Ok, what about the BD5

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

("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

"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

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

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?

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

"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 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

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...

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?