Ok, what about the BD5

[Whome?]

Ok, we have roasted the Mini 500, how about the BD5?

First things first, forget the jet. So few people could ever afford such a
thing it hardly seems viable from the get-go. But why has such a popular
design (on paper) found so little success? Thousands of people instantly fell
in love with it immediatley when it was introduced in what, the late 1060s.
So after 45 years or so, and so many parts floating around, what has so
greatly hampered this little birds sucess?

Looking back with my limited aviation experience, and yes I was there. I
visited Newton Kansas in the early 70s, met Jim Bede, and sat in one of the
completed prototypes in the show room floor. But the only thing that seems
apparent to my inexperience is the lack of a reliable piston power plant, due
to weight and power restrictions - and it's a VERY high performance aircraft,
that was gobbled up by a lot of low performance pilots.

Some time around 1980 or so, I saw and airshow demonstration by the Coor's
Silver Bullet, and the craft performed some amazing manuvers. So will this
airframe fly well if properly powered? Is there any way to make one a
workable craft if a pilot is qualified for such a high performance ship?

Let's see how many people can respond with a fair discussion, and ignore
Juan's bias of coarse, and examine the real reason this bird has never
soared.

--
Whome?

[BobR]

Probably lots of different reasons why it has not achieved the flying
success it should have but you hit on the biggest and probably most
important, no suitable engine. Yeah, I know that there are now many
good engines that could power it well but its time was then and this is
now. It was ahead of its time then and the needed engine wasn't
available. Now, its time has passed and few people are really
interested a plane with such demanding characteristics and limited
usefulness.

Yes, I was one of the many that fell in love with the BD5 the very
first time I saw it. It was then and remains a beautiful design that
seems to scream "FLY ME". It will fly well if properly powered, of
that there is no argument. I also believe there is little argument and
ample historical evidence to show that it is a high performance
aircraft with little room for error on the pilots part.

Ultimately though, I think the biggest reason it has not rebounded over
the years was Van's RV-4, RV-6, RV-7, RV-8 and RV-9 aircraft. Those
aircraft were slightly bigger, appealed to more pilots, were easier to
build, used proven available engines, offered performance galore and
were far easier for the average pilot to fly. They have literally
pushed most other kit manufacturers into the also-ran category. When
Bede first offered the BD5 as a KIT, it was a rather new concept.
Previous designs were just that, designs and you had to build them from
scratch. The idea of buying kits and assembling the parts to produce
your own plane appealed to a lot of people then and still does today.
Van's has taken that concept well beyond its origin of just a boxs full
of cut sheet metal and delivered on a true assembly kit. That was the
promise that the BD5 never really delivered.



Whome? wrote:
> Ok, we have roasted the Mini 500, how about the BD5?
>
> First things first, forget the jet. So few people could ever afford such a
> thing it hardly seems viable from the get-go. But why has such a popular
> design (on paper) found so little success? Thousands of people instantly fell
> in love with it immediatley when it was introduced in what, the late 1060s.
> So after 45 years or so, and so many parts floating around, what has so
> greatly hampered this little birds sucess?
>
> Looking back with my limited aviation experience, and yes I was there. I
> visited Newton Kansas in the early 70s, met Jim Bede, and sat in one of the
> completed prototypes in the show room floor. But the only thing that seems
> apparent to my inexperience is the lack of a reliable piston power plant, due
> to weight and power restrictions - and it's a VERY high performance aircraft,
> that was gobbled up by a lot of low performance pilots.
>
> Some time around 1980 or so, I saw and airshow demonstration by the Coor's
> Silver Bullet, and the craft performed some amazing manuvers. So will this
> airframe fly well if properly powered? Is there any way to make one a
> workable craft if a pilot is qualified for such a high performance ship?
>
> Let's see how many people can respond with a fair discussion, and ignore
> Juan's bias of coarse, and examine the real reason this bird has never
> soared.
>
> --
> Whome?

[J.Kahn]

Whome? wrote:
>Thousands of people instantly fell
> in love with it immediately when it was introduced in what, the late 1060s.
>

Yeah I heard that William The Conqueror put down a deposit right after
invading England and was screwed by Bede in 1069...

Just teasing; that sort of typo is just too tempting...

Bottom line is the airplane, while a brilliant design, has always
suffered for lack of a really reliable powerplant that was light enough.
The lack of crashworthiness inherent in the BD 5's configuration makes
engine reliability really critical. In the end the jet version is
probably the safest one due to the better reliability of a turbojet.

Add in the fact of size, the nasty stall behavior with an 80mph stall
speed with the original 64-212 root airfoil (!) (see:
http://www.bd5.com/reprofile.htm ). Even with the reprofiled airfoil the
stall is still 60 which means you touch down at 70 and you really don't
want to do that in a plowed field after the belt on your Honda lets go.

So, you have an airplane with a market limited to those with high risk
tolerance and at the same time willing to do a lot of tinkering, which
is pretty small.

For someone that really wanted that configuration, the Mini Imp was
probably a more practical choice.

John

[anon]

It is interesting that we often look at a design approvingly, only to talk
about the lack of a suitable powerplant.

I find this perverse, as it acts like the powerplant isn't part of the
design.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"BobR" > wrote

> Probably lots of different reasons why it has not achieved the flying
> success it should have but you hit on the biggest and probably most
> important, no suitable engine. Yeah, I know that there are now many
> good engines that could power it well but its time was then and this is
> now. It was ahead of its time then and the needed engine wasn't
> available.

I don't think that is quite true. There may be better engines now, but that
is only part of the problem with the piston engine in the BD-5.

The link escapes me now, but there were tremendous problems with torsional
harmonics, tearing apart everything, all the way along the drive train.

Beef up the driveshaft, and the clutch tore apart. Fix the clutch, and the
engine mounts cracked, beef them up, and something else broke. So on, and
so on.

Anyone happen to have the links handy that addressed all of these issues?
It was a very interesting read, although a lot of material. I think they
would answer, with great detail, why the 5 never caught on. They self
destructed.

> Van's RV-4, RV-6, RV-7, RV-8 and RV-9 aircraft. Those
> aircraft were slightly bigger, appealed to more pilots, were easier to
> build, used proven available engines, offered performance galore and
> were far easier for the average pilot to fly.

Although I have never flown one, the experienced pilots that did said things
like; it would eat most people alive, that it scared them, and so on.
--
Jim in NC

[wesley maceaux]

It's a good looking little plane..The rotax 912uls should give this plane a
real boost in performance .Always wanted one but the stall speed was way too
high for me.A stall of 40knts would be great but no dice.
"anon" > wrote in message
m...
> It is interesting that we often look at a design approvingly, only to talk
> about the lack of a suitable powerplant.
>
> I find this perverse, as it acts like the powerplant isn't part of the
> design.
>
>
>

[Whome?]

