Ok, what about the BD5

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker
wrote:

In article ,
"Peter Dohm" wrote:


There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where
it
claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.

That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
*empty* weight.

--
Why?

(400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)

OK. Give me a few examples...

860 lbs isn't outragous as an empty weight. Off the top of my head,
the Ercoup is 815, the Aeronca 7ac is 710, the Cessna 120 about 780
lbs.

But 860 gross weight does seem ambitious. They list useful load as
530 lbs, so an empty weight of 330 lbs? The engine alone is 132. So
the airframe, control systems, panel, upholstery, canopy, retractable
gear, fuel tanks etc is under 200 lbs? That seems unlikely.

And 2.5 G's seems like an awfully low number to test to.

If their gross weight is real it means their stall speed could be, too
- at 50 square feet it's only a CLmax of 1.8.

Empty weight of my BD-5J is 358.8 lbs. I set gross weight at 850 lbs. Full
tanks and me in it plus parachute, helmet, misc. puts it at about 814 lbs.



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

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"J.Kahn" wrote

I would think the ideal engine would be a properly developed wankel.

I would not think so. Waste heat has always been a problem for wankels,
and getting rid of that much heat from that tight engine compartment.

Exactly.



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

"anon" wrote in message
m...
"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
...
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.

Juan, your idea of the word "design" appears to include every improvement
made in the last 30 years by dozens of different builders and and
companies. I think this is begging the definition.

And Kyle's idea of shortcomings appears to include every issue that was
discovered during flight testing of the prototypes by the company and then
resolved. Any aircraft can have issue with harmonics from the engine or
drive system. To suggest that such is a problem with existing aircraft
because it was a problem identified and resolved more 30 years ago is
absurd. The BD-5 drive system that has been in production for that long is
designed to mitigate any drive system issues such as these with various
dampening methods when recip engines are used.



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

"Ladypilot" wrote in message
...
"Juan Jimenez" wrote in
:


Tell me something I don't know.

Apparently, that you're a ****ing asshole. But don't worry - the rest of
us are quite aware of that.

Apparently you're confusing me for someone who gives a damn what you think.
You now stand corrected.

If you get the urge to reply, save your breath... You'll need it to blow up
your date.





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

In article ,
"Juan Jimenez" wrote:

"Ladypilot" wrote in message
...
"Juan Jimenez" wrote in
:


Tell me something I don't know.

Apparently, that you're a ****ing asshole. But don't worry - the rest of
us are quite aware of that.

Apparently you're confusing me for someone who gives a damn what you think.
You now stand corrected.

Actually, she was already correct. You *are* an asshole.

And if you didn't care what she thought, you wouldn't have bothered to
write the next sentence...

If you get the urge to reply, save your breath... You'll need it to blow up
your date.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

Juan Jimenez wrote:
"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker
wrote:

In article ,
"Peter Dohm" wrote:

There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where
it
claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.

That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
*empty* weight.

--
Why?

(400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)
OK. Give me a few examples...
860 lbs isn't outragous as an empty weight. Off the top of my head,
the Ercoup is 815, the Aeronca 7ac is 710, the Cessna 120 about 780
lbs.

But 860 gross weight does seem ambitious. They list useful load as
530 lbs, so an empty weight of 330 lbs? The engine alone is 132. So
the airframe, control systems, panel, upholstery, canopy, retractable
gear, fuel tanks etc is under 200 lbs? That seems unlikely.

And 2.5 G's seems like an awfully low number to test to.

If their gross weight is real it means their stall speed could be, too
- at 50 square feet it's only a CLmax of 1.8.

Empty weight of my BD-5J is 358.8 lbs. I set gross weight at 850 lbs. Full
tanks and me in it plus parachute, helmet, misc. puts it at about 814 lbs.


You are planning on losing 100 pounds? Judging from your video I peg
you at about 250 pounds.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired?

Double that if you count is ego!

Dan wrote:
Juan Jimenez wrote:
"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker
wrote:

In article ,
"Peter Dohm" wrote:

There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where
it
claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.

That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
*empty* weight.

--
Why?

(400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)
OK. Give me a few examples...
860 lbs isn't outragous as an empty weight. Off the top of my head,
the Ercoup is 815, the Aeronca 7ac is 710, the Cessna 120 about 780
lbs.

But 860 gross weight does seem ambitious. They list useful load as
530 lbs, so an empty weight of 330 lbs? The engine alone is 132. So
the airframe, control systems, panel, upholstery, canopy, retractable
gear, fuel tanks etc is under 200 lbs? That seems unlikely.

And 2.5 G's seems like an awfully low number to test to.

If their gross weight is real it means their stall speed could be, too
- at 50 square feet it's only a CLmax of 1.8.

Empty weight of my BD-5J is 358.8 lbs. I set gross weight at 850 lbs. Full
tanks and me in it plus parachute, helmet, misc. puts it at about 814 lbs.


You are planning on losing 100 pounds? Judging from your video I peg
you at about 250 pounds.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired?

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 14:43:40 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:

Empty weight of my BD-5J is 358.8 lbs. I set gross weight at 850 lbs. Full
tanks and me in it plus parachute, helmet, misc. puts it at about 814 lbs.

I can't resist...

If you're the "pilot", then it doesn't need the fuel or the parachute.
I assume you'll still want the helmet for appearance sake. So - plane
360, you and a lightweight helmet another 300. That's only 660,
leaving 190 for a honkin' big boombox strapped on with duct tape. The
Ride of the Valkyrie at maximum volume should be just the thing to
mask the sound of the squeaky cherry-picker wheels when the um,
mission, is over.

Wayne

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?