I am very “pro” RV, but you need to look seriously at the labor involved in building ANY kit airplane. Time will kill your motivation to complete a project. Between the RV and Sling, I would pick the Sling just because of the pulled rivets. You will have something that looks like an airplane a lot faster. The high wing Sling would be equally as awesome! Also, don’t underestimate the builders groups for each aircraft. They can be a WEALTH of information when you run into a trouble area during the build. The BD has a lot going for it. It appears to be a relatively quick build, the price is right, the stats look good, not sure about the builders network, I looked into it at one time and it was okay, at best. You may not be into auto conversions, but I believe Viking Engines had just put one of their engines on a BD? Just another potential engine option. As I sign off, lead times for kits are INSANE right now! That might be a factor to consider as well! Good luck!
Such great points! I’ll be pinning this comment. You’re correct on the Viking engine being available for the BD, it’s a Honda engine, which tends to give me a high degree of confidence. It’s also way less money than the Rotax or any conventional engine. I’ll be doing a video on engine options right quick!
Sling builder here and build time was definitely a huge part of the consideration. The Tsi also should outperform the RV10 at altitude due to the 600lb difference and turbo v. naturally aspirated engines. That all being said of course it's hard to argue with the success of all the RV's and the BB4 definitely would fall into the "strong consideration".
I didn't read through all of the comments so I don't know if anyone else posted a correction (though that would surprise me). A major error in the information you provided viewers was that if the build an airplane they can do all of the maintenance and repairs on it. This is false. ANYONE can do maint. and repairs on an experimental amateur built aircraft. Even major repairs after it has been damaged. The only thing a non builder owner can't do is sign off the annual condition inspection that is required by the operating limitations. For that a person has to posses a repairman's certificate specifically issued for that aircraft (only available to the primary original builder) or and A&P mechanic.
People need to like this comment so it can be found by more people. I also caught the error but this correction was way down in the comment list. I'll add to the info too. Even though anyone can legally do a major alteration on an EAB, the paperwork needs to be updated with the FAA. This is something to be mindful of if you are looking to buy a used EAB since it seems like a lot of owners don't both with this when they change the prop for example.
I went to the factory and flew the BD4C, climes fast, turns quick, and most importantly the landing gear made my bad landing "feel" like a soft landing, it was like having shocks. the Building community seems active, they answer my questions within about 2-3 days when I post and everyone is willing to give out there phone number to have a phone conversation to clear up any texting confusion that happens. All in all the only draw back is the baggage compartment being small, but lots of builders have installed extra baggage doors. All in all I keep coming back to this bird.
I am currently flying a BD-4 B. We also have two more BD-4Bs, one is a restoration and the other is a scratch build. While a friend of mine went with the RV10 at a finished cost of 400k, ours has about 40K invested. Performance of the two aircraft is pretty closely matched. Yes the RV 10 is a prettier aircraft, but bang for your buck, the BD-4 can’t be beat. When you read the company spec sheet, remember that those numbers are based on the aircraft at gross weight. My previous BD-4 with a O-320 160 hp was able to cruise at 180 mph. Not bad at all. Build it light and you will get the performance you are looking for. Best thing about the BD-4 is that it is simple to build and fun to fly. The is a very good group of builders that are willing to share information. Most of all, it is built like a tank, very strong airframe. If cost is you issue, the BD-4 is hard to beat.
Can you share the BD-4 builders group info? I'm really interested in the plane. It looks so builder-friendly and the flight specs sound impressive. I'm also intrigued by the folding wings, but can't find any details about how well it works. I'd assume it requires draining the fuel tanks, right?
I was walking the field at Oshkosh this year and saw a nice yellow and white one . Struck up a conversation with the owner and he mentioned all the numbers to me and I was very impressed !
What an amazing airplane! I had never heard of it. Unfortunately, I’m afraid of getting a homebuilt because I’d never finish it quickly enough. Don’t want a “project”, unfinished, taking up space in my shop. I have plenty of those. 😉
I completely understand that fear. That's a big reason we are building our current home. I too, have many projects that don't get finished...just ask my wife!
I know I'm 10 months late to the party, but I have a few words of advice. There are 3 types of lies: lies, damned lies, and kitplane spec sheets. All kitplane manufacturers heavily pad their performance numbers. You do not want to go down any unbeaten paths for your first build. Go with an airframe and engine combo that has many flying examples each with many hundreds of flying hours. Leave the "experimental" part of E-AB to the people with multiple builds under their belt and a lot of time and money to blow on a pet project. Everything that I've heard about Rotax engines is great except for maintenance. Everything has to go through them. They only allow you to do a certain amount of work yourself and it isn't much more than the preventive maintenance in Appendix A of Part 43. All other maintenance has to be performed by mechanics that they authorize and they control the supply of spare parts. New Lycomings and Continentals are way more expensive than Rotax and both are having supply chain issues right now (but who isn't these days). That being said, if you get in over your head on a maintenance issue, any A&P will be able to take a look at them. Be careful buying a used one. If an engine gets pulled off an airplane there is usually a reason why. I'll second Mike Hildebrand's thoughts on pulled rivets vs. solid. I'm building a Zenith 750 Cruzer like him and I can say that pulled rivets are WAY quicker and easier than solid. Even Vans has gone to mostly pulled rivets for the RV-15. The one thing about the BD-4C is that the wing skins require applying a special epoxy to bond to the ribs. The factory does provide a builder assist option for this part as they know it is the most complex part of the build, but that adds to the cost. The rest of the airplane looks pretty straightforward, though. Since I'm building a 750 Cruzer, I can't make any disparaging comments on how the BD-4C looks. The best looking airplane is the one you own.
