BD-5
James Dezelle
question with some trepidation. Has anyone built or is in the process of
building the BD-5B kit from BD-Micro Technologies? If so would you share
your thoughts as to the kit and its ease of building the a/c, quality of
components etc.?
Thanks,
Jim
Juan Jimenez
Micro, including the turboprop model. There are hundreds who have bought
parts or services from Skeeter. Some people think he's overpriced, but
what he sells is mostly safety. The jig alignment and drilling services
cost money but they save you a ton of time and once you have it done
only an idiot could put together the plane and not have it come out
straight. Too many people think that because bede wanted to sell the
kits cheap it's a cheap aircraft to put together. It isn't. It's a high
performance experimental and you have to have the money to do it right,
otherwise don't do it at all.
Skeeter's FMS kits cut about 2000+ hours from the building process
because you get everything jig drilled and aligned, all the hard work is
done, the wings are ready for closing, all the machined parts are there,
the center spar and landing gear is installed, etc., etc. I've seen the
kits as they are delivered and they are of excellent quality. Skeeter
has an A&P/IA that does the majority of the initial sheet metal work and
he is VERY good. Also, his kits come with the full 13" stretch as well
as the SuperSpar supplemental spar that virtually eliminates the wing
oil-canning effects. The turboprop comes with an engine. The recip does
not, it's designed to take the hirth 2706. The jet kit comes without an
engine. The engines (Microturbo TRS-18 certified engines) are only
available from two people that I know of, Bobby Bishop and Dave Harris.
A new jet engine for the BD-5 costs about $65k.
For more info, visit my web site at www.bd5.com and join the mailing
list at b...@onelist.com.
AND, as if that were not enough, if you want to see BD-5's, come to the
Gainesville Municipal Airport (GLE, about an hour north of DFW by car)
on Oct 16-17 for the first Texas Pocket Rocket Show.
Juan
Wingman150
Is that Gainesville FL? If so, I'll be there. If not, darn it. I'd like to meet
you though!!!
BTW: You havn't seen a REALY BD-5 until you've seen the BD-5H!!! (World's
smallest attack turbine helicopter!!!)
River
"The Love of Aviation is never ending, but life ends in all its wrath, for if
we do not learn to become better, we may never see a another...Our choices to
take risks, come with being a pilot...Our job as pilots, is to make those risks
reasonable."
cti...@my-dejanews.com
Craig
In article <19990514134757...@ng50.aol.com>,
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Wingman150
>
>Craig
Not yet...We are currently getting the gear on it. After we have the skids on
it, we will mount the main trani, the JFS-100 turbine, then the rest will be
easy...Just finish work...Like electrical, mounting the guns, rockets, minor
control linkage, etc. I'll get some pics of it as soon as the gear is mounted.
mikepatt...@spammindspring.com
don't forget the EMP generator.
Will you make it to P'ville?
Mike
Juan Jimenez
Funny, I always thought a BD-5 airframe would make a cool mini-Cobra. Is
this for real?
Juan Jimenez
doing, because the last JFS-100 I heard of blew up in Arizona, and it
was set up exactly the way it was recommended.
Wingman150
Wingman150
talking about as well as people that don't build them right.
And no, looks like PVille won't be happening this year for me.
Take care,
Juan Jimenez
Force, if I remember correctly, retired many years ago. It's got a duty
cycle of a few minutes, and so far as I've been able to ascertain, is
not designed for use as a primary thrust or power turbine. It's sole
purpose was to provide hydraulic and electric power to the aircraft,
enough to start the main engine, and then be shut down. I have done my
homework on these because there are some people thinking about using
them on BD-5's. I've talked to the one person who is reselling these and
he is not recommending that they be used on BD-5's. A good friend of
mine put the engine through its paces with all of the recommended
modifications necessary to allegedly operate it as a long duty cycle
engine (including oil supply and pressure, etc.) and the engine blew up
on him after operating it for about an hour. I have also talked to
people who worked for Garrett on this engine and they have all told me
it's not an engine meant to be used for long periods of time.
If I were you I'd think twice about it, and if not, at the very least
run the engine on a static setup for some time prior to trying to fly
with it. And don't stand near it when it's running.
I -have- seen succesful conversions of APU and JFS turbines into primary
power turbines, but not without a huge amount of engineering, complete
teardowns, microbalancing of the turbine wheels, ground-up design of a
fuel control system that can be throttled, etc.
Wingman150
Again, this is all hear say. You are right on some of it...We baught it from a
guy in ND who resells them, and he makes all the mods to them for long life
use. A guy had one in his KR-2...After either 100 or 200 hours on it, he took
it apart and found no signs on noticable wear or tear. Again, too many people
listen to the wrong people that think they know everything. It is all according
to who you listen to. Wait till you see this thing fly...Again, it is people
who talk about things they don't know a whole lot about...Don't listen to them
Juan...
Bob U.
This is getting sooooooo good.
Can P'ville be put on hold until this scenario plays itself out?
Gawd, isn't this the greatest place to be?
Especially from a very, very long (safe) distance!
Bob - bunkers R us - U.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Juan Jimenez
=you= don't know about the KR-2 is how many engines the owner has gone
through. Now, if at your young age you have some kind of deathwish
related to not wanting to listen to anyone that tells you what you
=don't= want to hear, fine, so be it. It's your butt in the airplane,
not mine. 99% of the people don't listen to advice and have to learn the
hard way. I sincerely hope you're in the 1%. Good luck.
Regards,
Juan
Wingman150
>=you= don't know about the KR-2 is how many engines the owner has gone
>through. Now, if at your young age you have some kind of deathwish
>related to not wanting to listen to anyone that tells you what you
>=don't= want to hear, fine, so be it. It's your butt in the airplane,
>not mine. 99% of the people don't listen to advice and have to learn the
>hard way. I sincerely hope you're in the 1%. Good luck.
>
>Regards,
>Juan
:o) Juan, settle down. We hear this ALLLLL the time...Too many rumors being
spread. All I can say it watch...Us fly by at 150mph. :o) All in all, with the
proper mods, these engines appear to run great. Geez, some people act like we
are running it stock out of an A-7!
Bob U.
>>No, son, this is NOT hearsay, this is FACT. I know about the KR-2. What
>>=you= don't know about the KR-2 is how many engines the owner has gone
>>through. Now, if at your young age you have some kind of deathwish
>>related to not wanting to listen to anyone that tells you what you
>>=don't= want to hear, fine, so be it. It's your butt in the airplane,
>>not mine. 99% of the people don't listen to advice and have to learn the
>>hard way. I sincerely hope you're in the 1%. Good luck.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Juan
>
>:o) Juan, settle down. We hear this ALLLLL the time...Too many rumors being
>spread. All I can say it watch...Us fly by at 150mph. :o) All in all, with the
>proper mods, these engines appear to run great. Geez, some people act like we
>are running it stock out of an A-7!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your reverting back to the old WINGY, I see.
Hopefully this is just youthful and harmless gum flapping.
If not....
Your handlers need to rein you in before the shit hits the fan.
Surely, Mama Wingbird won't take kindly to someone putting her kid in
a pine box or assisiting to put someone else in one.
Right now, your in a class with Wiley Coyote. <g>
Bob U.
Wingman150
>Hopefully this is just youthful and harmless gum flapping.
>If not....
>Your handlers need to rein you in before the shit hits the fan.
>Surely, Mama Wingbird won't take kindly to someone putting her kid in
>a pine box or assisiting to put someone else in one.
>
>Right now, your in a class with Wiley Coyote. <g>
>
>Bob U.
>
Well, I guess I'll never get an ounce of respect or credibility until I'm an
adult...No matter what I know, or what I do. I understand though, I mean hey,
what does a 16 year old kid know? But one day, ONE DAY, you will say, "Damn,
that Winger dude was actually right about something!" But not now. One day you
will see, maybe I actualy do know something about something.
Now catch that damn roadrunner!
Bob U.
>>Your reverting back to the old WINGY, I see.
>>Hopefully this is just youthful and harmless gum flapping.
>>If not....
>>Your handlers need to rein you in before the shit hits the fan.
>>Surely, Mama Wingbird won't take kindly to someone putting her kid in
>>a pine box or assisiting to put someone else in one.
>>
>>Right now, your in a class with Wiley Coyote. <g>
>>
>>Bob U.
>>
>
>Well, I guess I'll never get an ounce of respect or credibility until I'm an
>adult...No matter what I know, or what I do. I understand though, I mean hey,
>what does a 16 year old kid know? But one day, ONE DAY, you will say, "Damn,
>that Winger dude was actually right about something!" But not now. One day you
>will see, maybe I actualy do know something about something.
>
>Now catch that damn roadrunner!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For you, all things are possible... and that is as it should be.
Us old farts need to stick around as guardian angels to see that....
YOU, SOMEDAY, will invent, build and fly that better mousetrap.
In the meantime, let us old duffers impart the lifetimes of knowledge
and experience to you thru our existing institutions.
Your job is to learn and assimilate, in quite a short time, all that
every was and is. If you work hard at this task, you will have the
respect and credibility due a formidable student of your years.
So, hang in there, Grasshopper. You already ARE somebody...
You just don't realize it yet. <g>
Bob U.
Wingman150
>You just don't realize it yet. <g>
>
>Bob U.
:o) <g>
Dave Hyde
> Juan, settle down. We hear this ALLLLL the time...
Did you ever think there might be a reason?
> Too many rumors being spread.
Duty cycle and design operating point of an A-7 JFS should not be
subject to
rumor - they should be commonly available on a spec sheet. If you
actually
have your hands on one of these a) tell us what the
duty cycle is and b) tell us what mods you've made to make it reliably
throttlable and longer-life than the original.
> Geez, some people act like we
> are running it stock out of an A-7!
Depending on your skills, you might be better off, even with the design
problems, running it stock. If you're pulling A-7 parts, I suggest a
TF-41. At least it solved some of the starting problems.
Dave 'Huffer' Hyde
na...@brick.net
rah15 ret.
Rich Ahrens
> --I havn't done jack shit to it myself. A guy in ND that does many of these
> sold it to us along with all of the right equipment for it.
You know, I'm sitting out here thinking: what is a kid who is depending
on the generosity of others to pay for his primary flight training doing
buying *anything*? Or is this just bluster, claiming more involvement
than he has in this project, if it even exists?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Jimenez
>
> :o) Juan, settle down. We hear this ALLLLL the time...
Gee, did you ever stop to wonder why you hear it all the time? Of
course, at 16 you haven't learned that when you hear something like that
all the time about an engine, you should stop and check it out before
you trust your life to it. I remember when I was 16, I thought I was
immortal. Pay attention to those "rumors" from people who know a lot
more about the engine than you ever will, and maybe you'll live long
enough to find out you're not.
> Too many rumors being spread. All I can say it watch...Us fly by at 150mph. :o)
Really? At 150 mph? In a BD-5 fuselage rotorcraft? Riiiigghhttt...
> All in all, with the proper mods, these engines appear to run great. Geez, some people act like we
> are running it stock out of an A-7!
So tell me, Wingy, what mods have you made to the engine? And I'm not
talking about external oil supply or an adapter plate or an accessory
pad. What INTERNAL mods have you made to the engine to overcome the fact
that the engine was not designed to run safely for more than a few
minutes at a time? I seem to remember that the person you bought it from
does NOT modify the engines internally. Go ahead, impress me with your
engineering study of the metallurgics of the engine design, or how you
microbalanced the turbine wheels.
Juan
Wingman150
--Yeah, people who like to think they know what they are talking about that
really don't. It all depends on who you have listened to.
>
>> Too many rumors being spread.
>
>Duty cycle and design operating point of an A-7 JFS should not be
>subject to
>rumor - they should be commonly available on a spec sheet. If you
>actually
>have your hands on one of these a) tell us what the
>duty cycle is and b) tell us what mods you've made to make it reliably
>throttlable and longer-life than the original.
>
--For one thing, the common JFS spec sheet is different than what ours will
be...Ours has all the mods, and the spec sheet for a JFS doesn't. I,
personally, have not done anything to the JFS. Bob Faley of FunRotors did.
Actually, he baught it from the guy who re-sells these. Different trottle
something, different harness, oil coolers and pumps, and all kinds of stuff.
For one thing, the fact that they didn't have long term cooling systems on the
JFS's was the biggest reason they didn't last long in the A-7s. Again, it
sounds like everybody thinks we are running it stock...WE ARE NOT!!! The spec
sheet of a normal JFS doesn't mean anything...I personally do not know a whole
lot about the JFS, and by no means an expert...But I have talked in length to
people who are experts on the JFS and people who do know what they are talking
about.
>> Geez, some people act like we
>> are running it stock out of an A-7!
>
>Depending on your skills, you might be better off, even with the design
>problems, running it stock. If you're pulling A-7 parts, I suggest a
>TF-41. At least it solved some of the starting problems.
Anyways, I guess I should just say dicussion ended...No one with their own
opinions are ever going to believe me or anything I, or anyone else that has
anything good to say about the JFS...So, wait till we get it going. Then either
we will be proven right, or we will eat major crow...And I like it well done
BTW. I'm not the one who is betting my life on this machine, but I do,
PERSONALLY, BELIEVE, that the JFS has fallen victom to too many rumors, and
people taking the results of a stock JFS against a modified one.
Wait guys, just wait. For now, I'm not going to agree with you, and you are not
going to agree with me. So lets let time prove either of us right or wrong.
Wingman150
>course, at 16 you haven't learned that when you hear something like that
>all the time about an engine, you should stop and check it out before
>you trust your life to it. I remember when I was 16, I thought I was
>immortal. Pay attention to those "rumors" from people who know a lot
>more about the engine than you ever will, and maybe you'll live long
>enough to find out you're not.
--I pay no attention to rumors...Now I understand what rumors can really do.
>
>> Too many rumors being spread. All I can say it watch...Us fly by at 150mph.
>:o)
>
>Really? At 150 mph? In a BD-5 fuselage rotorcraft? Riiiigghhttt...
