Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS

"Deaf2u" wrote in message
...
Well once again, disregarding the apparently intense battle\hatred DABEAR
has for Juan I still find it curious. He's owned this plane, taken pride
and made some fairly loud noises about owning it. He has a website about
it and has been all about this plane for a while and yet has no desire to
see it fulfill it's mission. I have no interest in it, I'm more interested
in slow planes with floats but I am curious.

The ad says he now wants a motorglider, now that's a far way from a little
jet.

Your basic premise is incorrect. Everything else you conclude from there is
also wrong.



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

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:57:15 GMT, "Deaf2u" wrote:

http://www.global-air.com/global/g05229.htm

Could it be?? You'd think he'd at least fly it once. Or watch it fly.
What's
the story here Juan?


Back when the RRL announced Zoom as one of their pilots, a certain
RAH15er with intelligence, good looks and wisdom said...

"Zoom will fly a rocket plane the same day Juan flies his BD-5."

I bow to his superior insight

RAH15er with intelligence. Now there's a classic oxymoron.



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

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Montblack wrote:
("Richard Riley" wrote)
We talked about this here back when the Yawner got his "record." It's
not
for the *lightest* jet, it's for the *smallest* jet. IIRC, the CriCri
was
lighter, but was a little bigger in wingspan or length.

Of course, and airplane doesn't have to actually fly to be an airplane.
I'm told there's a broom and a carpet on the FAA registry.


The Cri-Cri is about 10 inches longer.
The Cri-Cri weighs half as much.
The Cri-Cri's wingspan is shorter by about a foot. (16' vs. 17')
The Cri-Cri (jet) flies, has flown, will fly, did fly...

http://home.regent.edu/ruthven/bd-5.html
BD-5

http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
Cri-Cri (jet)

http://www.flight.cz/cricri/english/
GREAT Cri-Cri site. Check out the (new) NZ video.


Montblack
Cri-Cri fan


What is it about the design that makes it so unsafe? It looks a bit
short coupled, but that's the only thing that jumps out at me.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I really don't know--other than being less than crash worthy.

There were a number of accidents in propeller driven BD-5s which had been
modified with larger and heavier engines when the recommended engine for the
kit was not delivered and, IIRC, not available. I believe that there were
both cooling problems and CG problems with some of the modifications. In
addition, there were a series of development problems with the drive line
and/or PSRU in the prototype prior to the availability and/or delivery
problem with the engines...

I had a little difficulty finding the articles, since I changed computers a
few months ago, but here are two links which are similar and may be the same
article with a different number of illustrations--I didn't read all the way
through them again. The article on prime-mover.org is definitely a reprint
of a Contact! Magazine article, and there is a link to it from the Contact!
back issues bage.
http://ibis.experimentals.de/downloa...lvibration.pdf
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/T.../contact1.html

I simply don't recall much of the history of the BD-5J, as I was really not
interested in a jet at that time. However, IIRC, the initial engine was
very low on thrust--possible only 50 or 60 pounds. Subsequently, one or
more air show pilots modified the aircraft with much more powerfull engines,
of around 200 pounds thrust, and dramatically greater fuel capacity--by
wetting most of the wings. I have no idea what that might have done to the
handling, especially in the event of any fuel system problem.

I still think that the BD-5 is a neat little plane, and could fly well with
some of the more recent small engines. However, I certainly would not
consider flying the jet.

There is also a portion of a general overview on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-5

Now you know as much as I do, which is less than definitive.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
news:BH%ih.4956$_X.3192@bigfe9...

I really don't know--other than being less than crash worthy.

Kinda like the one Walton died in.

There were a number of accidents in propeller driven BD-5s which had been
modified with larger and heavier engines when the recommended engine for
the
kit was not delivered and, IIRC, not available. I believe that there were
both cooling problems and CG problems with some of the modifications. In
addition, there were a series of development problems with the drive line
and/or PSRU in the prototype prior to the availability and/or delivery
problem with the engines...

This is almost accurate. The majority of accidents in BD-5's have nothing to
do with CG. Look at the NTSB records. They're all there.

I had a little difficulty finding the articles, since I changed computers
a
few months ago

Articles don't tell even a fraction of the story. The NTSB narratives do.

I simply don't recall much of the history of the BD-5J, as I was really
not
interested in a jet at that time. However, IIRC, the initial engine was
very low on thrust--possible only 50 or 60 pounds.

That's not only wrong, it's absurd. The TRS-18-046, the first model used on
the BD-5J's, puts out 225 lbs of thrust. Net thrust is something like 190
lbf. The -1 puts out 360 lbf.




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

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
.. .


Your basic premise is incorrect. Everything else you conclude from there
is also wrong.

I don't have any premise, and I'm not making any conclusions. Theres very
little point in leaping in here ****ing all over the place. I'm simply
curious why you don't fly it. I already have seen that you like being
obnoxious, I guess that's the way you are. But it still doesn't answer the
question.

