BD-4 & BD-5
J. B. Wood
the BD-4 and BD-5 aircraft? Thanks for your comment.
John Wood (Code 5551) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20375-5337
nwa...@northwest-aero.com
wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil (J. B. Wood) wrote:
> Can someone in a sentence or two delineate the major difference(s)
between
> the BD-4 and BD-5 aircraft? Thanks for your comment.
The -4 looks like a high-wing coffin, the -5 like a low-wing body
bag. ;)
-j-
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
C.D.Damron
cdd
BOb U. wrote in message <38565af0...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>>Can someone in a sentence or two delineate the major difference(s) between
>>the BD-4 and BD-5 aircraft? Thanks for your comment.
>>
>>John Wood (Code 5551) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
>>Naval Research Laboratory
>>4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
>>Washington, DC 20375-5337
>+++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>1. I would love to fly, maybe build, a BD-4.
> 4 place high wing.
>
>2. I would NOT love to fly or build a BD-5.
> no place low wing.
>
>
>
>
>
BOb U.
Paul Bussiere
>In article <wood-14129...@jbw-mac.itd.nrl.navy.mil>,
> wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil (J. B. Wood) wrote:
>> Can someone in a sentence or two delineate the major difference(s)
>between
>> the BD-4 and BD-5 aircraft? Thanks for your comment.
For more unbiased info on the BD-5 aircraft, check out these sites:
and
The -5 is a safe aircraft, if built to specs and flown by an
experienced and current pilot. Like any homebuilt, its only as good
as the pilot and the quality of the kit.
Paul
CheckSix.Net
C.D.Damron
build right (light, straight, safe) and a challenging aircraft to fly.
Would it be inaccurate to say that it is an unforgiving plane?
cdd
Juan Jimenez (TeamB) wrote in message <3856E9C3...@home.com>...
>Statement not supported by NTSB records, but what the heck, everybody's
>a BD-5 expert. :)
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
"J. B. Wood" wrote:
>
> Can someone in a sentence or two delineate the major difference(s) between
> the BD-4 and BD-5 aircraft? Thanks for your comment.
>
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
with a BD-5 in front and a bullseye in the back.
Your first statement is absolutely correct: it is difficult to build,
takes above average constructions skills, equipment and tools, and
almost always requires third party commercial assistance. An original
kit requires welding, machining, casting and sheet metal skills to
complete if you want do it all by your lonesome.
However, given a correctly built, =light= (under 475 lb empty weight)
aircraft with a good engine and a current pilot with high performance
experience, it is not what I would describe as an unforgiving aircraft.
The problem is that the damn airplane still carries with it the baggage
from the 1970's advertising about being easy to build for almost no
money. Too many builders cut corners, don't stay current, don't want to
spend the money for a good engine or for the third party jig drilling
and alignment services that virtually guarantee a straight and safe a/c,
experiment with design changes that the average joe blow shouldn't be
fooling around with, don't pay attention to weight and balance, are not
even remotely current on first flight, etc., etc. In short, all the
things that happen to many experimental builders, but when it happens to
a BD-5 builder causes massive knee-jerking reactions. When you do things
right, you wind up with an airplane like the one a friend of mine has.
He's a FedEx captain, and regularly flies his BD-5 x-c all over the
country.
Juan
BOb U.
>It's an easy target. To be more accurate, it is a challenging aircraft to
>build right (light, straight, safe) and a challenging aircraft to fly.
>
The challenge is in keeping the propeller propelling the plane
When it stops, the lack of crush room makes survivability dicey.
>Would it be inaccurate to say that it is an unforgiving plane?
>
Yeah. It probably is inaccurate.
But, never forget the challenge of keeping the prop propelling.
>
>Juan Jimenez (TeamB) wrote in message <3856E9C3...@home.com>...
RobertR237
>Your first statement is absolutely correct: it is difficult to build,
>takes above average constructions skills, equipment and tools, and
>almost always requires third party commercial assistance. An original
>kit requires welding, machining, casting and sheet metal skills to
>complete if you want do it all by your lonesome.
>
>The problem is that the damn airplane still carries with it the baggage
>from the 1970's advertising about being easy to build for almost no
>money.
Now who whould have made such claims? ;-)
Bob Reed http://robertr237.virtualave.net/
KIS Cruiser in progress...Oshkosh 2000 by Gosh! or a 2001 Oshkosh Odessy ;-)
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and Slide on the
Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)
Paul Bussiere
<richar...@riley.net> wrote:
>Kind of like asking what are the differences between a Honda Accord
>sedan and a CBR600F4 crotch rocket.
My ZX-7 would eat a CBR...but that's besides the point :-)
>Juan, you suggest that one of the things BD5 builders must (and
>sometimes don't) do is get the right engine on the beast. What's the
>right (most conventional, reliable, light enough) engine? I didn't
>know anyone had come up with a really good one for that application.
Check out http://www.bd-micro.com
The preferred engine is their Quantum TurboProp but its not cheap
either. Later this month/early next year, they are releasing a kit
that includes the Hirth 2706.
Paul
CheckSix.Net
HERD J D
: I would suggest looking at them. the differences are rather obvious.
Coffee on the keyboard again. I'm going through a lot of keyboards.
--
Cheers,
Herdy.
he...@startrekmail.com
http://u2.newcastle.edu.au/~mgjdh
Bruce A. Frank
thought it one of the most exciting planes he'd ever flown. It was
comparable to the jets in response to "thought" input.(think about and
the plane did it). He used to fly canyons in AZ--high speed, have to
react fast 'cause you don't know what's around the next bend. Next best
thing to sex. Flying the plane was addictive. He was always looking for
a new canyon, a challenge, a combination of turns he'd not seen before,
a rolling wing-over at the top as he would cross the peak--then down
hill through the canyon on the other side of the mountain.
After 18 months he sold the plane. He concluded that the rush of flying
the -5 would eventually kill him as it required all his jet-jockey
skills(but no limiting rules) to fly it as he was doing. It he didn't
fly it like that there was no reason to have it. He still has a couple
of kits. One of these days he may build another, once he's gotten older.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB) wrote:
>
> Yeah, I know about it being an easy target. I have this t-shirt here
> with a BD-5 in front and a bullseye in the back.
>
> Your first statement is absolutely correct: it is difficult to build,
> takes above average constructions skills, equipment and tools, and
> almost always requires third party commercial assistance. An original
> kit requires welding, machining, casting and sheet metal skills to
> complete if you want do it all by your lonesome.
>
> However, given a correctly built, =light= (under 475 lb empty weight)
> aircraft with a good engine and a current pilot with high performance
> experience, it is not what I would describe as an unforgiving aircraft.
> The problem is that the damn airplane still carries with it the baggage
> from the 1970's advertising about being easy to build for almost no
> money. Too many builders cut corners, don't stay current, don't want to
> spend the money for a good engine or for the third party jig drilling
> and alignment services that virtually guarantee a straight and safe a/c,
> experiment with design changes that the average joe blow shouldn't be
> fooling around with, don't pay attention to weight and balance, are not
> even remotely current on first flight, etc., etc. In short, all the
> things that happen to many experimental builders, but when it happens to
> a BD-5 builder causes massive knee-jerking reactions. When you do things
> right, you wind up with an airplane like the one a friend of mine has.
> He's a FedEx captain, and regularly flies his BD-5 x-c all over the
> country.
>
> Juan
>
> "C.D.Damron" wrote:
> >
> > It's an easy target. To be more accurate, it is a challenging aircraft to
> > build right (light, straight, safe) and a challenging aircraft to fly.
> >
> > Would it be inaccurate to say that it is an unforgiving plane?
--
Bruce A. Frank, Editor "Ford 3.8/4.2L Engine and V-6 STOL
BAFRANK(at)worldnet.att.net Homebuilt Aircraft Newsletter"
| Publishing interesting material|
| on all aspects of alternative |
| engines and homebuilt aircraft.|
*------------------------------**----*
\(-o-)/ AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO.
\___/ Manufacturing parts & pieces
/ \ for homebuilt aircraft,
0 0 TIG welding
While trying to find the time to finish mine.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
>
> Juan, you suggest that one of the things BD5 builders must (and
> sometimes don't) do is get the right engine on the beast. What's the
> right (most conventional, reliable, light enough) engine? I didn't
> know anyone had come up with a really good one for that application.
The Hirth 2706E is the engine BD Micro has chosen as its engine of
choice for their FLS-5B, which is their version of the BD-5B. They are
developing a complete, turnkey package around it, including engine
mount, instruments, harness, cooling, drive system and prop, that can be
used in any stretch or non-stretched -5. Skeeter's been making the case
for this engine for some time, and has become a dealer for Hirth in
order to offer complete support, parts, etc. Little by little those
builders that have not yet chosen an engine are gravitating towards this
choice.
But the one engine that BD Micro still thinks is ideal for their BD-5 is
their Quantum turboprop, the Solar T62 conversion done by Apex Turbines.
Unfortunately, it's also a very pricey option, the engine alone is
$12.5k.
Juan
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
house the other day. Seems to me you might as well strap a JATO bottle
to your crotch -- the result would probably be the same. Damn thing
looks FAST.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
David Glauser
http://www.inclusive.co.uk/catalog/flexikey.htm
for a neat one - it's so flexible it can be rolled up and stuffed in a
pouch. Ought to be coffee-proof :-)
David
N82GT
On 15 Dec 1999 23:58:38 GMT, mg...@u2.newcastle.edu.au (HERD J D)
wrote:
>Juan Jimenez (TeamB) (fly...@home.com) wrote:
>: I would suggest looking at them. the differences are rather obvious.
>
>Coffee on the keyboard again. I'm going through a lot of keyboards.
>
agav...@my-deja.com
wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil (J. B. Wood) wrote:
> Can someone in a sentence or two delineate the major difference(s)
between
> the BD-4 and BD-5 aircraft? Thanks for your comment.
The BD-4 can have four seats and has a box fuselage.
Did you se Octa Pussy? The little jet was a BD-5 and my friend
Corky was flying it. Kitplane and Custom Plane magazine is a good
source for pictures and discriptions of experimental aircraft.
You can alos go to the EAA homepage.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
You ought to come over to say Hi and join the fun! Come visit
www.bd5.com for instructions on how to join the list.
Andrew Russell
Chuckle.
I recommend that anyone who thinks Mr. Bussiere or his citations are a
sufficiet source is fooling themselves. The wise individual will do a lot
more research on the BD-5 than this. A *lot* more.
And the wise individual will then decide to stay far, far, away from the BD-5.
Paul Bussiere wrote:
>
>For more unbiased info on the BD-5 aircraft, check out these sites:
>
>www.bd5.com
>
>and
>
>www.bd-micro.com
>
>The -5 is a safe aircraft, if built to specs and flown by an
>experienced and current pilot. Like any homebuilt, its only as good
>as the pilot and the quality of the kit.