On 1/4/2007 3:21:53 PM, "Morgans" wrote:
>
>"BobR" > wrote
>
>> Probably lots of different reasons why it has not achieved the flying
>> success it should have but you hit on the biggest and probably most
>> important, no suitable engine. Yeah, I know that there are now many
>> good engines that could power it well but its time was then and this is
>> now. It was ahead of its time then and the needed engine wasn't
>> available.
>
>I don't think that is quite true. There may be better engines now, but that
>is only part of the problem with the piston engine in the BD-5.
>
>The link escapes me now, but there were tremendous problems with torsional
>harmonics, tearing apart everything, all the way along the drive train.
>
>Beef up the driveshaft, and the clutch tore apart. Fix the clutch, and the
>engine mounts cracked, beef them up, and something else broke. So on, and
>so on.
>
>Anyone happen to have the links handy that addressed all of these issues?
>It was a very interesting read, although a lot of material. I think they
>would answer, with great detail, why the 5 never caught on. They self
>destructed.
>
>> Van's RV-4, RV-6, RV-7, RV-8 and RV-9 aircraft. Those
>> aircraft were slightly bigger, appealed to more pilots, were easier to
>> build, used proven available engines, offered performance galore and
>> were far easier for the average pilot to fly.
>
>Although I have never flown one, the experienced pilots that did said things
>like; it would eat most people alive, that it scared them, and so on.


Are you thinking about this one?
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/contact1/contact1.html
I ran across it while doing a little research prior to this post.

I think all piston engine designs suffer too much from torsional vibration
problems. But most are just not serious enough to be destructive.

--
Whome?

[Dale Alexander]

Too many years ago to annouce publically, a friend of mine inquired with me
about sawing the gearbox off a Suzuki 750 Water-buffalo. For those of you
who are history impaired regarding two-stroke motorcycles, that engine came
from the GT750 and was a three cylinder two-stroke...or a two cylinder three
stroke...I don't remember

Anyway, with mild port work and a little boost in compression, the 750 would
probably put out 80 horsepower all day long, and Suzuki two strokes of that
time were known for being as reliable as a fire hydrant. The engine would
have weighed maybe 70-80 lbs, but required a water cooling system. And would
have been thirsty...

My friend had 900 hours in motor gliders at the time, I had maybe 20 in GA.
In retrospect, I'm glad the subject went away after a brief period of time.

Dale Alexander

"Whome?" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/4/2007 3:21:53 PM, "Morgans" wrote:
>>
>>"BobR" > wrote
>>
>>> Probably lots of different reasons why it has not achieved the flying
>>> success it should have but you hit on the biggest and probably most
>>> important, no suitable engine. Yeah, I know that there are now many
>>> good engines that could power it well but its time was then and this is
>>> now. It was ahead of its time then and the needed engine wasn't
>>> available.
>>
>>I don't think that is quite true. There may be better engines now, but
>>that
>>is only part of the problem with the piston engine in the BD-5.
>>
>>The link escapes me now, but there were tremendous problems with torsional
>>harmonics, tearing apart everything, all the way along the drive train.
>>
>>Beef up the driveshaft, and the clutch tore apart. Fix the clutch, and
>>the
>>engine mounts cracked, beef them up, and something else broke. So on, and
>>so on.
>>
>>Anyone happen to have the links handy that addressed all of these issues?
>>It was a very interesting read, although a lot of material. I think they
>>would answer, with great detail, why the 5 never caught on. They self
>>destructed.
>>
>>> Van's RV-4, RV-6, RV-7, RV-8 and RV-9 aircraft. Those
>>> aircraft were slightly bigger, appealed to more pilots, were easier to
>>> build, used proven available engines, offered performance galore and
>>> were far easier for the average pilot to fly.
>>
>>Although I have never flown one, the experienced pilots that did said
>>things
>>like; it would eat most people alive, that it scared them, and so on.
>
>
> Are you thinking about this one?
> http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/contact1/contact1.html
> I ran across it while doing a little research prior to this post.
>
> I think all piston engine designs suffer too much from torsional vibration
> problems. But most are just not serious enough to be destructive.
>
> --
> Whome?

[Dan[_2_]]

Dale Alexander wrote:
> Too many years ago to annouce publically, a friend of mine inquired with me
> about sawing the gearbox off a Suzuki 750 Water-buffalo. For those of you
> who are history impaired regarding two-stroke motorcycles, that engine came
> from the GT750 and was a three cylinder two-stroke...or a two cylinder three
> stroke...I don't remember
>

6 cylinder one stroke?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Whome?" > wrote in message
...
> Ok, we have roasted the Mini 500, how about the BD5?
>
> First things first, forget the jet. So few people could ever afford such a
> thing it hardly seems viable from the get-go. But why has such a popular
> design (on paper) found so little success? Thousands of people instantly
> fell
> in love with it immediatley when it was introduced in what, the late
> 1060s.
> So after 45 years or so, and so many parts floating around, what has so
> greatly hampered this little birds sucess?
>
> Looking back with my limited aviation experience, and yes I was there. I
> visited Newton Kansas in the early 70s, met Jim Bede, and sat in one of
> the
> completed prototypes in the show room floor. But the only thing that seems
> apparent to my inexperience is the lack of a reliable piston power plant,
> due
> to weight and power restrictions - and it's a VERY high performance
> aircraft,
> that was gobbled up by a lot of low performance pilots.
>
> Some time around 1980 or so, I saw and airshow demonstration by the Coor's
> Silver Bullet, and the craft performed some amazing manuvers. So will this
> airframe fly well if properly powered? Is there any way to make one a
> workable craft if a pilot is qualified for such a high performance ship?
>
> Let's see how many people can respond with a fair discussion, and ignore
> Juan's bias of coarse, and examine the real reason this bird has never
> soared.

You don't need to ask me. The easiest way to get an answer to your questions
is to ask the people who fly them on a regular basis. They all hang out on
the BD-5 mailing list on Yahoogroups, including some who worked at Bede
Aircraft Co. and some who have been flying the plane for 30 years, as well
as nearly 500 other BD-5 enthusiasts.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BobR" > wrote
>
>> Probably lots of different reasons why it has not achieved the flying
>> success it should have but you hit on the biggest and probably most
>> important, no suitable engine. Yeah, I know that there are now many
>> good engines that could power it well but its time was then and this is
>> now. It was ahead of its time then and the needed engine wasn't
>> available.
>
> I don't think that is quite true. There may be better engines now, but
> that is only part of the problem with the piston engine in the BD-5.
>
> The link escapes me now, but there were tremendous problems with torsional
> harmonics, tearing apart everything, all the way along the drive train.

No BD-5 has suffered an inflight failure involving either the airframe or
the drive train hardware.

> Beef up the driveshaft, and the clutch tore apart. Fix the clutch, and
> the engine mounts cracked, beef them up, and something else broke. So on,
> and so on.
>
> Anyone happen to have the links handy that addressed all of these issues?
> It was a very interesting read, although a lot of material. I think they
> would answer, with great detail, why the 5 never caught on. They self
> destructed.

My web site includes a library of material that includes things like this.
Help yourself, that's why I put it there, the good _and_ the bad.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"J.Kahn" > wrote in message
...
> The lack of crashworthiness inherent in the BD 5's configuration makes
> engine reliability really critical. In the end the jet version is
> probably the safest one due to the better reliability of a turbojet.