--Juan, do you know anything about helicopters? Then don't talk. We are keeping
the BD-5 wingstubs on, which will allow less collective pitch, which will
increase top speed by allowing the retreating blade stall component to be
higher. The person who made these figures is the same person who designed and
builds the RotorMouse kits...You know, the homebuilt version of the Cobra
attack helicopter. I'm no engineer, but when you become a helicopter
aerodynamics engineer, then talk.
>
>> All in all, with the proper mods, these engines appear to run great. Geez,
>some people act like we
>> are running it stock out of an A-7!
>
>So tell me, Wingy, what mods have you made to the engine? And I'm not
>talking about external oil supply or an adapter plate or an accessory
>pad. What INTERNAL mods have you made to the engine to overcome the fact
>that the engine was not designed to run safely for more than a few
>minutes at a time? I seem to remember that the person you bought it from
>does NOT modify the engines internally. Go ahead, impress me with your
>engineering study of the metallurgics of the engine design, or how you
>microbalanced the turbine wheels.
--I havn't done jack shit to it myself. A guy in ND that does many of these
sold it to us along with all of the right equipment for it. You think Bob Faley
baught one of these things because jim Voss, the guy in ND said they were? No.
He baught it because he did research on it.
Like I said, discussion ended. Read my last post about this. I don't thin it is
worth arguing about with people who have already made their mind up. You keep
asking me what we did to make it last longer, well why don't I ask you why the
mods we have made will never work??? You may say you don't know what mods we
have made...So then why do you say its not going to work? Like I said before,
I'm not the expert on these, nor have I ever worked on one...But I know a lot
of people who have.
Discussion ended.
>
>Juan
Victoria Deaton
Wingy,
Hey dude. Don't take it wrong when the old farts tell you to chill
out, or to watch out for a certain airframe or engine configuration.
Noone would be telling you this if they didn't care about your young
ass. You're living the life I wish I had--learning to fly early on,
with the whole world open to you, no barriers, no limits. Back when I
was in high school, a chick who wanted to fly fighters was not only
laughed at but denied the possibility, so I am the LAST PERSON to ever
tell a person to throttle back on a dream. So don't think I'm just
another voice in the pack telling you to *not* do something. Female
Ilk just have a tendency to care for the young.
Don't worry about having to have all the fun while you're still young
and handsome. The neat thing about flying is that it enables one to
carry the enthusiasm of youth into the years that are rich with
wisdom, keeping us young and full of spit and vinegar. The trick is
the survive the enthusiasm. (I was in my IFR ground school class last
week with 7 adults and every time a plane took off, all 8 heads
swivelled in unison away from the instructor and towards the window
and watched the generic piper cherokee rotate--as if we had never seen
that before. It's like being a kid again every time a plane leaps into
the air. Survive youth, and believe me, the enthusiasm will remain.)
Wingy, I spent the past 12+ years of my life documenting what happens
when life changes in an instant. 12 years of news photography at the
local and network O&O level. The thing I learned is that you can't
change those instants, and those instants often include others who
have no say in your decision. NOTHING sucks worse than living with
regret.
Okay, enough of the morbid stuff. Aviation didn't get this far without
some folks pushing the envelope. The FAA puts out a great little
handbook on test flight, "Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight
Testing Handbook", AC 90-89A. I think Ron W. has a link to it on his
page. It makes for great reading. That, combined with input from some
great folks like Bob Hoover (the other Bob), Bob U (he's pretty smart
for a dead guy) and others, have been put into my 3-ring bible called
The Holy Book of Sonerai--and all this just because I'm doing
relatively minor work and testing. All I have to do is plop a good
engine in my proven Sonerai airframe, yet I'm budgeting lots of time
for study of all that can happen as well as the engine stand runups
and taxi tests. That, and some humbling tailwheel instruction. I've
found it's a hell of a lot of fun just doing the meticulous planning
(I've got spreadsheets and checklists filling up my hard drive) but
maybe I'm just weird like that. I can't imagine what kind of work
would be involved in a project of the scope of an APU/GPU conversion.
Bottom line is to do some research even if you're hearing stuff that
sounds negative. Some great Aikido master (or maybe it was John
Wayne) said that something positive can be heard even in the most
negative words if you listen.
Juan is a great resource, and I'm sure you'll find others here. I know
you probably don't want to trot out all the particulars of your
experimental hot rod, but that's when you take it to email. I don't
think the good guys I've met here are knocking you (picking on you,
maybe <g>).
Be careful. I haven't met you yet in person and hope to have the
chance. :-)
Best Regards,
Victoria
wingm...@aol.com (Wingman150) wrote:
>Well, I guess I'll never get an ounce of respect or credibility until I'm an
>adult...No matter what I know, or what I do. I understand though, I mean hey,
>what does a 16 year old kid know? But one day, ONE DAY, you will say, "Damn,
>that Winger dude was actually right about something!" But not now. One day you
>will see, maybe I actualy do know something about something.
>
>Now catch that damn roadrunner!
>
>
Andrew Russell
>Again, too many people
>listen to the wrong people that think they know everything.
I would listen to the engineers who have worked on the JFS-100 and say they
are not suitable for aircraft propulsion over someone who is trying to sell
me one. Especially if they claim that these engineers are the "wrong
people that think they know everything."
There are a lot of very good reasons NOT to use APUs as a propulsion
engine. This has been discussed repeatedly here on r.a.h. I have collected
a number of the more interesting posts on this by people with both
engineering design, test, and real world experience with APUs. Including
specifically the JFS-100.
Anyone who is interested can email me and I'll send them my text file of
these postings.
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Andrew Russell
>You're putting a JFS-100 in that? I =really= hope you know what you're
>doing, because the last JFS-100 I heard of blew up in Arizona, and it
>was set up exactly the way it was recommended.
from rec.aviation.homebuilt, December, 1995:
******************************************************************
From: b17...@vaxb.phx1.aro.allied.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
Subject: Re: Solar T62-2A1 turbine unit, and JFS100
Date: 12 Dec 95 07:34:15 MST
Organization: AlliedSignal Engines
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <1995Dec1...@vaxb.phx1.aro.allied.com>
References: <4aibmq$1t...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vaxc.phx1.aro.allied.com
In article <4aibmq$1t...@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net>, man...@ibm.net writes:
> [snip]
> There is also another turbine unit some guys are putting in a KR2.
> It is made by Allied Signal and is called a JFS100.
> This one has twin turbines, one to operate the compressor,
> the other drives the gearbox. This way, an adjustable prop is not
> needed, (similar in design to the Pratt&Whitney PT6).
>
> Comments? Opinions? Suggestions?
>
> -- Sidney Rhodes
> LongEZ 19SH
My comment is that putting a JFS100 in a KR2 is not a good idea. The
JFS100 is a Jet Fuel Starter and is used to start the engines in an F-15.
The unit has a design duty cycle optimized for many short duration
start/stop cycles and is not designed for operating for any appreciable
duration. Putting this unit in an airplane as a propulsion engine would
subject it to more abuse that it was ever designed for (and it dosen't do
all that well in the F-15 as it is). Stick with a converted car engine,
it'll be a lot safer.
Mark Johnston
Sr Development Specialist
Military Engine Enterprise
AlliedSignal Engines
Phx AZ
************************************************************
Andrew Russell
arus...@bix.com
Juan Jimenez
>
> --For one thing, the common JFS spec sheet is different than what ours will
> be...Ours has all the mods, and the spec sheet for a JFS doesn't. I,
> personally, have not done anything to the JFS. Bob Faley of FunRotors did.
> Actually, he baught it from the guy who re-sells these. Different trottle
> something, different harness, oil coolers and pumps, and all kinds of stuff.
This section shows that you don't understand what you're dealing with.
You have a STOCK engine with custom EXTERNALS. The spec sheet for the
stock JFS applies =in its entirety= to the engine you have. What Bob
Faley did does not qualify as mods, period. You don't modify a turbine
engine by modifying the externals. The issue with the JFS-100 is that it
was not designed to run as a long duty cycle engine, =regardless= of how
much oil you feed into it, how you cool that oil, what harness you use
or what throttle you put into it.
> For one thing, the fact that they didn't have long term cooling systems on the
> JFS's was the biggest reason they didn't last long in the A-7s.
This is also incorrect. They worked just fine on the A-7's because they
were used as designed.
> Again, it sounds like everybody thinks we are running it stock...WE ARE NOT!!!
Yes you are.
> The spec sheet of a normal JFS doesn't mean anything...
And yes it does.
> Anyways, I guess I should just say dicussion ended...No one with their own
> opinions are ever going to believe me or anything I, or anyone else that has
> anything good to say about the JFS...
And this just shows your age. I would expect something like this -- an
"I'll take my marbles away" attitude -- from my 8 year old kid. I hope
by the time he's 16 he doesn't act this way. There are a lot of people
who have good things to say about the JFS-100, because it did it's job
just fine when it was put to use doing what it was designed to do. There
are a lot of people against using the engine as a long-duty cycle engine
specifically because no one has come up with INTERNAL modifications that
have been PROVEN to convert the engine into a safe, long duty-cycle
engine that can be used as the primary engine on an aircraft.
> So, wait till we get it going. Then either
> we will be proven right, or we will eat major crow...
Frankly, I think it's dumb to start off with an engine that wasn't
designed for what you want to do. You picked the JFS-100 because they
are cheap, and they are cheap because no one wants to use them or buy
them for use on aircraft. Instead of the JFS-100 you could have picked
something like the Solar T62-series APU that is used on the CH-46 medium
transport helo, which -is- designed to run for many hours -- a =fact= to
which I can personally give credence because I was a CH-46 avionics tech
in the US Marine Corps in the late 70's and early 80's and I ran the
engine for hours sometimes while trying to troubleshoot problems with
the helo. But of course, since that engine is a proven performer in
long-duty cycle applications, it is more expensive.
Juan
Bob U.
>
>--Juan, do you know anything about helicopters? Then don't talk. We are keeping
>the BD-5 wingstubs on, which will allow less collective pitch, which will
>increase top speed by allowing the retreating blade stall component to be
>higher. The person who made these figures is the same person who designed and
>builds the RotorMouse kits...You know, the homebuilt version of the Cobra
>attack helicopter. I'm no engineer, but when you become a helicopter
>aerodynamics engineer, then talk.
Wingy.....
Perhaps YOUR TONGUE needs to be checked at the door
until YOU become the qualified engineer.
I see that Andrew Russel sent you a short post in response to your
remark, from....
Mark Johnston
Sr Development Specialist
Military Engine Enterprise
AlliedSignal Engines
Phx AZ
My son, who is not a great deal older than you, is a military turbine
design engineer with Pratt and Whitney.
Very sharp with credentials and can walk his talk.
Would you listen to him ?
This propensity to chase rainbows against sound professional advice
and wisdom is getting to be your trademark.
You cannot gain respect, that you seek so badly, in this manner.
Hit the books and just keep your eyes and ears open.
You may just see and hear something VALID.
In the meantime, your talking like a wild man in a looney tune.
Bob U.
Wingman150
>on the generosity of others to pay for his primary flight training doing
>buying *anything*? Or is this just bluster, claiming more involvement
>than he has in this project, if it even exists?
Its not even my helicopter. I said in an earlier post, it belongs to Bob Faley.
I am helping him a little with it. I have absolutely no athority over this
matter. All I am saying is that I am tired of people who hear things take it
for gospel...Like people (Me) with Jim Zoom Campbell.
Wingman150
I am wrong, you are right...No sarcasm. What else am I supposed to say? What
else do you want me to say? I'm wrong.
As far as "taking my marbles away," that is because there is no point in
playing if the game is rigged.
As a 16 year old, I am not given any credit at all. Maybe I don't even deserve
any. But if I was 40 years olds and I was an X-mechanic, I would get my shot at
an opinion. But I'm only 16, so I have to suck in my gut and say, "I'm wrong,
you're right." Thats it. I don't know what Juan is looking for. Maybe just to
prove a 16 year old, or anybody else, wrong.
I find it interesting that people come back with responces like "I thought he
was having his training paid for, what is he doing buying a JFS and a BD-5H."
Well, that only shows people are not reading what I write. I said I'm not the
one who owns it...I'm only the kid that begs the owner to help work on it.
The JFS may not have been made for long term use. And Pintos were not meant to
race, but a friend kicks ass at the local track with one and is one of the top
drivers in the world...Against other Pintos of course. Just because something
wasn't meant to be used a certain way, doesn't mean it can't be modified to fit
a certain criteria.
I understand what each and every one of you are saying.
But I think it is childish to say "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, I'm right, you're
wrong...Play with the bog boys." When I didn't take my marbles away, I only
said I'm done playing for now until I get better marbles.
I may just be an ignorant kid...But, as I have said a thousand times, time will
prove if the JFS can handle the heat or not. Its not my ass strapped to it.
Thank you all for putting up with my ignorant, selfish, childish, moronic, know
it all, pathetic, sorry, ass.
For now, I wave my white flag...Until I can get better fire power.
Sorry to everyone who I offended, and got "proved wrong" by. I just sincerely
hope that not all 16 year olds get treated with such inferiority...Just because
someone may be young, does not mean they are always wrong. You guys have
millions of years more experience on my sorry ass, but you know, there may be
one thing I may know for sure...Maybe, just maybe, something you guys may not
know. Like the California Lotto, "Hey, it could happen."
I'll post picture of the BD-5H as soon as it has its skids on it...And I'll
also take some picture of the JFS to show you.
Sorry,
River "Retreating until I can find more ammo" Wing
Bob U.
>
>I am wrong, you are right...No sarcasm. What else am I supposed to say? What
>else do you want me to say? I'm wrong.
>
>As far as "taking my marbles away," that is because there is no point in
>playing if the game is rigged.
>
this false dream, eh?
