BD-5 crash in Australia

[Doug Gray]

http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=29246

[George]

After checking the pics of how he was extricated I think we can explain
the "spinal injuries."

George

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:08:29 GMT, George > wrote:

>After checking the pics of how he was extricated I think we can explain
>the "spinal injuries."
>
>George

wrong call. they were from the impact.
I spoke to him tonight in hospital.
Stealth Pilot

[George]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:08:29 GMT, George > wrote:
>
>> After checking the pics of how he was extricated I think we can explain
>> the "spinal injuries."
>>
>> George
>
> wrong call. they were from the impact.
> I spoke to him tonight in hospital.
> Stealth Pilot

That was meant to be "tongue in cheek" I just forgot the smiley.

Hope he recovers quickly.

George

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 12:50:49 GMT, George > wrote:

>Stealth Pilot wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2007 11:08:29 GMT, George > wrote:
>>
>>> After checking the pics of how he was extricated I think we can explain
>>> the "spinal injuries."
>>>
>>> George
>>
>> wrong call. they were from the impact.
>> I spoke to him tonight in hospital.
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>That was meant to be "tongue in cheek" I just forgot the smiley.
>
>Hope he recovers quickly.
>
>George

he is in amazingly good spirits.
burns arent too bad externally.
lung damage a problem.
spinal injuries likely to have permanent effect unfortunately.

amazingly he says that that is the only time in his entire life he has
seen a fire extinguisher actually extinguish a fire.

Stealth Pilot

"the only time an aircraft can have too much fuel is when the
*******'s on fire" Sir Charles Kingsford Smith.

[Wayne Paul]

"George" > wrote in message
t...
> After the pics of how he was extricated I think we can explain the "spinal
> injuries."
>
> George

And exactly how would you have extracted him the small cockpit of a burning
BD-5? Jaws of death after the fire was out? Wait for a hoist?

My guess is that the "spinal injuries" occured on impact. The BD-5's
cockpit design offers little to no pilot protection.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote

> wrong call. they were from the impact.
> I spoke to him tonight in hospital.


The quick extraction may not have been good for a traumatized spine, but
sometimes there is no choice in the matter.

What engine did it have? Any other pertinent details on the engine failure,
if that was the cause?
--
Jim in NC

[George]

Morgans wrote:
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote
>
>> wrong call. they were from the impact.
>> I spoke to him tonight in hospital.
>
>
> The quick extraction may not have been good for a traumatized spine, but
> sometimes there is no choice in the matter.
>
> What engine did it have? Any other pertinent details on the engine failure,
> if that was the cause?

The quickness of the extraction was not what I noted, that was
understandable with one of the rescuers standing in flames (see the
photos) and noted in the text that some of the rescuers were injured
(burned) in the attempt.

What I noticed was what appeared to be a "twisting, angular" form of
extraction (pulled over to one side). From my time as an Army combat
medic and a qualified rescue diver I know this is not an ideal manner of
removal. Sometimes in the stress of an emergency removal such methods
are used but often tissue damage is the result. The gain/loss potential
must be considered, but never overlooked.

Ymmv

George

[RapidRonnie]

On May 21, 8:12 am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> "George" > wrote in message
>
> t...
>
> > After the pics of how he was extricated I think we can explain the "spinal
> > injuries."
>
> > George
>
> And exactly how would you have extracted him the small cockpit of a burning
> BD-5? Jaws of death after the fire was out? Wait for a hoist?
>
> My guess is that the "spinal injuries" occured on impact. The BD-5's
> cockpit design offers little to no pilot protection.

Jim Bede openly felt that was unnecessary because most BD-5s would
never fly or if they did would either only fly a few hours and be
junked when the owner died or would crash so badly it would make
little difference how he built it.

I don't think Richard Van Grunsven puts a lot of crashworthiness
effort in the RVs, either. They do fly better than Bede designs
though.

[Bob Kuykendall]

Earlier, RapidRonnie > wrote:

> Jim Bede openly felt that was unnecessary because most
> BD-5s would never fly or if they did would either only fly a few
> hours and be junked when the owner died or would crash so
> badly it would make little difference how he built it.

If Bede was "Open" about that, you should have no trouble providing a
cite for that assertion. Please do so.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Wayne Paul]

"RapidRonnie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 21, 8:12 am, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>>
>> My guess is that the "spinal injuries" occured on impact. The BD-5's
>> cockpit design offers little to no pilot protection.
>
> Jim Bede openly felt that was unnecessary because most BD-5s would
> never fly or if they did would either only fly a few hours and be
> junked when the owner died or would crash so badly it would make
> little difference how he built it.
>
> I don't think Richard Van Grunsven puts a lot of crashworthiness
> effort in the RVs, either. They do fly better than Bede designs
> though.
>

It wasn't my attempt to imply the crashworthiness of the BD-5 is less then
other homebuilts. It was simply to affirm the primary spinal injury was
caused by the impact. I am sure my HP-14 sailplane isn't much better. I
too, for all practical purposes, am sitting directly on the belly skin.
(http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/Mackay/17900_MSL.jpg)
(http://tinyurl.com/2esvov)

I am sure a gear-up hard landing would not be good for my previousely
injured spine.

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Bob Martin]

RapidRonnie wrote:
> I don't think Richard Van Grunsven puts a lot of crashworthiness
> effort in the RVs, either. They do fly better than Bede designs
> though.
>

The one guy I know of to crash an RV hit a large concrete block and flipped completely
over. He broke the canopy open and crawled out with minor injuries. The airplane (RV-6A)
was essentially a total writeoff though.

Unfortunately, he died of a heart attack a couple years ago.

As far as extracting someone from a wreck, I was taught to never move someone unless they
are in some other form of imminent danger (the most common example given was a burning
vehicle).

[George]

Bob Martin wrote:
> RapidRonnie wrote:
>> I don't think Richard Van Grunsven puts a lot of crashworthiness
>> effort in the RVs, either. They do fly better than Bede designs
>> though.
>>
>
> The one guy I know of to crash an RV hit a large concrete block and
> flipped completely over. He broke the canopy open and crawled out with
> minor injuries. The airplane (RV-6A) was essentially a total writeoff
> though.
>
> Unfortunately, he died of a heart attack a couple years ago.
>
> As far as extracting someone from a wreck, I was taught to never move
> someone unless they are in some other form of imminent danger (the most
> common example given was a burning vehicle).

Right on, and one other thing that is relevant, if loss of life isn't
imminent, burns will heal, a severed spinal cord probably won't. That is
why accident rescues should be left to professionals, not bystanders.
But then hindsight is easy to use, forsight is almost impossible, and
the current situation almost always seems more critical than it is.

YMMV

Back to lurking.

George

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 07:12:12 -0600, "Wayne Paul" >
wrote:

>
>"George" > wrote in message
t...
>> After the pics of how he was extricated I think we can explain the "spinal
>> injuries."
>>
>> George
>
>And exactly how would you have extracted him the small cockpit of a burning
>BD-5? Jaws of death after the fire was out? Wait for a hoist?
>
>My guess is that the "spinal injuries" occured on impact. The BD-5's
>cockpit design offers little to no pilot protection.
>
>

I dont wish to pursue this but I believe that the spinal injury had
occurred before pulling him out of the cockpit.

....so now when you guys endlessly flame yawn for not flying his bd5
consider the reality and risks that he faces.

engine was a turbocharged honda auto engine of about 100hp.
wings had modern aerodynamics.
in the BD5-a,b,c,d lineage it was probably a BD5-q with all the mods
onboard.

I'm off in to see him.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 22 May 2007 02:40:11 GMT, George > wrote:

>Bob Martin wrote:
>> RapidRonnie wrote:
>>> I don't think Richard Van Grunsven puts a lot of crashworthiness
>>> effort in the RVs, either. They do fly better than Bede designs
>>> though.
>>>
>>
>> The one guy I know of to crash an RV hit a large concrete block and
>> flipped completely over. He broke the canopy open and crawled out with
>> minor injuries. The airplane (RV-6A) was essentially a total writeoff
>> though.
>>
>> Unfortunately, he died of a heart attack a couple years ago.
>>
>> As far as extracting someone from a wreck, I was taught to never move
>> someone unless they are in some other form of imminent danger (the most
>> common example given was a burning vehicle).
>
>Right on, and one other thing that is relevant, if loss of life isn't
>imminent, burns will heal, a severed spinal cord probably won't. That is
>why accident rescues should be left to professionals, not bystanders.
>But then hindsight is easy to use, forsight is almost impossible, and
>the current situation almost always seems more critical than it is.
>
>YMMV

my mileage does vary.
skin burns are superficial. lung tissue burns are often fatal.
the guys in the circumstances did absolutely follow the correct course
of actions. if he had been in the flames any longer the lung tissue
damage would have been fatal. as it is now he is alive but cannot
survive without oxygen supplementation.the spinal damage was already
done, sadly.

I'm proud of the efforts of my fellow pilots. they took some gutsy
actions at considerable personal risk.
.....and I often doubted that they ever had it in them.

Stealth Pilot
member of the Sport Aircraft Builders Club of Western Australia.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 21 May 2007 10:32:49 GMT, Doug Gray
> wrote:

>
>http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=77&ContentID=29246

it probably sounds as though I have some emotion about george's posts.
I dont. I just have little time to post at present.

peter is truely amazed that the story reached america.
the video footage was taken by a 17 year old enthusiast evidently.

I did ask tonight as to what they thought was the cause.

the BD5 has a turbocharged honda auto engine with augmenting electric
cooling fan to the radiator. it is fuel injected. a beautiful
installation.
propeller drive shaft is fitted with an override clutch (sprag clutch)
the takeoff was after a long taxi and surrounding aircraft made the
ambient noise level a little higher than usual.
they think that the long time on the ground may have exposed a heat
problem in the fuel supply which induced a bubble (or bubbles) of air
in the fuel delivery. just after takeoff and after the wheels were up
the bubbles in the fuel hit the engine and stopped it. with an
override clutch the prop and drive train continue rotating and making
noise and the absense of the engine noise was imperceptible in the
ambient noise around him.
peter only became aware of the stopped engine after a scan of the
instruments and tacho by which time much of the aircraft's momentum
had been lost although he had started to effect a glide recovery.
the aircraft impacted the ground before he could effect a restart.

the glitch occurred right at the critical period before full cruise
climb speed had been achieved.

my observation is that bd-5's with sprag clutches in the drive trains
need a fadec system that understands that the engine is required to be
delivering power and can effect an immediate autorestart whenever
rpm's cease. such are the perfections of 20-20 hindsight.

the good news from tonight is that he has some feeling in his legs.

damn! we lost one of the neatest little aircraft on the airfield.
Stealth Pilot

[George]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 02:40:11 GMT, George > wrote:
>
>> Bob Martin wrote:
>>> RapidRonnie wrote:
>>>> I don't think Richard Van Grunsven puts a lot of crashworthiness
>>>> effort in the RVs, either. They do fly better than Bede designs
>>>> though.
>>>>
>>> The one guy I know of to crash an RV hit a large concrete block and
>>> flipped completely over. He broke the canopy open and crawled out with
>>> minor injuries. The airplane (RV-6A) was essentially a total writeoff
>>> though.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, he died of a heart attack a couple years ago.
>>>
>>> As far as extracting someone from a wreck, I was taught to never move
>>> someone unless they are in some other form of imminent danger (the most
>>> common example given was a burning vehicle).
>> Right on, and one other thing that is relevant, if loss of life isn't
>> imminent, burns will heal, a severed spinal cord probably won't. That is
>> why accident rescues should be left to professionals, not bystanders.
>> But then hindsight is easy to use, forsight is almost impossible, and
>> the current situation almost always seems more critical than it is.
>>
>> YMMV
>
> my mileage does vary.
> skin burns are superficial. lung tissue burns are often fatal.
> the guys in the circumstances did absolutely follow the correct course
> of actions. if he had been in the flames any longer the lung tissue
> damage would have been fatal. as it is now he is alive but cannot
> survive without oxygen supplementation.the spinal damage was already
> done, sadly.
>
> I'm proud of the efforts of my fellow pilots. they took some gutsy
> actions at considerable personal risk.
> ....and I often doubted that they ever had it in them.
>
> Stealth Pilot
> member of the Sport Aircraft Builders Club of Western Australia.