Actually, both of these statements are incorrect.

These two pictures show what's left of a Canadian BD-5 that landed in a
raspberry patch and essentially tore itself apart.

http://www.bd5.com/Canada/Canada01.jpg
http://www.bd5.com/Canada/Canada02.jpg

The man holding the pieces is the builder and pilot. He walked away. About
30% of accidents involving BD-5's are fatal. 23% of RV-6 accidents have been
fatal, and that's not counting the fact that some of those accidents had
more than one victim. You can verify that yourself on the NTSB web site.

The Microturbo TRS-18 that is most commonly used on the BD-5J is a very
finicky engine in many respects. For example, any minor deviation on fuel
pressure can cause the engine to shut down. The fuel pumps are very critical
components, which is why at least one of the operators is heavily involved
in designing replacement components and reengineering a portion of the fuel
system to increase reliability in this area. The irony is that even though
BD-5J's are mostly used for homeland security as cruise missile surrogates,
Microturbo, with facilities in Grand Prairie, TX, refuses to cooperate. They
won't even sell parts, directly or through the military.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

I thought so too. It turns out the engine is too wide and too heavy, and the
fact it is watercooled adds even more complexity. So far, I haven't seen a
single BD-5 built with a 912.

"wesley maceaux" > wrote in message
...
> It's a good looking little plane..The rotax 912uls should give this plane
> a real boost in performance .Always wanted one but the stall speed was way
> too high for me.A stall of 40knts would be great but no dice.
> "anon" > wrote in message
> m...
>> It is interesting that we often look at a design approvingly, only to
>> talk about the lack of a suitable powerplant.
>>
>> I find this perverse, as it acts like the powerplant isn't part of the
>> design.
>>
>>
>>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Whome?]

On 1/4/2007 12:37:26 PM, "J.Kahn" wrote:
>Whome? wrote:
>>Thousands of people instantly fell
>> in love with it immediately when it was introduced in what, the late 1060s.
>>
>
>Yeah I heard that William The Conqueror put down a deposit right after
>invading England and was screwed by Bede in 1069...
>
>Just teasing; that sort of typo is just too tempting...
>
>Bottom line is the airplane, while a brilliant design, has always
>suffered for lack of a really reliable powerplant that was light enough.
> The lack of crashworthiness inherent in the BD 5's configuration makes
>engine reliability really critical. In the end the jet version is
>probably the safest one due to the better reliability of a turbojet.
>
>Add in the fact of size, the nasty stall behavior with an 80mph stall
>speed with the original 64-212 root airfoil (!) (see:
>http://www.bd5.com/reprofile.htm ). Even with the reprofiled airfoil the
>stall is still 60 which means you touch down at 70 and you really don't
>want to do that in a plowed field after the belt on your Honda lets go.
>
>So, you have an airplane with a market limited to those with high risk
>tolerance and at the same time willing to do a lot of tinkering, which
>is pretty small.
>
>For someone that really wanted that configuration, the Mini Imp was
>probably a more practical choice.
>
>John
>

Yeah, that's another thing that I'm sure escaped most of the early buyers.
Even with the later wing modifications, for such a small airplane, it has
some really considerable runway requirements. William The Conqueror would
have probably needed to go with floats.



--
Whome?

[anon]

"wesley maceaux" > wrote in message
...
> It's a good looking little plane..The rotax 912uls should give this plane
> a real boost in performance .Always wanted one but the stall speed was way
> too high for me.A stall of 40knts would be great but no dice.

My father had a friend that owned one and he loved it. I'm not sure what
powerplant he used, but the fact that he probably didn't weigh over 160lbs,
was an Air Force pilot, and built light - probably helped the cause.

I think a lot of Cessna 150/172 guys found more they could handle in the
BD-5, especially after losing an engine. I think if more BD-5 pilots were
less concerned about getting back to the airport after an engine failure and
more concerned with maintaining airspeed, we'd have a few more BD-5 pilots.

Do the stats back that up in any way?

That said, designing around an unproven engine is probably a bad place to
start. Designing around an engine that hasn't been produced, probably a
bigger problem. I forget the details. What did the prototypes fly with?

[Kyle Boatright]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "BobR" > wrote
>>
>>> Probably lots of different reasons why it has not achieved the flying
>>> success it should have but you hit on the biggest and probably most
>>> important, no suitable engine. Yeah, I know that there are now many
>>> good engines that could power it well but its time was then and this is
>>> now. It was ahead of its time then and the needed engine wasn't
>>> available.
>>
>> I don't think that is quite true. There may be better engines now, but
>> that is only part of the problem with the piston engine in the BD-5.
>>
>> The link escapes me now, but there were tremendous problems with
>> torsional harmonics, tearing apart everything, all the way along the
>> drive train.
>
> No BD-5 has suffered an inflight failure involving either the airframe or
> the drive train hardware.

Correct, but that statement avoids the issue. There are/were unsolved
torsional problems. During the so-called development period for the design
they fought a number of problems including broken drive shafts, broken
engine mounts, etc. which were results of various torsional issues which
were never completely resolved.

http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/contact1/contact1.html

The only reason there were no in-flight failures of drivetrain hardware is
that the people involved with the design, both the Bede team and tinkerers
over the last 30 years have been dilligent and lucky enough to identify
failures and pending failures on the ground, rather than discovering the
failures in the very rarely demonstrated airborne mode of the design.


>
>> Beef up the driveshaft, and the clutch tore apart. Fix the clutch, and
>> the engine mounts cracked, beef them up, and something else broke. So
>> on, and so on.
>>
>> Anyone happen to have the links handy that addressed all of these issues?
>> It was a very interesting read, although a lot of material. I think they
>> would answer, with great detail, why the 5 never caught on. They self
>> destructed.
>
> My web site includes a library of material that includes things like this.
> Help yourself, that's why I put it there, the good _and_ the bad.
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

[John Halpenny]

Morgans wrote:



> Although I have never flown one, the experienced pilots that did said things
> like; it would eat most people alive, that it scared them, and so on.
> --
Since the BD5 only has one seat, it is not possible to be trained in
type. I can't think of a common training aircraft that even comes
close. It was supposed to be affordable for anyone, even those who did
not have a lot of high performance experience, yet it has a high stall
speed and a 'responsive' feel. This just sounds dangerous.

Has there ever been a single seat, low cost high performance aircraft
that has been successful? I won't count the Mini 500:-)

John Halpenny

[BobR]

It was the plane that we all wanted the moment we first saw it. We
were young and probably a bit foolish. Utility wasn't of interest,
speed and flying were the defining elements. The BD5 was the answer
and the price promised to be right. Times have changed and most of us
have matured and moved on to bigger and better goals. The market has
also matured and people expect more from their aircraft.