>As a 16 year old, I am not given any credit at all. Maybe I don't even deserve
>any. But if I was 40 years olds and I was an X-mechanic, I would get my shot at
>an opinion. But I'm only 16, so I have to suck in my gut and say, "I'm wrong,
>you're right." Thats it. I don't know what Juan is looking for. Maybe just to
>prove a 16 year old, or anybody else, wrong.
>
If you were 40 and acting like you are, you would be considered
mentally retarded.
>I find it interesting that people come back with responces like "I thought he
>was having his training paid for, what is he doing buying a JFS and a BD-5H."
>Well, that only shows people are not reading what I write. I said I'm not the
>one who owns it...I'm only the kid that begs the owner to help work on it.
>
Hey....
You only have yourself to blame for setting the stage this way.
>The JFS may not have been made for long term use. And Pintos were not meant to
>race, but a friend kicks ass at the local track with one and is one of the top
>drivers in the world...Against other Pintos of course. Just because something
>wasn't meant to be used a certain way, doesn't mean it can't be modified to fit
>a certain criteria.
>
>I understand what each and every one of you are saying.
No, YOU DO NOT! You just think you do.
Your paragraph above is proof of such.
>
>But I think it is childish to say "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, I'm right, you're
>wrong...Play with the bog boys." When I didn't take my marbles away, I only
>said I'm done playing for now until I get better marbles.
>
>I may just be an ignorant kid...But, as I have said a thousand times, time will
>prove if the JFS can handle the heat or not. Its not my ass strapped to it.
TIME and ENGINEERING has ALREADY proven this engine to be what it is.
Does it have to melt down around your cotton picking ears before you
can learn, know and accept the obvious?
Yes, you are an ignorant kid.
Nobody said stupid, though.
>
>Thank you all for putting up with my ignorant, selfish, childish, moronic, know
>it all, pathetic, sorry, ass.
>
Self pity does not look good on you.
>For now, I wave my white flag...Until I can get better fire power.
>
This could be a good sign.
Better fire power is.... in the books.
Graduate engineering school and then laugh your ass off about your
statements here.
>Sorry to everyone who I offended, and got "proved wrong" by. I just sincerely
>hope that not all 16 year olds get treated with such inferiority...Just because
>someone may be young, does not mean they are always wrong. You guys have
>millions of years more experience on my sorry ass, but you know, there may be
>one thing I may know for sure...Maybe, just maybe, something you guys may not
>know. Like the California Lotto, "Hey, it could happen."
>
No one is offended that I can tell.
BTW...
Winning the Lotto just makes you lucky.
Winning a degree could make you educated.
>I'll post picture of the BD-5H as soon as it has its skids on it...And I'll
>also take some picture of the JFS to show you.
>
>Sorry,
>
>River "Retreating until I can find more ammo" Wing
If you like salt on your crow.
Consider a job in a salt mine.
Bob U.
Juan Jimenez
>
> As a 16 year old, I am not given any credit at all.
I -have- given you credit by acknowledging that the idea of a BD-5
airframe used as the basis for a damn cool mini-Cobra-style one-man helo
is a great idea that I have thought about as well. I have imagined the
same thing you have, and I think it could be done.
What I'm =not= giving you credit for is being so damn pig-headed when
someone tells you that the engine you are planning on using may kill you
or whoever it is that tries to fly it. I suggested to you that look at
an alternative engine, which HAS been proven to be reliable and HAS been
showed to work fine as an engine that can be operated continuously for
long periods of time, and all you can do is repeat the same broken
record about rumors and hearsay.
Stop whining about credit and start paying attention and listening to
people who have been involved with aviation for at leasdt twice as long
as the number of years you've spent on this planet. We're trying to give
you advice on how to accomplish your goal while at the same time
minimizing the chances of getting someone killed for no good reason.
Credit and recognition is EARNED by actions, deeds =and= attitude.
Juan
Juan Jimenez
>
> --Juan, do you know anything about helicopters? Then don't talk.
Yes, I do. To suggest to me that you're going to get a BD airframe to
fly at 150 mph with a rotorhead is positively absurd. Particularly when
you consider that a BD-5B with a 65 hp engine and no rotor head or
blades can only do about 180 mph.
> Like I said, discussion ended.
I've said my piece. You want to kill yourself or be an accessory to
someone else doing the same, so be it. You're the one who will have to
live with the consequences. You want to walk away with your marbles like
an 8 year old, so be it as well.
Juan
Richard Lamb
Wingie,
Yer 16 years old.
ya been nowhere,
ya done nothing,
where is the opinion comming from?
IF you live to 40,
you will have done things,
right and wrong,
learned things,
HOPEFULLY right FROM wrong,
and YOU will be the old fart
trying VAINLY to communicate
with some young welp who
just won't listen to you...
Liten up, son, there are people
who can guide you. But you
have to be worth the trouble.
Right now, you're not.
Dan Parker
> Sorry to everyone who I offended, and got "proved wrong" by. I just sincerely
> hope that not all 16 year olds get treated with such inferiority...Just because
> someone may be young, does not mean they are always wrong.
As a 22-yr-old who has been building kitplanes since I was 15, and have
a manned rocket in the CAD stage, let me pass on some advice. There are
a lot of older people who will blow you off. There are others who will
treat you seriously. The fact that the people on this newsgroup are
arguing engine internals should be a hint that what's going on is the
latter, and they just don't want you to off yourself before your senior
prom.
You sound like you have some cool ideas. Run with them. But just because
someone personally pissed you off, don't stubbornly defend a design
element to spite them. Especially if they're familiar with the
engineering of what's going on.
Working on any project that has the potential to kill you, a good
engineer should appreciate any input with thanks, and put it in the
mental (or printout) file as something to consider. Defending it doesn't
matter. The proof will be in the pudding (read: first flight). But
listen to what they say and make a mental note, it might just save your
butt.
--Dan
BSc. Mechanical Eng. '99
MSc. Aero/Astro '00
Founder, Pteron Aerospace
http://www.pteron.com
jims...@my-dejanews.com
In article <373FB35C...@flash.net>,
lam...@flash.net wrote:
> (Lord forgive me for getting involved in this????)
He's right Lord, forgive him
>
> Wingie,
> Yer 16 years old.
> ya been nowhere,
> ya done nothing,
> where is the opinion comming from?
From a "pissant" little punk or--
Maybe from a 16yr old kid with dreams, whose got the stones to jump
into those dreams against a lot of odds, whose trying to get educated,
whose flown more different planes this year than most of us, whose not
up blowing up schools or doing dope (you better not be), whose maybe
questioning why he wants to present his ideas to a bunch of old farts
who although they have "some" good points always seem to think its
neccessary to bring up the "age" thing like it suddenly makes them the
"wise one".
>
> IF you live to 40,
> you will have done things,
> right and wrong,
> learned things,
> HOPEFULLY right FROM wrong,
> and YOU will be the old fart
> trying VAINLY to communicate
> with some young welp who
> just won't listen to you...
Or you might be the 40yr old who kept trying things when he was young,
against all the advise of these "old farts", taking their wisdom, doing
his own research, and being unafraid to possibly "fail". And you might
have accomplished something wild, creative, that people will say-why
didn't I think of that. How many of us are sitting back saying "I wish
I would have" to a few of those "new" ideas we had when we were young.
Maybe the key word is "COMMUNICATE" which is an act of two sides having
interaction --both sides listening as much as speaking and both
understanding if they are to educate the other side their points must
be heard--sometimes we don't hear the message because of the "tone" of
the messenger.
>
> Liten up, son, there are people
> who can guide you. But you
> have to be worth the trouble.
Don't ever think your "not" worth the trouble-pretty sad commentary on
how some "old farts" think of todays youth--on behalf of some who
don't, I apologise. You don't have to be "the" expert on everything to
have people listen to you, just be prepared for some who need to feel
superior by putting you down. Remember old people get defensive when
their ideas are questioned just like young people. Wingy, try the same
things, you get the same results; try something new and who knows what
might happen, don't ever quit dreaming, just weight the risks as you
turn the dream into reality.
>
> <something snipped, sorry anybody would feel "that" way>
>
Jim
PS--I got four engines sitting along the wall, all bought because the
"experts" said they were "the" preferred method of power--I'm back to
using what I started with-damn if it don't work.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Dave Hyde
> --Juan, do you know anything about helicopters? Then don't talk.
[...]
> I'm no engineer, but when you become a helicopter
> aerodynamics engineer, then talk.
So all of us should stop talking because we're not "helicopter
aerodynamics engineers" and listen to you, who's admittedly "no
engineer". You've heard from aero engineers, mechanical engineers, and
a guy who turned wrenches on APUs, but choose to disregard all that.
So please answer the question since we're obviously misinformed...what
is the projected duty cycle of your MODIFIED engine and what mods did
you (or anyone) do to achieve it?
Dave 'limited' Hyde
na...@brick.net
rah15 ret.
Bob U.
>(Lord forgive me for getting involved in this????)
>
>Wingie,
>Yer 16 years old.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
<vbg>
The Lord works in strange and mysterious ways, eh?
Bob U.
Mark Hickey
>Thank you all for putting up with my ignorant, selfish, childish, moronic, know
>it all, pathetic, sorry, ass.
In a word, "waaaaahhhhh"....
Wingy, don't you think it would be a real drag to think you're as wise
now as you'll EVER be? There has to be something to offset the spread
around the middle and thinning hair....
>For now, I wave my white flag...Until I can get better fire power.
You don't necessarily need a better way to defend your opinions -
sometimes you just need better opinions.
Mark "old fart" Hickey
Victoria Deaton
<snip>
>I'm only the kid that begs the owner to help work on it.
<snip>
>I may just be an ignorant kid...But, as I have said a thousand times, time will
>prove if the JFS can handle the heat or not. Its not my ass strapped to it.
But if you're turning wrenches on it, it's your name strapped to it.
Someone is going to get in the bird you helped build. All the more
reason to understand what you're working on.
Folks here are saying that the JFS is ill-suited for the mission.The
input is coming from people who are either a) paid to figure out how
to make machines move people at insanely high speeds at insanely high
altitudes without killing them or b) unpaid homebuilders and working
on the same issues through contact with engineers.
It's not your youth that makes you a target. You've taken up an issue
(not just a project, necessarily) that has made you a target for every
RAH homebuilder who has ever wanted to choke the living shit outta
someone who ignores Newton, Bernoulli, The Fire Gods, or good advice
because they became so protective of their baby that they got
defensive and deaf to input. You can substitute the name of any
homebuilt for JFS100 and get the same responses once folks get the
feeling that someone's shutting out information.
Let the guy who is designing the machine defend it.
Where I work, we don't let ideas get out the door until everyone gets
a chance to shoot holes in it. Then we take it to folks outside the
operation who know what they're doing and let them shoot holes in it.
The first time you take a concept to one of these meetings and get
shot down in flames, it hurts. But it hurts less than taking a
half-baked idea to market and potentially damaging the company's
viability, and you learn to either shelve the project or find a way to
plug the holes. If you pick up on this process early on in life,
you're that much ahead of the game. I don't know much about turbines
other than the research I did when I was going to buy a BD5. But I do
know project management and how to bring something to market when
you're betting the farm. When someone is not willing to let others
take a critical look, then the process is faulty.
Let go and be objective. It's part of the process.
Good luck,
Victoria
Rich Ahrens
> Its not even my helicopter. I said in an earlier post, it belongs to Bob Faley.
> I am helping him a little with it. I have absolutely no athority over this
> matter. All I am saying is that I am tired of people who hear things take it
> for gospel...Like people (Me) with Jim Zoom Campbell.
Then try being a bit more careful with your language. You keep saying
stuff like "sold to us" and "we bought it." That's getting close to
Campbell's behavior in trying to attach more importance to your personal
involvement in someone else's accomplishments than is deserved.
Wingman150
>fly at 150 mph with a rotorhead is positively absurd. Particularly when
>you consider that a BD-5B with a 65 hp engine and no rotor head or
>blades can only do about 180 mph.
>
No, I think you knbow about BD-5s, not helicopters. If so, what experience do
you have? Are you saying that the actual, REAL, and PROVEN helicopter engineers
are wrong? If so why? What basis do you have to not believing this? Do you
fully understand rotordynamics? If BJ Schram's machine can do 120 with a 583, I
think ours can do 150 with a Turbine. Think about it...Do you really KNOW it
won't? Personally, I don't KNOW it will...What I do KNOW, is that engineers,
real engineers, say it WILL. Personally, I'd rather believe them.
>I've said my piece. You want to kill yourself or be an accessory to
>someone else doing the same, so be it. You're the one who will have to
>live with the consequences. You want to walk away with your marbles like
>an 8 year old, so be it as well.
>
>Juan
Thats, said my peace, not piece. Anyways...I'm not being an acessory to someone
dying, I am helping to build a helicopter. You think the first thing Bob is
going to do is jump in and make a few high speed passes? Come on! If you knew
about helicopters, you would know there is at least 10 hours of engine run time
before it even pulls into a hover...At least with experimentals...And a self
designed one at that! If the engine lasts 10 hours, then maybe, just maybe if
he feels comfortable with it, he will pull it into a hover in ground effect
ONLY. Then after maybe another 15-20 hours, then MAYBE around the patch if we
havn't had any problems.
Let me also make something clear. Some of you are critisizing me for saying
"we" and "I", and "Us." I was on an off-road race team for 3 years. I helped
built that truck from parts is boxes...VERY litteral. Then, after we raced our
first season, we won the championship. I say US, ME, I, because I, PERSONALLY,
am a part of it. I may not be the owner, but I feel like I am a part of it, and
rightly so. I put my time into, I think I can get enough credit to say US once
in a while. I DO NOT own the BD-5H, I only help with it.
Now I've said my "piece."
Rich Ahrens
> >I've said my piece. You want to kill yourself or be an accessory to
> >someone else doing the same, so be it. You're the one who will have to
> >live with the consequences. You want to walk away with your marbles like
> >an 8 year old, so be it as well.
> >
> >Juan
>
> Thats, said my peace, not piece.