Thanks for the "rest of the story," that wasn't readily apparent in the
news write up. That makes it a different story all together. But I stand
by my "if loss of life isn't imminent" comment, from your comments
apparently it WAS imminent, it just didn't show in the text or pics.
And you are right, lung tissue is the one soft tissue that is as fragile
as a spinal cord, gotta have it. Glad your fellow pilots got him out of
there alive.

George

[wright1902glider]

Stealth,

Do you know if this was a compressive spine injury? I've read a bit
about German Me-163 pilots being killed by using the wrong landing
skid setting. It seems that if you don't unlock the skid, that ship
would land hard enough to crush vertibrae (sp?) I've also read about a
particular early model ultralight, don't know the type, that used
nothing more than a canvas sling for a seat. On hard landing, pilots
would impact the Earth with their backsides causing spinal injuries
and/or death. Ditto several incidents of paraglider pilots, who fly
supine, impacting terrain.

I may be the only one on the NG with a plane that WAS designed to
crash. The elevator was placed in front of the wing because Wilbur
Wright wanted as much structure in front of him as possible when the
enevitable crash occurred. The rudder also hinges up in pantograph
fashion to help prevent damage. Of course, after 10 seconds in the
cradle, you too would be convinced that a Wright machine can kill you
in at least 100 ways. I'm still not entirely convinced that I want to
try flying it.

Harry

[George]

Stealth,

Sorry if my original comment hit anywhere near a nerve. It was a fairly
innocent comment about what the pics showed and had no malice intended
for anyone. But look what it grew to?

My prayers too are with your friend.

Pics can reveal only so much,and also a news write up, your final
explanation, more of a first hand revelation, revealed a lot more,
thanks for answering so even handedly, which some don't do.

All the best,

George

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote

> the good news from tonight is that he has some feeling in his legs.

THAT is good news, indeed.
--
Jim in NC

[Barnyard BOb]

Richard Riley wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2007 14:23:09 +0800, Stealth Pilot
> wrote:
>
>>
>>...so now when you guys endlessly flame yawn for not flying his bd5
>>consider the reality and risks that he faces.
>
>I think the reason yawn is flamed isn't that he won't fly his BD5.
>Rather, it's that he continues to flog the BD5 as wonderful, easy to
>fly, totally evolved, beyond all it's early problems and better than
>competitors like the Vari Eze or KR1.
>
>And THEN he won't fly his own.
>
>My prayers for your friend.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

To reinforce the above fact that
Yawn is his own worst enemy...

He also belittled the Vans RV-3 as being less safe than the BD-5.

I don't recall the particulars, but Yawn stated in this ng that
the Van's RV-3 was a death trap, I was quite stupid and
would shortly be very dead for flying one.

That was probably 7 years and 700 RV-3 hours ago.

IMO, Yawn is nothing more than a megalomaniacal
loud mouth confrontational coward. All hat and
no cattle.....


Barnyard Cropduster BOb - 53 years of powered flight

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On 22 May 2007 09:41:35 -0700, wright1902glider
> wrote:

>Stealth,
>
>Do you know if this was a compressive spine injury?

I must show peter these posts one day. he refuses news interviews and
would probably be embarrassed by me making comment.

I dont think the full medical investigation has been done but the
answer is probably.
his seat was the standard BD5 seat I think, with an inch of temperfoam
or similar under his bum. the BD5 is a pretty small aircraft and would
be worse than a wittman w8 tailwind for sink rates on the back side of
the performance curve. the engine hiccup occurred below best glide
speed and I think he was caught by high sink rates with stuff all time
to react.
in this respect the BD5 is no different than the Robinson R22 where
there is a period after liftoff and before best climb speed where an
interruption in power means that you are in for a bruising.

btw I was a thousand Kilometers away in Newman when this occurred and
I've only seen the dramatic newspaper shots.
like you guys I'm not morbidly fascinated by his misfortune but by the
engineering and aerodynamic considerations of designing a small very
fast aircraft.

I discussed the seating considerations with the other BD5 pilot last
night (there are 2 bd5's on our airfield, the only two flying in
australia) the sheer small size of the fuselage restricts the ability
to pad the seating any more than what they've done. having the wheels
up didnt help any either.

designwise it is interesting that having the engine behind the pilot
seems not to have been a factor in the success or failure during the
prang of the aircraft. it is conjectural what contribution the extra
weight of the turbo honda engine would have made to the sink rates.
induced drag would be the bugger here I think.

oh so much for the idea that having the wing below you improves
survivability rates. it makes no difference in some situations.

maybe the hotdog method of achieving liftoff then maintaing low level
horizontal flight and accelerating like hell before climb out is a
better way of flying them.
interesting.
Stealth Pilot

[Montblack]

("Stealth Pilot" wrote)
> I'm proud of the efforts of my fellow pilots. they took some gutsy
> actions at considerable personal risk.
> ....and I often doubted that they ever had it in them.
>
> Stealth Pilot
> member of the Sport Aircraft Builders Club of Western Australia.


....and proud you should be!


