BD5B

In article , Curious Question
writes:


RobertR237 wrote:

Why not just let it die?


why don't you do the world a favour and take your own advice.



I had DUMB ****! I wasn't the one who brought it up. Now try doing the same!

Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

In article , Big John
writes:


Bob

I got put in my place so that's it for me. Juan may have me 'plonked'
????????? so no reply to my postings G.

Big John



Hell John, I really don't give a hoot one way or the other. I got burned once,
learned a valuable lesson and moved on. The only reason I ever get involved in
the BD5 discussion it to remind people to look at the records before getting
involved with anything regarding the BD5 or BEDE.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

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

On 14 Nov 2003 12:57 PM, Big John posted the following:
Bob

I got put in my place so that's it for me. Juan may have me 'plonked'
????????? so no reply to my postings G.

Juan wouldn't use a killfile, since it would deny him the opportunity to
have the last word.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

[Answering two postings in one message]

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:59:19 -0600, Big John wrote:

Ron

Tnx for the stats. Validated my gut feeling from seeing scattered
reports through the years.

I did a quick scan of the BD-5 accident reports. Due to my recent analysis
work, I'm a bit attuned...it seemed to me that the BD-5 had a higher
percentage of "Builder Error" accidents than I was used to seeing, and
lower pilot error. This may be a function of people buying kits on the
cheap and trying to finish them; it might be a function of the aircraft not
having a "standard" power package. I may take an in-depth slice at the
BD-5s and compare them to the Fly Baby, whose accident reports I already
have.

Still, though, the actual number of cases make a pretty small statistical
sample.

Of benefit to those thinking about building , if you massaged your
figures to show which birds had the best safety rate, might help some
rethink their possible choice of home built? Of course your gross
figures would include stupidly on pilots part but total percentage
number would still be a good indicator.

Had that experience at EAA last night. I presented a list of the airplanes
that had the highest rate (I used a criteria of having a minimum of 5
accidents in that year), and one of the guys had been interested in that
design. But when we looked at the individual reports, nothing really stood
out. Mostly pilot error, one pilot incapacitation (!). Nothing in common,
in any of the accidents, that one could point at as indicating there was
something wrong with the design. And it was an amphibian, which gave more
opportunity for problems (e.g., hitting a sunken log...).

In another example, there were two similar aircraft produced by opposing
companies. Similar fleet sizes on the registration database, but one type
had five accidents and the other had nine (in a single year). Almost
identical designs, the same engine(s).

So I'm not sure how useful the by-aircraft rates are. Fun to look at,
though.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 16:23:27 -0600, - Barnyard BOb wrote:

] Any body ever see a BD5 flying cross country?
] Anybody ever see a BD5 fly?

Actually, other than at fly-ins, I actually see very few of ANY homebuilts
other than the ones based at my home field. I don't think I've ever been
at an airport when a Lancair dropped in, nor a Wheeler, nor a Venture, nor
a Rotorway Exec, nor a Rans, nor a Pietenpol, or dozens of other common
homebuilts. Maybe I just don't get out much. :-)

But when you think about it, about one in ten small aircraft you see should
be a homebuilt. Doesn't seem that way. Probably because of all those 152s
and 172s with students flying 'round and 'round.

Ron Wanttaja

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

On 14 Nov 2003 21:26:44 -0800, wrote:

I'm very surprised by this. My impression of the BD-5, from the early years,
was that something like 1 in 4 crashed on it's first flight, and the fatality
rate was 10,000 per 100,000 flight hours.

The original "A" wing is, from what I understand, a killer. The upgraded,
longer, "B" wing has a lot better record. Jeff Schoeder gave his personal
positive experience with the handling, and his comments are similar to
those I've heard from Dave "Hammer" Harris, who used to fly a -5J in
airshows (and is currently flying a jet-powered Caproni sailplane).

The problem with the BD-5 is that it was marketed as a homebuilt everyone
would be able to build and everyone would be able to fly. Those aspects
never came true, but it's apparently a pretty good plane if you can make
the powerplant reliable.

I've got the accident reports downloaded, and hopefully will post a cursory
analysis in a day or so. I may download the RV-3 reports as well, so I can
contrast the accident statistics for three single seaters: BD-5, RV-3, and
Fly Baby.

Ron Wanttaja

"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

Ron Wanttaja wrote in message . ..

] Any body ever see a BD5 flying cross country?
] Anybody ever see a BD5 fly?

Actually, other than at fly-ins, I actually see very few of ANY homebuilts
other than the ones based at my home field. I don't think I've ever been
at an airport when a Lancair dropped in, nor a Wheeler, nor a Venture, nor
a Rotorway Exec, nor a Rans, nor a Pietenpol, or dozens of other common
homebuilts. Maybe I just don't get out much. :-)

But when you think about it, about one in ten small aircraft you see should
be a homebuilt. Doesn't seem that way. Probably because of all those 152s
and 172s with students flying 'round and 'round.

Ron Wanttaja

I think most homebuilts end up sitting in some hangar because the
builder spent way too much time and money on it, and now his family
(and all the other things that went uncared-for) won't let him spend
any more.
Some builders are thoroughly fed up with the project by the time
it's done, and others don't trust their workmanship enough to fly
much.
Some used poorly designed auto conversions that just drove them
nuts or dollared them to death.
In 30 years of being around homebuilts and homebuilders, I've
seen all of these. The guy interested in building an airplane would be
wise to anticipate and deal with them. Most of us are tempted to bite
off way too much.

Dan

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