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Andrew Russell
>
>The preferred engine is their Quantum TurboProp
Preferred by the people who are selling it, maybe. Preferred, maybe, by
people who don't understand that the 'Quantum Turboprop' is a used military
APU. Preferred perhaps by people that don't understand that these are
extremely limited in availablility, have little or no maintenance history,
and NO factory support from the manufacturer - and were never designed to
be used as propulsion engines.
For those who are interested, I have a collection of informative postings
here on rec.aviaition.homebuilt from APU engineers, and others with
experience with APUs. Send me email, and I'll send you the collection.
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
happened the last time, when you wouldn't come clean on why you dislike
the BD-5, and the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with the
design or performance characteristics of the BD-5? <sigh>
Juan
Andrew Russell wrote:
>
> Unbiased? Safe?
>
> Chuckle.
Kevin O'Brien
<fly...@home.com> wrote:
> You don't really want to get into this again, do you?
None of us do.
Just for grins and giggles, and because I just searched for *Lancair*
yesterday, I went to:
http://www.ntsb.gov/search/srch_ch.htm
and looked up BD-5. Came back with 24 hits, which usually means about 12
accidents (since they started computerising records in May 1983).
A glance through the accidents shows a pattern of test flight and
low-time-in-type accidents. And yes, people do survive the crashes if
they crash land under control. (if you park a -5 on the nose you will
die, but it has zip to do with the short nose. It has to do with the
deceleration -- over how much time and distance are you brought from
moving to stopped? The same stunt in a Cherokee Six kills you just as
dead). This pattern of test flight accidents gibes with the rumours
during the first years of BD-5s actually being completed in the mid and
late 70s.
FWIW Lancair produced 100 hits, and also a disturbing trend of first
flight or low-time accidents.
Moral of story - a small, fast plane with a widdle biddy wing will kill
you dead as a mackerel, if you expect it to act like a spam can. Be
ready for it, and you should have a hell of a good SAFE time.
The flying qualities of the BD-5 (which has been out of the hands of Jim
Bede and in the hands of the type's enthusiasts now for over two
decades) are one question, the integrity of Jim Bede another, and I
think you need to treat them separately. In my opinion, flying the BD is
not as risky as having any kind of commercial relation with Jim. And no,
I've never been burnt by him... even in 1973 I had a feeling a lot of
snakes gave their lives to lubricate his message.
cheers
-=K=-
Jefferyc
When I was in the service we always
had at least 50% dead.... :(
Not a good ratio for my life :(
Just my 2cents worth... :)
Jeff
Andrew Russell wrote in message <83ps5c$5...@lotho.delphi.com>...
Thomas A Nelson
>
> Can someone in a sentence or two delineate the major difference(s) between
> the BD-4 and BD-5 aircraft? Thanks for your comment.
>
> Naval Research Laboratory
> 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
> Washington, DC 20375-5337
>
Tom
Philip
planesflying today. If not the best.
J. B. Wood <wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message
news:wood-14129...@jbw-mac.itd.nrl.navy.mil...
Jim Vandervort
asasa9
Philip <ples...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Qlp84.84$kG2....@typhoon2.tampabay.rr.com...
C.D.Damron
Jim Vandervort wrote in message ...
B & I Baerg
opinions are not worth the paper they are written on . If you want to know what a
particular aircraft is like maybe you should be asking someone who has one.
Maurice Nenka
(800 hrs. BD5)
Andrew Russell wrote:
> Unbiased? Safe?
>
> Chuckle.
>
Philip
Jim Vandervort <ww2...@dragonbbs.com> wrote in message
news:s64vj2...@corp.supernews.com...
Philip
glaring differences.
nwa...@northwest-aero.com
"Jim Vandervort" <ww2...@dragonbbs.com> wrote:
> It should be - it is a copy of the Wittman Tailwind.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's pretty funny. The only thing the same is that they are both
highwings. Totally different construction materials and methods.
Different spans, chords and airfoils. Tailwind has wing struts.
Different moments. Different vertical and rudder, style, size and
shape. Totally different horizontal area, span, chord, and one's a
stabilator, the other an elevator. Different control systems. One's a 4
place (sorta), the other a 2 place. Different cowling arrangements.
Different engine preferences. Different fuel systems. Different landing
gear configuration. Different payloads and much different gross weight.
Oh yeah, it's a copy for sure. The only similarities is that they are
both a highwing attached to a box shaped fuselage that has a prop and
some wheels on it.
-j- (nice troll, but I was bored anyway ;)
>
> Philip <ples...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Qlp84.84$kG2....@typhoon2.tampabay.rr.com...
> > I can tell you about the -4. for the money, it is one of the best
> > planesflying today. If not the best.
> > J. B. Wood <wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil> wrote in message
> > news:wood-14129...@jbw-mac.itd.nrl.navy.mil...
> > > Can someone in a sentence or two delineate the major difference(s)
> between
> > > the BD-4 and BD-5 aircraft? Thanks for your comment.
> > >
> > > John Wood (Code 5551) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
> > > Naval Research Laboratory
> > > 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
> > > Washington, DC 20375-5337
> >
> >
>
>
Keith Wood
Thomas A Nelson wrote:
>
> J. B. Wood wrote:
> >
> > Can someone in a sentence or two delineate the major difference(s) between
> > the BD-4 and BD-5 aircraft? Thanks for your comment.
> >
> > John Wood (Code 5551) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
> > Naval Research Laboratory
> > 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
> > Washington, DC 20375-5337
> >
> > One will kill you in a heart beat one will not.
I want one of those planes that can't kill you.
BOb U.
>Thomas A Nelson wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Me too, but......
Re-read Wood's post again.
Doesn't say one CAN'T kill you......
It just takes more than one heartbeat. <g>
BOb U.
Mark Hickey
>Totally different construction materials and methods.
>Different spans, chords and airfoils. Tailwind has wing struts.
>Different moments. Different vertical and rudder, style, size and
>shape. Totally different horizontal area, span, chord, and one's a
>stabilator, the other an elevator. Different control systems. One's a 4
>place (sorta), the other a 2 place. Different cowling arrangements.
>Different engine preferences. Different fuel systems. Different landing
>gear configuration. Different payloads and much different gross weight.
Yeah, but other than *that*, they're almost identical....
Mark (like a Cheetah and a Cherokee) Hickey
BOb U.
>It is quite obvious Mr. Russel does not own or has not flown a -5 therefor his
>opinions are not worth the paper they are written on . If you want to know what a
>particular aircraft is like maybe you should be asking someone who has one.
>Maurice Nenka
>(800 hrs. BD5)
800 hours flying a BD5?
This certainly is a whole lot of hours AND even more miles.
Almost unbelievable.......
Perhaps you would share what it takes to do this and do it well.
BOb U.
Paul Bussiere
>Unbiased? Safe?
>
>Chuckle.
>
>I recommend that anyone who thinks Mr. Bussiere or his citations are a
>sufficiet source is fooling themselves. The wise individual will do a lot
>more research on the BD-5 than this. A *lot* more.
>
>And the wise individual will then decide to stay far, far, away from the BD-5.
Hell, I'm just tickled to death you spelled my last name correctly.
Asides that, you're just full of self-righteous crap. The sites I
listed are exceptional sources to find data on the BD-5. And since
BD-Micro is still manufacturing them, why not ask them? You seem to
have a chip on your shoulder about this aircraft....ask Skeeter (of
BD-Micro) all the questions you have and he'll answer them for you.
Oh wait, then you'll claim he's biased.
Oh well. Can't teach a closed mind now, can we?
Paul
CheckSix.Net
Mark Smith
I personally lost a friend to the BD 5,,,,,,
he tried a turnback with a strong headwind following an over heated
engine shutoff, he was on the radio with the groud crew and the
tower,,,,,the short wings, extra fast turn, and 500 feet of altitude to
do it in, did him in, he almost rounded out clear of the ground,,, but
not quite, wings draped on the ground similar to the blades on a dropped
chopper,,,,,
The manufacturer, Jim, left the engine choice fairly untested, and my
friend had to forge ahead with something.
he had tried several static engines, even some small motorcycle ones,
all of which had some minor problem,,,,,
He hadn't flown much immediately prior to the crash, in anything high
performance, except one or two successful local flights testing various
engines,,,,
the plane flew very well, and he was excited about it,,,,
--
Mark Smith mailto:tri...@trikite.com
Tri-State Kite Sales
1121 N Locust St
Mt Vernon, IN 47620 http://www.trikite.com
Keith Wood
More crush space, maybe? ;)
Keith Wood
nwa...@northwest-aero.com wrote:
>
> In article <s64vj2...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Jim Vandervort" <ww2...@dragonbbs.com> wrote:
> > It should be - it is a copy of the Wittman Tailwind.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> That's pretty funny. The only thing the same is that they are both
> highwings. Totally different construction materials and methods.
> Different spans, chords and airfoils. Tailwind has wing struts.
> Different moments. Different vertical and rudder, style, size and
> shape. Totally different horizontal area, span, chord, and one's a
> stabilator, the other an elevator. Different control systems. One's a 4
> place (sorta), the other a 2 place. Different cowling arrangements.
> Different engine preferences. Different fuel systems. Different landing
> gear configuration. Different payloads and much different gross weight.
>
> Oh yeah, it's a copy for sure. The only similarities is that they are
> both a highwing attached to a box shaped fuselage that has a prop and
> some wheels on it.
Ah, I get it -- the Islander is a twin Tailwind! ;)
But then, the Tailwind is an old Army glider with self-launch
capabilities . . .
Keith Wood
First, get a BD-5 . . .
Keith Wood
Mark Smith wrote:
> I personally lost a friend to the BD 5,,,,,,
I lost a cousin to a Caterpillar tractor. Thus, all Cats are deathtraps
. . ?
> he tried a turnback with a strong headwind
Evolution in action.
> following an over heated
> engine shutoff, he was on the radio with the groud crew and the
> tower,,,,,the short wings, extra fast turn, and 500 feet of altitude to
> do it in, did him in, he almost rounded out clear of the ground,,, but
> not quite, wings draped on the ground similar to the blades on a dropped
> chopper,,,,,
So, the moral of this story is that if you have an engine out on
takeoff, LAND AHEAD.
> The manufacturer, Jim, left the engine choice fairly untested, and my
> friend had to forge ahead with something.
This is why we call it "experimental aviation."
> he had tried several static engines, even some small motorcycle ones,
> all of which had some minor problem,,,,,
Then he chose one which overheated and failed on takeoff.
> He hadn't flown much immediately prior to the crash, in anything high
> performance, except one or two successful local flights testing various
> engines,,,,
And you are blaming BEDE for this?