Hey kid, are you trying to demonstrate your ignorance of English usage
as well as engineering? Juan had it right the first time. (And it is
"that's" - better be careful when attempting a language flame.)
Owen Strawn
> I would listen to the engineers who have worked on the JFS-100 and say they
> are not suitable for aircraft propulsion over someone who is trying to sell
> me one. Especially if they claim that these engineers are the "wrong
> people that think they know everything."
Engineers can be as biased and pigheaded as anybody else, maybe more.
However, when an engineer tells you that something won't work, you would
be stupid not to test it extensively before trusting your life to it.
Juan wrote:
> If I were you I'd think twice about it, and if not, at the very least
> run the engine on a static setup for some time prior to trying to fly
> with it. And don't stand near it when it's running.
This is just good advice.
--
Owen Strawn
Gene Hornung
Having read all these posts and having done some research on turbine
engines on my own, I have found the what I feel is the weakness of the
JFS100. That weakness is not the bearings or the lubrication system but
the the turbine disks themselves. The engine was designed specifically
for a short duty cycle. The turbine disks were very probably not made
for continuous running. A turbine disk stretches a little each time it
is run up to temperature and then contracts when it cools down. However
it does not return to original size, each time it gets a little bigger.
The blades get a little longer and thinner each time the engine is run.
The quality of the metal in the turbine wheel determines the long term
life. Since the JFS100 was designed as a short duty cycle engine ( 6
thirty second starts in one hour according to the book ), the turbine
wheel ( or disk ) is probably not made of the best metal. And there are
two turbine wheels in a JFS100 designed the same way with the same short
life span designed in.
Or look at it this way from the spec sheet:
Max number of start cycles = 1200
Max duration of start = 2 minutes!
Therefore max run time = 1200 * 2 =2400 minutes!!! That is 40 Hours
MAXIMUM!!
Yes, I would like to use the JFS100 in my BD-5, but I don't intend to
replace the engine every 40 hours.
Get the JFS100 to go 200 hours total time reliably with a minim of 1
hour each time you start it, then I might think about it.
That's is my 2 cents worth,
Gene
Bob U.
>Juan, I hate gnorant people. Either you are ignorant, or stupid. This IS a
>pissing match. Geez, and you tell ME to grow up!
>
<rest of rant snipped for obvious reasons.>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wingdood,
It seems a keyboard and modem is like a six shooter in the old West...
a great equalizer.
Perhaps r.a.h. is the wild frontier of the '90's where anybody that
has the balls can draw and shoot at will.
There are any number of Pat Garret's here, but only one.....
BILLY THE KID.
Congratulations.
You win hands down.
Nobody else comes close.
Enjoy your new title.
P.S.
It looks like it will be a cold day in hell before you can be equated
with the character of a....RIVER.
Bob U.
Owen Strawn
snip
> If BJ Schram's machine can do 120 with a 583, I
> think ours can do 150 with a Turbine.
Not unless your turbine produces more power than a 583 (and of course
your airframe has lower drag). The Solar turbine on the BD-5 only
produces ~80 hp. Turbine is not necessarily equal to more power,
especially at low altitudes and speeds, and when the turbine is
specifically designed for low power applications.
--
Owen Strawn
Tim Friendshuh
wrote:
<snippage>
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Rick
>
>Well, Rick - the unknown one shot....
>
>You came and posted your 2 cents just like anybody else.
>You got Wingy on cloud nine, I'd guess.
>So... your post isn't totally worthless.
Bob, "Rick" is a Wingbrat sock puppet....
>You and your flame probably set this group of old farts back at least
>a thousand years. It may never recover.
>Are you happy now? <g>
>
>P.S.
>Ms. Geeter is probably going to give you an F for your discourse.
tim(knows bs when he sees it)F
Dave Hyde
> I am a retired US Navy mechanic. I used to work on the A-7.
> Speaking from a point of knowledge, I know the JFS has the
> potential to be a great aircraft turbine.
Y'know, for the life of me, I can't recall that Navy A-7's (any but the
D) had JFS's. Every ground start I experienced (all TA-7C) used a
huffer as an air source, and I never experienced an airstart. Which
models had it?
> This is the engine that the pilots trusted to start
> again and again, not to mention save their ass when they had a
> flame out at 50,000 feet.
Start again and again, but never run for very long (speaking of JFS's
and ATS's in general). And what aux air source can be used at 50K? Any
airplane I've ever had experience with, you flame out at 50K you're not
wasting time starting an APU or JFS, you're pointing the nose at the
ground for a windmill airstart - as per NATOPS, usually.
Dave 'by the book' Hyde
na...@brick.net
rah15 ret.
Bob U.
>
>Bob, "Rick" is a Wingbrat sock puppet....
>
And thanx to Rick's baiting, Wingsplat roasted Juan like there was no
tomorrow.
As a parent, I cannot envision teenagers calling adults stupid and
ignorant under the most rigorous of circumstances.
However, in this cyberworld, brats can just about be as disrespectful
as their parents will let them be. Does not speak well for Wingmom if
she doesn't punish him for such antics.
Anybody here know how to blow the whistle to Wingmom?
Bob U.
Dave Hyde
>>Which models had it?
>
> Air Force A-7's.
That's why I specified Navy models and parenthized "all but the D",
which was the Air-Force-exclusive model (although they did have some C's
as well).
At any rate, if only Air Force Corsairs had them, this makes RickAir44's
comments re: Navy A-7's and JFS experience interesting.
Dave 'SLUF' Hyde
na...@brick.net
RickAir44
never posted, not once, but this is one time I feel that I need to step in. I
am a retired US Navy mechanic. I used to work on the A-7.
I have watched this kid come a long way in a short period of time. Wingkid,
you're alright with me. Don't listen to these old assholes, they don't know
what they are talking about.
Ye know fellas, sometimes I feel that you take advantage of Wingie's age. Maybe
to make yourselves feel better about yourself, maybe to show off, or maybe
another reason. For the first time, Wingding has his hands on a project to help
with, but you egotistical jerks go and spoil it for him.
Speaking from a point of knowledge, I know the JFS has the potential to be a
great aircraft turbine. Wingie made a great point that just because it was not
designed for this use, does not mean it cannot be made to. The JFS is a great
turbine. Very reliable. This is the engine that the pilots trusted to start
again and again, not to mention save their ass when they had a flame out at
50,000 feet. You folks do not know anything about the JFS. It is just like
wingie dingie said, it is all hear-say information. You need to lay off the kid
for a while. Jordan made more good points than all of you together did. His
writing may take a while to read, but he does make good points. One of which
was that time will tell. I think you all need to hush up until the rock falls
one way or another.
I have worked with Jim Vos in the past, and he knows his shit. I am pretty sure
that is who Wingie and his friend got the engine from. Jim makes excellent
components for the JFS which helps to extend it's life limit by a dramatic
amount.
I am not here to get into specific details about the JFS. I do not want to get
into any technical debates as I know how stuborn you folks can be. I am going
back to my hiding as a lurker and hope to never have to make another post
again. Lurking is much more fun.
Now please, lay off the kid for a while. If you plan on pounding him like you
have been, get some actual data, maybe even talk to someone who has knowledge
about this specific turbine. Unless someone has had hands on with this
particular turbine, they should not talk. It is like giving advice on a Rotax
engine when you only work on Lycomings.
Juan, I have worked with many helicopter engineers and designers in the past,
one of which is a good friend of mine. When I asked him if a BD-5H could do
150mph, he said "hell yes". He said the designer of this thing has it right
with the wingstubs and the retreating blade stall. Without that principle of
helicopter flight, the Cobra's and Apache's would not be able to do what they
do.
Now, back to my hiding.....
Regards,
Rick
Stephen Farris
>>I've said my piece.
>Thats, said my peace, not piece.
>Now I've said my "piece."
Leading off with a spelling / grammar flame is really poor form, and it
detracts from the value of what you're trying to say in the rest of the
post...
..but, for Christ's sake, if you're going to do it at least get it right:
piece: n. ... 6. One's fully expressed opinion; one's mind: "speak one's
piece"
(American Heritage Dictionary)
- Steve
Stephen Farris, M2-1/2
Northwestern University Medical School
Velocity XL/RG rotting in my gar...AHEM...IN PROGRESS
Johnny
>Ok guys,
>
>I am wrong, you are right...No sarcasm. What else am I supposed to say? What
>else do you want me to say? I'm wrong.
>
>As far as "taking my marbles away," that is because there is no point in
>playing if the game is rigged.
>
>As a 16 year old, I am not given any credit at all. Maybe I don't even deserve
>any.
I've been 16 years old for a few decades now. Still don't get much
respect, and still getting away with stuff that most people say will
never work. Face it Wingy, genius minds like ours are never fully
appreciated and seldom understood by the blithering masses that
surround us.
>But if I was 40 years olds and I was an X-mechanic, I would get my shot at
>an opinion. But I'm only 16, so I have to suck in my gut and say, "I'm wrong,
>you're right." Thats it. I don't know what Juan is looking for. Maybe just to
>prove a 16 year old, or anybody else, wrong.
Actually, Juan took a pounding not too long ago for his support of the
-5 and his comments on the -10. IIC, several people were telling him
the same thing about that, that he's telling you about the JFS. Maybe
he just figures it's his turn to kick your cat now.
>I find it interesting that people come back with responces like "I thought he
>was having his training paid for, what is he doing buying a JFS and a BD-5H."
>Well, that only shows people are not reading what I write. I said I'm not the
>one who owns it...I'm only the kid that begs the owner to help work on it.
And your writing skills aren't too blame either. Many readers just
skim over all the posts while not extracting the true intent of the
author. Time and time again a major uproar occurs here over a simple
misinterpretation of something that was written. Like a room full of
partially deaf people all shouting at each other and nobody really
ever getting it. If you are helping someone with a project it's only
natural to use the word "we" when refering to work done.
>The JFS may not have been made for long term use. And Pintos were not meant to
>race, but a friend kicks ass at the local track with one and is one of the top
>drivers in the world...Against other Pintos of course. Just because something
>wasn't meant to be used a certain way, doesn't mean it can't be modified to fit
>a certain criteria.
Amen brother. Grampy Boop would be proud.
>I understand what each and every one of you are saying.
>
>But I think it is childish to say "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, I'm right, you're
>wrong...Play with the bog boys." When I didn't take my marbles away, I only
>said I'm done playing for now until I get better marbles.
>
>I may just be an ignorant kid...But, as I have said a thousand times, time will
>prove if the JFS can handle the heat or not. Its not my ass strapped to it.
And here's the catch. If it's a failure, all those that said it
couldn't be done and dished out the appropriate safety lecture, will
go shouting to all the world about how they told you so, and how they
were right, and how you were a moron not to just buy what they said
sight unseen. If, OTOH, you do succeed, those same poo-poo artists
will quietly disappear into the scenery, with some even turning around
and saying how they knew it would work all along. Some will even claim
to have already done it. It gets pretty shameless.
Like all paramutual wagering, the more impossible the task, and the
better the odds of failure, the greater the number of poo-poo artists
will emerge to stake their claim against you... er, all in the name of
safety and for your own good and all that.
>Thank you all for putting up with my ignorant, selfish, childish, moronic, know
>it all, pathetic, sorry, ass.
>
>For now, I wave my white flag...Until I can get better fire power.
This, IMO, shows extreme, no, EXTREME levels of maturity and wisdom.
Live to fight another day. Very wise indeed. Most any war is made up
of many battles. You can't win them all, and you don't need to. It is
the child that can't see beyond the immediate conflict.
>Sorry to everyone who I offended, and got "proved wrong" by. I just sincerely
>hope that not all 16 year olds get treated with such inferiority...Just because
>someone may be young, does not mean they are always wrong.
When I was 16, and I still am, I knew everything. Little by little I
have learned that I don't know anything. I'm to the point now where I
can appreciate how ignorance is bliss. It's just so much easier that
way.
One of the things I've learned is to keep quiet about the crazy
impossible things I am attempting until AFTER I have pulled it off.
That way if it's a miserable failure I don't have to endure all of the
poo-poo. Likewise, if it's a success, the poo-poo artists are crippled
just that much more because they didn't even get a chance to squat.
> You guys have
>millions of years more experience on my sorry ass, but you know, there may be
>one thing I may know for sure...Maybe, just maybe, something you guys may not
>know. Like the California Lotto, "Hey, it could happen."
>
>I'll post picture of the BD-5H as soon as it has its skids on it...And I'll
>also take some picture of the JFS to show you.
I don't know if the JFS is the answer, but I will say that there are
still a lot of places to take "unloaded rotor" aircraft that haven't
been done yet.
-j-
Juan Jimenez
Wingman150 wrote:
>
> No, I think you knbow about BD-5s, not helicopters. If so, what experience do
> you have?
How about four years of fixing them every day of the week, from
oh-dark-hundred to who-knows-what-time-it-is, having to know them so
well that I've been in situations where I either fix it and get it
flying or the preemie baby and his mom that just roared to the rear ramp
of the helo are going to kick the bucket?
Don't get me started, Wingy. Do the simple math, it's not that hard to
do and the books are out there for the asking, from people who figured
out these things for us a LONG time ago, thank goodness.
> If BJ Schram's machine can do 120 with a 583, I think ours can do 150 with a Turbine.
What in the wide, wide world of sports makes you think that just because
you put a turbine into the airframe you're going to be able to fly 30
mph faster in a helo? Do you have any understanding of the concepts of
rotary wings and the aerodynamics involved?
> Thats, said my peace, not piece.
No, I -meant- said my piece, not peace.
> Let me also make something clear. Some of you are critisizing me for saying
> "we" and "I", and "Us." I was on an off-road race team for 3 years. I helped
> built that truck from parts is boxes...VERY litteral. Then, after we raced our
> first season, we won the championship. I say US, ME, I, because I, PERSONALLY,
> am a part of it.
Congratulations. None of that has any bearing on designing, building and
flying a helo, and none of that gives you any knowledge to be able to
decide which engineer is right and which one is wrong.
