BD-5 historical questions

"Peter Dohm" wrote

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.

It has been awhile since I read that, but it is a good one. I wonder if
that guy asking about a shaft driven system a couple weeks ago is still
reading the group. I have a feeling his eyes would pop out, like Burt's
almost did right before he left Bede.
--
Jim in NC

"Maury Markowitz" wrote in message
oups.com...

Please coordinate any modification of the Wikipedia article on the BD-5 with
me, if nothing else to make sure it's as complete as possible. As has been
mentioned here, there are few people who know as much about the BD-5 as I
do, and I can point you to people who can give you any info I cannot provide
for you. You're going to get a lot of misinformation in this newsgroup from
people who know next to nothing about the aircraft and are only interested
in advancing personal agendas. You choose what you want to believe, of
course, but there is only one comprehensive source of BD-5 information on
the Internet, that's my site and my mailing list.

You can get the BD-5 story straight from the horse's mouth at
, but here are my answers to your questions:

1) when was the -5 first announced? 68 seems to be the number, but I've
seen 69 and 71 as well.

The all-metal version of the BD-5 was announced to the public on September
1971. There was a composite, v-tailed prototype in the late 60's. The switch
to all-metal was done mostly for manufacturing reasons.

2) what was the original planned ship date?

May 24, 1972.

3) can someone give me a rundown of the engine models? I seem to
remember the article mentioning a version of the VW bug motor being
used, possibly as an option?

Kiekhaefer Aeromarine was the first engine. There were a few more, including
Hirths and finally the Zenoah, which fell through when the lawyers and
insurance company told the manufacturer that all engines (for exp and the
certified BD-5D) had to be manufactured and tested to the certified
standard. I had my doubts about that but have since confirmed it
independently.

Since then a large number of engines have been tried... Honda EB-1 and
EB-2, turbo and normally aspirated, Rotax 532 up to the 618, various Hirths,
VW's, Subaru EA-71 (?) and EA-81, Solar T-62 and variants, AMW, 2SI,
Kawasaki 90hp (of which a model was available specifically for the BD-5),
Mazda Rotary (though never truly successfully because of cooling issues),
Yamaha 1100cc, Suzuki 3- and 4-cylinder, Mercury Marine, Propower, Honda
CRX, Motogucci, Microturbo, Williams, Turbomeca, BMW, KFM, OMV, Hawk, Norton
Rotary, "Polaris" (I think that's the Rotax out of the jet ski), NSU,
Powersports, LATF, JFS-100, Lycoming (successfully!), Rotapower, Allison 250
and a few others I probably haven't heard about.

4) what was the problem with the original V tail? I believe the
magazine article I read referred to the V-tail version AS the A and B
(with the wings changed, as in the later A/B), is this correct?
... and at what point did they change it to the later design?

The A is the 14 ft wingspan, the B is the 21 ft wingspan.

As to the v-tail, this was posted on our mailing list:

"...(Bede) had trouble with the V tail design being too small/ineffective,
so he went to a conventional design with swept plan-form but it too was too
small/ineffective. The swept tailplane did not generate enough down force
for such a short tail moment, not to mention during high AOA it was
blanketed by the wake from the wing, thus the larger unswept tail evolved."

5) am I right in reading that the BD-5D was a pre-built FAR'ed version
of the kit?
...if so when did these plans start?
... and was Rutan brought in specifically for this part of the
project?

The BD-5D was to be the certified version, it was fairly well advanced into
the certification process when the company folded. In June 1976, Dan Coen,
who was brought in from Gates Learjet to head the certification program,
produced a report for the newsletter on the status of certification. It is
available he

http://www.bd5.com/bdn760514.htm

Rutan was brought in from McDonnel & civilian aerodynamics contractor status
on Phantom F4 Wild Weasel conformance packs into the BD-5. Rutan was brought
in to help iron out issues that the flight test program uncovered with the
design, and he also participated in the certification effort.

6) when did work on the BD-5J start?
... was this primarily Rutan's work?

Probably in 1973, when Microturbo made available the TRS-18 turbojet. It
could be earlier, I don't have a specific date, and no, it was not primarily
Rutan's work. He did work on it to help work out the kinks and made some
design changes to handle higher airspeeds with the associated increase in
loads, etc.

7) when did the kits actually start shipping? Yes, even in partial form...

June 1972 is the date I have. They missed the schedule because of warehouse
problems. I restored kit #22 (it is now in Spain and flying) and confirmed
that with paperwork that came with the aircraft's documentation.

8) I have come across a claim about something like a
one-crash-per-flight-hour figure.

The claim is flat wrong. Just one Honda powered BD-5B in Canada had over 800
hours before it lost the throttle cable connection and unfortunately had to
set down in a raspberry patch. The pilot walked away and is finishing his
new aircraft. Bobby Bishop has close to 2,000 hours on the jets and flies
damn near all the time for the military as prime contractor to all the
services for surrogate cruise missile services.

9) were the deposits supposedly placed in escrow?

Yes, and it was mostly swallowed up by the creditors after the company
folded.

10) I have seen conflicting claims about the "completeness" of the kits
as received. Some suggest it was just the drivetrain missing, others
that large parts of the kit were missing.

Most kits were shipped with everything except the drive system, drive shaft
and prop, and the engine, of course.

11) The magazine article claimed a 210 mph cruise (max?) for the A
model. I realize that it will be difficult to compare, but what sorts
of speeds do people get with the B's with the larger (Honda typically)
engines?

Vne is 300 mph for all the models. The current world record holder for speed
in the FAI 300kg class is Peter Schichenberger of Austria in a BD-5A
(registered OE-CHM) with a Rotax 618 engine rated at 74hp and A wings (even
though it is listed as BD-5B on the FAI web site, the wings can be
interchanged in 10 minutes at most). The speed over a straight 3 km course
at restricted altitude was measured at 351.39 km/h (just over 218 mph). 200
mph cruise with Turbo Honda is normal, but ONLY if you have the right cruise
prop, or a variable pitch prop like the Quantum that BD Micro sells, and a
clean, properly designed cooling intake. I know owners who regularly cruise
at 180 mph with a Rotax 582.

You can email me at
bd5 at
bd5 dot com

If you have any further questions. My web site is full of historical info,
www.bd5.com, and the BD-5 mailing list has 20,500 messages on the
YahooGroups service (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bd5) and counts among its
members Jim Bede and a number of the original Bede Aircraft Corp crew. Can't
get any closer to the source than that.

Juan

Yes, BD-5S, it was a real dog.

"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" wrote in message
news:Tcvlf.49375$sg5.29515@dukeread12...
Wasn't there also a glider version?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"COLIN LAMB" wrote in message
k.net...
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.

Sorry, but that's incorrect.

http://www.bd5.com/bd5sroll.jpg

Bede was simply in the wrong field. He should have been a computer
software guy, where it is now called vaporware.

That's wrong too.

http://www.bd5.com/bdbach.htm

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:26:12 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:


"Maury Markowitz" wrote in message
roups.com...

9) were the deposits supposedly placed in escrow?

Yes, and it was mostly swallowed up by the creditors after the company
folded.

The key word there is "supposedly". Proper definition of "escrow":

es·crow n.
Money, property, a deed, or a bond put into the custody of a third
party for delivery to a grantee only after the fulfillment of the
conditions specified.

I'm guessing that *your* definition is different, and subject to
change if for example your own money was on the line buying a home.
I'd like to see a BD5 "escrow" agreement which allowed anything other
than return of deposits once it was clear that buyers wouldn't be
getting what they'd ordered.

To the OP: you'd be wise to take anything Juan writes with a grain of
salt.

Wayne

Escrow funds cannot be swallowed up by creditors after a company folds,
or declares bankruptcy.

9) were the deposits supposedly placed in escrow?

Yes, and it was mostly swallowed up by the creditors after the company
folded.

Not nearly as black and white as you think, particularly when you consider
that those people who placed deposits received substantially what they
ordered (the kits). The BD-5D deposits are another story, I don't know what
happened to those. Nevertheless, the implication is that Jim Bede stole the
escrows. He did not. He came out of the bankruptcy damn near penniless. The
company may not have been managed as well as it should have, but there is
zero evidence anyone's money was stolen. It's that simple.

"Huh?" wrote in message
news:WOKpf.656833$xm3.82164@attbi_s21...
Escrow funds cannot be swallowed up by creditors after a company folds, or
declares bankruptcy.

9) were the deposits supposedly placed in escrow?

Yes, and it was mostly swallowed up by the creditors after the company
folded.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 08:34:23 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:

The BD-5D deposits are another story, I don't know what
happened to those. Nevertheless, the implication is that Jim Bede stole the
escrows. He did not. He came out of the bankruptcy damn near penniless. The
company may not have been managed as well as it should have, but there is
zero evidence anyone's money was stolen. It's that simple.

I don't understand. You say there is zero evidence that the money was
stolen, but it did get gone, right? Where did it go? If it
disappeared, isn't that prima faci evidence that "anyone's money was
stolen"?

Could it in fact be that simple?

Corky Scott

I don't understand. You say there is zero evidence that the money was
stolen, but it did get gone, right? Where did it go? If it
disappeared, isn't that prima faci evidence that "anyone's money was
stolen"?

Could it in fact be that simple?

Corky Scott



By that logic, every company that's ever gone bankrupt did so because money
was stolen. That's just not so.

As far as the integrity of Jim Bede, consider the BD-4, and you come to an
entirely different conclusion. The BD-4 may be the best bang for the buck in
a 4 place homebuilt ever offered. Still going strong 30 years later.

Ron Webb

Juan Jimenez wrote:
Not nearly as black and white as you think, particularly when you consider
that those people who placed deposits received substantially what they
ordered (the kits). The BD-5D deposits are another story, I don't know what
happened to those. Nevertheless, the implication is that Jim Bede stole the
escrows. He did not. He came out of the bankruptcy damn near penniless. The
company may not have been managed as well as it should have, but there is
zero evidence anyone's money was stolen. It's that simple.

Escrows are VERY, VERY, VERY black and white!

It is possible that the terms of the escrow didn't adequately protect
the consumer, but escrows are very black and white. This is one area
of law that is pretty damn straightforward.

The fact that Bede came out of bankruptcy "damn near penniless" is
immaterial in evaluating whether customers were treated fairly.

When companies go out of business, people suffer. It is unfortunate
that most companies continue to receive merchandise from vendors and
money from customers long after the decision to close the doors is
made.

The fact that there is "zero evidence anyone's money was stolen" means
little when there is zero evidence that Bede was honest, either.
Normally, there is presumption of innocence, but when customers do not
receive goods they payed for, the needle starts to swing in the other
direction.