> the plane flew very well, and he was excited about it,,,,
So, the plane did what it was supposed to do, and he didn't do what HE
was supposed to do.
nwa...@northwest-aero.com
k...@bctv.com wrote:
>
> Ah, I get it -- the Islander is a twin Tailwind! ;)
>
> But then, the Tailwind is an old Army glider with self-launch
> capabilities . . .
I'm a fan of S.W. He was one of aviation's true pioneers. The
Tailwind's a great design that does very well with one of the less
expensive aircraft engines and can be cheap to build. It certainly
should not be overlooked if your looking to build with wood/tubing/rag.
And why wouldn't it be a great design? After all, it's just a copy of
the Air Camper, but with a door added! ;)
-j-
Mark Smith
I'm not slamming the bede 5 but you sure got a hardon over
something,,,,,,,,
Kevin O'Brien
> Evolution in action.
Bit cold, eh, Keith. I'm sure Mark is quite aware of the errors his
friend made -- after all, he enumerated them at some length in his post.
If you look at all the BD-5 accidents with a critical eye, you get a
picture that supports neither the BD-5 boosters, nor the bashers. Almost
every accident incorporates a number of foolish human errors, which we
were all told by our first instructors that the sky is singularly
unforgiving of.
But... I think that there are some things about the BD-5 and especially
about the way it was originally marketed, as Everyman's weekend toy.
Most of the accidents happened very early in flight test, many of them
early on the maiden flight. There is a problem in that what exactly can
you fly to get your proficiency up before the test flight? For a
Rotorway, you practice in an R22. For a Lancair, in a Citation or
Bonanza. But for a BD-5? There is not a certified analogue, or really
any experimental one. Some of the pilots who crashed BD-5s had a great
deal of experience, but it's not completely transferable between wildly
dissimilar aircraft (like te BD and whatever you got those 11,000 hours
in).
Add to that the complexity and difficulty of building a BD-5 and you are
likely to have a pilot/builder with very rusty skills.
I think the small size of the -5 and the natural fear of crashlanding
something where your body's position defines its 'crumple zone' have led
to some of the irrational, doomed turnbacks. that's a pity, as the
record shows you can crash land a BD-5 with impunity (in comparison to
what happens in a turnback). A turnback is usually unwise in ANYTHING
(didn't the Navy put a trainer in the river at Pax this past year) and
always stupid if you haven't practiced it.
The difference between a crash under control and one out of control is
life and death, literally.
Returning to the BD-5 and XA test flights in general, it's pretty
amazing that people take them up without ever having ground-run the
motor for any appreciable length of time, or at more than idle thrust.
It's also a mistake to make test flights without a canopy- or
door-jettison option and a chute. From 500 feet, I'd probably elect to
crash land the plane but if terrain was bad enough to make a turnback
look good, I'd grab the nylon elevator instead. (with a BD-5 you would
have to lose some altitude in exiting, because you'd probably have to
roll inverted to be sure of clearing the prop. By the way, if, heaven
forfend, you ever have to do this undo your safety harness FIRST because
it's a bear to do when your weight is on it).
cheers
-=K=-
A
caustic.
- A
On Fri, 24 Dec 1999 17:48:08 +0000, Keith Wood <k...@bctv.com> wrote:
: Mark Smith wrote:
:
:> I personally lost a friend to the BD 5,,,,,,
: I lost a cousin to a Caterpillar tractor. Thus, all Cats are deathtraps
: .. . ?
:
:> he tried a turnback with a strong headwind
: Evolution in action.
<snip remaining rude comments>
Keith Wood
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> > So, the plane did what it was supposed to do, and he didn't do what HE
> > was supposed to do.
>
> I'm not slamming the bede 5 but you sure got a hardon over
> something,,,,,,,,
Two errors in one sentence!
You get on here and rant and rave about the BD-5 because your friend
happened to pick one to kill himself in. He committed a long series of
mistakes that I had learned not to do by the age of about 11 (I grew up
in a flying family). If he had broken the chain in one place, he might
have lived. Perhaps if he had checked his temps before rotating, or
before he let the other numbers go past, instead of playing tourist.
On a test flight, you are there to STUDY the plane. How does it fly?
Are all the guages in the green? Do the (short) list of things that you
are going to test operating properly? How does the plane handle the
(short) list of maneuvers you are going to try on this flight.
It doesn't matter if he was flying a BD-5 or a C-150 -- if he let the
temp get high enough to stop the prop, he was NOT paying attention to
what he was supposed to do.
Then, to try a downwind turn at low altitude . . .
I'm sorry that your buddy went in. It doesn't matter what kind of plane
he was flying.
Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where, when you clean up
the site, you find blood, guts and feathers but NO BRAINS.
Keith Wood
Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>
> In article <3863B1D8...@bctv.com>, k...@bctv.com wrote:
>
> > Evolution in action.
>
> Bit cold, eh, Keith. I'm sure Mark is quite aware of the errors his
> friend made -- after all, he enumerated them at some length in his post.
Yet, Mark seems to blame Jim Bede for this.
And, yes, it is cold. His friend died of TERMINAL STUPIDITY. What is
colder than that?
If his friend had done everything right, but been bit because of
something outside his control, that would be different. He didn't.
> If you look at all the BD-5 accidents with a critical eye, you get a
> picture that supports neither the BD-5 boosters, nor the bashers. Almost
> every accident incorporates a number of foolish human errors, which we
> were all told by our first instructors that the sky is singularly
> unforgiving of.
It's not even a BD-5 situation. This guy would have killed himself in a
Mooney.
> But... I think that there are some things about the BD-5 and especially
> about the way it was originally marketed, as Everyman's weekend toy.
> Most of the accidents happened very early in flight test, many of them
> early on the maiden flight.
Kind of like Lancairs and Vari-whatevers. When you have a plane with
unusual flight characteristics, you will get a lot of people who prang
because they are having to learn flying all over again.
Not the case here.
> There is a problem in that what exactly can
> you fly to get your proficiency up before the test flight? For a
> Rotorway, you practice in an R22. For a Lancair, in a Citation or
> Bonanza. But for a BD-5? There is not a certified analogue, or really
> any experimental one. Some of the pilots who crashed BD-5s had a great
> deal of experience, but it's not completely transferable between wildly
> dissimilar aircraft (like te BD and whatever you got those 11,000 hours
> in).
Yep. That's why you need to go somewhere with a long, wide runway to do
a few dozen bunny hops on. Then you taxi back in, and give the plane a
thorough inspection before the first time you let the numbers go
underneath.
> Add to that the complexity and difficulty of building a BD-5 and you are
> likely to have a pilot/builder with very rusty skills.
Yep. This is another good reason for lots of bunny hops.
However, even better is to get a QUALIFIED TEST PILOT to take it up and
make sure it is really an airplane.
> I think the small size of the -5 and the natural fear of crashlanding
> something where your body's position defines its 'crumple zone' have led
> to some of the irrational, doomed turnbacks. that's a pity, as the
> record shows you can crash land a BD-5 with impunity (in comparison to
> what happens in a turnback). A turnback is usually unwise in ANYTHING
> (didn't the Navy put a trainer in the river at Pax this past year) and
> always stupid if you haven't practiced it.
It is always stupid. Period. Sometimes it is LESS stupid than landing
straight ahead.
> The difference between a crash under control and one out of control is
> life and death, literally.
Yep.
> Returning to the BD-5 and XA test flights in general, it's pretty
> amazing that people take them up without ever having ground-run the
> motor for any appreciable length of time, or at more than idle thrust.
Or, as appears to be the case this time, without letting the engine cool
after a long ground test.
> It's also a mistake to make test flights without a canopy- or
> door-jettison option and a chute. From 500 feet, I'd probably elect to
> crash land the plane but if terrain was bad enough to make a turnback
> look good, I'd grab the nylon elevator instead.
Ah, but the trick is to pick somewhere for your flight test series that
doesn't force you to make this choice.
This is what I am in the process of setting up, BTW. More on this later
(I'm still juggling numbers).
> (with a BD-5 you would
> have to lose some altitude in exiting, because you'd probably have to
> roll inverted to be sure of clearing the prop.
Naw. The tail is in the way of the prop, so a good jump would be safer
than a low-altitude inversion roll.
> By the way, if, heaven
> forfend, you ever have to do this undo your safety harness FIRST because
> it's a bear to do when your weight is on it).
;)
When I was building a Vari-Viggen (which I had to sell before
completion) I developed a one-handle bailout system, based on the F-4
primary eject handles. Reach into the loop and squeeze, and the
throttle, mixture and mags are all cut, the canopies are released and
the front edges lifted a couple of inches into the airstream (front
canopy first). Pull the loops upward, and the straps are released at
the anchors. With any luck, the canopies took the prop blades away, but
a push-over will clear the cockpits quite nicely.
Keith Wood
A wrote:
>
> Keith, take a pill, eh? Your bunch of posts during this time sure are
> caustic.
Sorry, I didn't realize that people who build and test-fly experimental
aircraft would prefer to blame the plane (and designer) for pilot error.
I do realize that there is a thriving cottage industry in bashing Bede,
but when you can fool yourself into blaming hardware, you are more
likely to "believe your own newspaper clippings," as Walt Cunningham put
it.
Mark Smith
> Two errors in one sentence!
no ranting 'til you started in,,,,
I just stated the facts as I know them,,,,
> I'm sorry that your buddy went in. ,,,,
somehow I am missing the feeling of sorrow on your part,
> Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where, when you clean up
> the site, you find blood, guts and feathers but NO BRAINS.
perhaps your suggestion is correct, the downwind demon got him,,,,
Gene & Linda Hornung
snip
>
>
> I personally lost a friend to the BD 5,,,,,,
>
> he tried a turnback with a strong headwind following an over heated
> engine shutoff, he was on the radio with the groud crew and the
> tower,,,,,the short wings, extra fast turn, and 500 feet of altitude to
>
Short Wings? Even Jim Bede recommended against flying the short wings!
>
>
> Mark Smith mailto:tri...@trikite.com
> Tri-State Kite Sales
> 1121 N Locust St
> Mt Vernon, IN 47620 http://www.trikite.com
Gene Hornung
Keith Wood
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote:
> > Two errors in one sentence!
> > ,,,,,,,,> You get on here and rant and rave ......
>
> no ranting 'til you started in,,,,
> I just stated the facts as I know them,,,,
>
> > I'm sorry that your buddy went in. ,,,,
>
> somehow I am missing the feeling of sorrow on your part,
I'm sorry when any aviator dies.
> > Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where, when you clean up
> > the site, you find blood, guts and feathers but NO BRAINS.
>
> perhaps your suggestion is correct, the downwind demon got him,,,,
He made too many mistakes in too short a time to live. He could have
broken that chain in several places and lived. It was NOT the plane
that got him, it was his own performance and sheer lack of judgement.
