BD-5 historical questions

John Ammeter wrote:
I'm sure if you were to contact Juan Jiminez you'll be able to learn
much of what you want to know. He's well known as being the local BD5-J
expert. What he doesn't know or can tell you about the BD5 isn't worth
knowing...

I don't have his email address but you might do a Google search in RAH
for his past posts to get an idea of the depth of his knowledge and
abilitys.

John

Juan's web page is http://www.bd5.com/ and you can email him at

Of course if you ask Juan about the BD-5 his answer will be even less
objective than if you ask Chuck Slusarczyk, Ron Wanttaja or me about
Captain Zoom.

- John (rah/14) Ousterhout -
http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html

Wasn't there also a glider version?

I recall an RC slope glider, I think 40" wingspan.
I saw it in Pacifica (near San Francisco) and it was a real performer

Piero

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 14:04:22 GMT, "COLIN LAMB" wrote:

Wasn't there also a glider version?

You are trying to pull something out of dormant memory cells. I vaguely
recall a BD flyer that talked about a glider version - during the
"extension" period. But, the B version wings may actually have been the
glider version. Fact and fiction were often intermixed.

No, kidding aside, there was a glider version announced (the BD-5S). It did
have longer wings.

Just like any industry, homebuilt airplane companies need publicity to survive.
The best way to get free publicity is to announce a new aircraft model. Make it
look a little different, make it a bit oddball, and the more free publicity
you'll get. I've heard it called the "nut" factor. Make it look a bit nutty,
and you've got the cover of a magazine or two.

Ron Wanttaja

Sources would
be GREATLY appreciated:


Why not just E-mail Jim Bede and ask him? He seems willing to answer
reasonable E-mails.
==============
Leon McAtee

This article, reprinted (with permission, unlike some recent
incarnations) from _Contact!_ magazine, has a lot of fascinating
details about the BD-5 development:

http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/T.../contact1.html

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24

Ron Wanttaja wrote:

Just like any industry, homebuilt airplane companies need publicity to survive.
The best way to get free publicity is to announce a new aircraft model. Make it
look a little different, make it a bit oddball, and the more free publicity
you'll get. I've heard it called the "nut" factor. Make it look a bit nutty,
and you've got the cover of a magazine or two.

Hence the Moller Skycar...

- J.O.-

In article zfClf.626756$xm3.66668@attbi_s21, John Ousterhout says...

BD-5 glider: See "Lawn Dart".

or also see "Yawn Dart" :-)

Chuck S RAH-14 ret

Merry Christmas to all the RAH-14!!

Hi Colin, thanks for the message. I have a follow-up question if I
may...

The funds were represented at one time to be in escrow, but they never were.

Was this personally represented to you as such? IE, when you
communicated with Bede and gave them your money, were you told the
money was in escrow?

Maury

"Bob Kuykendall" wrote in message
oups.com...
This article, reprinted (with permission, unlike some recent
incarnations) from _Contact!_ magazine, has a lot of fascinating
details about the BD-5 development:

http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/T.../contact1.html

Thanks, Bob K.
http://www.hpaircraft.com/hp-24


That article is a genuine *must read* for anyone interested in alternative
power!

Although not stated, some of the issues discussed go far toward
understanding some of the risks associated with shortened and/or repitched
propellers on certified engines.

Thanks for posting an outstanding link.

Peter

Hi Maury:

Well, a lot of beer has passed through, under and over the dam since I
stored the information in my memory, so I cannot guarantee accuracy.

I should preface my comments with a note that I am a lawyer, so I would have
paid a bit more attention than most, probably, and the fact that it is hazy
is pretty much an assurance that there was no direct communication or
written representation that I relied upon.

I know at some point there was a newsletter that did mention the funds would
be in escrow. But, I am not certain whether it was before or after I
purchased my kit. I knew the whole thing was not the best investment, and I
knew I was providing the funds to pay for the kits and that I might lose the
money - but the whole idea of a kit airplane seemed to be a good idea and it
was my way of encouraging such kit airplanes. That the idea was a success
is proved by the many successful kit built airplanes.

I did not come out too bad on the whole venture. Although I did not get the
engine and transmission that I paid for, I did build the rest of the
airplane. When I realized the engine was questionable, and that with this
particular design a less than perfect engine was a hazard, I donated it to
the local community college, where a number of college students got to work
on it. Because the company was still in business, I took the full amount of
the purchase price, and a lot of clecos, as a charitable deduction. So, the
government taxpayers helped fund about 40% of the my loss.

Frankly, it was not the worst investment I ever made, and Bede had honorable
intentions.

Colin