Ok, what about the BD5

"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.

Beef up the driveshaft, and the clutch tore apart. Fix the clutch, and the
engine mounts cracked, beef them up, and something else broke. So on, and
so on.

Anyone happen to have the links handy that addressed all of these issues?
It was a very interesting read, although a lot of material. I think they
would answer, with great detail, why the 5 never caught on. They self
destructed.

Van's RV-4, RV-6, RV-7, RV-8 and RV-9 aircraft. Those
aircraft were slightly bigger, appealed to more pilots, were easier to
build, used proven available engines, offered performance galore and
were far easier for the average pilot to fly.

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.
--
Jim in NC

On 1/4/2007 3:21:53 PM, "Morgans" wrote:

"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.

Beef up the driveshaft, and the clutch tore apart. Fix the clutch, and the
engine mounts cracked, beef them up, and something else broke. So on, and
so on.

Anyone happen to have the links handy that addressed all of these issues?
It was a very interesting read, although a lot of material. I think they
would answer, with great detail, why the 5 never caught on. They self
destructed.

Van's RV-4, RV-6, RV-7, RV-8 and RV-9 aircraft. Those
aircraft were slightly bigger, appealed to more pilots, were easier to
build, used proven available engines, offered performance galore and
were far easier for the average pilot to fly.

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.


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.

I think all piston engine designs suffer too much from torsional vibration
problems. But most are just not serious enough to be destructive.

--
Whome?

Too many years ago to annouce publically, a friend of mine inquired with me
about sawing the gearbox off a Suzuki 750 Water-buffalo. For those of you
who are history impaired regarding two-stroke motorcycles, that engine came
from the GT750 and was a three cylinder two-stroke...or a two cylinder three
stroke...I don't remember

Anyway, with mild port work and a little boost in compression, the 750 would
probably put out 80 horsepower all day long, and Suzuki two strokes of that
time were known for being as reliable as a fire hydrant. The engine would
have weighed maybe 70-80 lbs, but required a water cooling system. And would
have been thirsty...

My friend had 900 hours in motor gliders at the time, I had maybe 20 in GA.
In retrospect, I'm glad the subject went away after a brief period of time.

Dale Alexander

"Whome?" wrote in message
...
On 1/4/2007 3:21:53 PM, "Morgans" wrote:

"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.

Beef up the driveshaft, and the clutch tore apart. Fix the clutch, and
the
engine mounts cracked, beef them up, and something else broke. So on, and
so on.

Anyone happen to have the links handy that addressed all of these issues?
It was a very interesting read, although a lot of material. I think they
would answer, with great detail, why the 5 never caught on. They self
destructed.

Van's RV-4, RV-6, RV-7, RV-8 and RV-9 aircraft. Those
aircraft were slightly bigger, appealed to more pilots, were easier to
build, used proven available engines, offered performance galore and
were far easier for the average pilot to fly.

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.


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.

I think all piston engine designs suffer too much from torsional vibration
problems. But most are just not serious enough to be destructive.

--
Whome?

Dale Alexander wrote:
Too many years ago to annouce publically, a friend of mine inquired with me
about sawing the gearbox off a Suzuki 750 Water-buffalo. For those of you
who are history impaired regarding two-stroke motorcycles, that engine came
from the GT750 and was a three cylinder two-stroke...or a two cylinder three
stroke...I don't remember


6 cylinder one stroke?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"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

"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.

Beef up the driveshaft, and the clutch tore apart. Fix the clutch, and
the engine mounts cracked, beef them up, and something else broke. So on,
and so on.

Anyone happen to have the links handy that addressed all of these issues?
It was a very interesting read, although a lot of material. I think they
would answer, with great detail, why the 5 never caught on. They self
destructed.

My web site includes a library of material that includes things like this.
Help yourself, that's why I put it there, the good _and_ the bad.



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

"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. 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

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.



Beef up the driveshaft, and the clutch tore apart. Fix the clutch, and
the engine mounts cracked, beef them up, and something else broke. So
on, and so on.

Anyone happen to have the links handy that addressed all of these issues?
It was a very interesting read, although a lot of material. I think they
would answer, with great detail, why the 5 never caught on. They self
destructed.

My web site includes a library of material that includes things like this.
Help yourself, that's why I put it there, the good _and_ the bad.


--
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

"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.

"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