >HomebuiltAirplanes.com site and look under the Completions and Flying
>> >Techniques forum headings.
>> >
>> >I'm not sure how big mine are by comparison, but want to keep them just
>the
>> >same! ;-)
>> >
>> >Jeff Schroeder
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >"- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Kudos, Jeff...
>> >> For what gotta' be the most forthright post I've
>> >> ever read from a BD5 builder - owner - pilot.
>> >> You got big 'balls', my man.
>> >> My hat's off to ya'. <g>
>> >>
>> >> This post is a KEEPER fer me.
>> >> Outstanding and a pure delight to read.
>> >> [Even if you're pulling my leg.]
>> >>
>> >> You will keep us posted on how things go, right?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

[Jeff Schroeder]

Over the nose visibility isn't too bad in the BD-5. You do lose the
straight ahead view in the flare, but the nose is narrow enough that you
don't have to look off to the side very much. In flight vis is like a
sailplane; Great! The biggest problem for me has been flaring too high and
plopping it in. You sit so low to the ground (there's that lack of
crashworthiness) that its tough to wait until you're low enough before
pulling back. It seems best to just level off with slight backpressure and
let it settle in. The other visual problem is waiting until you have enough
airspeed before attempting to lift off. The low viewpoint makes you think
you're going a lot faster than you really are. (go-kart effect)

Jeff


"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks Jeff
>
> Your comments all make sense and understand what you did.
>
> Someone in a prior post commented about vision, particularly landing,
> due to reclined position in the '5. People forget that in the heavy
> iron in WWII there wasn't any forward vision on the take off (until
> you got tail up) and landing to clear ahead. When we flared and lost
> runway at 12 o'clock we transitioned to a quartering side view (I
> normally used the left side). Adjusted height as needed looking at R/W
> surface and tracked using the edge of the R/W or lines on R/W.
> Thousands did this so I'd not think it a unsurmountable problem now in
> the '5.
>
> Fly safe. Have fun
>
> Big John
>

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>Over the nose visibility isn't too bad in the BD-5. You do lose the
>straight ahead view in the flare, but the nose is narrow enough that you
>don't have to look off to the side very much. In flight vis is like a
>sailplane; Great! The biggest problem for me has been flaring too high and
>plopping it in. You sit so low to the ground (there's that lack of
>crashworthiness) that its tough to wait until you're low enough before
>pulling back. It seems best to just level off with slight backpressure and
>let it settle in. The other visual problem is waiting until you have enough
>airspeed before attempting to lift off. The low viewpoint makes you think
>you're going a lot faster than you really are. (go-kart effect)
>
>Jeff
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The good new is -
After the first 100 hours....
You won't even notice these effects. <bfg>

You don't wanna know the bad news.


Barnyard BOb - over 500 RV3 hours

[Big John]

Jeff

Have you gone and talked to the race car people about cockpit crash
worthiness? They build light and strong and their techniques might be
applicable to your bird (and BD-5's)?

Might give some comfort being so close to ground and going so fast?


Big John

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:14:10 GMT, "Jeff Schroeder"
> wrote:

>Over the nose visibility isn't too bad in the BD-5. You do lose the
>straight ahead view in the flare, but the nose is narrow enough that you
>don't have to look off to the side very much. In flight vis is like a
>sailplane; Great! The biggest problem for me has been flaring too high and
>plopping it in. You sit so low to the ground (there's that lack of
>crashworthiness) that its tough to wait until you're low enough before
>pulling back. It seems best to just level off with slight backpressure and
>let it settle in. The other visual problem is waiting until you have enough
>airspeed before attempting to lift off. The low viewpoint makes you think
>you're going a lot faster than you really are. (go-kart effect)
>
>Jeff
>
>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Thanks Jeff
>>
>> Your comments all make sense and understand what you did.
>>
>> Someone in a prior post commented about vision, particularly landing,
>> due to reclined position in the '5. People forget that in the heavy
>> iron in WWII there wasn't any forward vision on the take off (until
>> you got tail up) and landing to clear ahead. When we flared and lost
>> runway at 12 o'clock we transitioned to a quartering side view (I
>> normally used the left side). Adjusted height as needed looking at R/W
>> surface and tracked using the edge of the R/W or lines on R/W.
>> Thousands did this so I'd not think it a unsurmountable problem now in
>> the '5.
>>
>> Fly safe. Have fun
>>
>> Big John
>>
>