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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, what about the BD5
It was the plane that we all wanted the moment we first saw it. We
were young and probably a bit foolish. Utility wasn't of interest, speed and flying were the defining elements. The BD5 was the answer and the price promised to be right. Times have changed and most of us have matured and moved on to bigger and better goals. The market has also matured and people expect more from their aircraft. Dunno about the goals, but most of us have moved on to bigger waistbands. Just as a slightly OT example, the last time a went to an auto show they had a couple of Lotus-7 replicars. There was a time that I thought those were really the cat's pajamas; but I didn't even try to sit in one because I knew that 1) there was no way my bottom would drop into that seat and 2) there was no way I could get back out... Peter |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, what about the BD5
J.Kahn wrote:
Obviously you're dead as a doornail in a stall spin accident in either airplane. You could probably say that about almost any small airplane, really... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, what about the BD5
It is interesting that we often look at a design approvingly, only to
talk about the lack of a suitable powerplant. I find this perverse, as it acts like the powerplant isn't part of the design. It's a good looking little plane..The rotax 912uls should give this plane a real boost in performance .Always wanted one but the stall speed was way too high for me.A stall of 40knts would be great but no dice. If you're really curious, a web search on BD-5B will give you more info in the longer winged version and some available engines. The stall is obvoiusly slower than that of the BD-5A, altohough I presume more than 40 Kts. Too small and impractical for me these days, but... Peter |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, what about the BD5
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, what about the BD5
("John Halpenny" wrote)
Has there ever been a single seat, low cost high performance aircraft that has been successful? I won't count the Mini 500:-) ....define high performance :-) http://flight.cz/cricri/english/cri-...eos-movies.php The Cri-Cri Montblack |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, what about the BD5
It started off with a big disadvantage - single place, no room for luggage. Any safety or reliability, or business issues aside, the configuration is simply not *practical.* Maybe you take a look here http://www.lhaviation.com/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, what about the BD5
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 07:00:46 -0800, Richard Riley
wrote: On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 23:49:15 -0600, "Montblack" wrote: ("John Halpenny" wrote) Has there ever been a single seat, low cost high performance aircraft that has been successful? I won't count the Mini 500:-) ...define high performance :-) http://flight.cz/cricri/english/cri-...eos-movies.php The Cri-Cri RV-3 - but it has room for some baggage. And the moment the RV-4 became available, sales for the 3 evaporated. Same for the Midget Mustang. Have to define "successful," and "low-cost," too. The Polen Special probably cost no more to build than an RV-3 yet performed better, the AR-5 achieved high performance using a comparatively inexpensive engine. Yet neither design was even offered to the public...if one's definition of "successful" includes a certain number of examples built, both flunk. Aircraft that are built with one overwhelming design goal usually aren't accepted as the type of aircraft the general flying public want to own. There are various aircraft that have vied for the "smallest airplane" crown. There are others that have tried for the "lowest cost" trophy, or the "most non-conventional material" moniker . There are any number of high-speed contenders vieing for the blue riband. And Vishnu knows all the competitors for the "most exciting and unusual design" tag. And yet...40% of new homebuilts are of a type that features completely conventional design layout, a generously-sized classic aluminum structure carrying two people and baggage, an expensive certified engine yet a fairly low-cost airframe, and neither the fastest nor the shortest-landing airplane on the block. The RV line is not the best at any one thing...but Dick VanGrunsven seems to have made the design compromises the way most airplane owners prefer them. Ron Wanttaja |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, what about the BD5
"Ron Wanttaja" wrote ... Have to define "successful," and "low-cost," too. The Polen Special probably cost no more to build than an RV-3 yet performed better, Ron, That depends on how you define "performed better". I once talked to a guy that flew the Polen Special and he said the airplane is a real handfull to fly. By all reports, the RV-3 as a nice airplane to fly. So, which airplane perfoms better? Rich |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, what about the BD5
"anon" wrote in message m... "wesley maceaux" wrote in message ... It's a good looking little plane..The rotax 912uls should give this plane a real boost in performance .Always wanted one but the stall speed was way too high for me.A stall of 40knts would be great but no dice. My father had a friend that owned one and he loved it. I'm not sure what powerplant he used, but the fact that he probably didn't weigh over 160lbs, was an Air Force pilot, and built light - probably helped the cause. I think a lot of Cessna 150/172 guys found more they could handle in the BD-5, especially after losing an engine. I think if more BD-5 pilots were less concerned about getting back to the airport after an engine failure and more concerned with maintaining airspeed, we'd have a few more BD-5 pilots. Do the stats back that up in any way? MOST DEFINITELY. And it never ceases to amaze me how many people flying ANY type of aircraft buy the farm because of this. That said, designing around an unproven engine is probably a bad place to start. Designing around an engine that hasn't been produced, probably a bigger problem. I forget the details. What did the prototypes fly with? It's all on my website's library. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, what about the BD5
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|