> I may not be the owner, but I feel like I am a part of it, and
> rightly so. I put my time into, I think I can get enough credit to say US once
> in a while. I DO NOT own the BD-5H, I only help with it.
I think that's great, that you're getting involved in the project. I
think it's stupid that you don't want to take any advice as to the
choice of engine. Like I said, so be it. Some people have to learn the
hard way, and you're one of them.
Juan
Juan Jimenez
>
> Speaking from a point of knowledge, I know the JFS has the potential to be a
> great aircraft turbine. Wingie made a great point that just because it was not
> designed for this use, does not mean it cannot be made to.
Rick, give me a break. You haven't read what was said. That is NOT the
point. No one argues that a good engine the works as designed cannot be
made into a great engine for another purpose for which it was NOT
designed. The POINT, which you missed entirely, is that at NO POINT
DURING THIS CONVERSATION has Wingy described in any detail any
modifications made to the engine that would even begin to accomplish
that goal.
> I have worked with Jim Vos in the past, and he knows his shit. I am pretty sure
> that is who Wingie and his friend got the engine from. Jim makes excellent
> components for the JFS which helps to extend it's life limit by a dramatic
> amount.
Again, you missed the point entirely. So you give it more oil, put an
oil cooler in it, change the throttle. So you increase the "life limit"
of the engine. Yes, you do that, but only within the DESIGN PARAMETERS
of the engine, short duty-cycles, not long runs.
> I am not here to get into specific details about the JFS.
Seems that everywhere the JFS shows up, everybody that's pushing the
engine is scared sh*tless of getting into the specific details. Go to
Apex Turbines and they will describe exactly what they did, in full
detail, to turn the Solar APU into a usable primary engine for small
aircraft. If you're afraid to defend the specific details of the JFS,
then you have no business coming here with alleged knowledge about the
engine, chastising people for criticizing the selection of it to power
an experimental helicopter.
> Now please, lay off the kid for a while. If you plan on pounding him like you
> have been, get some actual data, maybe even talk to someone who has knowledge
> about this specific turbine.
Did you not see the posts that I put here? or are you selectively
ignoring any post that doesn't lay flowers at the feet of Wingy?
> Juan, I have worked with many helicopter engineers and designers in the past,
> one of which is a good friend of mine. When I asked him if a BD-5H could do
> 150mph, he said "hell yes". He said the designer of this thing has it right
> with the wingstubs and the retreating blade stall. Without that principle of
> helicopter flight, the Cobra's and Apache's would not be able to do what they
> do.
"Hell yes." Now there's a good joke. And on what did they base that
statement? Calibrated eyeballs? Stick your finger in the air and make
rotorblade sounds and see how cold it gets, thereby calculating speed
from loss of heat? Harsh jumps off a cliff?
Get serious, Rick! You expect me to believe that massively scientific
statement? With what size and type of blades? What ratio of reduction?
Did he calculate the drag coefficient of the modified BD-5 airframe? At
what weight? What airfoil on the stubs, the original NACA 64-212 at the
BD-5 wing root? Or a GAW airfoil? Riblett? How will you get 150 mph out
of the airframe, retreating blade stall or not, with the increased drag
of rotor head, blades, mast and skids on it, when a clean, light, well
built BD-5 can only do 180 mph or so in level flight? Or perhaps you
need to qualify the 180 mph with a "heading straight down in a
hurricane" statement?
Juan
Wingman150
Well, you're right in a lot of aspects. I am no expert, and don't know about
the actual disk itself. What I do know is, the major life limited part is the
JFS starter. That part I know has only a certain number of good starts on it.
We (Bob) have added external oil coolers and pumps, for the purpose of keeping
it cool and controling the amount of heat that the disk is subject to.
Wingman150
aren't correct, but you insist on it. The Mini-500 weighs more than this
will...And the Mini-500 will do 120mph...I know because a friend did it in his.
Cut the weight, streamline it a bit, the wingstubs, more power, I don't think
it takes a genius to figure out its going to haul ass. but I'm not an
engineer...And niether are you...So I suggest we both shut up and wait until
the results come out. Until then, you have no business telling me it won't, and
I have no business telling you it will. Please, lets stop this childish
game...You keep on wanting the last word and to say :ha ha" at the end. My
friend, that is not going to work. Lets both put an end to this pissing match
once and for all. There is no substitute for time, and time my friend will
determine who was right or wrong.
Juan Jimenez
>
> Having read all these posts and having done some research on turbine
> engines on my own, I have found the what I feel is the weakness of the
> JFS100. That weakness is not the bearings or the lubrication system but
> the the turbine disks themselves.
And that is exactly what exploded in Arizona when the JFS-100 was put
through its paces, WITH the recommended modifications, by a person with
PLENTY of turbine experience.
But of course, according to Wingy, that's hearsay. <chuckle>
Juan
Juan Jimenez
>
> Juan, your posts show ignorance. I'm willing to say that maybe the calculations
> aren't correct, but you insist on it. The Mini-500 weighs more than this
> will...And the Mini-500 will do 120mph...
unhuh. In an F-5 tornado. Put an average pilot in there and the Mini-500
has a hard time just hovering above the ground.
This is not a pissing match. That was a while ago and you already lost
it. All you have to do is look around you at the looks people are giving
you to figure that out.
Like I said, you'll have to learn the hard way.
Juan
Juan Jimenez
>
> Actually, Juan took a pounding not too long ago for his support of the
> -5 and his comments on the -10. IIC, several people were telling him
> the same thing about that, that he's telling you about the JFS. Maybe
> he just figures it's his turn to kick your cat now.
Except the subject of the discussion was different, it was specifically
my comments about Jim Bede, not the BD-5, on which Highflyer decided to
take issue.
> If, OTOH, you do succeed, those same poo-poo artists
> will quietly disappear into the scenery, with some even turning around
> and saying how they knew it would work all along. Some will even claim
> to have already done it. It gets pretty shameless.
This, J, is where you are 100% wrong. Because if it is a success, it
will be because someone paid attention to what was being said here about
the engine and decided to run some long static tests to figure out
exactly what modifications are needed to turn the JFS-100 from a
long-duty-cycle grenade to a long-duty-cycle engine. I know that what is
being said here is being repeated in the same shop where Wingy is
helping out, and I know some of it is sinking in. Just because Wingy
thinks it's one of his teenage pissing matches with his friends doesn't
mean that the person designing the mods to turn the BD-5 into a BD-5H
(which I still think is a hell of a cool idea) isn't quietly listening
to Wingy and thinking about what we're saying here.
> One of the things I've learned is to keep quiet about the crazy
> impossible things I am attempting until AFTER I have pulled it off.
Funny. That reminds me of Littleton, Colorado.
Juan
Bob U.
>This is truly pathetic. Folks, I've been a lurker here for many years. I have
>never posted, not once, but this is one time I feel that I need to step in. I
>am a retired US Navy mechanic. I used to work on the A-7.
My, my.
You are one really remarkable person in being quiet so long.
It's difficult to accept that one could lurk so much and not have shit
to say over any number of TRULY IMPORTANT TOPICS through the years.
Why now?
Why Wingy?
>
>I have watched this kid come a long way in a short period of time. Wingkid,
>you're alright with me. Don't listen to these old assholes, they don't know
>what they are talking about.
>
And other than being an old fart yourself and a tired mechanic, what
do you have going for you beside an opinion?
>Ye know fellas, sometimes I feel that you take advantage of Wingie's age. Maybe
>to make yourselves feel better about yourself, maybe to show off, or maybe
>another reason. For the first time, Wingding has his hands on a project to help
>with, but you egotistical jerks go and spoil it for him.
>
Your flaming manner makes if very difficult to believe that you could
possibly have ever been a long time SILENT lurker.
Sorry, Charlie.. you just don't fit the MO.
>Speaking from a point of knowledge, I know the JFS has the potential to be a
>great aircraft turbine. Wingie made a great point that just because it was not
>designed for this use, does not mean it cannot be made to. The JFS is a great
>turbine. Very reliable. This is the engine that the pilots trusted to start
>again and again, not to mention save their ass when they had a flame out at
>50,000 feet. You folks do not know anything about the JFS. It is just like
>wingie dingie said, it is all hear-say information. You need to lay off the kid
>for a while. Jordan made more good points than all of you together did. His
>writing may take a while to read, but he does make good points. One of which
>was that time will tell. I think you all need to hush up until the rock falls
>one way or another.
>
According to you, your experience is limited to the proper use and
maintenance of this turbine and nothing more.
The rest of you here is pure opinion and flame material.
>I have worked with Jim Vos in the past, and he knows his shit. I am pretty sure
>that is who Wingie and his friend got the engine from. Jim makes excellent
>components for the JFS which helps to extend it's life limit by a dramatic
>amount.
>
How does this fit in with the experimental use under question?
>I am not here to get into specific details about the JFS. I do not want to get
>into any technical debates as I know how stuborn you folks can be. I am going
>back to my hiding as a lurker and hope to never have to make another post
>again. Lurking is much more fun.
>
Until you do get into specific details that can't be shot full of
holes, you sir, ARE just another bullshit windbag artist.
Yes.. please do go and have much more fun.
Enjoy lurking at this post too.
>Now please, lay off the kid for a while. If you plan on pounding him like you
>have been, get some actual data, maybe even talk to someone who has knowledge
>about this specific turbine. Unless someone has had hands on with this
>particular turbine, they should not talk. It is like giving advice on a Rotax
>engine when you only work on Lycomings.
>
>Juan, I have worked with many helicopter engineers and designers in the past,
Yeah sure....
As a US Navy mechanic working on the A-7 of course.
>one of which is a good friend of mine. When I asked him if a BD-5H could do
>150mph, he said "hell yes". He said the designer of this thing has it right
>with the wingstubs and the retreating blade stall. Without that principle of
>helicopter flight, the Cobra's and Apache's would not be able to do what they
>do.
>
>Now, back to my hiding.....
We will see.
>
>Regards,
>
>Rick
Well, Rick - the unknown one shot....
You came and posted your 2 cents just like anybody else.
You got Wingy on cloud nine, I'd guess.
So... your post isn't totally worthless.
You and your flame probably set this group of old farts back at least
Wingman150
pissing match. Geez, and you tell ME to grow up!
And Bob, about me being on cloud nine, not. I didn't even respond to his post
because I didn't want to seem like Juan does with the "see, I told you so" bit.
I think your comments on his post neglected real thoughts and is one
sided...Like the comment that how could he have worked iwth helo guys when we
worked on A-7s. Who says you can't know about more than one thing? According to
Juany over here, he knows everything about BdD-5s AND helicopters!!! Who knows
is RickAir is even real, but for now, I think he made good points. We see this
once in a while...A guy pops out of nowhere, and they are either full of shit,
in most cases, or they are really smart and have something to contribute. From
the sound of his post, I don't blame him for not wanting to get into details
and start yet another pissing match here.
Letely, thats all RAH is...A pissing match to see who can hold out longer.
On the BD-5 subject, drop it, please! I am a stuborn 16 year old, and you are
an ignorant old fart. Anyone who says this isn't a pissing match is just nuts.
Juan, you proved your points, and I think I proved mine (even though some of
you may not want to believe it).
Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT tell me what the Mini-500 will do! Compared to you, I
am an expert on this ship! on a cool day, you can get a Mini off with a low
eight pilot. It did 120mph, so don't tell me it didn't. You can't prove it
did...Again, you are coming back with your own false OPINION...Not fact.
The looks people are giving me are "Jordan, be careful...There MAY be some
truth to what these guys have to say...listen and learn." Its not "Juan is
right, he knows everything about everything so believe what he has to say about
his friend of a friend of a friend of a friend who says he knew a guy who says
the JFS sucks."
I cannot believe I am the only one on this NG that looks at your posts and
see's pure ignorance and stupidity. If I am, so help me, I am a moron. judging
by the E-mails I've gotton, I don't think I'm the only person who feels this
way
And like you said Juan, "You'll have to learn the hard way." What is THAT
supposed to mean? You think because a 16 year old disagrees with you that all
of a sudden that kid doesn't know anything and will struggle through life? The
only lesson you want me to learn is to take every word you or anybody else says
and all of a sudden that is the truth. NOT!!! That is not how life
works!!!...Even a kid my age knows that! I have my OPINION, and you have your
OPINION. That is it. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean "I'll
have to learn the hard way."
I wish I had enough patience like Rick does to just lay back and watch the fire
works, but every time I see a stupid, pointless, and post aimed to make ME
looke like a fool, I can't help but reply...God help me, I will leave this
stupid thread behind...And to think, it all started with me telling about the
BD-5H...And some people had to go start a pissing match.
Richard B.
jims...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>
> He's right Lord, forgive him
>
> <Snip an excellent post>
>
> Don't ever think your "not" worth the trouble-pretty sad commentary on
> how some "old farts" think of todays youth--on behalf of some who
> don't, I apologise.
Jim, that's probably the best I have ever read. And Wingy, I have
mentioned to you the difference between the possible and the practical.
That still holds good, "what is possible is the stuff of dreams, what is
practical is the possible mixed with hard reality. The only way one
knows which is which is try it. SAFELY. I can't stress that enough,
either here or in any other business or hobby. I have been working with
power tools since I was 9 years old, and still have ten fingers, and ten
toes, although two of the toes don't bend anymore.
I won't appologize for anyone else, but will state that if you had not
showed some promise to the "old farts", they wouldn't have bothered to
take any time with you.
And for the rest, get off the kid for a while, at 16, nobody wants to be
told that it won't work, they have to prove it to themselves, just like
you did. Although it's true that nobody will live long enough to make
all the mistakes, this idea slowly filters into the hardest of heads, no
reflection on Jordan. He needs advice, yes, but "because I said so" is
like throwing down the gauntlet to a 16 year old. Good points from both
sides tho...
Richard B.
"Measure with Micrometer"
"Mark with crayon"
"Cut with axe"
http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.rabue/index.htm
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Richard B.
lam...@flash.net wrote:
> (Lord forgive me for getting involved in this????)