Yet you came in blaiming the plane and the designer. Why?
Mark Smith
I do believe the plane had the short wings,,,,,,
he had the kit for the longer wings or was waiting for the kit when he
died,,,,
--
Mark Smith
so you feel that a similar crash would have occured resulting in death
if he had been flying an MX, or a Rotec of the day.
Sorry, but the choice of this plane was a large factor, short wings,
unproven engine installations,,,,,
you might want to double the meds, BTW, you are rather
argumentative,,,,,
Keith Wood
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote:
> >
> > He made too many mistakes in too short a time to live. He could have
> > broken that chain in several places and lived. It was NOT the plane
> > that got him, it was his own performance and sheer lack of judgement.
> > Yet you came in blaiming the plane and the designer. Why?
>
> so you feel that a similar crash would have occured resulting in death
> if he had been flying an MX, or a Rotec of the day.
>
> Sorry, but the choice of this plane was a large factor, short wings,
> unproven engine installations,,,,,
He chose the engine. He failed to properly test it. It failed due to
overheating. Unless his installation was faulty, it cannot have
overheated to the point of failure rapidly enough to have not given him
sufficient warning of the problem.
Once it failed, he tried the Death Turn rather than landing straight
ahead.
He could have cut the chain at ANY POINT and probably lived. ANY of
these is a pretty clear indication of impending paperwork.
Turning to downwind on takeoff has killed many pilots of PRODUCTION
planes who never lived long enough to hear of a BD-Anything.
> you might want to double the meds, BTW, you are rather
> argumentative,,,,,
You might want to cut yours back a bit, they are affecting your
perceptions.
Kevin O'Brien
> Yet, Mark seems to blame Jim Bede for this.
I just don't getthat from Mark's posts. I didn't see him as ranting and
raving, either. There are two separate issues with Bede -- one is that
his ships have always been underengineered and overpromoted. Yes I know,
when there's slack like that somebody has to pick it up. -- and the
other is Bede's habit of collecting large sums of money and then taking
a powder, leaving others holding the bag.
Two of his big four were brought to fruition by others after he had
cleaned out the pockets of the original investors and buyers (BD-1 and
BD-5); one ruined the others that were trying to correct for his
underengineering. Killing a couple in the process. (BD-10). Whether it
happens because Bede's a crook or whether it happens because Bede's a
dreamer who's no good with money (but not so bad as to ever have faced
personal insolvency, there's a data point for you) is really immaterial.
fact is, it happens.
> It's not even a BD-5 situation. This guy would have killed himself in a
> Mooney.
Yeah, given a powerplant failure on takeoff. Except (1) the various
engines cobbled into BD-5s are there because Bede failed (no other word)
on that part of the engineering, with the early Hirth engine and a
variety of other paper exercises, and (2) the easily understandable but
false belief that a -5 cannot be survivably crash landed. Neither of
those obtains in a Mooney, with its dependable certified engine and the
presence of some structure forward of the soles of the pilot's feet tp
give him a little confidence. Considering those two, you are more likely
to HAVE an engine failure and more likely (if still wrong, granted) to
TRY to turn back.
Are the stall characteristics a factor? Probably not. Experienced BD-5
pilots have told me both that the plan has benign and vicious stall
characteristics; my experience of Bede's other designs (-1 in its
certified variants and -4) is that they are not mild at all but not
vicious either. I'm inclined to think that the difference has to do with
build quality, and especially weight... I think a heavy BD-5 is really
asking for trouble. Hell, a heavy anything is asking for trouble. But
the stall characteristics don't much matter, because you are not going
to recover from a fully developed stall at sub pattern altitude.
> > For a Lancair, in a Citation or
> > Bonanza.
Oh, I'm a bozo. I meant a _Centurion_ or a Bonanza. All them Cessnas
look alike, eh. If you have a Citation to fly you probably don't even
need a Lancair (grin).
> Yep. That's why you need to go somewhere with a long, wide runway to do
> a few dozen bunny hops on.
There was a big debate on this very subject here in RAH about four weeks
back. Rather than rehash it here, if you haven't read it go back and do
so. No conclusions, much information.
> However, even better is to get a QUALIFIED TEST PILOT to take it up and
> make sure it is really an airplane.
You still face the situation when the test pilot has wrung it out and
the owner/builder takes back the keys. You have only deferred the moment
of reckoning, but at least you have the data the test pilot has
gathered. I am reminded of the Gee Bee reproduction (Model E? Model Z?)
that was built by a fellow who had little taildragger time -- and not
much in high performance planes. He hired Delmar Benjamin to test fly it
-- a good and obvious choice. Delmar flew it, loved it, and briefed the
owner/builder/pilot carefully. He still bent it his first time out; he
was heartbroken (I believe he rebuilt the plane but now won't fly it
himself, which is a pity). Of course, he probably could have used some
analogue time in a powerful taildragger like a 450 Stearman or even a
T-6. One key to reducing the risk of flying a single seater is
practicing in something as similar as you can get. I recall reading in a
German ace's book (Heinz Knoke maybe?) that they went direct from 90-kt
biplane trainers to the ME-109 and lost lots of pilots in the transition
-- the Germans didn't have a T-6, neither did the Japanese. (Not that
I'm complaining about their mistakes, they needed to lose that one). And
there's no 'T-6' to take you from Mooney or Comanche to BD-5.
Another risk-reduction key is to have all your contingency plans
rehearsed. You should not decide what to do when the engine fails, you
need to make a 'what to do if the engine fails plan' for each phase of
each test flight. If the profile involves a gear retraction, you need to
know what you're going to do if you don't have three greens.
Hopping and taxi testing are fine butthey are no substitute for planning
and rehearsal. There was one BD-5 accident where the pilot had
registered it something like ten years before and had logged _eighty_
hours of taxi tests without ever taking it aloft! When he finally did,
crunch. I can't figure that one out. Juan? Anybody?
> It is always stupid. Period. Sometimes it is LESS stupid than landing
> straight ahead.
Depends. There's an interesting simulator study on that that was
discussed here last year. I would do it without any qualms in a Porter
or the late, lamented Helio. But actually in those types you normally
will have enough runway in front of you to land anyway. OTOH I would
have had no compunction about putting the Helio in the trees if that was
the only option. Trees bend. The runway doesn't.
> Naw. The tail is in the way of the prop, so a good jump would be safer
> than a low-altitude inversion roll.
Having whacked airframe bits on exit, I'm here to tell you it hurts. A
human decelerates a lot faster than an airframe, so you can have a good
bit of relative speed on. My concern isn't pain but possible
incapacitation... if you don't pull that little D-ring getting out of
the doomed ship hasn't helped you any.
> When I was building a Vari-Viggen (which I had to sell before
> completion) I developed a one-handle bailout system, based on the F-4
> primary eject handles. Reach into the loop and squeeze, and the
> throttle, mixture and mags are all cut, the canopies are released and
> the front edges lifted a couple of inches into the airstream (front
> canopy first). Pull the loops upward, and the straps are released at
> the anchors. With any luck, the canopies took the prop blades away, but
> a push-over will clear the cockpits quite nicely.
Now THAT is interesting. The Dornier 335 had a push-pull configuration
like a Skymaster (except it was about the size of an F-105) and was one
of the first a/c fitted with an ejection seat. Part of the ejection
sequence blew the vertical tail and rear prop clear. Very Heath
Robinson. It was used several times in the last days of the war. And
worked! Those clever Germans. Thank God they steer all that ingenuity
into variable runner intake manifolds and trick electric shavers these
days, and not their old mischief. They've even brought the Zeppelin back!
Pity you had to sell. Do you know if your VV was ever completed? They
were a difficult build, I understand.
cheers
-=K=-
Doyle Martha
Clunky looking 4 seater, high wing, easy to build, fly, maintain. Good cross
country traveler w/skis, luggage, wife, and young'un.
BD-5:
Sexy looking 1 seater, low wing, tricky to build, short range, difficult to
fly (short coupled, low aspect ratio.) Mortality rate astonishingly high.
Al Doyle
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/homebuiltaircraft
............................................................................
...................................
Jeff R. Schroeder
>
> BD-4:
> Clunky looking 4 seater, high wing, easy to build, fly, maintain. Good cross
> country traveler w/skis, luggage, wife, and young'un.
>
> BD-5:
> Sexy looking 1 seater, low wing, tricky to build, short range, difficult to
> fly (short coupled, low aspect ratio.) Mortality rate astonishingly high.
On the BD-5: I quite agree with the first three points. However, only
the jet version has a short range, the others usually have several hours
worth of fuel. The BD-5 is actually easy to fly if built light and
straight. It's quick admittedly,due to it's small size, but quite stable
and controllable. The long wings have an aspect ratio greater than
eight, hardly low. The short wings are NOT recommended for flight. Most
fatal crashes were in the early years of the planes history.
Jeff
BD-5 N525JS (flying again, yea!)
Andrew Russell
>It is quite obvious Mr. Russel does not own or has not flown a -5 therefor
>his
>opinions are not worth the paper they are written on . If you want to know
>what a
>particular aircraft is like maybe you should be asking someone who has one.
>Maurice Nenka
And it is quite obvious that Mr. Nenka knows nothing about me and my knowledge
of BD-5s. But he is quite willing to demonstrate his vast ignorance in this
forum.
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Keith Wood
Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>
> In article <3865047D...@bctv.com>, k...@bctv.com wrote:
>
> > Yet, Mark seems to blame Jim Bede for this.
>
> I just don't getthat from Mark's posts.
Well (obviously) I sure did. ;)
> one ruined the others that were trying to correct for his
> underengineering. Killing a couple in the process. (BD-10).
I've been in the BD-10, and thus was interested in the project. The two
pilots who were killed seem to have been killed by untested
"enhancements" to the airframe. When I flew the prototype, it was very
well-mannered at fairly high airspeeds, including a high-speed, low
altitude camera pass at Williams.
> > It's not even a BD-5 situation. This guy would have killed himself in a
> > Mooney.
>
> Yeah, given a powerplant failure on takeoff. Except (1) the various
> engines cobbled into BD-5s are there because Bede failed (no other word)
> on that part of the engineering, with the early Hirth engine and a
> variety of other paper exercises, and (2) the easily understandable but
> false belief that a -5 cannot be survivably crash landed. Neither of
> those obtains in a Mooney, with its dependable certified engine
Care to bet that I can find at least 10 cases of Mooney engine failure
leading to forced landing?
But again, that the engine overheated like that points to faulty cooling
airflow and a lack of the testing which would have deomonstrated the
problem. I refuse to give the guy brownie points for engine failure
that he could have prevented with a little more ground-test time.
In fact, I would be willing to bet that he took off KNOWING that it was
"running a little hot" and figured that airflow at flying speed would be
sufficiently improved to cool the engine. He was not the only guy to to
that in whatever year he killed himself.
