Ok, what about the BD5

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

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...

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

"Whome?" wrote

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

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

("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-...eos-movies.php
The Cri-Cri


Montblack

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/

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-...eos-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

"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

"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

"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/T.../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