![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "RobertR237" wrote in message ... In article , Ron Wanttaja writes: Total homebuilt accident rate: 10% Total certified BD-5 rate: 21% Total all-listing BD-5 rate: 8.5% So whether the BD-5 is twice as bad as the main fleet or a little bit better really depends on your interpretation of the certification data. By the FAA and EAA's interpretation, the BD-5's accident rate is twice that of the main homebuilt fleet. Ron Wanttaja What would be more telling would be the accident rate per hours flown. Even if the 236 BD-5s were accurate, I suspect the accident per hour would be significantly higher for the BD5 than your figures indicate. Unfortunately, there is no available database that would give that information. I haven't spent that much time looking at the accident reports but it seems that TTAF and TTE might be listed somewhere on, if not all, a good number of accident reports. While you wouldn't get a total time for the fleet you could get a total time for the accident involved fleet. Might be telling. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Gig Giacona" wrote: I haven't spent that much time looking at the accident reports but it seems that TTAF and TTE might be listed somewhere on, if not all, a good number of accident reports. While you wouldn't get a total time for the fleet you could get a total time for the accident involved fleet. Might be telling. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Any body ever see a BD5 flying cross country? Anybody ever see a BD5 fly? I'd ask jaun for some figures, but I doubt he would ever confirm that most flying BD5's have far less than 50 hours TT on 'em..... and this would be a lot of taxi time. g At one time jaun did claimed there was one with over 350 hours. However, if credibility is an issue, the figure should be considered bogus. Barnyard BOb -- over 713 hours TT on my RV3 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Yo Bob,
There was a BD-5J that was used as the "Coors Silver Bullet" and then was used for shows at Oshkosh, etc. I could see that particular BD-5 as having more than 350 hours on it. I don't know if this particular bird is still flying. After each airshow, the wings were pulled off and it was put in a trailer. Makes sense as far as having a car and tools at the airshow as well as your plane. I think a BIG indication of how difficult it is to fly is that a Ex- Blue Angel was flying it for the demos! There is a gentleman in my EAA chapter that has one and is rebuilding it after bleeding too much speed and ending up a bit high on landing. He did mention that he really couldn't see the ground from the almost fully reclined position that is the pilot seat. His BD-5 uses a Turbomecha turbine with a PSRU prop reduction for power. As with all things if it goes hellishly fast it probably doesn't do slow very well. -- Bart D. Hull Tempe, Arizona Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html for my Subaru Engine Conversion Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html for Tango II I'm building. - Barnyard BOb - wrote: "Gig Giacona" wrote: I haven't spent that much time looking at the accident reports but it seems that TTAF and TTE might be listed somewhere on, if not all, a good number of accident reports. While you wouldn't get a total time for the fleet you could get a total time for the accident involved fleet. Might be telling. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Any body ever see a BD5 flying cross country? Anybody ever see a BD5 fly? I'd ask jaun for some figures, but I doubt he would ever confirm that most flying BD5's have far less than 50 hours TT on 'em..... and this would be a lot of taxi time. g At one time jaun did claimed there was one with over 350 hours. However, if credibility is an issue, the figure should be considered bogus. Barnyard BOb -- over 713 hours TT on my RV3 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:34:32 -0700, "Bart D. Hull"
wrote: Yo Bob, There was a BD-5J that was used as the "Coors Silver Bullet" and then was used for shows at Oshkosh, etc. I could see that particular BD-5 as having more than 350 hours on it. I don't know if this particular bird is still flying. Hmmm. Come to think of it.... I've seen the Coors Silver Bullet fly. Maybe it has 350 hours, maybe it doesn't... given the trailering operation. After each airshow, the wings were pulled off and it was put in a trailer. Makes sense as far as having a car and tools at the airshow as well as your plane. By any stretch of the imagination, the BD5J is hardly an amateur endeavor and it's value is mostly as an oddity. As you have noted, it ain't no poor boy or rich boy cross country machine. I think a BIG indication of how difficult it is to fly is that a Ex- Blue Angel was flying it for the demos! There is a gentleman in my EAA chapter that has one and is rebuilding it after bleeding too much speed and ending up a bit high on landing. He did mention that he really couldn't see the ground from the almost fully reclined position that is the pilot seat. His BD-5 uses a Turbomecha turbine with a PSRU prop reduction for power. I've been told that the "B" wing is NOT at all difficult to fly. Keeping a liquid cooled engine running without it spewing it's contents on the inhabitant is but one of the many frightful engine reliability challenges. Landing out with tiny wheels and NO crush room rounds out the rest of a very plague ridden machine. The reclined position is no big deal for any high performance sailplane jockey. The BD5 in the hangar next to me does not recline as much as my old sailplane. This is a beautiful BD5 that is just waiting to hurt anybody that dares think its untested Kawasaki watercraft engine is worth risking life and limb in lieu of a proven engine. As with all things if it goes hellishly fast it probably doesn't do slow very well. How fast is hellishly fast? A prop powered SX 300 can do 300... and actually GO SOMEWHERE.... RELIABILY. From what I've read about the "B" wing, it's pretty much of a pussycat with a nice stall around 65 mph? For me, the problem is that no proven cost effective engine exists for this aircraft, and landing out dead stick is very risky business since you wear this little rascal without an inch of room to spare. None for your feet. None for ass. None for your rib cage. None for your head... and the engine sits at the back side of it. Hardly engineered for human longevity in case of emergency. Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
A few comments from a BD-5 builder & pilot.