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:37:27 -0500, "J.Kahn"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Bottom line is the airplane, while a brilliant design, has always
> >suffered for lack of a really reliable powerplant that was light enough.
> > The lack of crashworthiness inherent in the BD 5's configuration makes
> >engine reliability really critical. In the end the jet version is
> >probably the safest one due to the better reliability of a turbojet.
> >
> >Add in the fact of size, the nasty stall behavior with an 80mph stall
> >speed with the original 64-212 root airfoil (!) (see:
> >http://www.bd5.com/reprofile.htm ). Even with the reprofiled airfoil the
> >stall is still 60 which means you touch down at 70 and you really don't
> >want to do that in a plowed field after the belt on your Honda lets go.
> >
> >So, you have an airplane with a market limited to those with high risk
> >tolerance and at the same time willing to do a lot of tinkering, which
> >is pretty small.
> >
> >For someone that really wanted that configuration, the Mini Imp was
> >probably a more practical choice.
>
> It started off with a big disadvantage - single place, no room for
> luggage. Any safety or reliability, or business issues aside, the
> configuration is simply not *practical.*
>
> Sure, it's fun, it's sexy, it's a wannabe fighter pilot's daydream.
> But exactly HOW are you going to have fun with it?
>
> Since it's one seat, you can't take your friends up and impress them.
> You can't take your Significant Other out for a $100 hamburger. No
> luggage, so you can't use it for a business trip.
>
> Mostly, you go up, fly around, and land back at your home airport.
>
> If that's your mission, the high speed is not a good thing. It just
> increases the pilot work load. It's not aerobatic, it's not a good
> instrument platform, so you're not going to use it to practice your
> pilot skilz. It's utility is very limited, it's practical mission
> (go up and have some fun and come back down) is better served by just
> about anything else that flies.
>
> The only real things it had going for it (from a sales point of view)
> were great looks and responsive controls.
>
> So your market is someone with high risk tolerance, willing to tinker
> a lot, doesn't want to take a passenger or baggage, who wants to fly
> fast but not actually go anyplace. That's a VERY limited market.
>
> I lost a LOT of customers just because I was selling a plane with 2
> seats in tandem. Their wives/girlfriends didn't want to sit in back.
> It was side by side or nothing.
>
> From a configuration/mission/market standpoint, the BD-12 made a lot
> more sense. Too bad it didn't fly.

[J.Kahn]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> "J.Kahn" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The lack of crashworthiness inherent in the BD 5's configuration makes
>> engine reliability really critical. In the end the jet version is
>> probably the safest one due to the better reliability of a turbojet.
>
> Actually, both of these statements are incorrect.
>
> These two pictures show what's left of a Canadian BD-5 that landed in a
> raspberry patch and essentially tore itself apart.
>
> http://www.bd5.com/Canada/Canada01.jpg
> http://www.bd5.com/Canada/Canada02.jpg
>
> The man holding the pieces is the builder and pilot. He walked away. About
> 30% of accidents involving BD-5's are fatal. 23% of RV-6 accidents have been
> fatal, and that's not counting the fact that some of those accidents had
> more than one victim. You can verify that yourself on the NTSB web site.
>
> The Microturbo TRS-18 that is most commonly used on the BD-5J is a very
> finicky engine in many respects. For example, any minor deviation on fuel
> pressure can cause the engine to shut down. The fuel pumps are very critical
> components, which is why at least one of the operators is heavily involved
> in designing replacement components and reengineering a portion of the fuel
> system to increase reliability in this area. The irony is that even though
> BD-5J's are mostly used for homeland security as cruise missile surrogates,
> Microturbo, with facilities in Grand Prairie, TX, refuses to cooperate. They
> won't even sell parts, directly or through the military.
>
>
>
>

I see your point Juan, although I could probably spin that around and
say it has a "76% higher fatality rate than an RV-6!" :)

Obviously you're dead as a doornail in a stall spin accident in either
airplane. What would be interesting to see is the survival rate of BD-5
vs other homebuilts in a controlled forced landing, which when you get
down to it is the key issue that I would worry about.

I would think the ideal engine would be a properly developed wankel.

John

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:50:29 -0600, "Whome?" > wrote:

>Ok, we have roasted the Mini 500, how about the BD5?

Dave "Hammer" Harris, an airshow pilot who used to fly a BD-5J at airshows, is a
member of one of my EAA Chapters. He likes the -5 a lot, though he says there's
a lot of things you have to correct if you start with a Bede kit. He had the
jet for the shows, and a VW-powered version for his personal bird. Used to fly
it to Chapter events. Went by his hangar once, and he had a third,
partially-completed model, too.

Don't know if he's still flying any of them. I know he had an engine fire with
his VW a number of years back.

Ron Wanttaja

[Peter Dohm]

> It was the plane that we all wanted the moment we first saw it. We
> were young and probably a bit foolish. Utility wasn't of interest,
> speed and flying were the defining elements. The BD5 was the answer
> and the price promised to be right. Times have changed and most of us
> have matured and moved on to bigger and better goals. The market has
> also matured and people expect more from their aircraft.
>
Dunno about the goals, but most of us have moved on to bigger waistbands.
Just as a slightly OT example, the last time a went to an auto show they had
a couple of Lotus-7 replicars. There was a time that I thought those were
really the cat's pajamas; but I didn't even try to sit in one because I knew
that 1) there was no way my bottom would drop into that seat and 2) there
was no way I could get back out...

Peter

[Bob Martin]

J.Kahn wrote:

> Obviously you're dead as a doornail in a stall spin accident in either
> airplane.

You could probably say that about almost any small airplane, really...

[Peter Dohm]

> > It is interesting that we often look at a design approvingly, only to
talk
> > about the lack of a suitable powerplant.
> >
> > I find this perverse, as it acts like the powerplant isn't part of the
> > design.
> >

> It's a good looking little plane..The rotax 912uls should give this plane
a
> real boost in performance .Always wanted one but the stall speed was way
too
> high for me.A stall of 40knts would be great but no dice.

If you're really curious, a web search on BD-5B will give you more info in
the longer winged version and some available engines. The stall is obvoiusly
slower than that of the BD-5A, altohough I presume more than 40 Kts. Too
small and impractical for me these days, but...

Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Whome?" > wrote

> Are you thinking about this one?
> http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/contact1/contact1.html
> I ran across it while doing a little research prior to this post.

Yep, that's it,
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("John Halpenny" wrote)
> Has there ever been a single seat, low cost high performance aircraft that
> has been successful? I won't count the Mini 500:-)


....define high performance :-)

http://flight.cz/cricri/english/cri-cri-videos-movies.php
The Cri-Cri


Montblack

[Karl-Heinz Kuenzel]

> It started off with a big disadvantage - single place, no room for
> luggage. Any safety or reliability, or business issues aside, the
> configuration is simply not *practical.*

Maybe you take a look here


http://www.lhaviation.com/

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:00:46 -0800, Richard Riley >
wrote:

>On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 23:49:15 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:
>
>>("John Halpenny" wrote)
>>> Has there ever been a single seat, low cost high performance aircraft that
>>> has been successful? I won't count the Mini 500:-)
>>
>>
>>...define high performance :-)
>>
>>http://flight.cz/cricri/english/cri-cri-videos-movies.php
>>The Cri-Cri
>
>RV-3 - but it has room for some baggage. And the moment the RV-4
>became available, sales for the 3 evaporated. Same for the Midget
>Mustang.

Have to define "successful," and "low-cost," too. The Polen Special probably
cost no more to build than an RV-3 yet performed better, the AR-5 achieved high
performance using a comparatively inexpensive engine.

Yet neither design was even offered to the public...if one's definition of
"successful" includes a certain number of examples built, both flunk.

Aircraft that are built with one overwhelming design goal usually aren't
accepted as the type of aircraft the general flying public want to own. There
are various aircraft that have vied for the "smallest airplane" crown. There
are others that have tried for the "lowest cost" trophy, or the "most
non-conventional material" moniker . There are any number of high-speed
contenders vieing for the blue riband. And Vishnu knows all the competitors for
the "most exciting and unusual design" tag.

And yet...40% of new homebuilts are of a type that features completely
conventional design layout, a generously-sized classic aluminum structure
carrying two people and baggage, an expensive certified engine yet a fairly
low-cost airframe, and neither the fastest nor the shortest-landing airplane on
the block. The RV line is not the best at any one thing...but Dick VanGrunsven
seems to have made the design compromises the way most airplane owners prefer
them.

Ron Wanttaja

[Richard Isakson]

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote ...
>
> Have to define "successful," and "low-cost," too. The Polen Special
probably
> cost no more to build than an RV-3 yet performed better,

Ron,

That depends on how you define "performed better". I once talked to a guy
that flew the Polen Special and he said the airplane is a real handfull to
fly. By all reports, the RV-3 as a nice airplane to fly. So, which
airplane perfoms better?

Rich

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"anon" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "wesley maceaux" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It's a good looking little plane..The rotax 912uls should give this plane
>> a real boost in performance .Always wanted one but the stall speed was
>> way too high for me.A stall of 40knts would be great but no dice.
>
> My father had a friend that owned one and he loved it. I'm not sure what
> powerplant he used, but the fact that he probably didn't weigh over
> 160lbs, was an Air Force pilot, and built light - probably helped the
> cause.
>
> I think a lot of Cessna 150/172 guys found more they could handle in the
> BD-5, especially after losing an engine. I think if more BD-5 pilots
> were less concerned about getting back to the airport after an engine
> failure and more concerned with maintaining airspeed, we'd have a few more
> BD-5 pilots.
>
> Do the stats back that up in any way?

MOST DEFINITELY. And it never ceases to amaze me how many people flying ANY
type of aircraft buy the farm because of this.

> That said, designing around an unproven engine is probably a bad place to
> start. Designing around an engine that hasn't been produced, probably a
> bigger problem. I forget the details. What did the prototypes fly with?

It's all on my website's library.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "BobR" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Probably lots of different reasons why it has not achieved the flying
>>>> success it should have but you hit on the biggest and probably most
>>>> important, no suitable engine. Yeah, I know that there are now many
>>>> good engines that could power it well but its time was then and this is
>>>> now. It was ahead of its time then and the needed engine wasn't
>>>> available.
>>>
>>> I don't think that is quite true. There may be better engines now, but
>>> that is only part of the problem with the piston engine in the BD-5.
>>>
>>> The link escapes me now, but there were tremendous problems with
>>> torsional harmonics, tearing apart everything, all the way along the
>>> drive train.
>>
>> No BD-5 has suffered an inflight failure involving either the airframe or
>> the drive train hardware.
>
> Correct, but that statement avoids the issue. There are/were unsolved
> torsional problems.

No, that _is_ the issue. No "torsional problems" caused any issues with
incidents or accidents, period. To suggest that this issue is one of the
aircraft's shortcomings is completely incorrect.

> During the so-called development period for the design they fought a
> number of problems including broken drive shafts, broken engine mounts,
> etc. which were results of various torsional issues which were never
> completely resolved.
>
> http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/contact1/contact1.html

That, Kyle, is a very old document. The drive issues were resolved a LONG
time ago and a man by the name of Jerry Kauth has made a good living over
the years selling the version of the drive system that was developed long
ago to address any issues they found.

You need to refer to the BD-5 specific documentation, not something someone
else wrote that happened to reference information about the BD-5.

> The only reason there were no in-flight failures of drivetrain hardware is
> that the people involved with the design, both the Bede team and tinkerers
> over the last 30 years have been dilligent and lucky enough to identify
> failures and pending failures on the ground, rather than discovering the
> failures in the very rarely demonstrated airborne mode of the design.

Design testing. What a concept. Tell me something I don't know. :)




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("John Halpenny" wrote)
>> Has there ever been a single seat, low cost high performance aircraft
>> that has been successful? I won't count the Mini 500:-)
>
>
> ...define high performance :-)

260 kt VNE, 200 kt cruise regularly achieved on 90-100 HP with the right
prop.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Whome?]

On 1/4/2007 11:17:13 PM, Bob Martin wrote:
>J.Kahn wrote:
>
>> Obviously you're dead as a doornail in a stall spin accident in either
>> airplane.
>
>You could probably say that about almost any small airplane, really...
>

Are you saying the BD-5 will not recovery from a spin?

--
Whome?

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"J.Kahn" > wrote in message
...
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> "J.Kahn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The lack of crashworthiness inherent in the BD 5's configuration makes
>>> engine reliability really critical. In the end the jet version is
>>> probably the safest one due to the better reliability of a turbojet.
>>
>> Actually, both of these statements are incorrect.
>>
>> These two pictures show what's left of a Canadian BD-5 that landed in a
>> raspberry patch and essentially tore itself apart.
>>
>> http://www.bd5.com/Canada/Canada01.jpg
>> http://www.bd5.com/Canada/Canada02.jpg
>>
>> The man holding the pieces is the builder and pilot. He walked away.
>> About 30% of accidents involving BD-5's are fatal. 23% of RV-6 accidents
>> have been fatal, and that's not counting the fact that some of those
>> accidents had more than one victim. You can verify that yourself on the
>> NTSB web site.
>>
>> The Microturbo TRS-18 that is most commonly used on the BD-5J is a very
>> finicky engine in many respects. For example, any minor deviation on fuel
>> pressure can cause the engine to shut down. The fuel pumps are very
>> critical components, which is why at least one of the operators is
>> heavily involved in designing replacement components and reengineering a
>> portion of the fuel system to increase reliability in this area. The
>> irony is that even though BD-5J's are mostly used for homeland security
>> as cruise missile surrogates, Microturbo, with facilities in Grand
>> Prairie, TX, refuses to cooperate. They won't even sell parts, directly
>> or through the military.
>
> I see your point Juan, although I could probably spin that around and say
> it has a "76% higher fatality rate than an RV-6!" :)

LOL! We have another statistician in the house. God help us. :)

> Obviously you're dead as a doornail in a stall spin accident in either
> airplane. What would be interesting to see is the survival rate of BD-5
> vs other homebuilts in a controlled forced landing, which when you get
> down to it is the key issue that I would worry about.