Montblack

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" <> wrote
>
> maybe the hotdog method of achieving liftoff then maintaing low level
> horizontal flight and accelerating like hell before climb out is a
> better way of flying them.
> interesting.

You may have finally made a positive point for hot-dogging. Anyone think of
a down side?
--
Jim in NC

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Barnyard BOb says...

>>>...so now when you guys endlessly flame yawn for not flying his bd5
>>>consider the reality and risks that he faces.
>>
>>I think the reason yawn is flamed isn't that he won't fly his BD5.
>>Rather, it's that he continues to flog the BD5 as wonderful, easy to
>>fly, totally evolved, beyond all it's early problems and better than
>>competitors like the Vari Eze or KR1.
>>
>>And THEN he won't fly his own.
>>
>>My prayers for your friend.
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>To reinforce the above fact that
>Yawn is his own worst enemy...
>
>He also belittled the Vans RV-3 as being less safe than the BD-5.
>
>I don't recall the particulars, but Yawn stated in this ng that
>the Van's RV-3 was a death trap, I was quite stupid and
>would shortly be very dead for flying one.
>
>That was probably 7 years and 700 RV-3 hours ago.
>
>IMO, Yawn is nothing more than a megalomaniacal
>loud mouth confrontational coward. All hat and
>no cattle.....

I can imagine if this incident happened in my design. Jaun would be all over me
blaming me for what happened.Funny there's never a peep out of him when a BD is
involved.

Unfortunately sometimes bad things happen in this game of experimental flying
and a lot of times it's just bad luck.Sounds like that's the case here in the
BD-5 incident.From what I read he was on the ground with the engine running for
a longer time then normal and possibly the internal cowling temps got higher
then usual causing the possible vapor lock. That can be remedied now that the
problem is identified.

The bad luck is that the engine ran just long enough to put the pilot into a
very bad spot.Good luck would have the engine quit during T/O with room to stop
or better yet on the run up.No blame here just bad luck.

My best wishes to the pilot and I pray for his complete recovery.The fact that
he's recovering feeling in his feet is a very good sign.Good luck to all.

Chuck S

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On 23 May 2007 05:16:08 -0700, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:


>Unfortunately sometimes bad things happen in this game of experimental flying
>and a lot of times it's just bad luck.Sounds like that's the case here in the
>BD-5 incident.From what I read he was on the ground with the engine running for
>a longer time then normal and possibly the internal cowling temps got higher
>then usual causing the possible vapor lock. That can be remedied now that the
>problem is identified.
>
>The bad luck is that the engine ran just long enough to put the pilot into a
>very bad spot.Good luck would have the engine quit during T/O with room to stop
>or better yet on the run up.No blame here just bad luck.
>
>My best wishes to the pilot and I pray for his complete recovery.The fact that
>he's recovering feeling in his feet is a very good sign.Good luck to all.
>
>Chuck S

pretty much in line with what peter thinks.
he is amazed that pilots in america are praying for him. he, like me
is atheist :-)

someone in the club has organised a firesale this weekend of the stuff
in his hangar. actually we arent sure who thought to organise it but
they'll be losing their nuts if he ever finds out.
the thought that someone would make off with the new BD5 that he is
working on simply horrified him.

he is well on the mend and looking forward to getting on with it.
now if the feeling would return to the legs he'll be really chipper.

stealth pilot

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Stealth Pilot says...
>>The bad luck is that the engine ran just long enough to put the pilot into a
>>very bad spot.Good luck would have the engine quit during T/O with room to stop
>>or better yet on the run up.No blame here just bad luck.
>>
>>My best wishes to the pilot and I pray for his complete recovery.The fact that
>>he's recovering feeling in his feet is a very good sign.Good luck to all.
>>
>>Chuck S
>
>pretty much in line with what peter thinks.
>he is amazed that pilots in america are praying for him. he, like me
>is atheist :-)

Think of prayer like chicken soup when you have a cold.It might not help but
maybe it won't hurt either :-)As atheists you may not think praying has any
validity but just consider it our way of offering someone our very best wishes
for good luck and in this case a speedy recovery.


>
>someone in the club has organised a firesale this weekend of the stuff
>in his hangar. actually we arent sure who thought to organise it but
>they'll be losing their nuts if he ever finds out.
>the thought that someone would make off with the new BD5 that he is
>working on simply horrified him.
>

A "firesale" seems that's the last thing someone would do LOL!!

>he is well on the mend and looking forward to getting on with it.
>now if the feeling would return to the legs he'll be really chipper.

Well we'll continue to extend to Peter our very best wishes for a good recovery
so he can get on with the rebuild or the new project.

Chuck S

[Morgans[_2_]]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote

> Think of prayer like chicken soup when you have a cold.It might not help
> but
> maybe it won't hurt either :-)As atheists you may not think praying has
> any
> validity but just consider it our way of offering someone our very best
> wishes
> for good luck and in this case a speedy recovery.

More than that, I think.

I have seen things happen that either are the most improbable collections of
coincidence, or put another way, a miracle of sorts. An atheist looks at it
as the improbable happening, and others look at it as a touch of The
Almighty.

A religious person prays for a person to recover well, and believes that his
God can make it happen. Who is to say that it will not?

In Christianity, the believers are told to love their enemy, (not that the
atheist is an enemy) and pray for non believers. That is what they are
doing.

So, in short, I hope that some combination of happenings combine to
contribute to a fast and full recovery. How I make that wish is a personal
thing, and no less meaningful, no matter who it is for, and no matter how
that hope is expressed.
--
Jim in NC

[Dave[_15_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> In Christianity, the believers are told to love their enemy, (not that the
> atheist is an enemy) and pray for non believers. That is what they are
> doing.
>

Funny, I've noticed over the years that for the most part the more a person
or group calls on God, the more they love their enemy dead.

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:09:31 -0300, "Dave" >
wrote:

>
>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> In Christianity, the believers are told to love their enemy, (not that the
>> atheist is an enemy) and pray for non believers. That is what they are
>> doing.
>>
>
>Funny, I've noticed over the years that for the most part the more a person
>or group calls on God, the more they love their enemy dead.
>
You've just met the wrong people.

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

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Morgans says...
>
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote
>
>> Think of prayer like chicken soup when you have a cold.It might not help
>> but
>> maybe it won't hurt either :-)As atheists you may not think praying has
>> any
>> validity but just consider it our way of offering someone our very best
>> wishes
>> for good luck and in this case a speedy recovery.
>
>More than that, I think.
>
>I have seen things happen that either are the most improbable collections of
>coincidence, or put another way, a miracle of sorts. An atheist looks at it
>as the improbable happening, and others look at it as a touch of The
>Almighty.
>
>A religious person prays for a person to recover well, and believes that his
>God can make it happen. Who is to say that it will not?
>
>In Christianity, the believers are told to love their enemy, (not that the
>atheist is an enemy) and pray for non believers. That is what they are
>doing.
>
>So, in short, I hope that some combination of happenings combine to
>contribute to a fast and full recovery. How I make that wish is a personal
>thing, and no less meaningful, no matter who it is for, and no matter how
>that hope is expressed.

well said

Chuck S

[cavelamb himself]

Morgans wrote:
> "Stealth Pilot" <> wrote
>
>>maybe the hotdog method of achieving liftoff then maintaing low level
>>horizontal flight and accelerating like hell before climb out is a
>>better way of flying them.
>>interesting.
>
>
> You may have finally made a positive point for hot-dogging. Anyone think of
> a down side?

Not a one.

Richard

[Barnyard BOb]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 03:28:10 GMT, cavelamb himself
> wrote:

>Morgans wrote:
>> "Stealth Pilot" <> wrote
>>
>>>maybe the hotdog method of achieving liftoff then maintaing low level
>>>horizontal flight and accelerating like hell before climb out is a
>>>better way of flying them.
>>>interesting.
>>
>>
>> You may have finally made a positive point for hot-dogging. Anyone think of
>> a down side?
>
>Not a one.
>
>Richard
-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Yes, and I'm surprised there is no rebuttal.
If it was better, it wouldn't be called 'hot-dogging.' ;-)

For openers...
The FAA is not known to support 'hot-dogging'.
Neither do legit aircraft manufacturers, AFAIK.

Why?
Like has been said...
It's just hot-dogging.

hot-dogging;

1. to perform in a recklessly or flamboyantly skillful manner,
show off.

2. intended or done to draw attention; showy or sensational.


Although speed can be traded for altitude,
you won't get as much with this technique
or as much opportunity to pick a crash site.


Blast away.
Nomex union suit - ON.


- Barnyard BOb -

[Dan Nafe]

In article >,
"Dave" > wrote:

> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > In Christianity, the believers are told to love their enemy, (not that the
> > atheist is an enemy) and pray for non believers. That is what they are
> > doing.
> >
>
> Funny, I've noticed over the years that for the most part the more a person
> or group calls on God, the more they love their enemy dead.
>
>

True for some religions, but not all.

Frank Tallman said that the P.O.H. and the Bible are two books that are
routinely ignored.

You cannot get "we want you dead" out of either book.

....and don't wait until after a crash to start reading either book!

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 03:58:41 -0500, Barnyard BOb
> wrote:


>For openers...
>The FAA is not known to support 'hot-dogging'.
>Neither do legit aircraft manufacturers, AFAIK.
>
>Why?
>Like has been said...
>It's just hot-dogging.
>
>hot-dogging;
>
>1. to perform in a recklessly or flamboyantly skillful manner,
>show off.
>
>2. intended or done to draw attention; showy or sensational.
>
>
>Although speed can be traded for altitude,
>you won't get as much with this technique
>or as much opportunity to pick a crash site.
>

Barnyard, the boy and I discussed this technique tonight.
he is of the opinion that it may be the desired way to effect a
takeoff in the BD5.
He said that it is surprising but the wheels should be
raised/retracted as soon as possible after liftoff. The BD5 sees an
immediate jump in speed of 20 knots when the wheels come up.

holding the aircraft low to the ground and accelerating in level
flight does two things.
it gets you to a safer climbout speed faster.
if the engine does quit you avoid the spine destroying thump into the
ground.

most of us have been flying what I'll call FAR23 type aircraft all our
lives. The BD5 is quite a different handling aircraft and needs to
approached with techniques evolved from flying the actual aircraft not
from past FAR23 experience.

Pete has a number of wood strakes along the underside which are an
inch high by half inch wide. he has accidently landed the BD5 with
wheels up and in the slide along the runway the inboard end of the
flaps got ground away and the strakes became half inch by half inch
where they took the rubbing on the bitumen. there was no other damage
and he didnt feel any jolts to the spine.
if he had been low to the ground he might have worn away the strakes
and the lower skin but he would have been spared the spinal injury.

I called it hot dogging because we would all know what I meant but it
may just be the safest way to takeoff in a BD5.

btw his fuel injection is a single point injector not a per cylinder
injection system. he says it usually works well and it solved the
surging problems experienced with the marvel schleber carby he tried
previously.

Stealth Pilot

[Peter Dohm]

"Barnyard BOb" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 24 May 2007 03:28:10 GMT, cavelamb himself
> > wrote:
>
> >Morgans wrote:
> >> "Stealth Pilot" <> wrote
> >>
> >>>maybe the hotdog method of achieving liftoff then maintaing low level
> >>>horizontal flight and accelerating like hell before climb out is a
> >>>better way of flying them.
> >>>interesting.
> >>
> >>
> >> You may have finally made a positive point for hot-dogging. Anyone
think of
> >> a down side?
> >
> >Not a one.
> >
> >Richard
> -=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> Yes, and I'm surprised there is no rebuttal.
> If it was better, it wouldn't be called 'hot-dogging.' ;-)
>
> For openers...
> The FAA is not known to support 'hot-dogging'.
> Neither do legit aircraft manufacturers, AFAIK.
>
> Why?
> Like has been said...
> It's just hot-dogging.
>
> hot-dogging;
>
> 1. to perform in a recklessly or flamboyantly skillful manner,
> show off.
>
> 2. intended or done to draw attention; showy or sensational.
>
>
> Although speed can be traded for altitude,
> you won't get as much with this technique
> or as much opportunity to pick a crash site.
>
>
> Blast away.
> Nomex union suit - ON.
>
>
> - Barnyard BOb -
>
>
>
Ok, but this is not enough to require Nomex--much less a real, industrial
strength, asbestos suit over it. ;-)

My disagreement is only with calling it Hot Dogging. What Stealth Pilot
suggested, and called Hot Dogging, was really just a soft field take off
without the soft field. Accelerate in ground effect, retract the wheels as
appropriate, and begin climbing at the normal climb speed. I have read that
the proceedure was strongly advised for some low powered retractables, such
as the early Swifts, to reduce the risks during the early part of the
climb--although that had to do with maintaining a usefull climb angle over
obstacles, rather than a possible loss of power.

FWIW, there may be some additional lessons regarding regarding a formation
take off, especially using dissimilar aircraft--which I will leave to those
with the required experience.

Peter

[Richard Isakson]

"Stealth Pilot" wrote ...
> holding the aircraft low to the ground and accelerating in level
> flight does two things.
> it gets you to a safer climbout speed faster.
> if the engine does quit you avoid the spine destroying thump into the
> ground.

That wouldn't help on the BD-5. The BD-5 is a very poorly designed airplane
and your friend had the quintessential BD-5 accident. There have been
several accidents and deaths along these lines. These usually happen early
in the testing program. The pilot is new to the airplane and the airplane
has an engine cooling problem. That's inherent in the design and the
designer never solved the problem. The pilot taxis out to the runway as the
engine compartment overheats causing a new problem in the fuel system. Once
on the runway, the pilot applies power pouring more heat into the
compartment. The engine lasts long enough to get in the air and the engine
quits. On the BD-5 all the big weights are down low. The fuel is on the
bottom of the airplane, the pilots center of gravity is low and the engine
is fairly low. That makes the airplane center of gravity low but the thrust
line is up at that top of the airplane. The high thrust line wants to push
the nose down so the pilot has to compensate with aft stick. Now the engine
stops. The clutch disengages the engine and the prop and the prop sits out
there windmilling. A windmilling prop is like a parachute, now trying to
pull the nose up. The airplane controls are commanding nose up already so,
between the controls and the prop, up the nose goes. If the pilot's not
spring loaded to shove the nose down, it won't go down. It will pitch up
violently and the g-loading will go up. This causes the wing skins to
wrinkle and that destroys the wing aerodynamics. The airplane does a high
speed stall and, without altitude to recover, it slams into the runway. If
the pilot's lucky. If not, the airplane stalls asymmetrically and
half-snaps to the inverted position and slams into the runway with generally
fatal results. Your friend was lucky.

Rich

[Barnyard BOb]

Peter Dohm wrote:

>> >>>maybe the hotdog method of achieving liftoff then maintaing low level
>> >>>horizontal flight and accelerating like hell before climb out is a
>> >>>better way of flying them.
>
>My disagreement is only with calling it Hot Dogging. What Stealth Pilot
>suggested, and called Hot Dogging, was really just a soft field take off
>without the soft field. Accelerate in ground effect, retract the wheels as
>appropriate, and begin climbing at the normal climb speed. I have read that
>the proceedure was strongly advised for some low powered retractables, such
>as the early Swifts, to reduce the risks during the early part of the
>climb--although that had to do with maintaining a usefull climb angle over
>obstacles, rather than a possible loss of power.
>
>Peter
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Peter,

If what was meant by Stealth is as you describe...... establishing
NORMAL climb speed similar to a soft field T.O., I'm with you.

However, if climb out is NOT established at NORMAL
climb speed as soon as practical....

I gotta stick by my original guns. :-)

P.S. All this discussion is rather moot for me,
after reading Rich Isakson's comments.


Barnyard BOb - the devil's in the details

[Barnyard BOb]

>>Funny, I've noticed over the years that for the most part the more a person
>>or group calls on God, the more they love their enemy dead.
>>
>You've just met the wrong people.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Yeah, and there's a helluva lot of 'em to meet!!!

P.S.
Only takes one to kill ya...
or 20 to kill over 3000 in NYC on Sept 11.


- Barnyard BOb -

[Peter Dohm]

>
> Peter,
>
> If what was meant by Stealth is as you describe...... establishing
> NORMAL climb speed similar to a soft field T.O., I'm with you.
>
> However, if climb out is NOT established at NORMAL
> climb speed as soon as practical....
>
> I gotta stick by my original guns. :-)
>
> P.S. All this discussion is rather moot for me,
> after reading Rich Isakson's comments.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb - the devil's in the details

I have always thought that the BD5 was a "very cool looking" little
airplane, and it is certainly interesting on how it might have turned out if
the original engineering team had been much more lucky, or possibly
insightfull, in troubleshooting their drive line problems. I also really
think that much of the behavior to which Rich Isakson alludes is more
related to pilot expectation and the relationship between the center of
trust and center of drag than it is to the relationship between the center
of thrust and the center of gravity.

However, in a practical sense, these are really semantic arguments. They
would make a great discussion over a keg of beer; but in the end, I would
never atempt to fly that airplane equipped as described--because I don't
know how to balance it within the weight that the wing can really handle
and, combined with the change in pitching moment from power on to power off,
the damned thing would attempt to kill me.

The bottom line is that we all agree.

Peter

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Richard Isakson" > said:
>bottom of the airplane, the pilots center of gravity is low and the engine
>is fairly low. That makes the airplane center of gravity low but the thrust
>line is up at that top of the airplane. The high thrust line wants to push
>the nose down so the pilot has to compensate with aft stick. Now the engine
>stops. The clutch disengages the engine and the prop and the prop sits out
>there windmilling. A windmilling prop is like a parachute, now trying to
>pull the nose up. The airplane controls are commanding nose up already so,
>between the controls and the prop, up the nose goes. If the pilot's not
>spring loaded to shove the nose down, it won't go down. It will pitch up
>violently and the g-loading will go up. This causes the wing skins to

The Lake Amphibian, and probably most boat-hull type amphibs, have that
same problem. The weight and drag are down near the hull, and the thrust
comes from that engine mounted on a pylon above.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
If I have pinged farther than others, it is because I routed upon
the T3s of giants.
-- Greg Andrews

[Ron Webb]

>> Funny, I've noticed over the years that for the most part the more a
>> person
>> or group calls on God, the more they love their enemy dead.
>>
>>
>
> True for some religions, but not all.
>

That'd surprise the hell outta all the people who have been burned at the
stake, drowned, hanged, killed in war, etc


"It is true that any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into
law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by
suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of
the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics."

--- Robert A. Heinlein

[Barnyard BOb]

"Peter Dohm" wrote:

>I have always thought that the BD5 was a "very cool looking" little
>airplane, and it is certainly interesting on how it might have turned out if
>the original engineering team had been much more lucky, or possibly
>insightfull, in troubleshooting their drive line problems. I also really
>think that much of the behavior to which Rich Isakson alludes is more
>related to pilot expectation and the relationship between the center of
>trust and center of drag than it is to the relationship between the center
>of thrust and the center of gravity.
>
>However, in a practical sense, these are really semantic arguments. They
>would make a great discussion over a keg of beer; but in the end, I would
>never atempt to fly that airplane equipped as described--because I don't
>know how to balance it within the weight that the wing can really handle
>and, combined with the change in pitching moment from power on to power off,
>the damned thing would attempt to kill me.
>
>
>
>
>The bottom line is that we all agree.
>
>Peter
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

There is_one_who never agrees with anybody.
Let him, and his BD remain nameless and shunned.


Barnyard BOb

[wright1902glider]

When hang gliding, the only launches I've ever blown were when I let
the AOA get too high. In a horribly underpowered, weightshifting ship
like an hang glider, high AOA is the easiest way to use up that human
1/4 horsepower and stall. The first launch I blew resulted in an
asymetrical stall and I partially spun back into the hill. The second
resulted in a mushing stall and even though I dropped 63' on the take-
off run, I never made it off the ground.

Of course its rather difficult to compare the take off envelope of a
BD-5 to a hang glider, but with respect to the rapid change in AOA ,
thrust/drag angles, and stall speeds, there are some similarities.
Weight slightly forward and nose level equal a low positive AOA and
increasing thrust as gravity takes effect and continues to accelerate
my ship. We're taught to resist the urge to push out (pull up) until
sufficient airspeed is achieved, usually best glide or greater. With
the BD, this would equate to VR, gear up, accelerate to at least best
glide or best climb (dunno which would come first) and then continue
the climbout. Runway length and obsticles considered of course.

Anyone know what the typical takeoff run is for a BD? Would it be a
good idea to drop the gear unpowered? They take less than a second to
deploy.

Just my thoughts from the non-powered end of the envelope.

Harry

[Barnyard BOb]

Dan Nafe wrote:

>> Funny, I've noticed over the years that for the most part the more a person
>> or group calls on God, the more they love their enemy dead.
>>
>>
>
>
>

>
>True for some religions, but not all.

OK, name 'em....


>You cannot get "we want you dead" out of either book.

You miss the point entirely.

Books, like guns...
Don't kill people.
People/groups with the books [and guns], kill people.

Settlers came to America from England to avoid religious persecution
and then burned witches at the stake when they were in charge.
This kinda' trade mark crap has been going on since the Stone Age.

- Barnyard BOb -

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Ron Webb" > wrote:

> >> Funny, I've noticed over the years that for the most part the more a
> >> person
> >> or group calls on God, the more they love their enemy dead.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > True for some religions, but not all.
> >
>
> That'd surprise the hell outta all the people who have been burned at the
> stake, drowned, hanged, killed in war, etc
>
>
> "It is true that any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into
> law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by
> suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of
> the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics."
>
> --- Robert A. Heinlein

Someone once said that the preachers promise heaven until they attain
control; then, all they deliver is hell. IMHO, this appears to be true
of all religions.

[Dan[_2_]]

Barnyard BOb wrote:
> "Peter Dohm" wrote:
>
>> I have always thought that the BD5 was a "very cool looking" little
>> airplane, and it is certainly interesting on how it might have turned out if
>> the original engineering team had been much more lucky, or possibly
>> insightfull, in troubleshooting their drive line problems. I also really
>> think that much of the behavior to which Rich Isakson alludes is more
>> related to pilot expectation and the relationship between the center of
>> trust and center of drag than it is to the relationship between the center
>> of thrust and the center of gravity.
>>
>> However, in a practical sense, these are really semantic arguments. They
>> would make a great discussion over a keg of beer; but in the end, I would
>> never atempt to fly that airplane equipped as described--because I don't
>> know how to balance it within the weight that the wing can really handle
>> and, combined with the change in pitching moment from power on to power off,
>> the damned thing would attempt to kill me.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The bottom line is that we all agree.
>>
>> Peter
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> There is_one_who never agrees with anybody.
> Let him, and his BD remain nameless and shunned.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb

Let his unholy name remain uninvoked.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_2_]]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> "Ron Webb" > wrote:
>
>>>> Funny, I've noticed over the years that for the most part the more a
>>>> person
>>>> or group calls on God, the more they love their enemy dead.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> True for some religions, but not all.
>>>
>> That'd surprise the hell outta all the people who have been burned at the
>> stake, drowned, hanged, killed in war, etc
>>
>>
>> "It is true that any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into
>> law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by
>> suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of
>> the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics."
>>
>> --- Robert A. Heinlein
>
> Someone once said that the preachers promise heaven until they attain
> control; then, all they deliver is hell. IMHO, this appears to be true
> of all religions.