I know of at least two with 300+ hours on them as I've talked with the owners. One is in Canada with turbo Honda power, the other back east somewhere with a KFM engine. Two in N. California are at 140 or so. Another, with a VW engine, had well over 100 as I recall. However, most that have flown, like mine, have just a few hours on them. General BD-5 advice: Difficult and fussy to build. However, kits, parts, and support are available. NOT a beginner project. Not a practical airplane due to limitations in size, safety, and reliability. Easy to build overweight. (the BIG problem with most alternative engines used in it) Most BDs are from 50 to 250# over the original design empty weight. Bede says 450 pounds E.W. should be the max. Few have achieved this. Imagine tossing a couple bags of cement into something as small as a BD-5, and how that would change the flying qualities! Original airfoil has hysterisis in stall recovery. You have to reduce angle of attack well below the stall angle to get the airflow to reattach. Most BDs being built today have a thicker % section or a L.E. cuff to prevent this. No crashworthiness. Difficult to get most engines to cool properly with the mid-fuselage buried location. Several early crashes were caused by overheat seizures in overgross planes. This was exacerbated by a pitchup at power failure that would put the plane near or in a stall if not corrected by forward stick and retrimming! . (high thrustline) A very easy plane to fly! Delightful handling and control harmony. (at a reasonable weight) Very stable. It can also outmaneuver a hummingbird on amphetamines. Has a nearly 15/1 glide ratio at 120 mph. Posters disclaimer! I've had four deadsticks in my 5. I think that I finally found the problem in the fuel system and corrected it. I am being careful not to fly again until ground testing convinces me that everything is fine. The plane flies great, but the silent birdman thing has gotten really old. One was into a field where I hit an irrigation pipe (hidden in weeds) and ripped off the gear. Plane has flown several times since that one. Jeff Schroeder N525JS "- Barnyard BOb -" wrote in message ... On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:34:32 -0700, "Bart D. Hull" wrote: Yo Bob, There was a BD-5J that was used as the "Coors Silver Bullet" and then was used for shows at Oshkosh, etc. I could see that particular BD-5 as having more than 350 hours on it. I don't know if this particular bird is still flying. Hmmm. Come to think of it.... I've seen the Coors Silver Bullet fly. Maybe it has 350 hours, maybe it doesn't... given the trailering operation. After each airshow, the wings were pulled off and it was put in a trailer. Makes sense as far as having a car and tools at the airshow as well as your plane. By any stretch of the imagination, the BD5J is hardly an amateur endeavor and it's value is mostly as an oddity. As you have noted, it ain't no poor boy or rich boy cross country machine. I think a BIG indication of how difficult it is to fly is that a Ex- Blue Angel was flying it for the demos! There is a gentleman in my EAA chapter that has one and is rebuilding it after bleeding too much speed and ending up a bit high on landing. He did mention that he really couldn't see the ground from the almost fully reclined position that is the pilot seat. His BD-5 uses a Turbomecha turbine with a PSRU prop reduction for power. I've been told that the "B" wing is NOT at all difficult to fly. Keeping a liquid cooled engine running without it spewing it's contents on the inhabitant is but one of the many frightful engine reliability challenges. Landing out with tiny wheels and NO crush room rounds out the rest of a very plague ridden machine. The reclined position is no big deal for any high performance sailplane jockey. The BD5 in the hangar next to me does not recline as much as my old sailplane. This is a beautiful BD5 that is just waiting to hurt anybody that dares think its untested Kawasaki watercraft engine is worth risking life and limb in lieu of a proven engine. As with all things if it goes hellishly fast it probably doesn't do slow very well. How fast is hellishly fast? A prop powered SX 300 can do 300... and actually GO SOMEWHERE.... RELIABILY. From what I've read about the "B" wing, it's pretty much of a pussycat with a nice stall around 65 mph? For me, the problem is that no proven cost effective engine exists for this aircraft, and landing out dead stick is very risky business since you wear this little rascal without an inch of room to spare. None for your feet. None for ass. None for your rib cage. None for your head... and the engine sits at the back side of it. Hardly engineered for human longevity in case of emergency. Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jeff Schroeder" wrote: A few comments from a BD-5 builder & pilot. I know of at least two with 300+ hours on them as I've talked with the owners. One is in Canada with turbo Honda power, the other back east somewhere with a KFM engine. Two in N. California are at 140 or so. Another, with a VW engine, had well over 100 as I recall. However, most that have flown, like mine, have just a few hours on them. General BD-5 advice: Absolutely great stuff snipped only for brevity A very easy plane to fly! Delightful handling and control harmony. (at a reasonable weight) Very stable. It can also outmaneuver a hummingbird on amphetamines. Has a nearly 15/1 glide ratio at 120 mph. Posters disclaimer! I've had four deadsticks in my 5. I think that I finally found the problem in the fuel system and corrected it. I am being careful not to fly again until ground testing convinces me that everything is fine. The plane flies great, but the silent birdman thing has gotten really old. One was into a field where I hit an irrigation pipe (hidden in weeds) and ripped off the gear. Plane has flown several times since that one. Jeff Schroeder N525JS ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kudos, Jeff... For what gotta' be the most forthright post I've ever read from a BD5 builder - owner - pilot. You got big 'balls', my man. My hat's off to ya'. g This post is a KEEPER fer me. Outstanding and a pure delight to read. [Even if you're pulling my leg.] You will keep us posted on how things go, right? Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
With all of the invective, misinformation, pie in the sky hope, personal
grudges, and ignorant opinion that has made its way into the BD-5 dialogue over the years, I've tried to state the facts as I know them, and help others avoid mistakes. (like choosing to build a 5 in the first place, rather than something more useful for the labor involved) This plane, regardless of its faults, will be with us for some time as it is one of the most facinating , notorious designs ever created. As many of us have discovered, a rational examination of your abilities and needs has little to do with the homebuilt design chosen. For example, I mostly fly locally, but still want a ViperJet, Turbine Legend, or L-39. I ended up with the 5 because I got the basic Bede incomplete kit for $ 500 from someone who never started it. I figured it was like a big model, and could be finished in a year or so. I was bullheaded enough, (and had a lot of shop experience) to be able to keep going until it was done. I was curious enough, and fortunate, to research it fully, and make several critical mods during construction. This plane REQUIRES that the builder thoroughly understand its history, and the experiences of others over the years, before doing your own. For photos of mine, and some experiences testing it, go to the HomebuiltAirplanes.com site and look under the Completions and Flying Techniques forum headings. I'm not sure how big mine are by comparison, but want to keep them just the same! ;-) Jeff Schroeder "- Barnyard BOb -" wrote in message ... Kudos, Jeff... For what gotta' be the most forthright post I've ever read from a BD5 builder - owner - pilot. You got big 'balls', my man. My hat's off to ya'. g This post is a KEEPER fer me. Outstanding and a pure delight to read. [Even if you're pulling my leg.] You will keep us posted on how things go, right? Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Bart D. Hull" wrote ...
There was a BD-5J that was used as the "Coors Silver Bullet" and then was used for shows at Oshkosh, etc. I could see that particular BD-5 as having more than 350 hours on it. I don't know if this particular bird is still flying. After each airshow, the wings were pulled off and it was put in a trailer. Makes sense as far as having a car and tools at the airshow as well as your plane. There's a dirty little secret about the Microturbo TRS 18 engine used in the BD-5J that the owners don't like to talk about. It only gets 50 hours between hot section overhauls and a hot section overhaul costs $5,000. The plane is trailered to airshows because the owners don't want to pay the $100 per hour in maintenance costs for the hot section. Well, that and the fact that the airplane doesn't even have enough fuel for VFR reserves when it takes off. Juan's engine, the Microturbo Cougar, on the other hand is a different sort of animal. It was designed for target drones and has a much lower thrust rating. Basically it's a disposable engine but if he ever gets it flying he'll sell it and the airframe to you for $100,000. Rich |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|