If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS
"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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS
"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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS
"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 |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS
"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. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS
"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 |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS
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 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS
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 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS
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! |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS
("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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Commerical rating question about hours req. | Nik | Piloting | 5 | September 12th 06 05:43 AM |
Most reliable homebuilt helicopter? | tom pettit | Home Built | 35 | September 29th 05 02:24 PM |
First 2 1/2 hours PPL(H) today! | Simon Robbins | Rotorcraft | 42 | September 25th 05 12:54 AM |
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! | Malcolm Austin | Soaring | 0 | November 5th 04 11:14 PM |