I've had several friends who had engine issues and had to do forced
off-field landings. All of them walked away. I have not done the statistical
comparison, and frankly I don't have the time to find the data and run the
numbers. Maybe someone else would like to try that. The ones who have not
walked away wind up in that situation because of their own doing. For
example, a BD-5TP pilot who is doing flight tests out at Mojave and then,
out of the blue and only a few hours into phase I, decides to come back to
his home field in a dense urban area, where there are no options if you lose
the engine on takeoff. The result was regrettably predictable.

> I would think the ideal engine would be a properly developed wankel.

If you added the word "installation" to the end of that sentence, then I
would agree 100%. There is a BD-5 sitting in England with a Midwest Rotary
engine. It's been ready to fly for quite some time (and actually flew with
another engine). The CAA in the UK has essentially reached the conclusion
that UK pilots are not good enough to fly the BD-5 and have refused to allow
the aircraft a renewal of the permit to fly. The problem with a rotary is
the same as with other engines in the confines of the BD-5 engine
compartment -- cooling. From what little I know about these types of
engines, they generate a lot more heat than regular piston engines, and that
places an even higher burden on heat dissipation, which the BD-5 is simply
not very good at. Getting rid of heat on a BD-5 is probably one of the most
demanding tasks for the builder.

Juan



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:50:29 -0600, "Whome?" > wrote:
>
>>Ok, we have roasted the Mini 500, how about the BD5?
>
> Dave "Hammer" Harris, an airshow pilot who used to fly a BD-5J at
> airshows, is a
> member of one of my EAA Chapters. He likes the -5 a lot, though he says
> there's
> a lot of things you have to correct if you start with a Bede kit. He had
> the
> jet for the shows, and a VW-powered version for his personal bird. Used
> to fly
> it to Chapter events. Went by his hangar once, and he had a third,
> partially-completed model, too.
>
> Don't know if he's still flying any of them. I know he had an engine fire
> with
> his VW a number of years back.

He sold the VW, and I believe it has the record for the most money paid for
a recip BD-5. Dave's airplanes are works of art, IMO.

The jet flies with these guys: http://www.smart-1.us. He's very close with
Bobby Bishop and does a lot of cruise missile surrogate work through them
for all branches of the military. In fact, Aerial Productions is a prime
contractor for the military.

Last I heard Dave was modifying a Caproni jet motorglider with a different
type of turbine engine (they originally came with Microturbo TRS-18-046.)
and had already flown it. I haven't heard anything since.

Juan



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:


> And yet...40% of new homebuilts are of a type that features completely
> conventional design layout, a generously-sized classic aluminum
> structure carrying two people and baggage, an expensive certified
> engine yet a fairly low-cost airframe, and neither the fastest nor
> the shortest-landing airplane on the block. The RV line is not the
> best at any one thing...but Dick VanGrunsven seems to have made the
> design compromises the way most airplane owners prefer them.

This is an excellent observation and one that makes me wonder why not
certified aircraft company ever built a really successful aricraft in this
vein. The kit built market has shown that there is a market for a 2
seat+bagage aircraft that is cappable of speeds that make it useful for
travel. The RVs on the high end and even the Zenith 601XL on the low end as
it is as fast or faster than a 172 and capable of carrying 2 and "some"
bagage.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Whome? wrote:
> On 1/4/2007 11:17:13 PM, Bob Martin wrote:
>> J.Kahn wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously you're dead as a doornail in a stall spin accident in
>>> either airplane.
>>
>> You could probably say that about almost any small airplane,
>> really...
>>
>
> Are you saying the BD-5 will not recovery from a spin?

It's not an "accident" if you recover.

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Whome?" > wrote in message
...
> On 1/4/2007 11:17:13 PM, Bob Martin wrote:
>>J.Kahn wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously you're dead as a doornail in a stall spin accident in either
>>> airplane.
>>
>>You could probably say that about almost any small airplane, really...
>>
>
> Are you saying the BD-5 will not recovery from a spin?

With the original wings, the BD-5 has good spin recovery. With the GAW
wings, you stand a good chance of an unrecoverable flat spin. It's been
talked about on the mailing list by people who experienced this many years
ago, and is the reason most people don't build the BD-5 with GAW wings. The
airfoil Harry Riblett suggested for the BD-5 has given good results to those
who have used them. Mine has that airfoil, but not as a reprofile -- the
original build made new ribs as part of the redesign of the wing with a
conventional spar. I'll let you know the results when it flies. :)

More info on this is available here http://www.bd5.com/bulletin.htm. The
last two published editions of the Bulletin (I only did a few after I took
it over, and discontinued them when the site and mailing list became fully
operational) have two articles reprinted from EAA's Sport Aviation magazine
written by the late Seth Anderson, who owned a BD-5 which he converted to
turboprop and modified in many other ways. It has a good analysis of the
flight characteristics of the BD-5. There's also a flight test report from
the late Les Berven, who was Bede's original test pilot on the BD-5 program,
here http://www.bd5.com/testberven.htm but it does not go into spin testing.

Juan



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[[email protected]]

J.Kahn wrote:
> ...
>
> I would think the ideal engine would be a properly developed wankel.
>

You'd think that for any number of airplanes but where are they?

Rotax is selling a wankel now, maybe it will be successful.

--

FF

[Jarhead]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| J.Kahn wrote:
| > ...
| >
| > I would think the ideal engine would be a properly developed wankel.
| >
|
| You'd think that for any number of airplanes but where are they?
|
| Rotax is selling a wankel now, maybe it will be successful.
|
| --
|
| FF
|

Excuse me for jumping in here but I saw a wankel that a guy was
developing in Comanche, Ok. back in the '80s. He had a BD-5 in his shop
and was planning on using the wankel engine. It was a single rotor
design with enough power for the BD-5. His problem was high fuel
consumption. Exhaust temperature was another concern he had also. I
don't think he ever solved the fuel consumption problem.

The Mazda wankel actually had three times the CI that they advertised
according to an article I read at the time.

--
Jarhead




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Ladypilot]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in
:

>
> Tell me something I don't know. :)

Apparently, that you're a ****ing asshole. But don't worry - the rest of us
are quite aware of that.

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 08:13:48 -0800, "Richard Isakson" > wrote:

>> Have to define "successful," and "low-cost," too. The Polen Special
>> probably cost no more to build than an RV-3 yet performed better,

>
>That depends on how you define "performed better". I once talked to a guy
>that flew the Polen Special and he said the airplane is a real handfull to
>fly. By all reports, the RV-3 as a nice airplane to fly. So, which
>airplane performs better?

Yup. Hammer Harris likes his BD-5s, but does say they aren't for beginning
pilots. Most of the "World's Smallest Aircraft" contenders (Stits Sky Baby,
etc.) ain't for the faint of heart, either.

A 100 MPH aircraft at 2,000 feet performs better than a 400 MPH contrail
pointing to a smoking hole....

Ron Wanttaja

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Richard Riley > wrote:

> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:06:54 +0100, Karl-Heinz Kuenzel
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >> It started off with a big disadvantage - single place, no room for
> >> luggage. Any safety or reliability, or business issues aside, the
> >> configuration is simply not *practical.*
> >
> >Maybe you take a look here
> >
> >
> >http://www.lhaviation.com/
>
> Very pretty. I wish them the best of luck.
>
> The specs are ambitious. Odd that they don't list empty or gross
> weight.

