Ok, what about the BD5

"anon" wrote in message
m...

"wesley maceaux" wrote in message
...
It's a good looking little plane..The rotax 912uls should give this plane
a real boost in performance .Always wanted one but the stall speed was
way too high for me.A stall of 40knts would be great but no dice.

My father had a friend that owned one and he loved it. I'm not sure what
powerplant he used, but the fact that he probably didn't weigh over
160lbs, was an Air Force pilot, and built light - probably helped the
cause.

I think a lot of Cessna 150/172 guys found more they could handle in the
BD-5, especially after losing an engine. I think if more BD-5 pilots
were less concerned about getting back to the airport after an engine
failure and more concerned with maintaining airspeed, we'd have a few more
BD-5 pilots.

Do the stats back that up in any way?

MOST DEFINITELY. And it never ceases to amaze me how many people flying ANY
type of aircraft buy the farm because of this.

That said, designing around an unproven engine is probably a bad place to
start. Designing around an engine that hasn't been produced, probably a
bigger problem. I forget the details. What did the prototypes fly with?

It's all on my website's library.



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

It is interesting that we often look at a design approvingly, only to
talk
about the lack of a suitable powerplant.

I find this perverse, as it acts like the powerplant isn't part of the
design.


It's a good looking little plane..The rotax 912uls should give this plane
a
real boost in performance .Always wanted one but the stall speed was way
too
high for me.A stall of 40knts would be great but no dice.

If you're really curious, a web search on BD-5B will give you more info in
the longer winged version and some available engines. The stall is obvoiusly
slower than that of the BD-5A, altohough I presume more than 40 Kts. Too
small and impractical for me these days, but...

Peter

"Whome?" wrote in message
...
Ok, we have roasted the Mini 500, how about the BD5?

First things first, forget the jet. So few people could ever afford such a
thing it hardly seems viable from the get-go. But why has such a popular
design (on paper) found so little success? Thousands of people instantly
fell
in love with it immediatley when it was introduced in what, the late
1060s.
So after 45 years or so, and so many parts floating around, what has so
greatly hampered this little birds sucess?

Looking back with my limited aviation experience, and yes I was there. I
visited Newton Kansas in the early 70s, met Jim Bede, and sat in one of
the
completed prototypes in the show room floor. But the only thing that seems
apparent to my inexperience is the lack of a reliable piston power plant,
due
to weight and power restrictions - and it's a VERY high performance
aircraft,
that was gobbled up by a lot of low performance pilots.

Some time around 1980 or so, I saw and airshow demonstration by the Coor's
Silver Bullet, and the craft performed some amazing manuvers. So will this
airframe fly well if properly powered? Is there any way to make one a
workable craft if a pilot is qualified for such a high performance ship?

Let's see how many people can respond with a fair discussion, and ignore
Juan's bias of coarse, and examine the real reason this bird has never
soared.

You don't need to ask me. The easiest way to get an answer to your questions
is to ask the people who fly them on a regular basis. They all hang out on
the BD-5 mailing list on Yahoogroups, including some who worked at Bede
Aircraft Co. and some who have been flying the plane for 30 years, as well
as nearly 500 other BD-5 enthusiasts.



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

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:50:29 -0600, "Whome?" wrote:

Ok, we have roasted the Mini 500, how about the BD5?

Dave "Hammer" Harris, an airshow pilot who used to fly a BD-5J at airshows, is a
member of one of my EAA Chapters. He likes the -5 a lot, though he says there's
a lot of things you have to correct if you start with a Bede kit. He had the
jet for the shows, and a VW-powered version for his personal bird. Used to fly
it to Chapter events. Went by his hangar once, and he had a third,
partially-completed model, too.

Don't know if he's still flying any of them. I know he had an engine fire with
his VW a number of years back.

Ron Wanttaja

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:50:29 -0600, "Whome?" wrote:

Ok, we have roasted the Mini 500, how about the BD5?

Dave "Hammer" Harris, an airshow pilot who used to fly a BD-5J at
airshows, is a
member of one of my EAA Chapters. He likes the -5 a lot, though he says
there's
a lot of things you have to correct if you start with a Bede kit. He had
the
jet for the shows, and a VW-powered version for his personal bird. Used
to fly
it to Chapter events. Went by his hangar once, and he had a third,
partially-completed model, too.

Don't know if he's still flying any of them. I know he had an engine fire
with
his VW a number of years back.

He sold the VW, and I believe it has the record for the most money paid for
a recip BD-5. Dave's airplanes are works of art, IMO.

The jet flies with these guys: http://www.smart-1.us. He's very close with
Bobby Bishop and does a lot of cruise missile surrogate work through them
for all branches of the military. In fact, Aerial Productions is a prime
contractor for the military.

Last I heard Dave was modifying a Caproni jet motorglider with a different
type of turbine engine (they originally came with Microturbo TRS-18-046.)
and had already flown it. I haven't heard anything since.

Juan



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