And ex wives :)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Maxwell]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Ron Webb" > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Funny, I've noticed over the years that for the most part the more a
>>>>> person
>>>>> or group calls on God, the more they love their enemy dead.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> True for some religions, but not all.
>>>>
>>> That'd surprise the hell outta all the people who have been burned at
>>> the stake, drowned, hanged, killed in war, etc
>>>
>>>
>>> "It is true that any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed
>>> into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it
>>> by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the
>>> minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground
>>> all heretics."
>>>
>>> --- Robert A. Heinlein
>>
>> Someone once said that the preachers promise heaven until they attain
>> control; then, all they deliver is hell. IMHO, this appears to be true of
>> all religions.
>
> And ex wives :)
>

And they don't always have to be ex wives.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Richard Riley > said:
>On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:09:31 -0300, "Dave" >
>wrote:
>>> In Christianity, the believers are told to love their enemy, (not that the
>>> atheist is an enemy) and pray for non believers. That is what they are
>>> doing.
>>Funny, I've noticed over the years that for the most part the more a person
>>or group calls on God, the more they love their enemy dead.
>>
>
>Have you ever met a Buddhist?

Obviously you never have.

Buddhists don't call on god. They don't have a god.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Software planning seems to be based on denying plausibility.
-- Graham Reed

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Richard Riley > said:
>On Sat, 26 May 2007 16:57:54 +0000 (UTC),
>(Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>>In a previous article, Richard Riley > said:
>>>On Wed, 23 May 2007 19:09:31 -0300, "Dave" >
>>>wrote:
>>>>Funny, I've noticed over the years that for the most part the more a person
>>>>or group calls on God, the more they love their enemy dead.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Have you ever met a Buddhist?
>>
>>Obviously you never have.
>>
>>Buddhists don't call on god. They don't have a god.
>
>Apparently you haven't met many either.
>
>Some Buddhists believe in a single God, some believe in multiple Gods.
>Some don't. Some don't know.

The ones who believe in a single God or multiple Gods are following a
religion as well as Buddhism. Buddhism is not a theist religion.

>necessary. Nevertheless, today many lay people in East Asian countries
>pray to the Buddha in ways that resemble Western prayer - asking for
>intervention and offering devotion.

Then those people understand Buddhism about as well as Jerry Falwell
understood the teachings of Christ.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
....if Paul's really talking about truly average people, then they'd probably
die in either case, because common sense isn't.
-- Derick Siddoway

[Ernest Christley]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> holding the aircraft low to the ground and accelerating in level
> flight does two things.
> it gets you to a safer climbout speed faster.
> if the engine does quit you avoid the spine destroying thump into the
> ground.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Take-offs in a Dyke Delta requires the same technique. It doesn't want
to climb out solidly until it reaches 80mph. If you try to pull it out
of ground effect to early, the drag increases to the point that
acceleration stops. Pulling the gear up gives you 20mph. I'm to
understand that there have been accidents where the pilot ran out of
runway, trying to pull the craft into the sky without enough speed, or
enough power to overcome the drag.

Lift off into ground effect at 60, and hold level as the gear comes up.
Accelerate to 100 to get solid control authority, then head for the
heavens.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 24 May 2007 11:13:47 -0700, "Richard Isakson"
> wrote:

>"Stealth Pilot" wrote ...
> > holding the aircraft low to the ground and accelerating in level
>> flight does two things.
>> it gets you to a safer climbout speed faster.
>> if the engine does quit you avoid the spine destroying thump into the
>> ground.
>
>That wouldn't help on the BD-5. The BD-5 is a very poorly designed airplane
>and your friend had the quintessential BD-5 accident. There have been
>several accidents and deaths along these lines. These usually happen early
>in the testing program. The pilot is new to the airplane and the airplane
>has an engine cooling problem. That's inherent in the design and the
>designer never solved the problem. The pilot taxis out to the runway as the
>engine compartment overheats causing a new problem in the fuel system. Once
>on the runway, the pilot applies power pouring more heat into the
>compartment. The engine lasts long enough to get in the air and the engine
>quits. On the BD-5 all the big weights are down low. The fuel is on the
>bottom of the airplane, the pilots center of gravity is low and the engine
>is fairly low. That makes the airplane center of gravity low but the thrust
>line is up at that top of the airplane. The high thrust line wants to push
>the nose down so the pilot has to compensate with aft stick. Now the engine
>stops. The clutch disengages the engine and the prop and the prop sits out
>there windmilling. A windmilling prop is like a parachute, now trying to
>pull the nose up. The airplane controls are commanding nose up already so,
>between the controls and the prop, up the nose goes. If the pilot's not
>spring loaded to shove the nose down, it won't go down. It will pitch up
>violently and the g-loading will go up. This causes the wing skins to
>wrinkle and that destroys the wing aerodynamics. The airplane does a high
>speed stall and, without altitude to recover, it slams into the runway. If
>the pilot's lucky. If not, the airplane stalls asymmetrically and
>half-snaps to the inverted position and slams into the runway with generally
>fatal results. Your friend was lucky.
>
>Rich
>

the differences between these aeroplanes and the originals are subtle
and many. I just have not had the opportunity to discuss the comments
with the two guys. soon hopefully.
Stealth Pilot