LUSCOMBE DEP FROM ADG EXPERIENCES NMAC WITH ACFT DEPARTING INTERSECTING RWY.

Narrative

I WAS PLTING MY LUSCOMBE 8A; AN ANTIQUE ACFT WITHOUT AN ENG DRIVEN ELECTRICAL SYS. THE ACFT DOES HAVE A WIND DRIVEN GENERATOR FOR PROVIDING ELECTRICAL PWR TO POS LIGHTS AND RADIO; BUT THE BATTERY HAD BEEN REMOVED. I WAS DEPARTING FROM LENAWEE COUNTY ARPT (ADG; A POPULAR UNCTLED ARPT IN SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN) ON RWY 11; WHILE A CESSNA WAS DEPARTING ON RWY 5. THESE RWYS INTERSECT AT THE SE END OF RWY 11; AND THE NE END OF RWY 5. THE TFC AT THE ARPT WAS LIGHT AND I DID NOT OBSERVE ANY OTHER ACFT ON THE GND PRIOR TO MY DEP. DUE TO A SLIGHT RISE IN THE GND IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ACFT IN POS FOR TKOF FROM RWYS 11 AND 5 TO SEE EACH OTHER. GND OBSERVERS AT THE ARPT RPTED THAT THE CESSNA PLT SEEMED CONFUSED ABOUT HIS LOCATION AND RADIOED THAT HE WAS 'DEPARTING RWY 23' INSTEAD OF RWY 5. WHEN THEY ATTEMPTED TO WARN HIM ABOUT THE SIT THEY CORRECTLY REFERRED TO HIM AS 'ACFT DEPARTING RWY 5;' HE MAY NOT HAVE REALIZED THE WARNING WAS FOR HIM. WE BOTH TOOK OFF AND THE CESSNA PASSED IN FRONT OF ME AT THE INTXN. I TURNED TO THE R TO ENSURE THAT I WOULD PASS BEHIND THE CESSNA AND THEN TURNED TO THE L; SO THAT I COULD KEEP HIM IN SIGHT. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: 1) MY LACK OF RADIO DURING TAXI AND DEP. 2) THE INABILITY OF ACFT TO SEE EACH OTHER WHEN PREPARING FOR TKOF FROM RWYS 5 AND 11. 3) I ASSUMED I WAS THE SOLE ACFT OPERATING AT THE TIME BECAUSE I DID NOT OBSERVE ANY OTHER ACFT ON THE RAMP. 4) THE OTHER PLT MAY HAVE BEEN UNAWARE THAT THE WARNINGS FROM GND OBSERVERS WERE INTENDED FOR HIM.