You do have a website that's all about the BD5, it looks like you're proud
of owning it and such. You did apply get the Guinness thing. Is the project
finished without flying? I saw a BD5 jet fly quite a few years back, it was
an impressive little plane and if I'd put in the effort I'd want to fly it.
I'm just curious, not trying to start any battles-it looks like you've got
enough.

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...

"Anthony W" wrote in message
news:seWih.49$kD4.34@trndny06...
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

If the plane never leaves the ground it isn't an airplane as far as I'm
concerned. Think how easy it would be to just put together some
cardboard
and a light jet engine and call it the lightest jet airplane.

Couldn't someone toss a couple of those model plane jet engines on an
ultralight and take the record for smallest jet? It would take some
research to select the right plane but I'd go with one of Chuck's
planes...

Tony

Add a couple model plane jet engines to an ultralight and you would have
developed a jet airplane with the slowest max speed. You can file your
new
world record with "Ripley's Believe It or Not."

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


Ted Ancona had an Icarus V with a couple of propane fueled jet engines.
The climb rate was abysmal, but it was loud.
I'm not sure what the weight was, I'm sure it was shorter than a BD-5, since
it's a tailless design.

Tim Ward

Juan Jimenez wrote:
snip

The plan has been to sell it for some time now. It flies first or it gets
sold first.

It hasn't sold in how many years? How many tries? I bet it flies
about the same time moller succeeds.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Montblack wrote:
("Richard Riley" wrote)
We talked about this here back when the Yawner got his "record." It's
not
for the *lightest* jet, it's for the *smallest* jet. IIRC, the CriCri
was
lighter, but was a little bigger in wingspan or length.

Of course, and airplane doesn't have to actually fly to be an airplane.
I'm told there's a broom and a carpet on the FAA registry.

The Cri-Cri is about 10 inches longer.
The Cri-Cri weighs half as much.
The Cri-Cri's wingspan is shorter by about a foot. (16' vs. 17')
The Cri-Cri (jet) flies, has flown, will fly, did fly...

http://home.regent.edu/ruthven/bd-5.html
BD-5

http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
Cri-Cri (jet)

http://www.flight.cz/cricri/english/
GREAT Cri-Cri site. Check out the (new) NZ video.


Montblack
Cri-Cri fan


What is it about the design that makes it so unsafe? It looks a bit
short coupled, but that's the only thing that jumps out at me.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I really don't know--other than being less than crash worthy.

There were a number of accidents in propeller driven BD-5s which had been
modified with larger and heavier engines when the recommended engine for the
kit was not delivered and, IIRC, not available. I believe that there were
both cooling problems and CG problems with some of the modifications. In
addition, there were a series of development problems with the drive line
and/or PSRU in the prototype prior to the availability and/or delivery
problem with the engines...

I had a little difficulty finding the articles, since I changed computers a
few months ago, but here are two links which are similar and may be the same
article with a different number of illustrations--I didn't read all the way
through them again. The article on prime-mover.org is definitely a reprint
of a Contact! Magazine article, and there is a link to it from the Contact!
back issues bage.
http://ibis.experimentals.de/downloa...lvibration.pdf
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/T.../contact1.html

I simply don't recall much of the history of the BD-5J, as I was really not
interested in a jet at that time. However, IIRC, the initial engine was
very low on thrust--possible only 50 or 60 pounds. Subsequently, one or
more air show pilots modified the aircraft with much more powerfull engines,
of around 200 pounds thrust, and dramatically greater fuel capacity--by
wetting most of the wings. I have no idea what that might have done to the
handling, especially in the event of any fuel system problem.

I still think that the BD-5 is a neat little plane, and could fly well with
some of the more recent small engines. However, I certainly would not
consider flying the jet.

There is also a portion of a general overview on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-5

Now you know as much as I do, which is less than definitive.

Peter


Now that you mention it I do recall cooling and engine problems. The
glide rate and total lack of crash worthiness wouldn't help either.

I think a fly by wire system would be neat. I wonder if there's an off
the shelf product somewhere.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan wrote:


It hasn't sold in how many years? How many tries? I bet it flies
about the same time moller succeeds.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

The day comes that Orville and Wilbur are resurrected from the grave,
it will still be available...on E bay going for .50 cents!

("Paul Tomblin" wrote)
It does? That page you linked for the jet Cri-Cri says it weighs 170kg.
The Guiness certificate for Wan's BD5J says it weighs 162kg.


That's not a very clear number - easily misinterpreted on that Cri-Cri (jet)
page.

Cri-Cri:

Empty weight: ...........70kg - 85kg (80kg = 176lbs)
MTOW: ....................180kg (approx)
Pilot + fuel: ..............100kg (220lbs)
(The MTOW might be 10 or 15lbs. too high)

Engines (each) .......12hp - 20hp
Cruise speed: .........100kts - 125kts(?)

Climb: .......................1k-ft/min
Climb (one engine) .....Yes


Montblack