>
> Wingie,
> Yer 16 years old.
> ya been nowhere,
> ya done nothing,
> where is the opinion comming from?
This is what my Dad used to holler at me when he was off on a drunk,
which was most of the time. Richard, this hurts!
>
> IF you live to 40,
> you will have done things,
> right and wrong,
>
Precisely, and if it's wrong, he's learned one more thing that won't
work.
>
> Liten up, son, there are people
> who can guide you. But you
> have to be worth the trouble.
>
> Right now, you're not.
>
Needlessly hurting Richard, my Dad used to tell me all these thing years
ago, and take my word for it, you develop a cast iron skin, but the
blows still hurt. You can be assured that in the back of his mind,
where he has little control over it, most of the comments are stored,
and will ultimately make themselves useful. It may seem like a lot of
wasted time and effort, but whether or not Jordan wants it to be, in the
end, it will NOT be wasted. Just don't be so free with the hurting
comments, they have a definite and long lasting effect, much more so
than a compliment.
Richard B.
--
Juan Jimenez
the people learn that way.
Juan Jimenez
>
> Y'know, for the life of me, I can't recall that Navy A-7's (any but the
> D) had JFS's. Every ground start I experienced (all TA-7C) used a
> models had it?
Air Force A-7's.
Juan
Carl gonzo johansson
wrote:
>Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>>>Which models had it?
>>
>> Air Force A-7's.
>
>That's why I specified Navy models and parenthized "all but the D",
>which was the Air-Force-exclusive model (although they did have some C's
>as well).
>
>At any rate, if only Air Force Corsairs had them, this makes RickAir44's
>comments re: Navy A-7's and JFS experience interesting.
>
>Dave 'SLUF' Hyde
>na...@brick.net
Now there ya go again Dave. That nasty RAH habit of asking for and
examining ones credentials. Why do all of you yahoos in RAH insist on
checking out everybodies credentials. Don't ya know the beauty of the
internet is that everybody is an expert at anything they desire. And
Inventing credentials is the accepted norm!!
Carl "those that flaunt it in RAH better have it in real life"
Johansson
Bwahahahwhaaaaaaaa
James Thursby
wouldn't build BD5's now would we?
Jim Thursby
Europa N814AT
Juan Jimenez wrote in message <373F5524...@home.com>...
>Wingman150 wrote:
>>
>> :o) Juan, settle down. We hear this ALLLLL the time...
>
>Gee, did you ever stop to wonder why you hear it all the time? Of
>course, at 16 you haven't learned that when you hear something like that
>all the time about an engine, you should stop and check it out before
>you trust your life to it. I remember when I was 16, I thought I was
>immortal. Pay attention to those "rumors" from people who know a lot
>more about the engine than you ever will, and maybe you'll live long
>enough to find out you're not.
>
>> Too many rumors being spread. All I can say it watch...Us fly by at
150mph. :o)
>
>Really? At 150 mph? In a BD-5 fuselage rotorcraft? Riiiigghhttt...
>
>> All in all, with the proper mods, these engines appear to run great.
Geez, some people act like we
>> are running it stock out of an A-7!
>
>So tell me, Wingy, what mods have you made to the engine? And I'm not
>talking about external oil supply or an adapter plate or an accessory
>pad. What INTERNAL mods have you made to the engine to overcome the fact
>that the engine was not designed to run safely for more than a few
>minutes at a time? I seem to remember that the person you bought it from
>does NOT modify the engines internally. Go ahead, impress me with your
>engineering study of the metallurgics of the engine design, or how you
>microbalanced the turbine wheels.
>
>Juan
Badwater Bill
You guys are all nuts. I will see each and everyone of you this next
weekend in the twilight zone called Pink Knee Ville. Be there or be
square you assholes.
Bad Billy
Bob U.
<jthu...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>Juan, Give it up! If we didn't want people to get hurt or killed flying, we
>wouldn't build BD5's now would we?
>
> Jim Thursby
> Europa N814AT
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hmmmm.
Unique point of view.
BTW......
Anyone notice who is NOT GETTING INVOLVED in these BD-5 posts?
Bob U.
Johnny
wrote:
>Except the subject of the discussion was different, it was specifically
>my comments about Jim Bede, not the BD-5, on which Highflyer decided to
>take issue.
You're talking to a guy that owns _ONLY_ BD-* aircraft. ;) Jim's a
scoundrel. But his designs had potential.
>> If, OTOH, you do succeed, those same poo-poo artists
>> will quietly disappear into the scenery, with some even turning around
>> and saying how they knew it would work all along. Some will even claim
>> to have already done it. It gets pretty shameless.
>
>This, J, is where you are 100% wrong. Because if it is a success, it
>will be because someone paid attention to what was being said here about
>the engine and decided to run some long static tests to figure out
>exactly what modifications are needed to turn the JFS-100 from a
>long-duty-cycle grenade to a long-duty-cycle engine.
Read the post. I didn't mention anything about what it would take to
make it a success. Only that if it is a success, those that shit on
the idea previously will all of a sudden vanish, instead of standing
up and just as loudly proclaiming what idiots they had been for
blindly and ignorantly putting down something simply because it hadn't
been done successfully before, or because they couldn't figure out how
to do it themselves.
100% wrong? Not. I see it everyday. To see some glaring examples of it
for yourself, hit the RAH archives of 3 or 4 years ago when I
announced a successful V8 engine made for aircraft. From some of the
responses, you'd think I had announced the falling of the sky. The
detractors never contributed in any way to making it a success. They
only hindered by consuming my time and energy responding to their
ignorant assertions. In the long run though, those discussions
actually had the pleasant side effect of helping to educating those
that did have an open mind.
As an example, the people that have really contributed something to
the forwarding of non-aircraft engines for aircraft use are those that
many would label as dreamers. Geschwender, Wittman, Blanton, Ross,
Hoffman (and now Templeton), the Johnsons, Frank, McNeilly, to name a
few. If I end up making just a small fraction of the contribution they
have to the "dream pool", I will feel I have accomplished something.
All the way along there seems to always be a long line of doofasses
that you have to deal with that have nothing whatsoever to do with
what you're trying to accomplish except for to get their jollies by
standing around with one thumb up their ass and the other scratching
their balls while they proclaim to the world how whatever it is that
you're attempting will never work and that you're a moron for
attempting it.
If I only had a penny...
"You con artist! That engine will never work. Sheeeet, it doesn't even
have cooling fins. Everyone knows that an airplane engine has to have
cooling fins. Just how stupid do you think we are, boy?"
> I know that what is
>being said here is being repeated in the same shop where Wingy is
>helping out, and I know some of it is sinking in. Just because Wingy
>thinks it's one of his teenage pissing matches with his friends doesn't
>mean that the person designing the mods to turn the BD-5 into a BD-5H
>(which I still think is a hell of a cool idea) isn't quietly listening
>to Wingy and thinking about what we're saying here.
And then he turns right around and proves the point I made above about
the nay-sayers trying to take credit for it when it does work. Yeah
Juan, they succeeded because they listened to you tell them it
wouldn't work, and that made them work harder on it... right.
>> One of the things I've learned is to keep quiet about the crazy
>> impossible things I am attempting until AFTER I have pulled it off.
[ left field mode -on- ]
>Funny. That reminds me of Littleton, Colorado.
[ left field mode -off- ]
I don't know much about Littleton, I wasn't there.
It's just way more efficient to develop stuff without a bunch of
look-e-loos hanging around making ignorant comments and getting in the
way. It only slows down the process. Even if the end result turns out
to be a total failure, it still only slows down the real finding of
that result, which in turn retards the starting point of the next
crazy hair-brained attempt. An attempt that may have it's roots in
thinking that was spawned by the previous failure.
Every now and then someone comes along. They look, listen, and think.
Then they ask, "how can I help you to make this work?" "What can I
contribute to further this attempt?"
But to just give safety lectures sold with insurance salesman retoric
like:
"You want to kill yourself or be an accessory to
someone else doing the same, so be it. You're the one who will have to
live with the consequences."
and to make over simplified generalizations like:
"To suggest to me that you're going to get a BD airframe to
fly at 150 mph with a rotorhead is positively absurd."
serves nobody, except possibly your own glow.
If you were really so concerned about the well being of those actually
involved, and did in fact have any real knowledge about the engine in
question, then propose a detailed plan of action to replace the parts
that won't cut the poop in the long haul. Or, as Gene Hornung
<wb0...@kdsi.net> pointed out, possibly the "turbine disks" are the
weak point. So post a drawing of a replacement part that is suitable
so that those that are truly interested can discuss the finer points
of the design. What, only God can make "turbine disks"?
I can't remember when I've seen a bigger bunch of pouty, prune-faced,
no-can-do, old farts all gathered together in one place. No wonder
anyone over 40 is not to be trusted. Remind me to leave you at home
next time I go to the horse races. On second thought, remind me to
bring you with me so I can bet on everything you say will never win. I
could use another record day.
-j- (if you got nothing to contribute besides nay, there's the door)
or -nay is for horses-
Juan Jimenez
>
> Read the post. I didn't mention anything about what it would take to
> make it a success. Only that if it is a success, those that shit on
> the idea previously will all of a sudden vanish, instead of standing
> up and just as loudly proclaiming what idiots they had been for
> blindly and ignorantly putting down something simply because it hadn't
> been done successfully before, or because they couldn't figure out how
> to do it themselves.
Because it hadn't been done succesfully before?
You know, I'm not really impressed with the reading skills of people
like you. Let me rephrase what I've said here in one sentence, and see
if you can understand it now.
It's not that it hasn't been done succesfully, it's that it has ALREADY
been proven to fail, in EXACTLY the way the engineers who worked on the
engine predicted it would fail, REGARDLESS of the modifications that are
recommended by the so-called experts out there that are pushing these
engines on unsuspecting fools because they themselves got taken for a
ride and now have a bunch of JFS-100 engines sitting in a warehouse
somewhere and they HAVE to move them, somehow, or go broke.
> 100% wrong? Not. I see it everyday. To see some glaring examples of it
> for yourself, hit the RAH archives of 3 or 4 years ago when I
> announced a successful V8 engine made for aircraft.
Irrelevant to the discussion. What you were doing was not shown to have
failed prior to your announcement. I've seen what's left of the JFS-100
when it blows like a grenade (notwithstanding Wingy's whining about
people talking about hearsay from people three levels removed from the
action). Quite a different outcome than if your V8 engine fails. THAT is
what this is all about.
> Juan, they succeeded because they listened to you tell them it
> wouldn't work, and that made them work harder on it... right.
I sure hope they take my advice of running the engine on a static test
stand and standing well away from it. More likely than not after about
1-2 hours the engine will begin to act like the rotary equivalent of a
Claymore mine. How much you want to bet that after that the engine side
of that project is succesful? :)
> I don't know much about Littleton, I wasn't there.
Caves are not good places to live, dude.
> Every now and then someone comes along. They look, listen, and think.
> Then they ask, "how can I help you to make this work?" "What can I
> contribute to further this attempt?"
Gee, is that something like... hmm... suggesting an alternative engine
that puts out 90 shp and has been already proven to be suitable for the
task? My goodness, I remember doing that already. What, maybe 10
messages back?
I already know of your reading problems, Johnny, but if you look back
you'll see that the purpose of the project Wingy's volunteering on is to
convert a BD-5 airframe into a helo -- not to develop a safe, reliable,
well-engineered and comprehensive package to convert a short-duty-cycle
jet fuel starter turbine into a reliable long-duty-cycle primary engine.
> "To suggest to me that you're going to get a BD airframe to
> fly at 150 mph with a rotorhead is positively absurd."
>
> serves nobody, except possibly your own glow.
Pardon me, but in my case I happen to know the BD-5 inside-out. I know
what its performance envelope is and what it can and can't do. I can
make those statements from personal knowledge and experience, just as
you can make similar statements about V8 conversions from personal
knowledge and experience. Or are you going to challenge me on that as
well?
> If you were really so concerned about the well being of those actually
> involved, and did in fact have any real knowledge about the engine in
> question, then propose a detailed plan of action to replace the parts
> that won't cut the poop in the long haul.
<sigh> You never did read the messages in the thread, did you. You're
just spouting off for the hell of it. Look back at the damn thread,
Johnny. When you read it IN ITS ENTIRETY and are able to understand
what's being said, then get back to me. For your information, I ALREADY
did that.
> So post a drawing of a replacement part that is suitable
> so that those that are truly interested can discuss the finer points
> of the design. What, only God can make "turbine disks"?
There are -NO- replacement for the turbine disks, THAT'S THE GODDAMN
POINT. Does that register in your head? Or do I need to send it to you
in 11x17 paper by federal express?
Juan
Juan Jimenez
BD-5, particularly for fools that do things to the BD-5 like seal the
tanks with silicone glue, put in engines from motorcycles and go flying
without doing a W&B, etc.
Wingman150
Well, Bob does watch RAH once in a while. His reasoning for not posting is
this...#1, his knowledge on it will not do anything for you. The same people
will still have the same attitudes. He thinks it is best for him, personally,
to stay out of this for now, until he proves all of the skeptics otherwise.
Also, he hates RAH and RAR. He thinks it is all bullshit and pollitics...In a
way, he is right. So, he prefers to stay out of this debate for now.
However, on your comment about the duty cycle...Does anyone here know what
limits the duty cycle??? Come on, make a guess.
Answer: The starter motor that gets the turbine spooled up. That stsrter motor
is very life limited as to how many starts it can do before it is no good. The
life limit put upon the JFS was BECAUSE of the STARTER MOTOR, NOT the turbine.
Did anyone know that the people who designed the turbine wheel (disk) for the
JFS are the people who probably make the turbos that go in your truck? Well, if
the JFS disk is not good enough, I guess all the turbos running around the
country aren't either. Two different uses, but it was designed by the same
people with the same knowledge.
Just my $0.02 for now. :o) <g>
River
"Xtreme...Life is too short not to me!"
Marc J. Zeitlin
Let me preface my comments by stating that I know nothing about
BD-5's, and nothing about JFS turbines. However:
> Did anyone know that the people who designed the turbine wheel (disk) for the
> JFS are the people who probably make the turbos that go in your truck? Well, if
> the JFS disk is not good enough, I guess all the turbos running around the
> country aren't either. Two different uses, but it was designed by the same
> people with the same knowledge.
Using the argument that because the same people designed two different
parts they will both last a long time is a specious one at best. In a
different life, I designed an arthroscopic knife that had two parts -
a handle that was designed to last forever (like 10 years of daily
use) and a disposable blade that was designed to last one use - maybe
2" of actual cutting. After the single use, the blade could be as
dull as a soup spoon - we didn't care.
My point is that the thing that determines functionality is design
requirements, not who worked on the design. If the design
requirements for the JFS turbine were such that it only had to last a
few hours, then that's what the engineers would have designed it for,
even if tey had just previously finished the design for a truck
turbocharger in which the turbine had a design life of 5000 hours.
You may in fact be right that the JFS turbine can be modified to last,
however the argument you used here to claim that is not a good one.
--
Marc J. Zeitlin email: marc_z...@bose.com
Noise Reduction Technology Group phone: 508-766-4226
Bose Corporation fax: 508-879-3049
The Mountain web: http://www.bose.com
Framingham, MA 01701-9168
Richard Hyde
: Answer: The starter motor that gets the turbine spooled up. That stsrter motor
: is very life limited as to how many starts it can do before it is no good. The
: life limit put upon the JFS was BECAUSE of the STARTER MOTOR, NOT the turbine.
I'm the first to admit that I don't know anything about turbines. But
this raises a question. It's been my experience that mechanical
devices are generally built like the "one horse shay" that ran for
a year and a day. Everything, except consumables, is built for
roughly the same lifetime. Why have a starter motor that has
a dramatically shorter life than the rest of the assembly.
Just curious.
: Did anyone know that the people who designed the turbine wheel (disk) for the
: JFS are the people who probably make the turbos that go in your truck?
: Well, if
: the JFS disk is not good enough, I guess all the turbos running around the
: country aren't either. Two different uses, but it was designed by the same
: people with the same knowledge.
Another question. Why would the same engineer use the same specifications
to build two turbines that have dramatically different uses?
It seems likely, intuitivly, that one device or the other is over-
engineered (hence costs more than it needs to) than the other.
Cheers,
Rick
Who wants to build a homebuilt someday, but doesn't have the
patience yet :-)
--
Include "wombat" in Subject: line of mail sent to me [to override spamgard(tm)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Richard Hyde | R...@netcom.com | This space intentionally left blank |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wingman150
been making fighters for a while. Does that mean their MD-80 isn't worth a
shit? I know thats not exactly what you meant, but it does come across that way
to ME. I agree that just because one turbine is good, may not mean that any
other turbine they make is good. However, and back to MD again, I think it uses
the same type of technology. If the military used them in A-7s, I think its ok
with me in that respect. The actual turbine disk, which is the one thing
everybody is picking on now, is, IMHO, as good as a MD-80 turbine disk. The
disk MAY be made weak you say....But maybe its not. Even the best of turbines
have failures. Just because a friend of a friend, of a friend, heard one blew
up in the desert, doesn't really mean that just because ONE blew up because of
that SPECIFIC problem, that all the others are going to have the same fate.
Again, For this issue, I think it is best to just wait until we get the 5H
flying, or tested, or until Bob decides to get in to it on RAH, that we just
leave it alone. I'm no expert on this subject by any means. I keep getting
questions that people know I cannot answer due to lack of knowledge. For now, I
have my opinions, and you guys have yours. For now, lets see what developes in
the future. I coulr prove you all wrong, or, an evern greater sucess for you
guys, you guys could prove me totally wrong!
Dave Hyde
> However, on your comment about the duty cycle...
> Does anyone here know what limits the duty cycle???
> Answer: The starter motor that gets the turbine spooled up.
> The life limit put upon the JFS was BECAUSE of the STARTER MOTOR,
> NOT the turbine.
What's the life limit of the JFS aside from the starter? There's got to
be some depot-level type of maintenance designed into it - you don't
simply throw it away when the starter life is up, so someone's spec'd
the life of the turbine - you're betting your (or someone else's) life
on it, what is it? If it was designed to be on the order of a
propulsive turbine, it was over designed. Remember, this thing was
designed to START jet engines, not to REPLACE them.
> Did anyone know that the people who designed the turbine wheel
> (disk) for the JFS are the people who probably make the turbos
> that go in your truck?
Did you know that a company that designs and builds toasters also
designs and builds jet engines?
>Well, if the JFS disk is not good enough, I guess all the
>turbos running around the country aren't either.
I burned my toast this morning. Ground the fleet.
> Two different uses, but it was designed by the same people with
> the same knowledge.
To a different spec.
Dave 'within scope' Hyde
na...@brick.net
rah15 ret.
Rich Ahrens
> I agree and disagree marc. Both are turbines...Technology is technology. MD has
> been making fighters for a while. Does that mean their MD-80 isn't worth a
> shit? I know thats not exactly what you meant, but it does come across that way
> to ME.
Once again, you just don't get it. Fighters and airline transports are
built for completely different missions. A fighter will take a heck of a
lot more damage and keep flying than a transport will, for instance.
Same with two turbines built for completely different missions.
There's no use in arguing this point with the kid. He is too emotionally
involved to be able to reason on the subject.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Rich Ahrens | Homepage: http://www.visi.com/~rma/ |
|r...@visi.com |-----------------------------------------------|
|"In a world full of people only some want to fly - isn't that crazy?" |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Ahrens
> How dare you bust this kid's bubble and dreams. <g>
> Get your ass to Pee Ville where you belong!
As soon as this weather clears up a bit, my friend. Should I pick up Sue
on the way, do you think?
Victoria Deaton
>
> I agree and disagree marc. Both are turbines...Technology is technology.
My parents have a Sony Camcorder. I used to have a Sony Betacam 300A.
Same company, similar technology, different mission requirements. That
particular 8mm was about $800. That 300A (as it was rigged) was about
$52,000. Both gave a usable picture. One could take a pounding 24/7. In
a mission critical application where me, the camera, and pictures had to
come back, there's only one I'd take with me. If I wanted a throwaway,
I'd choose the other. They didn't call the 8mm's RiotCams for nothing.
:-) But both were video cameras.
(<sigh> and now it's all digital <G>)
> MD has
> been making fighters for a while. Does that mean their MD-80 isn't worth a
> shit? I know thats not exactly what you meant, but it does come across that way
> to ME. I agree that just because one turbine is good, may not mean that any
> other turbine they make is good. However, and back to MD again, I think it uses
> the same type of technology.
Think in terms of what it was designed to do, for how long, under what
conditions.
[deep breath]
Think about it this way. You got plastic forks, and you got metal forks.
Let's say Bob's Fork Factory makes both. Both have a place to grip, both
have four prongs. One is made of plastic, one is made of metal. The
reason one is made of plastic is because it's intended to support BBQ
Pork for the duration of one meal, and will compete in the marketplace
with other forks designed to do the same thing. Basing one's cutlery
cabinet on plasticware that has the designed duty cycle of one picnic is
risky; might get halfway through your second meal and you drop your
sirloin on the floor. It doesn't mean that Bob makes lousy forks. Bob is
not a bad guy. Bob's plastic fork isn't a bad fork. But just because it
has the same look as the metal fork, and because it came out of the same
factory, doesn't mean it was designed to last as long. Bob designed that
fork to get you through one plate of BBQ and maybe it will even support
the key lime pie. Bob knew that he could probably build a longer-lasting
plastic fork to compete against Fred's plastic fork, but who was gonna
spend $1.50 on an overbuilt plastic fork when Fred was selling them for
.10? They figured out what would work for the mission. And for the folks
who needed longer-lasting forks, they could buy the metal ones.
Before you poke that fork into your sirloin, you might want to have an
idea of how stout it is. If you can't afford to test to failure, might
just want to go with Bob's metal fork.
Most folks here are saying, Wingy, if you're gonna use a fork to plop
that bigass sirloin on the grill, you might want to consider if Bob's
plastic fork will work for that mission. Not "Wingy is a bad person for
using a fork" or "Bob's plastic forks are bad."
Enough of the forking analogy.
> If the military used them in A-7s, I think its ok
> with me in that respect. The actual turbine disk, which is the one thing
> everybody is picking on now, is, IMHO, as good as a MD-80 turbine disk.
You're gonna need more proof than "IMHO". Would you rather build an
aircraft that stays up by luck or design? Use this as an opportunity to
play designer. Any decent project management or TQM process is going to
have a phase where you say "this is the idea" and others will shoot at
it--NOT to diss you, but to help you make it better.
Let's take the JFS out of the discussion for a minute. That's not my
real concern, though I have enough dead bandwidth skins to make a
bandwidth coat to show for it.
My interest in this discussion turned very quickly from the JFS to the
entire design process, and how you were approaching it. I posted a
question on RAH asking for help with my project. One person essentially
said "it works, accept it" (how much good do you think *that* did me?)
and the rest posted pros and cons. Not everybody has a smooth way of
saying things. But positive can be found in just about anything someone
says to you about this, even if it initially sounds negative. Get beyond
defending your project and just use the info here as a springboard for
more research. Where do you get the most benefit--from the person who
says "it works fine, accept it"? You probably don't realize that I'm on
your side, as are others, by poking you with a stick <g>. Re-read my
earlier posts.
> The
> disk MAY be made weak you say....But maybe its not. Even the best of turbines
> have failures. Just because a friend of a friend, of a friend, heard one blew
> up in the desert, doesn't really mean that just because ONE blew up because of
> that SPECIFIC problem, that all the others are going to have the same fate.
So go to the engineers who built that thing, or watched it blow up, or
not blow up, and ask them. Document it. Question it, even if it's the
answer you *wanted*.
> Again, For this issue, I think it is best to just wait until we get the 5H
> flying, or tested, or until Bob decides to get in to it on RAH, that we just
> leave it alone.
Not a bad idea, but the cat's already out of the bag.
> I'm no expert on this subject by any means. I keep getting
> questions that people know I cannot answer due to lack of knowledge.
Are you saying you're outgunned by the mean folks here? Bullshit. This
is no different than doing research for a term paper except you get to
cuss when you cite your references and prove your theories. You are just
as capable as I am of doing a search on the Internet, making phone
calls, and so on. You don't have to know about everything, or how to do
everything. You just need to ask questions. You can either be in a
defensive mode, or get all this experience on this newsgroup working for
you. Flipmode. Your choice. If you can, at your age, grasp some of the
basic principles of the design process--not just welding or stitching
fabric or understanding airfoils, but how to get sharp minds working
together on a project--then you will rule the world in short order.
> For now, I
> have my opinions, and you guys have yours. For now, lets see what developes in
> the future. I coulr prove you all wrong, or, an evern greater sucess for you
> guys, you guys could prove me totally wrong!
I'm not out to prove you wrong, Wingy. I used to pull my headsets off
every time we lit up the JetRanger, I loved that sound so much. You know
I'd go nuts over a BD5H. But not too long ago you were wrapped around
the axle about a plane that went down at your airport or one near yours.
Imagine if you were closer to the folks who were in that plane, or if it
was a plane you built. Your private pilot manual has info on hazardous
attitudes. The factors that affect decision making in the cockpit also
affect decision making in the design work, or in anything, for that
matter, and you have to consider the outcomes.
> River
>
> "Xtreme...Life is too short not to me!"
Regards,
Victoria
mark.j...@mindspring.com
Wingman150 wrote in message
<19990520164433...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
>[snip]
>
>However, on your comment about the duty cycle...Does anyone here know what
>limits the duty cycle??? Come on, make a guess.
>
motor
>is very life limited as to how many starts it can do before it is no good.
>life limit put upon the JFS was BECAUSE of the STARTER MOTOR, NOT the
>turbine.
The duty cycle for the JFS is something like this:
1) Crank the unit on the starter motor to light off
2) After light off, run up to max speed for main engine start
3) Shut down
Total run time maybe 1 minute tops. It is so short that the turbine disk
doesn't even get to heat up to a steady state temperature. Run that engine
at max continuous power for 20 - 30 minutes, the disk is going to get a lot
hotter than it did before. The reason the starter motor is limited in this
application is the wear and tear due to all of the starts.
As a jet fuel starter, the Low Cycle Fatigue life of the turbine probably
wasn't even calculated, because it wasn't a limiting failure mode. As a
turboprop, it will be along with High Cycle Fatigue, Creep,
Oxidation/Sulfadation failure modes, etc... Different duty cycle, different
problems.
Another good example is the JFS used in the F-15 (another JFS100 model). It
does not have any temperature limiting capability in it's control system.
Why? Because the duty cycle was so short that the overtemperature did not
have an adverse effect on life.
>Did anyone know that the people who designed the turbine wheel (disk) for
the
>JFS are the people who probably make the turbos that go in your truck?
Well, if
>the JFS disk is not good enough, I guess all the turbos running around the
>country aren't either. Two different uses, but it was designed by the same
>people with the same knowledge.
Not the same people, same company - different divisions. There was (and
still is to some extent) very little exchange of knowledge between the two
companies.
Mark Johnston
Principal Engineer
LT101 engine project
AlliedSignal Engines
Phx AZ
Dave Hyde
>Bob has a lot more knowledge on the JFS than any of us/you out there...He owns one.
If owning one makes you an expert then once again, I'm an expert on
toasters. GROUND THE FLEET! I know nothing about "Bob"'s
qualifications - all I know is that you've posted roughtly that the
BD-5H is the greatest thing since sliced bread (a little ageism there),
but when people who've got a little more experience ask you to
substantiate your claims you get your fur up.
Almond, you may be right...the JFS-100 may work just fine and dandy.
