Hmmm a BD5J with zero hours FS

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Montblack wrote:
("Richard Riley" wrote)
We talked about this here back when the Yawner got his "record." It's
not
for the *lightest* jet, it's for the *smallest* jet. IIRC, the CriCri
was
lighter, but was a little bigger in wingspan or length.

Of course, and airplane doesn't have to actually fly to be an airplane.
I'm told there's a broom and a carpet on the FAA registry.


The Cri-Cri is about 10 inches longer.
The Cri-Cri weighs half as much.
The Cri-Cri's wingspan is shorter by about a foot. (16' vs. 17')
The Cri-Cri (jet) flies, has flown, will fly, did fly...

http://home.regent.edu/ruthven/bd-5.html
BD-5

http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
Cri-Cri (jet)

http://www.flight.cz/cricri/english/
GREAT Cri-Cri site. Check out the (new) NZ video.


Montblack
Cri-Cri fan


What is it about the design that makes it so unsafe? It looks a bit
short coupled, but that's the only thing that jumps out at me.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I really don't know--other than being less than crash worthy.

There were a number of accidents in propeller driven BD-5s which had been
modified with larger and heavier engines when the recommended engine for the
kit was not delivered and, IIRC, not available. I believe that there were
both cooling problems and CG problems with some of the modifications. In
addition, there were a series of development problems with the drive line
and/or PSRU in the prototype prior to the availability and/or delivery
problem with the engines...

I had a little difficulty finding the articles, since I changed computers a
few months ago, but here are two links which are similar and may be the same
article with a different number of illustrations--I didn't read all the way
through them again. The article on prime-mover.org is definitely a reprint
of a Contact! Magazine article, and there is a link to it from the Contact!
back issues bage.
http://ibis.experimentals.de/downloa...lvibration.pdf
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/T.../contact1.html

I simply don't recall much of the history of the BD-5J, as I was really not
interested in a jet at that time. However, IIRC, the initial engine was
very low on thrust--possible only 50 or 60 pounds. Subsequently, one or
more air show pilots modified the aircraft with much more powerfull engines,
of around 200 pounds thrust, and dramatically greater fuel capacity--by
wetting most of the wings. I have no idea what that might have done to the
handling, especially in the event of any fuel system problem.

I still think that the BD-5 is a neat little plane, and could fly well with
some of the more recent small engines. However, I certainly would not
consider flying the jet.

There is also a portion of a general overview on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-5

Now you know as much as I do, which is less than definitive.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
news:BH%ih.4956$_X.3192@bigfe9...

I really don't know--other than being less than crash worthy.

Kinda like the one Walton died in.

There were a number of accidents in propeller driven BD-5s which had been
modified with larger and heavier engines when the recommended engine for
the
kit was not delivered and, IIRC, not available. I believe that there were
both cooling problems and CG problems with some of the modifications. In
addition, there were a series of development problems with the drive line
and/or PSRU in the prototype prior to the availability and/or delivery
problem with the engines...

This is almost accurate. The majority of accidents in BD-5's have nothing to
do with CG. Look at the NTSB records. They're all there.

I had a little difficulty finding the articles, since I changed computers
a
few months ago

Articles don't tell even a fraction of the story. The NTSB narratives do.

I simply don't recall much of the history of the BD-5J, as I was really
not
interested in a jet at that time. However, IIRC, the initial engine was
very low on thrust--possible only 50 or 60 pounds.

That's not only wrong, it's absurd. The TRS-18-046, the first model used on
the BD-5J's, puts out 225 lbs of thrust. Net thrust is something like 190
lbf. The -1 puts out 360 lbf.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Peter Dohm wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Montblack wrote:
("Richard Riley" wrote)
We talked about this here back when the Yawner got his "record." It's
not
for the *lightest* jet, it's for the *smallest* jet. IIRC, the CriCri
was
lighter, but was a little bigger in wingspan or length.

Of course, and airplane doesn't have to actually fly to be an airplane.
I'm told there's a broom and a carpet on the FAA registry.

The Cri-Cri is about 10 inches longer.
The Cri-Cri weighs half as much.
The Cri-Cri's wingspan is shorter by about a foot. (16' vs. 17')
The Cri-Cri (jet) flies, has flown, will fly, did fly...

http://home.regent.edu/ruthven/bd-5.html
BD-5

http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
Cri-Cri (jet)

http://www.flight.cz/cricri/english/
GREAT Cri-Cri site. Check out the (new) NZ video.


Montblack
Cri-Cri fan


What is it about the design that makes it so unsafe? It looks a bit
short coupled, but that's the only thing that jumps out at me.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I really don't know--other than being less than crash worthy.

There were a number of accidents in propeller driven BD-5s which had been
modified with larger and heavier engines when the recommended engine for the
kit was not delivered and, IIRC, not available. I believe that there were
both cooling problems and CG problems with some of the modifications. In
addition, there were a series of development problems with the drive line
and/or PSRU in the prototype prior to the availability and/or delivery
problem with the engines...

I had a little difficulty finding the articles, since I changed computers a
few months ago, but here are two links which are similar and may be the same
article with a different number of illustrations--I didn't read all the way
through them again. The article on prime-mover.org is definitely a reprint
of a Contact! Magazine article, and there is a link to it from the Contact!
back issues bage.
http://ibis.experimentals.de/downloa...lvibration.pdf
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/T.../contact1.html

I simply don't recall much of the history of the BD-5J, as I was really not
interested in a jet at that time. However, IIRC, the initial engine was
very low on thrust--possible only 50 or 60 pounds. Subsequently, one or
more air show pilots modified the aircraft with much more powerfull engines,
of around 200 pounds thrust, and dramatically greater fuel capacity--by
wetting most of the wings. I have no idea what that might have done to the
handling, especially in the event of any fuel system problem.

I still think that the BD-5 is a neat little plane, and could fly well with
some of the more recent small engines. However, I certainly would not
consider flying the jet.

There is also a portion of a general overview on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede_BD-5

Now you know as much as I do, which is less than definitive.

Peter


Now that you mention it I do recall cooling and engine problems. The
glide rate and total lack of crash worthiness wouldn't help either.

I think a fly by wire system would be neat. I wonder if there's an off
the shelf product somewhere.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired