Any chance your friend was Roger Mellema? Very nice guy. RIPLest we forget, Bede basically did it again with the BD-12/14 fiasco. It was announced that deposits would go into escrow. Turns out it wasn't. Bede spent all the money.
Was pretty good friends with a magazine editor back then. He had been through the BD-5 era, and was LIVID that Bede was trying again with the BD-12. The development of the plane got zero coverage in the magazine. It got ink only one time...when the prototype crashed. CG issues, I believe it was on the first flight.
I've heard Bede described as "95% of the great designer". Needed someone else to do that last 5%.
Had dinner with him, in the 90s, with a friend who was the leading light in the BD-4 area. He seemed a bit wary of me....
Ron Wanttaja
DM in your box!Is there any way we can get you to come to the ESA event in Tehachapi this Labor Day?
Having paid for 23 years of post secondary education for our 2 kids - granted in a different country but similar environment - I know the feeling of the out-of-pocket, but when I compare that to the MILLIONS of actual cost to the institution and it funding sources I think it was a bargain not to be disregarded. Heck, just one of big kid's research tools was in the BILLIONS!!! (but obviously shared with others).Wow.
I was very aware of the subsidies the school received. I was referring to absence of financial assistance I received, as most of my demographic is mostly ineligible...but that debate is for another forum.
In any case, what I did pay was worth it...and is far, far less than what most new graduates get strapped with today. If you're curious, I can connect you with a junior engineer of ours who is over $205k in loan debt; he can tell you all about how the taxpayer helped him out...
I digress.
Yep. We still met at his hangar for Chapter 441 meetings for 20 years after his death.Any chance your friend was Roger Mellema? Very nice guy. RIP
I found the BD-7 tucked into a hangar at a small field near here, about 30 years ago. Never saw it again.Very interesting thread.
I remember when he brought the 5 to market or lets say Oshkosh back in the early 70's. They flew the Jet version, but had issues late in the week where the clam shell stuck and landed short and sheared off landing light, but very little damage to the plane. I also thought that he had another plane the following year that was the same design as the 5 but bigger. I passed it up on a trailer on the way to Oshkosh. BD7J??--had it as static display but taking orders.
Has anyone here ordered the 'BD-5: Original Plans' PDF as advertised here?
BD -5 | Bedecorp
Are the drawing of sufficient resolution for study? And what version(s) do they cover? Thanks in advance!
Sounds very on-brandI believe they omit most if not all of the powerplant installation
Lol sure... Ive crashed every landing becuase i dont stall it out (not even the FAA is hot on stalling it out).How old are you? we used to read reports, way back in the '70s, of builders getting into trouble with PIO. You know what that is, right?
Do you touch down a 172 at 65 MPH? You're an accident waiting to happen. Besides, 65 MPH in a 172 is not the same as 65 MPH in an airplane half the size, a little over a quarter of the wing area, and just over a quarter of the weight. Its Vso is higher than the 172's.
65 MPH in a sedan is not the same as 65 MPH in a go-kart. Try a small homebuilt sometime.
See BD-5 - Why is it so engrained in our psyches?No ACCIDENT was rooted in PIO. Not the ones i read. The. Handling was not an issue. Stupid pilots, crappy MX, bad builds sure. But the only real issue was the drive shaft.
Show me some accidents direct related to oscillations. None of the dozen i read mentioned it.
I suspect you may have read reports that state words to the effect that 'the position of the drive shaft and prop can cause crashes on take-off'. This is due to the high thrust line over a short coupled body requiring a fairly noticeable amount of elevator to rotate. Without the drag of the wheel 'on the ground' the aircraft could continue to pitch up and, while it doesn't really pitch up too much, the view from the cockpit can suddenly be just sky. The pilot pushes (instead of easing) the stick forward, and with the pitching moment of the high thrust line (and probably a little flap), the ground appears very suddenly which causes the pilot to pull back suddenly. One of three things happens next; 1/ the pilot pitches down again and hits the ground (many first flights); 2/ the pilot manages to miss the ground on the second PIO and starts to jockey the throttle in a hope of stabilising the PIO's, reducing speed and induces a stall close to the ground; 3/ the pilot realises what's going on and freezes the elevator to damp the PIO's and then determines what the visual of his climbing attitude will be and climbs away.Lol sure... Ive crashed every landing becuase i dont stall it out (not even the FAA is hot on stalling it out).
No ACCIDENT was rooted in PIO. Not the ones i read. The. Handling was not an issue. Stupid pilots, crappy MX, bad builds sure. But the only real issue was the drive shaft.
Show me some accidents direct related to oscillations. None of the dozen i read mentioned it.
Please try to take this with the understanding I am not just trying to be a sarcastic jerk, but a huge part of such problems come from ab initio training being done in exceedingly benign aircraft with dump-truck like controls and response. The solution IMHO is that all instruction should be done in a BD1 (or similar....but there IS no "similar" basic trainer, so BD1=AA1) would produce a pilot body with some sort of appreciation for and feel for aircraft that have controls that actually DO something rather than just to hang onto while it crashes.I wonder how many Lake Buccaneer pilots flew BD-5's, I know Richard Bach had one of each and seemed to have got away with it.
Wild to think that the ones that were disassembled and trailered between air shows for years didn’t wear out that minimal attachment.Example: Each wing panel has a tubular spar that slips over a 6" long carrythrough tube that protrudes from the fuselage at the side of body. The wing panel is secured to that carrythrough with a single 1/4" bolt through one wall of the spar and carrythrough. All wing forces due to lift, and all the forces due to drag and thrust, are reacted by the 6" overlap (essentially 2 tube diameters). All wing torsion forces due to pitching moment are reacted by that single 1/4" bolt through one wall of the tube.
Our youngest has become a rock star in the world of arthroscopic surgery and when asked about her incredible manual control she usually credits it to many hours of Mario with Dad. I think the 15 years of piano might have been just as important - but to restate my case: it is valuable for pilots to HAVE experience in REAL WORLD highly responsive control. They can always dumb down to spam cans and iron boat anchors that are so boring that they must be flown by george.A significant portion of those 9-13 year olds had the sort of control touch almost never seen back in the previous century beyond those that had been graduated from a good UPT program on fighter or helo track. And not a single one of those kids could resist the urge to drive the sim through buildings, other aircraft, or under one or more of Seattle's bridges.
AA1-AA5 wings are attached in same way. The fit is not 0/0 but a bit sloppy and adjusted with shims. Still amazed that fretting does not seem to be a factor long term. Having once tried to cut down a small forest with an AA-1 I can tell you that those spars and carry-through are bloody well STRONG!!!!!Wild to think that the ones that were disassembled and trailered between air shows for years didn’t wear out that minimal attachment.
Enter your email address to join:
Register today and take advantage of membership benefits.
Enter your email address to join: