Anyone know this aircraft?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Bigshu

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
268
I'm looking for information about an old racing plane, the PAR-1. It was a mid wing pusher from the early 50s. There is supposed to be a write up and 3 view in a two volume set of books titled: Goodyear and Formula One Racers, by Robert Hirsch. I tracked down the books on Amazon, by I'm hoping someone already has them and can look it up to see if there is much written about it. The aircraft is a single seat pusher with a Y-tail, and I'm curious about the drivetrain. Shaft drive aircraft is a topic of another thread, and I want to track down as much info as I can about this approach, which seems to have generated a lot of interest/design activity back then. It also had variable incidence on the wing, which is a whole other can of worms.
 

Riggerrob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
1,876
Location
Canada
During the 19790s, it was rebuilt as the Mace-Trephethen Seamaster with a conventional tractor propeller mounted in the nose, directly driven from a production flat-four Lycoming or Continental engine. The cockpit was farther aft, in the wing center-section. It floated on a single pontoon and sponsons provided lateral stability on the water. One magazine pictured in floating in a backyard pool, but I do not know if it flew in the new configuration.
 

Bigshu

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
268
During the 19790s, it was rebuilt as the Mace-Trephethen Seamaster with a conventional tractor propeller mounted in the nose, directly driven from a production flat-four Lycoming or Continental engine. The cockpit was farther aft, in the wing center-section. It floated on a single pontoon and sponsons provided lateral stability on the water. One magazine pictured in floating in a backyard pool, but I do not know if it flew in the new configuration.
I have a pretty clear pic of the Seamaster. I think it's a pretty design, and doesn't look super difficult to study and get some good inspiration. Thanks for the info!
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
2,187
Location
YMM
Nice write up. This is interesting but doesn't get to the heart of the issue. I wonder what the troublesome issue was, heat, vibration, weight? That's the crux of it. Seeing how it evolved to tractor configuration as a seaplane really gets me scratching my head. Thanks for the info, and much better pic than I have!
Race teams are notoriously tight lipped about issues.

bd5's is one that doesn't immediately come to mind as a total dumpster fire - worth a read on how they got there:
 

Bigshu

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
268
Race teams are notoriously tight lipped about issues.

bd5's is one that doesn't immediately come to mind as a total dumpster fire - worth a read on how they got there:
That's a really good article. I especially liked the suggestions for likely fixes to try for various failure modes. It was also interesting to read how Molt Taylor made his own custom dynaflex couplers from aluminum. Makes me wonder if Molt had been able to continue work on the BD-5 what would have resulted. As I look at the results Ed Lesher got with the dynaflex setup, I think I might just have to bite the bullet and pick one up to make my Mini-IMP project take flight.
 
Last edited:

Bigshu

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
268
Race teams are notoriously tight lipped about issues.

bd5's is one that doesn't immediately come to mind as a total dumpster fire - worth a read on how they got there:
One question I have concerning the BD-5 development is why, if they were fighting an aft CG problem and were forced to add lead to the nose to compensate, wouldn't changing the design to move the wing back or increase the chord to get the center of lift into a correct relationship with the CG be the sensible approach? It doesn't make much sense to tolerate CG problems with a design still under development. Just fix the issue even if it means scrapping the prototype. Don't keep applying different band aids.
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
2,187
Location
YMM
One question I have concerning the BD-5 development is why, if they were fighting an aft CG problem and were forced to add lead to the nose to compensate, wouldn't changing the design to move the wing back or increase the chord to get the center of lift into a correct relationship with the CG be the sensible approach? It doesn't make much sense to tolerate CG problems with a design still under development. Just fix the issue even if it means scrapping the prototype. Don't keep applying different band aids.
For that you have to read up on the history of the bd5... You've sold hundreds/thousands of kits - the engine it needed and was designed around is gone. So every change means giving away parts, parts you sold originally at a loss.
 

Bigshu

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
268
For that you have to read up on the history of the bd5... You've sold hundreds/thousands of kits - the engine it needed and was designed around is gone. So every change means giving away parts, parts you sold originally at a loss.
My dad bought a kit early on. It never got started due to the problems with parts. He loved Jim Bede designs (that's why he sold American Yankees, he loved that airplane, and his last aircraft was a Grumman Traveller), but he never could figure how such a bright guy could be so bad as a business man.
 

Bill-Higdon

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
1,157
Location
Salem, Oregon, USA
My dad bought a kit early on. It never got started due to the problems with parts. He loved Jim Bede designs (that's why he sold American Yankees, he loved that airplane, and his last aircraft was a Grumman Traveller), but he never could figure how such a bright guy could be so bad as a business man.
Met lot of "Bright" people who were bad at running a business, great at other things
 
Top