> and the
> presence of some structure forward of the soles of the pilot's feet tp
> give him a little confidence. Considering those two, you are more likely
> to HAVE an engine failure and more likely (if still wrong, granted) to
> TRY to turn back.
>
> Are the stall characteristics a factor? Probably not. Experienced BD-5
> pilots have told me both that the plan has benign and vicious stall
> characteristics; my experience of Bede's other designs (-1 in its
> certified variants and -4) is that they are not mild at all but not
> vicious either. I'm inclined to think that the difference has to do with
> build quality, and especially weight... I think a heavy BD-5 is really
> asking for trouble. Hell, a heavy anything is asking for trouble. But
> the stall characteristics don't much matter, because you are not going
> to recover from a fully developed stall at sub pattern altitude.
Not in THIS life, anyway.
> > > For a Lancair, in a Citation or
> > > Bonanza.
>
> Oh, I'm a bozo. I meant a _Centurion_ or a Bonanza. All them Cessnas
> look alike, eh.
;)
> If you have a Citation to fly you probably don't even
> need a Lancair (grin).
Oh, sure -- you keep it in the trunk, as a spare. ;)
> > Yep. That's why you need to go somewhere with a long, wide runway to do
> > a few dozen bunny hops on.
>
> There was a big debate on this very subject here in RAH about four weeks
> back. Rather than rehash it here, if you haven't read it go back and do
> so. No conclusions, much information.
>
> > However, even better is to get a QUALIFIED TEST PILOT to take it up and
> > make sure it is really an airplane.
>
> You still face the situation when the test pilot has wrung it out and
> the owner/builder takes back the keys.
Well, a qualified test pilot wouldn't have killed himself in that plane
-- he either would have identified the overheating problem on the
ground, or he would have landed as safely as the ground ahead would
permit. For that matter, he would have required the flight testing to
be done where there IS a safe forced-down zone well off the end of the
runway.
> You have only deferred the moment
> of reckoning, but at least you have the data the test pilot has
> gathered. I am reminded of the Gee Bee reproduction (Model E? Model Z?)
> that was built by a fellow who had little taildragger time -- and not
> much in high performance planes. He hired Delmar Benjamin to test fly it
> -- a good and obvious choice. Delmar flew it, loved it, and briefed the
> owner/builder/pilot carefully. He still bent it his first time out; he
> was heartbroken (I believe he rebuilt the plane but now won't fly it
> himself, which is a pity). Of course, he probably could have used some
> analogue time in a powerful taildragger like a 450 Stearman or even a
> T-6.
Yep.
> One key to reducing the risk of flying a single seater is
> practicing in something as similar as you can get. I recall reading in a
> German ace's book (Heinz Knoke maybe?) that they went direct from 90-kt
> biplane trainers to the ME-109 and lost lots of pilots in the transition
> -- the Germans didn't have a T-6, neither did the Japanese. (Not that
> I'm complaining about their mistakes, they needed to lose that one). And
> there's no 'T-6' to take you from Mooney or Comanche to BD-5.
Nope.
> Another risk-reduction key is to have all your contingency plans
> rehearsed. You should not decide what to do when the engine fails, you
> need to make a 'what to do if the engine fails plan' for each phase of
> each test flight. If the profile involves a gear retraction, you need to
> know what you're going to do if you don't have three greens.
Agreed. You should TRAIN for this before you take off.
> Hopping and taxi testing are fine butthey are no substitute for planning
> and rehearsal.
Agreed completely. Bunny hops and taxi testing should FOLLOW the
training and rehearsal.
> There was one BD-5 accident where the pilot had
> registered it something like ten years before and had logged _eighty_
> hours of taxi tests without ever taking it aloft! When he finally did,
> crunch. I can't figure that one out. Juan? Anybody?
Sometimes the dragon wins.
> > It is always stupid. Period. Sometimes it is LESS stupid than landing
> > straight ahead.
>
> Depends. There's an interesting simulator study on that that was
> discussed here last year. I would do it without any qualms in a Porter
> or the late, lamented Helio. But actually in those types you normally
> will have enough runway in front of you to land anyway. OTOH I would
> have had no compunction about putting the Helio in the trees if that was
> the only option. Trees bend. The runway doesn't.
>
> > Naw. The tail is in the way of the prop, so a good jump would be safer
> > than a low-altitude inversion roll.
>
> Having whacked airframe bits on exit, I'm here to tell you it hurts.
Yep. But it has to hurt a lot less than trying to roll, having the
plane depart, and being unable to get out at all.
> A
> human decelerates a lot faster than an airframe, so you can have a good
> bit of relative speed on. My concern isn't pain but possible
> incapacitation... if you don't pull that little D-ring getting out of
> the doomed ship hasn't helped you any.
Yep.
> > When I was building a Vari-Viggen (which I had to sell before
> > completion) I developed a one-handle bailout system, based on the F-4
> > primary eject handles. Reach into the loop and squeeze, and the
> > throttle, mixture and mags are all cut, the canopies are released and
> > the front edges lifted a couple of inches into the airstream (front
> > canopy first). Pull the loops upward, and the straps are released at
> > the anchors. With any luck, the canopies took the prop blades away, but
> > a push-over will clear the cockpits quite nicely.
>
> Now THAT is interesting. The Dornier 335 had a push-pull configuration
> like a Skymaster (except it was about the size of an F-105) and was one
> of the first a/c fitted with an ejection seat. Part of the ejection
> sequence blew the vertical tail and rear prop clear. Very Heath
> Robinson. It was used several times in the last days of the war. And
> worked! Those clever Germans. Thank God they steer all that ingenuity
> into variable runner intake manifolds and trick electric shavers these
> days, and not their old mischief. They've even brought the Zeppelin back!
>
> Pity you had to sell. Do you know if your VV was ever completed? They
> were a difficult build, I understand.
That was in 1986, and it was Project S/N 421. I have no idea what
happened after the last sight I had of the trailer.
And no, the Vig is an easy plane to build, it is merely a complex
design. It was nearly all wood, and had wooden skins to everything, so
you do a lot of cutting and gluing. Given the choice, I would build the
Vig rather than the Eze. Plus the Vig is more roomy and carries more
load, and you don't have to paint it white to keep the sun from wrecking
it.
nwa...@northwest-aero.com
k...@bctv.com wrote:
> Then, to try a downwind turn at low altitude . . .
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Uh oh, You said the DT word. The stronger the wind is blowing down the
runway when attempting a turn around, the better. The airplane doesn't
know the difference... the "air distance" is the same, but
the "relative ground distance" is reduced. Your ground speed is less as
you depart, and it's more as you return.
Or would you have us believe that the airplane knows which way the wind
is blowing once it's left the ground?
Kevin O'Brien
> Care to bet that I can find at least 10 cases of Mooney engine failure
> leading to forced landing?
Sure, out of how many thousand Mooneys? Over how many years? And how
many of them had no fuel in the tanks? The rate sure looks worse in XA,
way worse with uncertified engines, and worse again in the BD-5 with all
the Heath Robinson engine rigs. High _likelihood_ of becoming a
sailplane with low _capability_ in the unpowered mode puts the squeeze
on a guy. The Mooney (as an example) is less likely to break and less
nightmarish when it does (although that's only relative).
Of course it only has to happen once to make a believer out of a fellow.
One thing you miss in XA is redundancy of eyeballs, to coin a phrase.
Your manufacturer, mechanic, test pilot, all being the same chap, makes
it hellish easy to make a fatal oversight. Sort of the way writers need
editors to produce good product, compared to the bumf we type ourselves
and commit to bits here, that some historian will be puzling over 600
years from now when we're all long dead (longer dead, if we fly
carelessly).
Re: the BD-10. I recall the fatal stab failure, NTSB attributed it to
faulty stress calculations in the original design, not anything
Peregrine had done. When they redid the calc math right, the stab failed
on paper at just about the 380 kt it failed at in practice. Don't recall
the cause of the other two. Still a couple BD-10s out there, allegedly
flying.
cheers
-=K=-
Keith Wood
First, you lose a lot of inertia simply by turning. Second, you lose
altitude when you turn, unless add power or have an updraft, due to loss
of lift, and turning with the wind costs a LOT MORE altitude than does
turning INTO the wind. Third, control authority suffers when turning at
low airspeeds.
Which of these is something you want during a low-altitude dead-stick?
Keith Wood
Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>
> In article <38658A98...@bctv.com>, k...@bctv.com wrote:
>
> > Care to bet that I can find at least 10 cases of Mooney engine failure
> > leading to forced landing?
>
> Sure, out of how many thousand Mooneys? Over how many years? And how
> many of them had no fuel in the tanks?
Fuel starvation and engine failure are two different things. But this
is beside the point. The post suggested that other planes don't suffer
from engine failures, and now your suggestion is that they only fail for
lack of fuel.
> One thing you miss in XA is redundancy of eyeballs, to coin a phrase.
> Your manufacturer, mechanic, test pilot, all being the same chap, makes
> it hellish easy to make a fatal oversight.
Agreed completely. That is one really really good reason to go
somewhere other than your home field for the test series -- go somewhere
that you are not a buddy, have a qualified mechanic, inspector, or
consultant go over the plane AND your construction records. Then have a
qualified test pilot give it the first taxi test, first high-speed taxi
test (you can do your own interime taxi tests) and first hour of TTAF.
> Sort of the way writers need
> editors to produce good product, compared to the bumf we type ourselves
> and commit to bits here, that some historian will be puzling over 600
> years from now when we're all long dead (longer dead, if we fly
> carelessly).
;)
> Re: the BD-10. I recall the fatal stab failure, NTSB attributed it to
> faulty stress calculations in the original design, not anything
> Peregrine had done.
? The press release from the Feds said that the failure was a result of
Peregrine's modification to the design.
Mark Smith
statements like this will get you a flame bigger than all hell,,,,,,,,,
Jerry Springer
>
>
> One thing you miss in XA is redundancy of eyeballs, to coin a phrase.
> Your manufacturer, mechanic, test pilot, all being the same chap, makes
> it hellish easy to make a fatal oversight. Sort of the way writers need
> editors to produce good product, compared to the bumf we type ourselves
> and commit to bits here, that some historian will be puzling over 600
> years from now when we're all long dead (longer dead, if we fly
> carelessly).
>
Sorry Kevin I don't agree with that statement. When it is my but, or a family
member or a friends in the seat next to me I am a whole lot more careful about my
RV-6 than the guy down the street would ever be. After all he does not have
to fly it.
--
Jerry Springer|RV-6 First Flight 7/14/89|Hillsboro,OR|jsf...@teleport.com
Andrew Russell
>
>Hell, I'm just tickled to death you spelled my last name correctly.
>Asides that, you're just full of self-righteous crap. The sites I
>listed are exceptional sources to find data on the BD-5. And since
>BD-Micro is still manufacturing them, why not ask them? You seem to
>have a chip on your shoulder about this aircraft....ask Skeeter (of
>BD-Micro) all the questions you have and he'll answer them for you.
>Oh wait, then you'll claim he's biased.
>
>Oh well. Can't teach a closed mind now, can we?
You say that people should only visit pro BD-5 sites, and then claim
I'm "full of self-righteous crap" for suggesting otherwise? Why do you
believe that character assasination is a useful method for promoting the
BD-%?. You seem to be remarkably like Juan J., who demonstrated he'd
rather engage in libel rather than civilized debate. You are a real
candidate for the twit filter I long ago put Juan into.
You haven't been in this forum long, or you would know that you've made a
large fool of yourself. You know absolutely nothing about me and my
history with the BD-5, do you?
When it comes to closed minds, I'm afraid you need to look into a mirror
before displaying yours here in r.a.h.
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Andrew Russell
>
>And, yes, it is cold. His friend died of TERMINAL STUPIDITY. What is
>colder than that?
Here we have the kindness and compassion of the BD-5 True Believer on
display.
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Alan Baker
>nwa...@northwest-aero.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <3864FF03...@bctv.com>,
>> k...@bctv.com wrote:
>>
>> > Then, to try a downwind turn at low altitude . . .
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Uh oh, You said the DT word. The stronger the wind is blowing down the
>> runway when attempting a turn around, the better. The airplane doesn't
>> know the difference... the "air distance" is the same, but
>> the "relative ground distance" is reduced. Your ground speed is less as
>> you depart, and it's more as you return.
>>
>> Or would you have us believe that the airplane knows which way the wind
>> is blowing once it's left the ground?
>
>First, you lose a lot of inertia simply by turning. Second, you lose
>altitude when you turn, unless add power or have an updraft, due to loss
>of lift, and turning with the wind costs a LOT MORE altitude than does
>turning INTO the wind. Third, control authority suffers when turning at
>low airspeeds.
>
>Which of these is something you want during a low-altitude dead-stick?
You left his question unanswered: How does the airplane _know_ which way
the wind is blowing? The only motion important to the continued flight
of an aircraft is relative to the air.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
Keith Wood
Alan Baker wrote:
>
> In article <3866432F...@bctv.com>, k...@bctv.com wrote:
>
> >nwa...@northwest-aero.com wrote:
> >> Or would you have us believe that the airplane knows which way the wind
> >> is blowing once it's left the ground?
> >
> >First, you lose a lot of inertia simply by turning. Second, you lose
> >altitude when you turn, unless add power or have an updraft, due to loss
> >of lift, and turning with the wind costs a LOT MORE altitude than does
> >turning INTO the wind. Third, control authority suffers when turning at
> >low airspeeds.
> >
> >Which of these is something you want during a low-altitude dead-stick?
>
> You left his question unanswered: How does the airplane _know_ which way
> the wind is blowing?
An airplane is an inanimate object. It is incapable of knowing
anything.
> The only motion important to the continued flight
> of an aircraft is relative to the air.
This would come as a surprise to all of those people who have run into
mountains, but they are beyond caring.
If you have plenty of altitude, you can turn any which way. Without
altitude, any turn can be a risk -- more so when you have no way to
restore intertia except by trading altitude for it.
When the head windspeed is a large fraction of your total airspeed (say
10kts of 80kts), turning away from the wind will force you to give up
more of your altitude to regain that ten knots' worth of intertia that
you have given away.
Keith Wood
Andrew Russell wrote:
>
> Keith Wood wrote:
> >
> >And, yes, it is cold. His friend died of TERMINAL STUPIDITY. What is
> >colder than that?
>
> Here we have the kindness and compassion of the BD-5 True Believer on
> display.
True believer? Not hardly.
Flying can kill you. It has nearly killed me 3 times over 30+ years.
If you can't handle that knowledge, stay in bed.
It serves nobody to blame airplanes for mistakes made my pilots, nor to
blame pilots for things which are outside their control.
In this case, the guy made HALF A DOZEN STUPID CHOICES. The combination
killed him. Luckily, it didn't kill some innocent third party.
Mark Smith
> ,,,,,,,,
> In this case, the guy made HALF A DOZEN STUPID CHOICES.
the first of which may have been the bede 5 kit,,,,,,
Jerry Springer
WHAT??????Guess I will have to go read the books again.
Jerry
CFI
Kevin O'Brien
> The post suggested that other planes don't suffer
> from engine failures, and now your suggestion is that they only fail for
> lack of fuel.
Bollocks. I suggested that certified engines fail, statistcally, much
more rarely than uncertified engines in general and the Heath Robinson
arrangements in many -5s in particular. Of course certified engines
fail. The process of certification ensures that those failures are very
uncommon. My suggestion in the follow up is not that 'they only fail for
lack of fuel' but rather that lack of (or contamination of) fuel is far
and away the most common cause of engine stoppage in certified engines.
Like 100 to 1. Uncertified engines stop just as quickly for want of fuel
as any other, but they stop for so many other reasons that fuel
starvation loses this preponderant position as a stoppage cause.
> > Re: the BD-10. I recall the fatal stab failure, NTSB attributed it to
> > faulty stress calculations in the original design, not anything
> > Peregrine had done.
>
> ? The press release from the Feds said that the failure was a result of
> Peregrine's modification to the design.
Here's some data for you, Keith. The NTSB hangs it on BJC (Bede Jet
Corporation) which sold the design to Peregrine:
'Probable Cause
the in-flight overload failure of the left vertical stabilizer spars, at
force levels substantially below the predicted ultimate
failure loads, due to inadequate substantiation by the designer. '
'The failure mode and separation point was the same as that seen on
the accident aircraft left vertical tail assembly. The test revealed
that the vertical stabilizer spars began to yield at 40 percent of the
failure load limit supplied by BJC (see AIRCRAFT INFORMATION section).
Spar failure occurred at 65 percent of the BJC supplied load limit.'
There was a fix that was installed on the accident aircraft (after
ANOTHER in-flight breakup), but per the Board (which for some reason was
running in all caps that day) it came from Bede:
'THE COMPANY SAID THE ORIGINAL BEDE BUILT BD-10 PROTOTYPE SUSTAINED A
VERTICAL STABILIZER FAILURE DURING FLIGHTS AT THE 1994 RENO AIR RACES.
BEDE SUBSEQUENTLY DESIGNED A FIX WHICH STRENGTHENED THE VERTICAL TAILS.
GROUND SUBSTANTIATION LOAD TESTS TO FAILURE WERE CONDUCTED BY BEDE, AND
THE RESULTING YIELD FAILURE LOAD LIMIT WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY,
WHICH USED THE NUMBERS TO ESTABLISH THE 40 PERCENT FLIGHT TEST LIMIT.
THE NEW FIX WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE ACCIDENT AIRCRAFT. '
You might be thinking of a press release from Bede covering his arse?
the above quotes were taken from:
The NTSB narrative:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/lax/lnarr%5F95a067.htm
The NTSB synopsis w/probable cause determination:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/lax/95A067.htm
Sad thing is, reading the narrative, the pilot was flying a conservative
and well-thought-out test card within the parameters. If Jim Bede was
equally professional he'd not have died. In point of fact Bede could not
substantiate the numbers (ANY of them) in the data package supplied to
Peregrine, and there are no records of his 'load tests to failure.' I
personally believe that he made the damn things up. It was not an
accident, it was murder.
BD wasn't done racking up the score. The next time it killed a test
pilot it was an asymmetrical flap situation in the pattern. NTSB
attributed it to:
'Probable Cause
a failure of the wing flap control system due to inadequate design,
which led to an asymmetrical flap deployment
during a critical flight condition and in-flight loss of control'
Hmmm, do we see a pattern emerging?
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/lax/95A278.htm
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/lax/lnarr_95A278.htm
There were also two non fatals with the aircraft, both attributable to
design errors, one structural (the one that led to the above referenced
redesign) and one in the canopy lock system, where it could look locked
and be open. I can't think of a single other type that has 100% of its
accidents primarily attributable to design flaws and 0% primarily
attributable to pilot error. You can't even say that about the Mini-500.
Jim Bede should be designing T-shirts. He has a nice sense of aesthetics
but as an engineer he's over his head. The BD-1, -4, and -5 have evolved
into safe aircraft despite him.
cheers
-=K=-
Kevin O'Brien
<jsf...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Sorry Kevin I don't agree with that statement. When it is my but, or a
> family
> member or a friends in the seat next to me I am a whole lot more careful
> about my
> RV-6 than the guy down the street would ever be. After all he does not
> have
> to fly it.
Jer, let me be clear about what I'm saying there. My point, which I
might not have expressed too clearly, is that different people have
different perceptions. It is very possible for one person to look at
something three or eight times and not see it. Ever lose your keys
someplace realy obvious?
I didn't mean to suggest that you are careless, or that some other guy
whether he's me, or a mechanic, or Van Himself, or your flying buddy, is
more careful than you. He just is a second set of eyeballs. Humans have
blind spots...
Think of all the people who have made some dumb oversight, like the guy
here in Mass a couple of years ago that took off with his control lock
on. The key to the lock was on the ignition keychain and they found the
keychain loose in the wreckage, the poor wretch turned the engine off
and took the keys out trying to save himself. I would like to think I'll
never do anything that dumb, but I know better, I just might. And once
you've done something that dumb with an airplane you don't get a second
chance. So I welcome any extra eyeball onto my plane, whether it was an
engineer in the office of a forgotten company, a supervisor on the
production line those 30-odd years ago, or you, or (heaven forfend) the
FAA, or anybody.
I once saw a little kid save an ATP from starting up with the anti-bird
plugs in the intakes.
I think that this N-pairs-of-eyeballs effect is one of many reasons that
the safety record of people that used an EAA tech counsellor is
reportedly better. Just my opinion, and I don't see that it is
necessarily at odds with your view that your vigilance is greater than
that of someone who's bacon is not aboard. They're not quite the same
issue.
cheers
-=K=-
El Roto
straight until I hit calm air or pick up a tail wind.
I can't imagine how many times I've cheated death before I learned the
truth about downwind turns.
Steve "Always the last to know" G.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Kevin O'Brien
> Maybe so, but I still want a BD-10! That plane was nearly as much fun
> as I have ever had with my clothes on.
Get a Magister. More fun, more reliable, all sorted out after 40 years.
There's some of them around pre-moratorium. :) For a little plane it's
hellish loud though, and your neighbours will not be happy. You can also
have a lot of the same fun with more friends along in a Paris Jet. Hey,
it's cheaper than a Bonanza. (okay, cheaper than a NEW Bonanza).
No argument on the 'planning for engine failure' thing. I'm very
reluctant to second guess the dead. I read accident reports all the
time, and I often can see myself doing what the decedent did. I think
that itty bitty cockpit scares people into making stupid turns. And yes,
you should be test flying where the pavement goes on forever and beyond
it is nothing but Wile E Coyote habitat.
I didn't know that Peregrine was responsible for the flap actuator.
Okay, Bede has to bag one more to be a jet ace then. Jesus Christ, you
would think by now there's enough good engineering out there that you
could crib the design you need. Lance Neibauer cribbed the Cessna
retractible gear, improving the gear door design as he went. Cessna
would do well to steal it back from him if they ever put the 210 or
182RG back into production. Everybody steals from everybody, and if you
look back far enough we're probably stealing it all from Steve Wittman.
You comment about the F-104 asym flap problems also underscores the
benefit of having a bigger org behind you. Many of the prototypes of
great military craft crashed - P-51, B-17, B-47, F-14, Gripen, F-117A
just to name a few off the top of my head. Sometimes the plane gets into
the field and it has a problem still (the F-100 shed vertical stabs, and
I think the F-105A did as well, but that was a long time ago, could be
wrong). The first Boeing 707s had an inadequate vertical tail. Boeing
replaced them all at its expence (that HAD to hurt). But Boeing is a
huge org and they discovered the problem in continued flight test of the
Dash-80 (IIRC) because they had the resources to keep exploring more
than the minimum flight regimes for certification. Sometimes it takes
time to recognise the problem. Comet-1. B-737 (I'm referring here to the
timing out of bonded joins in the fuse on high-cycle a/c, not the rudder
problem which is still uncertain). Boeing (again) changed the vertical
stab design so a failure of the prssure containment rear bulkhead
doesn't blow the tail off -- but not until that actually happened.
Boeing (again) made six changes to thrust reverser hardware and software
after Lauda Air had a fatal inflight asym deployment. (I'm not picking
on Boeing especially, this is par for the course in any a/c builder, I
just know about these). Anyway, what we do is inherently dangerous.
Doing it WITHOUT a Boeing, Airbus, Cessna, DeHavilland behind us is more
so. You gots to be assessing and managing risks at all times.
There's nothing wrong with being one man against the elements, it's part
of what makes XA great, but you have to be careful to keep the number of
revolutions in your aircraft to a minimum. (Rich Riley just posted to
this effect in another thread. I would gladly steal his idea, but I
think this is just a case where all great minds are tuned tothe same
channel). Look at CarterCopter - 17 patents, and still they had to go
with a completely unproven auto-based powerplant. And design their own
prop. That reminds me of a manager I had once, who would leave a meeting
after showering us with his latest brainstorm, and the engineers would
mumble to one another, 'The rotter has scheduled another bloody
invention.' Guess what happens when you 'schedule an invention?' Well,
ask Jay Carter.
cheers
-=K=-
'am I rambling?'
John W. Hart
had nothing to do with what speed you were travelling in relation to the
earth's surface, but with relation to the air mass in which you were flying.
Dammit, why they always got to change things? I mean, for the last 37
years that I've been a CFI, I've been under the wrong impression about this
airspeed thing. Can you imagine how many more CFI's that were taught all
wrong besides us? [:<)
John Hart
"Jerry Springer" <jsf...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3866BBB8...@teleport.com...
Keith Wood
Kevin O'Brien wrote:
>
> In article <38664517...@bctv.com>, k...@bctv.com wrote:
>
> > The post suggested that other planes don't suffer
> > from engine failures, and now your suggestion is that they only fail for
> > lack of fuel.
>
> Bollocks. I suggested that certified engines fail, statistcally, much
> more rarely than uncertified engines in general and the Heath Robinson
> arrangements in many -5s in particular.
No argument there.
I was taught that you should be doing one of two things -- dealing with
engine failure, or preparing for engine failure.
> Of course certified engines
> fail. The process of certification ensures that those failures are very
> uncommon. My suggestion in the follow up is not that 'they only fail for
> lack of fuel' but rather that lack of (or contamination of) fuel is far
> and away the most common cause of engine stoppage in certified engines.
I would also agree with that.
> Like 100 to 1. Uncertified engines stop just as quickly for want of fuel
> as any other, but they stop for so many other reasons that fuel
> starvation loses this preponderant position as a stoppage cause.
In this case, from overheating. Unless it was on fire, it was most
likely overheating before he passed his abort point.
> > > Re: the BD-10. I recall the fatal stab failure, NTSB attributed it to
> > > faulty stress calculations in the original design, not anything
> > > Peregrine had done.
> >
> > ? The press release from the Feds said that the failure was a result of
> > Peregrine's modification to the design.
>
> Here's some data for you, Keith. The NTSB hangs it on BJC (Bede Jet
> Corporation) which sold the design to Peregrine:
>
> 'Probable Cause
> the in-flight overload failure of the left vertical stabilizer spars, at
> force levels substantially below the predicted ultimate
> failure loads, due to inadequate substantiation by the designer. '
I sit corrected. ;)
> 'The failure mode and separation point was the same as that seen on
> the accident aircraft left vertical tail assembly. The test revealed
> that the vertical stabilizer spars began to yield at 40 percent of the
> failure load limit supplied by BJC (see AIRCRAFT INFORMATION section).
> Spar failure occurred at 65 percent of the BJC supplied load limit.'
>
> There was a fix that was installed on the accident aircraft (after
> ANOTHER in-flight breakup), but per the Board (which for some reason was
> running in all caps that day) it came from Bede:
> 'THE COMPANY SAID THE ORIGINAL BEDE BUILT BD-10 PROTOTYPE SUSTAINED A
> VERTICAL STABILIZER FAILURE DURING FLIGHTS AT THE 1994 RENO AIR RACES.
> BEDE SUBSEQUENTLY DESIGNED A FIX WHICH STRENGTHENED THE VERTICAL TAILS.
> GROUND SUBSTANTIATION LOAD TESTS TO FAILURE WERE CONDUCTED BY BEDE, AND
> THE RESULTING YIELD FAILURE LOAD LIMIT WAS PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY,
> WHICH USED THE NUMBERS TO ESTABLISH THE 40 PERCENT FLIGHT TEST LIMIT.
> THE NEW FIX WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE ACCIDENT AIRCRAFT. '
>
> You might be thinking of a press release from Bede covering his arse?
Not unless he uses NTSB letterhead.
> the above quotes were taken from:
> The NTSB narrative:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/lax/lnarr%5F95a067.htm
>
> The NTSB synopsis w/probable cause determination:
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/lax/95A067.htm
>
> Sad thing is, reading the narrative, the pilot was flying a conservative
> and well-thought-out test card within the parameters. If Jim Bede was
> equally professional he'd not have died. In point of fact Bede could not
> substantiate the numbers (ANY of them) in the data package supplied to
> Peregrine, and there are no records of his 'load tests to failure.' I
> personally believe that he made the damn things up. It was not an
> accident, it was murder.
I dunno about murder, but it was certainly wrong.
> BD wasn't done racking up the score. The next time it killed a test
> pilot it was an asymmetrical flap situation in the pattern. NTSB
> attributed it to:
> 'Probable Cause
> a failure of the wing flap control system due to inadequate design,
> which led to an asymmetrical flap deployment
> during a critical flight condition and in-flight loss of control'
>
> Hmmm, do we see a pattern emerging?
That flap actuator design was Peregrine's. They weren't happy with the
original.
BTW, the F-104 also had a problem with assymetrical flap actuation.
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/lax/95A278.htm
> http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/lax/lnarr_95A278.htm
>
> There were also two non fatals with the aircraft, both attributable to
> design errors, one structural (the one that led to the above referenced
> redesign) and one in the canopy lock system, where it could look locked
> and be open. I can't think of a single other type that has 100% of its
> accidents primarily attributable to design flaws and 0% primarily
> attributable to pilot error. You can't even say that about the Mini-500.
>
> Jim Bede should be designing T-shirts. He has a nice sense of aesthetics
> but as an engineer he's over his head. The BD-1, -4, and -5 have evolved
> into safe aircraft despite him.
;)
Keith Wood
"John W. Hart" wrote:
>
> Uhhhh, Jerry, can you read them books for me too? Last I remember, airspeed
> had nothing to do with what speed you were travelling in relation to the
> earth's surface, but with relation to the air mass in which you were flying.
> Dammit, why they always got to change things? I mean, for the last 37
> years that I've been a CFI, I've been under the wrong impression about this
> airspeed thing. Can you imagine how many more CFI's that were taught all
> wrong besides us? [:<)
You teach low-altitude, low-airspeed 180s following engine failure?
And you have never heard of inertia?
Keith Wood
Don't read about it, TRY it. Go up to a few thousand feet AGL with a
stiff breeze. Pull back to just before the buffett, then go to full
power and simulate a takeoff and climb out.
Climb to the next 1000-ft mark on your altimeter, then cut power, give
yourself 5 seconds to make the wrong decision, and make an "emergency"
180 (not the nice gentle one you teach). At best, you will watch a
large chunk of your altitude go bye-bye. At worst, you will rediscover
Split-S. Make a note as to the amount of altitude and airspeed losses
and rate of un-climb.
Now, get back up where you were and simulate your power failure again,
starting DOWNWIND. Now what do your instruments tell you?
Now, try it again a few times, but go straight ahead or only turn 20
degrees one way or the other.
The lower the percentage of airspeed your headwind accounts for, the
less the effect -- but there IS an effect. At low altitude, when you
need every foot and foot-per-second, it doesn't take much to put you
into a bad place.
Even with no headwind, turning back to the runway is usually not worth
the risk below pattern altitude.
John W. Hart
previous post. Just for grins, have you ever taken a look at the PTS for
private pilot?
And, yes, I have heard of inertia. What does inertia have to do with
indicated airspeed in your opinion?
John Hart
"Keith Wood" <k...@bctv.com> wrote in message
news:3866CED2...@bctv.com...
Keith Wood
"John W. Hart" wrote:
>
> Now, don't appear to me that I said anything about WHAT I teach in my
> previous post.
That's why I wasn't sure.
> Just for grins, have you ever taken a look at the PTS for private pilot?
Not lately. I grew up in a flying household (T-craft, C-140, Bellanca),
took lessons over the years, but each time I was ready to get solidly
into the program something came up to keep me away from my ticket. I
wish I could log all of my bootleg time (I was in aerospace) and the
time I have in various aircraft (from the BD-10 to the AC-130 to the
T-38 to the PBY) shooting segments for the TV show I used to do.
I also have hours and hours of low and slow on search and disaster
missions.
> And, yes, I have heard of inertia. What does inertia have to do with
> indicated airspeed in your opinion?
Having more of the first can help you keep more of the second.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
"BOb U." wrote:
>
> >Thomas A Nelson wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> > Can someone in a sentence or two delineate the major difference(s) between
> >> > the BD-4 and BD-5 aircraft? Thanks for your comment.
> >> >
> >> > John Wood (Code 5551) e-mail: wo...@itd.nrl.navy.mil
> >> > Naval Research Laboratory
> >> > 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW
> >> > Washington, DC 20375-5337
> >> >
> >> > One will kill you in a heart beat one will not.
> >
> >
> >I want one of those planes that can't kill you.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Me too, but......
>
> Re-read Wood's post again.
> Doesn't say one CAN'T kill you......
> It just takes more than one heartbeat. <g>
>
> BOb U.
Still says the same thing.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
Doyle Martha wrote:
>
> BD-4:
> Clunky looking 4 seater, high wing, easy to build, fly, maintain. Good cross
> country traveler w/skis, luggage, wife, and young'un.
>
> BD-5:
> Sexy looking 1 seater, low wing, tricky to build, short range, difficult to
> fly (short coupled, low aspect ratio.) Mortality rate astonishingly high.
NTSB record does not support that last statement. Rumor mill does.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
them 45 min at a time, in his jets.
"BOb U." wrote:
>
> 800 hours flying a BD5?
> This certainly is a whole lot of hours AND even more miles.
> Almost unbelievable.......
>
> Perhaps you would share what it takes to do this and do it well.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
you want me to bring up this subject again?
Andrew Russell wrote:
>
> And it is quite obvious that Mr. Nenka knows nothing about me and my knowledge
> of BD-5s. But he is quite willing to demonstrate his vast ignorance in this
> forum.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
FWIW, Page 3-3 of the BD-5 pilot's manual, in chapter 3, Emergency
Procedures, spiral-bound edition published by Bede Aircraft Corp. in
mid-1976:
-------
ENGINE FAILURE AFTER TAKEOFF
If the engine fails after the aircraft has left the ground and there is
not sufficient prepared landing area remaining in front of the aircraft,
lower the nose to avoid a stall and prepare to land straight ahead.
WARNING: Under no circumstances should a turn be attempted at low
altitude with a dead engine, except slight deviations to avoid hitting
an obstacle. A controlled crash landing straight ahead is preferale to a
stall and crash, out of a turn.
-------
One of the first things I was taught when I learned to fly 25+ years ago
was to never attempt to turn back to the airport with a dead engine
after takeoff without at least 1000 ft between the wheels and the
ground.
Juan
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> I personally lost a friend to the BD 5,,,,,,
>
> he tried a turnback with a strong headwind following an over heated
> engine shutoff, he was on the radio with the groud crew and the
> tower,,,,,the short wings, extra fast turn, and 500 feet of altitude to
> do it in, did him in, he almost rounded out clear of the ground,,, but
> not quite, wings draped on the ground similar to the blades on a dropped
> chopper,,,,,
>
> The manufacturer, Jim, left the engine choice fairly untested, and my
> friend had to forge ahead with something.
>
> he had tried several static engines, even some small motorcycle ones,
> all of which had some minor problem,,,,,
>
> He hadn't flown much immediately prior to the crash, in anything high
> performance, except one or two successful local flights testing various
> engines,,,,
>
> the plane flew very well, and he was excited about it,,,,
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
and then try to make a turn downwind and want to maintain your
airspeed??? When was your last CFI review?
Jerry Springer wrote:
>
> > When the head windspeed is a large fraction of your total airspeed (say
> > 10kts of 80kts), turning away from the wind will force you to give up
> > more of your altitude to regain that ten knots' worth of intertia that
> > you have given away.
>
> WHAT??????Guess I will have to go read the books again.
> Jerry
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
>
> There is a problem in that what exactly can
> you fly to get your proficiency up before the test flight?
The Grumman AA-1 is the one most people use. It's also the one Bede
recommends. The one I recommend as well is the Cessna 310 (Q, if you
have a choice), because the Vnumbers are about the same as for the BD-5.
The pilot's handbook for the BD-5 also has a chapter entirely dedicated
to initial checkout. Too many of those people who had accidents in the
BD-5 simply didn't bother to read the manual.
Juan
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
Keith Wood wrote:
>
> > Re: the BD-10. I recall the fatal stab failure, NTSB attributed it to
> > faulty stress calculations in the original design, not anything
> > Peregrine had done.
>
> ? The press release from the Feds said that the failure was a result of
> Peregrine's modification to the design.
>
> > When they redid the calc math right, the stab failed
> > on paper at just about the 380 kt it failed at in practice. Don't recall
> > the cause of the other two. Still a couple BD-10s out there, allegedly
> > flying.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
>
> Sad thing is, reading the narrative, the pilot was flying a conservative
> and well-thought-out test card within the parameters. If Jim Bede was
> equally professional he'd not have died. In point of fact Bede could not
> substantiate the numbers (ANY of them) in the data package supplied to
> Peregrine, and there are no records of his 'load tests to failure.' I
> personally believe that he made the damn things up. It was not an
> accident, it was murder.
You had it all correct until you got here, and decide to mix rumor and
hearsay with proven facts. Bede was not allowed to present any
information to back up his calculations. The NTSB simply duplicated the
failure and left it at that.
> BD wasn't done racking up the score. The next time it killed a test
> pilot it was an asymmetrical flap situation in the pattern. NTSB
> attributed it to:
> 'Probable Cause
> a failure of the wing flap control system due to inadequate design,
> which led to an asymmetrical flap deployment
> during a critical flight condition and in-flight loss of control'
>
> Hmmm, do we see a pattern emerging?
No kidding, Sherlock. People get killed during flight testing of high
performance aircraft.
Juan
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
>
> You say that people should only visit pro BD-5 sites, and then claim
> I'm "full of self-righteous crap" for suggesting otherwise? Why do you
> believe that character assasination is a useful method for promoting the
> BD-%?. You seem to be remarkably like Juan J., who demonstrated he'd
> rather engage in libel rather than civilized debate. You are a real
> candidate for the twit filter I long ago put Juan into.
Ok, you -do- want me to bring it up again. Fine.
Your father died in a BD-5 because he was unable to get it through his
head that if you have trouble getting fuel to the engine, you don't fly.
In conceptual terms, it's the same thing that killed Mark's friend. How
that qualifies you as a BD-5 expert, or even as a knowledgeable BD-5
detractor, is anyone's guess. Stick to what you know and don't try to
blame the airplane for what was clearly your father's mistake.
> You haven't been in this forum long, or you would know that you've made a
> large fool of yourself. You know absolutely nothing about me and my
> history with the BD-5, do you?
No kidding, you refuse to tell people how your dad killed himself in his
BD-5.
> When it comes to closed minds, I'm afraid you need to look into a mirror
> before displaying yours here in r.a.h.
You are the very last person in this group qualified to make this
statement.
Juan
C.D.Damron
Bishop, at least one such challenge almost killed him and led to a bail-out.
A flat spin following an intentional stall almost killed him. If he hadn't
been flying at 13K it probably would have, as he didn't get out of the plane
until he reached 5K.
cdd
Juan Jimenez (TeamB) wrote in message <3867339B...@home.com>...
Jerry Springer
Whatever you say Juan we all know that you are one of the gifts to aviation
as you have pointed out here over and over. Can't wait for you to get your
BD-5 flying so you can prove everyone wrong about the BD-5, that is if you live past your
first flight.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
>
> Of course, the BD-5J has presented some challenges for airshow pilot Bob
> Bishop, at least one such challenge almost killed him and led to a bail-out.
>
> A flat spin following an intentional stall almost killed him. If he hadn't
> been flying at 13K it probably would have, as he didn't get out of the plane
> until he reached 5K.
Yes, quite true, but I believe at the time he was testing a new wing
based on one of the GAW airfoils. He got himself pretty banged up, too.
Juan Jimenez (TeamB)
Ross Harvey
>
> Huh? A =CFI= questioning what happens when you're deadstick and upwind
> and then try to make a turn downwind and want to maintain your
> airspeed??? When was your last CFI review?
>
> Jerry Springer wrote:
> >
> > > When the head windspeed is a large fraction of your total airspeed (say
> > > 10kts of 80kts), turning away from the wind will force you to give up
> > > more of your altitude to regain that ten knots' worth of intertia that
> > > you have given away.
> >
Juan, you need to turn down your sarcasm squelch.
Someone tried to argue, repeatedly, that altitude lost depended on
the wind direction (huh?!) and Jerry and others made the predictable
snide comments. One guy posted only a forecast of pending flames!
(Classy!)
Even you must agree that only IAS matters in terms of altitude lost
during the turn, not the relative speed of the ground. :-) (Assuming
constant wind velocity, level ground, etc...)
Now, even with the needed altitude, you might not want to turn back
if it means landing with a big tailwind. Landing roll varies with
the square of your touchdown speed, so a little more groundspeed
means a lot more rollout, and that v**2 term also estimates your
damage and injury severity if you don't actually manage to hit the
r/w. So, there _are_ reasons not to turn back if you have a headwind,
besides the fact that people tend to stall and spin when they try
it with any wind direction, but the one given was just a bad analysis.
ross
Jerry Springer
>
> Juan Jimenez (TeamB) wrote:
> >
> > Huh? A =CFI= questioning what happens when you're deadstick and upwind
> > and then try to make a turn downwind and want to maintain your
> > airspeed??? When was your last CFI review?
> >
> > Jerry Springer wrote:
> > >
> > > > When the head windspeed is a large fraction of your total airspeed (say
> > > > 10kts of 80kts), turning away from the wind will force you to give up
> > > > more of your altitude to regain that ten knots' worth of intertia that
> > > > you have given away.
> > >
Ross try to edit a little more carefully I did not write the above. The way you
have cut the article with my name makes it look like I wrote it when infact nothing
in your post was written by me.
> Juan, you need to turn down your sarcasm squelch.
>
> Someone tried to argue, repeatedly, that altitude lost depended on
> the wind direction (huh?!) and Jerry and others made the predictable
> snide comments. One guy posted only a forecast of pending flames!
> (Classy!)
Of course your remark about snide comments is not a snide comment right.:)
>
> Even you must agree that only IAS matters in terms of altitude lost
> during the turn, not the relative speed of the ground. :-) (Assuming
> constant wind velocity, level ground, etc...)
>
> Now, even with the needed altitude, you might not want to turn back
> if it means landing with a big tailwind. Landing roll varies with
> the square of your touchdown speed, so a little more groundspeed
> means a lot more rollout, and that v**2 term also estimates your
> damage and injury severity if you don't actually manage to hit the
> r/w. So, there _are_ reasons not to turn back if you have a headwind,
> besides the fact that people tend to stall and spin when they try
> it with any wind direction, but the one given was just a bad analysis.
>
> ross
--
Jerry