Still, I've seen nothing to substantiate this...by definition, a JFS is
intended to run for a short period of time at a constant or near
constant RPM. To use one for long duration and throttle it conflicts
with the original design. When asked about the mods, you claim that
cooling the starter should be sufficient - but that doesn't address the
large change in intended mode of operation - if y'all think you've fixed
it, share the secret with those of us who don't understand.
> Its like working on an F-18...it would be REALLY cool...
Been there, done that...
Dave 'ballast' Hyde
na...@brick.net
rah15 ret.
Kevin-Neil Klop
Wingman150 wrote in message
<19990520220340...@ng-fd1.aol.com>...
>Victoria, you make good points. Leave it up to a hot babe like you (who
>obvisouly likes me :o) to have a good, clear, logical thought. Well, what
if I
>said that we took our (Bob's!!!) fork and dipped it in steal. Then would
our
>fork work? Or what if we made a mod to the fork that will (probably) make
it 50
>times stronger...?
Which steel, and how thick was the coating? What documented testing of it
(or its prototypes/predecessors) was done? Just dipping it in steel would
not be enough to convince ME to put one of my hard-earned steaks (my wife
doesn't let me eat red meat very often... mutters something about
cholesterol ::sigh::) on it.
Seriously, OPINIONS are worth what you pay for them. OPIINIONS BACKED BY
FACTS is called "consulting" ::grin::, and RAW DATA is called "research".
So far, I've seen lots of opinions but very few opinions with facts nor raw
data.
On the other hand, I s'pose I should say publicly that I know Juan (used to
work with him, in fact) and know his history. I'm more likely to believe
his opinion has the data behind it BUT, were I to actually be building this
flingwing thing, I'd want to get the data behind his opinion so that I can
see if what he says is correct for my particular application.
Basically, as Ms. Deaton has said, the fact that you've been challenged in
an opinion is an opportunity to dig in, find out, and be able to stand up
and slug it out with'em. You'll learn something, we'll learn something, and
everyone wins.
On a tangential note, there's a quote from a character in a book by one of
my favourite Science Fiction authors:
"If it can't be expressed in math, it's just opinion, not science."
I'd far rather see that BD5H fly by any means, but I'd really like before it
goes in the air to have it flying by math.
-- Kevin --
Jerry Springer
>
> >My god, how can you possibly be so ignorant and naive?
> >
> >Juan
>
> LOL...At least I admit I'm no expert on the JFS...you still sound like you
> think you are. It makes me laugh to watch you look like a pigheaded jerk. You
> think you are *the* shit on BD-5s. Maybe you are for all I know. But really, I
> may look ignorant an nieve, but I am not a pigheaded jerk. Why are you so
> defensive?
>
> And if you wanted the number for Bob, all you had to do was ask. But not now.
> <g> Maybe if you E-mail me privately, I'll do a 3 way call with Bob so he can
> tell you what he KNOWS and what he THINKS about the JFS.
>
> You try and act like a jerk I used to E-mail with...Ron Timberlake. He thought
> anything I said couldn't be true, which part wasn't, but more than that, he
> wanted to make sure he proved me wrong in front of the whole world. Little did
> he know, that to any smart person, he was the one who looked like a fool. When
> you get as spooled up as you do, you say things in E-mails, and come across the
> wrong way. I do it too a lot of the time. But for goodnes sake, settle down a
> bit! Geez, its ONLY a discussion!!! At least, I thought thats what RAH was for.
> <g>
>
> River
>
> "Xtreme...Life is too short not to be!"
Well this sounds like the old wingy from usagitators days. This is not
a discussion wingy when you keep telling everyone they are jerk or full of shit
or pigheaded and only you are right.
Rich Ahrens
> LOL...At least I admit I'm no expert on the JFS...you still sound like you
> think you are. It makes me laugh to watch you look like a pigheaded jerk. You
> think you are *the* shit on BD-5s. Maybe you are for all I know. But really, I
> may look ignorant an nieve, but I am not a pigheaded jerk.
Au contraire, Wingnut. That's *exactly* what you're portraying yourself
to be.
Kevin-Neil Klop
all three of you (and a few other people here... maybe even me as well).
Guys, let's not debate personalities, let's talk about information and
facts, KO?
As far as I can see, the following facts have been presented:
1. A turbine by the name of "JFS" is being proposed as a powerplant in a
flingwing based on the BD5 fuselage.
2. A STOCK JFS is, in the opinion of everyone it seems, a bad idea as a
long-use powerplant.
3. Some modifications are being made to the bolt-on components such as the
oil cooler.
The following assertions have been made:
1. That the JFS has been involved in at least one catastrophic failure after
being run for longer than its original, intended use. Observation: This
particular JFS may or may not have been modified in the same manner as is
being proposed.
2. That the failures were probably a compressor disk failure, possibly due
to the compressor not being designed for operation while heat-soaked.
3. That the observed failure would not have been prevented by any
modifications done via bolt-ons.
4. The failures were due to a failure in the starter rather than the
turbine.
So, it seems to me that there's several ways of reconciling this WITHOUT
resorting to name calling, etc.
1. Let the subject drop, allow people to build in peace, and see what
happens when they fire it up.
Personal opinion: Not the best way
2. Destructive testing of a JFS that has had all the proposed modifications
made to it.
Personal opinion: Ranks right up there with method 1. It's expensive
and possibly quite dangerous.
3. Go over the proposed modifications with someone who knows the turbines
and JFS (Hey, a referee, what a concept!) design.
Personal opinion: INFORMED public discourse is a good thing here as
we'll all learn something, even if it's "I'll never (or still don't)
understand these durn things."
4. Find out the particulars of the units that did fail and lay them
alongside the proposed modifications. Decide if the proposed modifications
are sufficiently different and address the weaknesses in the failed units.
5. Define a set of test criterion, have the JFS modified in the manner
proposed, put it on a static test lashup, and see what happens.
Personal opinion: This should probably occur anyway, BEFORE installing
it in the airframe, but should probably happen only after one of the other
methods gives some assurance that the modifications will work.
I admit that I'm in the camp of "I don't think this is a great idea", but I
also admit that it's purely an intuition based on what I've seen so far.
The opinions against make sense to me, and I've not seen anything that I
consider valid evidence to the contrary. It doesn't seem to make sense that
there's oil cooling the turbine compressor disk as the thing gets WAY too
hot for oil to retain any sort of viscosity (and, I bet, would flash fire if
it did come in contact with an operating turbine), so things like oil
coolers don't appear to make sense to me. On the other hand, what I know
about turbines could be written in the subject line of an email message, so
my opinion doesn't count.
Juan, can you dig out the information about any of the failures? Wingie,
can you get the person doing the modifications to the JFS to give up at
least a general list of the modifications? You mention a changed oil
cooler, what else?
I admit to being interested in this question because I'm looking at
designing an airplane (that's a few years down the road since I have quite a
bit of ignorance to cure first), and I would LOVE to put a turbine into it.
The Williams FJ unit is looking interesting, but this might be an alternate.
-- Kevin --
Don't confuse me with facts, dear...
Bob U.
>
>There's no use in arguing this point with the kid. He is too emotionally
>involved to be able to reason on the subject.
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How dare you bust this kid's bubble and dreams. <g>
Get your ass to Pee Ville where you belong!
Bob - on my way, too - U.
Wingman150
>Get your ass to Pee Ville where you belong!
>
>Bob - on my way, too - U.
Hey guys, please understand. This isn't my dream. This is another guys dream. I
think it will be really, really, cool, but this is not my dream. I am simply
into it because I can do what I like to do. In fact, if I had absolutely
nothing (meaning time) into that BD-5H, I would still have the position I do
now. Bob has a lot more knowledge on the JFS than any of us/you out there...He
owns one. When I talk to him, he has answers. Most of you/us ask questions, and
give theories...Until I am PROVEN wrong, I'll still have the same opinion. And
let me clarify, having a million people tell me this engine sucks is not proof.
Its kind of the same attitude I had with Campbell...People should stop telling
stories..."Oh he did this and that to me and everyone else too...Just ask
them!" but instead, show proof. I urge you guys to talk to Jim Vos...look up
his E-mail address or website...I think he has one. It MAY help you understand
a little more...Or, it may prove me wrong even more.
But Bob U., please realize, this isn't my dream. Its like working on an
F-18...it would be REALLY cool, but its not my dream. Just my two
cents...Again.
Take care,
River
"Xtreme...Life is too short not to me!"
Wingman150
I'm affraid you are wrong. The JFS runt ime is more than 1 minute tops...More
like 2 to 3, MAYBE 4 minutes...At least that is what Jim Vos said. With that
amount of time, it has a chance to heat up. The tempature it reaches, MIGHT, be
somewhere around where it will be with the external oil coolers. Just a
thought...
River
"Xtreme...Life is too short not to be!"
Wingman150
obvisouly likes me :o) to have a good, clear, logical thought. Well, what if I
said that we took our (Bob's!!!) fork and dipped it in steal. Then would our
fork work? Or what if we made a mod to the fork that will (probably) make it 50
times stronger...?
River
"Xtreme...Life is too short not to be!"
Juan Jimenez
>
> Well, Bob does watch RAH once in a while. His reasoning for not posting is
> this...#1, his knowledge on it will not do anything for you. The same people
> will still have the same attitudes. He thinks it is best for him, personally,
> to stay out of this for now, until he proves all of the skeptics otherwise.
The proper wording of this sentence would be "until he proves all of the
skeptics otherwise or kills himself, one of the two."
> Also, he hates RAH and RAR. He thinks it is all bullshit and pollitics...In a
> way, he is right. So, he prefers to stay out of this debate for now.
I don't think he has even seen any of this, nor even heard of the
debate. Have you mentioned this to him? I don't think so. Why? Because
all I see here is the way you think about RAH, not the thoughts of
another person.
> Answer: The starter motor that gets the turbine spooled up.
Not true. In all the tests made with the JFS, it has not been the
starter motor that has failed. It's the turbine disks.
> Did anyone know that the people who designed the turbine wheel (disk) for the
> JFS are the people who probably make the turbos that go in your truck?
ROFLMAO! And? What's your point, that because a turbo that is built to
last and be used all the time in a truck works as designed the JFS will
work like the turbo in the truck??
Juan Jimenez
order here.
"Steven M. Cantrell" wrote:
>
> Wingy,
>
> I would be curious as to what the owner (as you identified in an
> earlier post), Bob Faley of FunRotors, has to say on this issue.
Juan Jimenez
>
> I agree and disagree marc. Both are turbines...Technology is technology. MD has
> been making fighters for a while. Does that mean their MD-80 isn't worth a
> shit?
No, it means that the MD-80 as a fighter jet ain't worth a shit.
> I know thats not exactly what you meant, but it does come across that way
> to ME.
Hmm. You know that's not what he meant. But you feel forced to inject a
specious rationalization in order to continue to support your failed
argument.
> If the military used them in A-7s, I think its ok with me in that respect.
So, if we follow your logic, if the military used an engine from Ford in
a jeep, it's ok to try to put it into a civilian tractor trailer.
> The actual turbine disk, which is the one thing
> everybody is picking on now, is, IMHO, as good as a MD-80 turbine disk.
Except that you haven't got the foggiest shred of engineering data or
proof to back up that statement. In other words, it's saliva for the
heck of saliva and nothing else.
> Just because a friend of a friend, of a friend, heard one blew
> up in the desert, doesn't really mean that just because ONE blew up because of
> that SPECIFIC problem, that all the others are going to have the same fate.
Hello! Hello! <knock! knock!> Anybody home? The lights are on, but
there's seems to be nobody home. Hello! Do you remember when I said that
it was my friend who tested it, not a "friend of a friend, of a friend?"
Are you turning to lies now in order to support your argument? Or are
you not reading because of those blinders you have on?
Juan
Juan Jimenez
Juan Jimenez
>
> You don't have to know about everything, or how to do
> everything. You just need to ask questions. You can either be in a
> defensive mode, or get all this experience on this newsgroup working for
> you. Flipmode. Your choice.
Before any of that happens this young pup has to learn to admit that he
can be wrong about something, and that there are a lot of people out
here that know a lot more than him on a great many subjects. Taking that
first leap takes experience and time.
Juan
Wingman150
>
>Juan
LOL...At least I admit I'm no expert on the JFS...you still sound like you
think you are. It makes me laugh to watch you look like a pigheaded jerk. You
think you are *the* shit on BD-5s. Maybe you are for all I know. But really, I
may look ignorant an nieve, but I am not a pigheaded jerk. Why are you so
defensive?
And if you wanted the number for Bob, all you had to do was ask. But not now.
<g> Maybe if you E-mail me privately, I'll do a 3 way call with Bob so he can
tell you what he KNOWS and what he THINKS about the JFS.
You try and act like a jerk I used to E-mail with...Ron Timberlake. He thought
anything I said couldn't be true, which part wasn't, but more than that, he
wanted to make sure he proved me wrong in front of the whole world. Little did
he know, that to any smart person, he was the one who looked like a fool. When
you get as spooled up as you do, you say things in E-mails, and come across the
wrong way. I do it too a lot of the time. But for goodnes sake, settle down a
bit! Geez, its ONLY a discussion!!! At least, I thought thats what RAH was for.
<g>
Juan Jimenez
>
> I'm the first to admit that I don't know anything about turbines. But
> this raises a question. It's been my experience that mechanical
> devices are generally built like the "one horse shay" that ran for
> a year and a day. Everything, except consumables, is built for
> roughly the same lifetime. Why have a starter motor that has
> a dramatically shorter life than the rest of the assembly.
Not really, Richard. Various components in a turbine will last longer
than others (or will at least be rated for different numbers of hours of
use). On a CH-46 helo, for example, chances are that a lot of the
accessories the main engines will break or require replacement for
calibration or rebuild well before the turbine internals themselves need
to be ripped out and replaced. Take the Cessna Caravan, for example.
There is no TBO on the engine. You simply check the oil on a regular
basis until analysis finds something wrong with it. If nothing's wrong
with it, you do the regular inspections and keep flying it.