There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where it
claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.

That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
*empty* weight.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

[Peter Dohm]

>
> There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where it
> claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.
>
> That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
> *empty* weight.
>
> --
Why?

(400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
"Peter Dohm" > wrote:

> >
> > There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where it
> > claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.
> >
> > That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
> > *empty* weight.
> >
> > --
> Why?
>
> (400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)

OK. Give me a few examples...

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

[Montblack]

("Richard Riley" wrote)
> If their gross weight is real it means their stall speed could be, too
> - at 50 square feet it's only a CLmax of 1.8.


Huh?

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/highlift/clmaxest.html
And... Huh?


Montblack
Get rid of the design needs for carrying a passenger, drop in one of those
new fangled 2-stroke diesels under development ...now we're talking numbers.
:-)

[Morgans[_2_]]

"J.Kahn" > wrote

> I would think the ideal engine would be a properly developed wankel.

I would not think so. Waste heat has always been a problem for wankels, and
getting rid of that much heat from that tight engine compartment.
--
Jim in NC

[Stealth Pilot]

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:30:14 -0600, "Whome?" > wrote:

>On 1/4/2007 11:17:13 PM, Bob Martin wrote:
>>J.Kahn wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously you're dead as a doornail in a stall spin accident in either
>>> airplane.
>>
>>You could probably say that about almost any small airplane, really...
>>
>
>Are you saying the BD-5 will not recover from a spin?

one of the two BD5's on my airfield was spun last year. it took quite
a few thousand feet to recover.

there are aspects of the design that are not for the feint hearted.

Stealth Pilot

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
Richard Riley > wrote:

> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where it
> >> > claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.
> >> >
> >> > That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
> >> > *empty* weight.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> (400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)
> >
> >OK. Give me a few examples...
>
> 860 lbs isn't outragous as an empty weight. Off the top of my head,
> the Ercoup is 815, the Aeronca 7ac is 710, the Cessna 120 about 780
> lbs.
>
> But 860 gross weight does seem ambitious. They list useful load as
> 530 lbs, so an empty weight of 330 lbs? The engine alone is 132. So
> the airframe, control systems, panel, upholstery, canopy, retractable
> gear, fuel tanks etc is under 200 lbs? That seems unlikely.

To be fair, it was testing the negative G load.

>
> And 2.5 G's seems like an awfully low number to test to.
>
> If their gross weight is real it means their stall speed could be, too
> - at 50 square feet it's only a CLmax of 1.8.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

[Bob Martin]

Whome? wrote:
> On 1/4/2007 11:17:13 PM, Bob Martin wrote:
>> J.Kahn wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously you're dead as a doornail in a stall spin accident in either
>>> airplane.
>> You could probably say that about almost any small airplane, really...
>>
>
> Are you saying the BD-5 will not recovery from a spin?
>

I was thinking more about the RV-6... I've spun ours a couple times, and while it can wrap
up pretty fast, recovery is just idle power, opposite rudder, and forward stick. A
stall/spin won't necessarily kill you. Like any airplane, however, do that at low/pattern
altitude and you're dead...

[anon]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
> That, Kyle, is a very old document. The drive issues were resolved a LONG
> time ago and a man by the name of Jerry Kauth has made a good living over
> the years selling the version of the drive system that was developed long
> ago to address any issues they found.
>
> You need to refer to the BD-5 specific documentation, not something
> someone else wrote that happened to reference information about the BD-5.

Juan, your idea of the word "design" appears to include every improvement
made in the last 30 years by dozens of different builders and and companies.
I think this is begging the definition.

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker >
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> > There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where
>>> > it
>>> > claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.
>>> >
>>> > That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
>>> > *empty* weight.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> (400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)
>>
>>OK. Give me a few examples...
>
> 860 lbs isn't outragous as an empty weight. Off the top of my head,
> the Ercoup is 815, the Aeronca 7ac is 710, the Cessna 120 about 780
> lbs.
>
> But 860 gross weight does seem ambitious. They list useful load as
> 530 lbs, so an empty weight of 330 lbs? The engine alone is 132. So
> the airframe, control systems, panel, upholstery, canopy, retractable
> gear, fuel tanks etc is under 200 lbs? That seems unlikely.
>
> And 2.5 G's seems like an awfully low number to test to.
>
> If their gross weight is real it means their stall speed could be, too
> - at 50 square feet it's only a CLmax of 1.8.

Empty weight of my BD-5J is 358.8 lbs. I set gross weight at 850 lbs. Full
tanks and me in it plus parachute, helmet, misc. puts it at about 814 lbs.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "J.Kahn" > wrote
>
>> I would think the ideal engine would be a properly developed wankel.
>
> I would not think so. Waste heat has always been a problem for wankels,
> and getting rid of that much heat from that tight engine compartment.

Exactly.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"anon" > wrote in message
m...
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That, Kyle, is a very old document. The drive issues were resolved a LONG
>> time ago and a man by the name of Jerry Kauth has made a good living over
>> the years selling the version of the drive system that was developed long
>> ago to address any issues they found.
>>
>> You need to refer to the BD-5 specific documentation, not something
>> someone else wrote that happened to reference information about the BD-5.
>
> Juan, your idea of the word "design" appears to include every improvement
> made in the last 30 years by dozens of different builders and and
> companies. I think this is begging the definition.

And Kyle's idea of shortcomings appears to include every issue that was
discovered during flight testing of the prototypes by the company and then
resolved. Any aircraft can have issue with harmonics from the engine or
drive system. To suggest that such is a problem with existing aircraft
because it was a problem identified and resolved more 30 years ago is
absurd. The BD-5 drive system that has been in production for that long is
designed to mitigate any drive system issues such as these with various
dampening methods when recip engines are used.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Ladypilot" > wrote in message
...
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>> Tell me something I don't know. :)
>
> Apparently, that you're a ****ing asshole. But don't worry - the rest of
> us are quite aware of that.

Apparently you're confusing me for someone who gives a damn what you think.
You now stand corrected. :)

If you get the urge to reply, save your breath... You'll need it to blow up
your date.





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
"Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

> "Ladypilot" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Juan Jimenez" > wrote in
> > :
> >
> >>
> >> Tell me something I don't know. :)
> >
> > Apparently, that you're a ****ing asshole. But don't worry - the rest of
> > us are quite aware of that.
>
> Apparently you're confusing me for someone who gives a damn what you think.
> You now stand corrected. :)

Actually, she was already correct. You *are* an asshole.

And if you didn't care what she thought, you wouldn't have bothered to
write the next sentence...

> If you get the urge to reply, save your breath... You'll need it to blow up
> your date.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

[Dan[_2_]]

Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where
>>>>> it
>>>>> claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.
>>>>>
>>>>> That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
>>>>> *empty* weight.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> (400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)
>>> OK. Give me a few examples...
>> 860 lbs isn't outragous as an empty weight. Off the top of my head,
>> the Ercoup is 815, the Aeronca 7ac is 710, the Cessna 120 about 780
>> lbs.
>>
>> But 860 gross weight does seem ambitious. They list useful load as
>> 530 lbs, so an empty weight of 330 lbs? The engine alone is 132. So
>> the airframe, control systems, panel, upholstery, canopy, retractable
>> gear, fuel tanks etc is under 200 lbs? That seems unlikely.
>>
>> And 2.5 G's seems like an awfully low number to test to.
>>
>> If their gross weight is real it means their stall speed could be, too
>> - at 50 square feet it's only a CLmax of 1.8.
>
> Empty weight of my BD-5J is 358.8 lbs. I set gross weight at 850 lbs. Full
> tanks and me in it plus parachute, helmet, misc. puts it at about 814 lbs.
>
>
You are planning on losing 100 pounds? Judging from your video I peg
you at about 250 pounds.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired?

[BobR]

Double that if you count is ego!

Dan wrote:
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
> > "Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article >,
> >>> "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where
> >>>>> it
> >>>>> claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
> >>>>> *empty* weight.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>> Why?
> >>>>
> >>>> (400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)
> >>> OK. Give me a few examples...
> >> 860 lbs isn't outragous as an empty weight. Off the top of my head,
> >> the Ercoup is 815, the Aeronca 7ac is 710, the Cessna 120 about 780
> >> lbs.
> >>
> >> But 860 gross weight does seem ambitious. They list useful load as
> >> 530 lbs, so an empty weight of 330 lbs? The engine alone is 132. So
> >> the airframe, control systems, panel, upholstery, canopy, retractable
> >> gear, fuel tanks etc is under 200 lbs? That seems unlikely.
> >>
> >> And 2.5 G's seems like an awfully low number to test to.
> >>
> >> If their gross weight is real it means their stall speed could be, too
> >> - at 50 square feet it's only a CLmax of 1.8.
> >
> > Empty weight of my BD-5J is 358.8 lbs. I set gross weight at 850 lbs. Full
> > tanks and me in it plus parachute, helmet, misc. puts it at about 814 lbs.
> >
> >
> You are planning on losing 100 pounds? Judging from your video I peg
> you at about 250 pounds.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired?

[wmbjk]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 14:43:40 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
wrote:

>Empty weight of my BD-5J is 358.8 lbs. I set gross weight at 850 lbs. Full
>tanks and me in it plus parachute, helmet, misc. puts it at about 814 lbs.

I can't resist...

If you're the "pilot", then it doesn't need the fuel or the parachute.
I assume you'll still want the helmet for appearance sake. So - plane
360, you and a lightweight helmet another 300. That's only 660,
leaving 190 for a honkin' big boombox strapped on with duct tape. The
Ride of the Valkyrie at maximum volume should be just the thing to
mask the sound of the squeaky cherry-picker wheels when the um,
mission, is over.

Wayne

[pittss1c]

John Halpenny wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>
>
>
>> Although I have never flown one, the experienced pilots that did said things
>> like; it would eat most people alive, that it scared them, and so on.
>> --
> Since the BD5 only has one seat, it is not possible to be trained in
> type. I can't think of a common training aircraft that even comes
> close. It was supposed to be affordable for anyone, even those who did
> not have a lot of high performance experience, yet it has a high stall
> speed and a 'responsive' feel. This just sounds dangerous.
>
> Has there ever been a single seat, low cost high performance aircraft
> that has been successful? I won't count the Mini 500:-)
>
> John Halpenny
>
Please don't forget about the truckaplane... Some considered it a bigger
innovation then the BD-5 itself...


http://w1.rob.com/pix/BD5/truckaplane


The more complete story
http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepBD-5.html

Mike

[Richard Riley[_1_]]

pittss1c wrote:
> >
> Please don't forget about the truckaplane... Some considered it a bigger
> innovation then the BD-5 itself...
>

(sorry if this is a repeat post, it's not showing up on my server)

What ever happend to the truckaplane?

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, she was already correct. You *are* an asshole.

And you know what they say about opinions,. right? Shoo. :)




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
>>
> You are planning on losing 100 pounds? Judging from your video I peg
> you at about 250 pounds.

I weigh 225. I'll be happy to donate a calculator to the DannyBoy Brain
Fund. :)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"wmbjk" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 14:43:40 -0400, "Juan Jimenez" >
> wrote:
>
>>Empty weight of my BD-5J is 358.8 lbs. I set gross weight at 850 lbs. Full
>>tanks and me in it plus parachute, helmet, misc. puts it at about 814 lbs.
>
> I can't resist...
>
> If you're the "pilot", then it doesn't need the fuel or the parachute.

Stick to gliders then. :)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

Dismantled, I believe. It's got a patent. Drawings were published in one of
the BD-5 newsletters.

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> pittss1c wrote:
>> >
>> Please don't forget about the truckaplane... Some considered it a bigger
>> innovation then the BD-5 itself...
>>
>
> (sorry if this is a repeat post, it's not showing up on my server)
>
> What ever happend to the truckaplane?
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
"Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Actually, she was already correct. You *are* an asshole.
>
> And you know what they say about opinions,. right? Shoo. :)

LOL

Please. You don't have what it takes to make a fly shoo.

And as for my opinion of you, it is formed solely from reading your
posts, so you are the author of it quite literally.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Actually, she was already correct. You *are* an asshole.
>>
>> And you know what they say about opinions,. right? Shoo. :)
>
> LOL
>
> Please. You don't have what it takes to make a fly shoo.

Don't need to take anything. It just works. :)

> And as for my opinion of you, it is formed solely from reading your
> posts, so you are the author of it quite literally.

LOL! Kinda like a b-movie, such a bad argument it's actually funny. Whatever
turns you on, Scooter. Delusions abound. :)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
"Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Juan Jimenez" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Actually, she was already correct. You *are* an asshole.
> >>
> >> And you know what they say about opinions,. right? Shoo. :)
> >
> > LOL
> >
> > Please. You don't have what it takes to make a fly shoo.
>
> Don't need to take anything. It just works. :)

Not that I've seen.

>
> > And as for my opinion of you, it is formed solely from reading your
> > posts, so you are the author of it quite literally.
>
> LOL! Kinda like a b-movie, such a bad argument it's actually funny. Whatever
> turns you on, Scooter. Delusions abound. :)

You're such a fertile exemplar how could anyone think they didn't.

Facts are facts, Juan old boy: the only things I know about you are what
you reveal in your posts, and you've revealed yourself to be an asshole.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Alan Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> Facts are facts, Juan old boy: the only things I know about you are what
> you reveal in your posts, and you've revealed yourself to be an asshole.

As I said, whatever turns you on, kiddo. Delusions abound, and you're boring
me with your broken record. <plonk!> :)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Alan Baker]

In article >,
"Juan Jimenez" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Facts are facts, Juan old boy: the only things I know about you are what
> > you reveal in your posts, and you've revealed yourself to be an asshole.
>
> As I said, whatever turns you on, kiddo. Delusions abound, and you're boring
> me with your broken record. <plonk!> :)

Ah. The last refuge of those who don't like to hear the truth...

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)