Ok, what about the BD5

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 08:13:48 -0800, "Richard Isakson" 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,


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 performs better?

Yup. Hammer Harris likes his BD-5s, but does say they aren't for beginning
pilots. Most of the "World's Smallest Aircraft" contenders (Stits Sky Baby,
etc.) ain't for the faint of heart, either.

A 100 MPH aircraft at 2,000 feet performs better than a 400 MPH contrail
pointing to a smoking hole....

Ron Wanttaja

In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 09:06:54 +0100, Karl-Heinz Kuenzel
wrote:


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/

Very pretty. I wish them the best of luck.

The specs are ambitious. Odd that they don't list empty or gross
weight.

There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where it
claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.

That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
*empty* weight.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where it
claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.

That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
*empty* weight.

--
Why?

(400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)

In article ,
"Peter Dohm" wrote:


There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where it
claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.

That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
*empty* weight.

--
Why?

(400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)

OK. Give me a few examples...

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

("Richard Riley" wrote)
If their gross weight is real it means their stall speed could be, too
- at 50 square feet it's only a CLmax of 1.8.


Huh?

http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/highlift/clmaxest.html
And... Huh?


Montblack
Get rid of the design needs for carrying a passenger, drop in one of those
new fangled 2-stroke diesels under development ...now we're talking numbers.
:-)

"J.Kahn" wrote

I would think the ideal engine would be a properly developed wankel.

I would not think so. Waste heat has always been a problem for wankels, and
getting rid of that much heat from that tight engine compartment.
--
Jim in NC

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 10:30:14 -0600, "Whome?" wrote:

On 1/4/2007 11:17:13 PM, Bob Martin wrote:
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...


Are you saying the BD-5 will not recover from a spin?

one of the two BD5's on my airfield was spun last year. it took quite
a few thousand feet to recover.

there are aspects of the design that are not for the feint hearted.

Stealth Pilot

In article ,
Richard Riley wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 07:11:27 GMT, Alan Baker
wrote:

In article ,
"Peter Dohm" wrote:


There's a picture in the gallery of a static test of the wings where it
claims that 500kg on each wing is equal to 2.5g.

That implies a weight of 400kg, which seems pretty crazy even as an
*empty* weight.

--
Why?

(400 Kg is about 860 Lbs)

OK. Give me a few examples...

860 lbs isn't outragous as an empty weight. Off the top of my head,
the Ercoup is 815, the Aeronca 7ac is 710, the Cessna 120 about 780
lbs.

But 860 gross weight does seem ambitious. They list useful load as
530 lbs, so an empty weight of 330 lbs? The engine alone is 132. So
the airframe, control systems, panel, upholstery, canopy, retractable
gear, fuel tanks etc is under 200 lbs? That seems unlikely.

To be fair, it was testing the negative G load.


And 2.5 G's seems like an awfully low number to test to.

If their gross weight is real it means their stall speed could be, too
- at 50 square feet it's only a CLmax of 1.8.

--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
'Solaris is just a marketing rename of Sun OS.' -- 'Sun OS is not included
on the timeline of Solaris because it's a different OS.' (Edwin on Sun)

Whome? wrote:
On 1/4/2007 11:17:13 PM, Bob Martin wrote:
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...


Are you saying the BD-5 will not recovery from a spin?


I was thinking more about the RV-6... I've spun ours a couple times, and while it can wrap
up pretty fast, recovery is just idle power, opposite rudder, and forward stick. A
stall/spin won't necessarily kill you. Like any airplane, however, do that at low/pattern
altitude and you're dead...

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
...
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.

Juan, your idea of the word "design" appears to include every improvement
made in the last 30 years by dozens of different builders and and companies.
I think this is begging the definition.