BD5B

Ron

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

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

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

Big John


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at the FATALITY rate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, to the stats:

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

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

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

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

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

Percentages:

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

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

Ron Wanttaja

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking at the FATALITY rate:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, to the stats:

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

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

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

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

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

Percentages:

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

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

Ron Wanttaja

Corky

A bit of BD5 trivia.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Big John


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

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



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

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

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

Corky Scott

In article , Ron Wanttaja
writes:


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

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

Ron Wanttaja



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


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

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

In article ,
(Corky Scott) writes:


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

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

Corky Scott



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

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

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

RobertR237 wrote:

Why not just let it die?


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

"RobertR237" wrote in message
...
In article , Ron Wanttaja
writes:


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

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

Ron Wanttaja



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


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

Bob

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

Big John


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

In article ,
(Corky Scott) writes:


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

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

Corky Scott



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

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

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

"Gig Giacona" wrote:

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

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

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

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


Barnyard BOb -- over 713 hours TT on my RV3

Yo Bob,

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

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

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

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

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

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


- Barnyard BOb - wrote:

"Gig Giacona" wrote:


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

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

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

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


Barnyard BOb -- over 713 hours TT on my RV3