Peter, what a fantastic write up. I appreciate you sharing all of these thoughts with the community. Good luck as you progress through you 750 Cruzer build!
Around a year or so, I watched a video for the "BD", and I fell in love with the airplane. Precisely because it's boxy look, I think it's a sexy, gorgeous, stylish airplane. That video was taken at the BD factory and I enjoyed it tremendously because of its symplicity of construction. The spar is a round pipe from side to side and it is noticeable from pilot/copilot seats. Again, I think this is a great video. Thank you for this great channel. Please keep up the great work!
Thanks again! It is an interesting airplane for sure. A lot of people love it, but there are also many who dislike the appearance. It’s hard to please them all I guess!
Truly, the BD-4 is the winner here... Beauty... it grows on you. This is by far the best 4 place airplane to build and fly. Thanks Jim for giving us a winner ! BTW, you retirees with wives that will not fly with you anymore ( many ), Check out the BD_6... everything you could want. Cheers, and success !
I thought I was geeked out enough to know the players in that market but totally missed that option. Very interesting specs! You have given me a new web site to geek out on. Thanks for sharing!
You and I have a similar mission. I'm looking forward to watching you go through this process to evaluate the airplane you might build. That said, I'm leaning towards a Sling TSI mainly due to the Rotax engine. Savvy Aviation's discussion of that engine is a big influence.
A thing to think of is how often will you fill 4 seats, If you really want to build and can afford it, keep the Mooney while your building the BD then sell the Mooney to finance the engine, radios, etc.
At first I only knew of two four place experimentals, the RV-10 and the Velocity selection. It was hard to find, but eventually I found the Bearhawk, the sportsman 2+2, the delta dyke (!), the BD-4 (I think it's a good option), and one I'm really liking, the Cozy MkIV. Didn't really know about the slings, I'll have to learn more about those. For some reason it seems to be difficult to find all of the fairly limited 4 place EXP options out there. I've also decided that unconventional engines would be my choice (Aeromomentum and the Yamaha Apex conversation both have my interest), and GRT has a well featured and affordable avionics option.
I bought my first aircraft in 1991. A low time 1978 built Piper PA38 Tomahawk. Price then $15,500. I wish I kept it but I needed the money for other projects.
I think I have a new favorite kit plane! Before this I was dreaming of the Sling TSi. Or a Mooney. But after seeing your avionics video detailing prices for upgrades in the Mooney it reminded me of the advantages of Experimental. Then to see this video and find out about kit plane that is significantly less than a sling with similar performance! Hopefully I will be lucky enough to build one someday. Thanks for introducing me.
I’m kinda partial to my Mooney J model. Upgraded the avionics to an Avidyne 540 and Lynx L3. It’s a cross country machine with fuel sipping performance. There’s just something to be said for a certified aircraft when you’re putting your family in it. Not to say the experimental world is pretty amazing but it’s a huge commitment to get to the point that you’re finally flying it. We have a neighbor here that had a BD of you want to see one sometime.
@@MyTimeToFly I think it would be hugely rewarding. We have a few experimental guys in the field here. RV-10 as well. I’d be happy to introduce you to them if you want to look at them sometime. Just say the word. We are just a short hop from your place.
I had a 1948 35 Bonanza, and the voltage regulator went out. I went to the parts dept at an airport, and they wanted some outrageous price for it. Went to the auto parts store and picked it up for 12 Dollars. The insides were the same, so I just replace the original cover for the regulator. Worked fine for years!
BeDe offers a build option for an extra $22,000 where they do most of the work for you at their shop in Ohio. You have to visit & help with the build a certain number of times for it to be a legal homebuilt. I don't know if that includes finishing off the interior. I think including the kit package the total is around $60,000. Then you'll need an engine & avionics, which would cost $30-40,000. That would allow you to get it built ASAP, maybe in a couple of months or so, depending on scheduling. That seems like a good way to buy a brand-new plane with minimal labor and time. It's not cheap, but it won't take 2 years to build.
I would choose the BD-4 as well. I didn’t know about the foldable wings. Not paying hangar fees would pay do a lot of gas. My engine of choice though would be the UL Power 520s for around $35,000 new. 200hp
The BD4 has always been a top performer. A not so well known contemporary and a bit more stylish is a plans built wittman W10 tailwind, add the cabbie woods plans addition to the W10 to build the tailwind into the fourrunner and you will have, imho, a better bPerformer, and easy to build one at that. Tube and fabric fuselage, with wood wing, wood wings are often poopooed by folks, but an honest dive into the construction medium, yields an easy to build, super strong wing. The 17-30A bellman a Viking is an oft overlooked top performer as well but due to its chosen construction design, it is misunderstood and way undervalued in todays aircraft market.
Thanks for the video. I agree that EAB seems to be the most economical approach for those who are capable of employing it. And for those who are not, there are builder assist programs available in some areas. Construction time is a factor. I'm so old, I remember when the BD-4 was first introduced. I think you are correct about its boxy appearance. I recall feeling that way when I first saw it a long time ago. The boxy appearance could possibly limit its resale marketability shoud you ever desire to part ways with it. OTOH, you would only need one buyer and its perfomance specs could outweigh the aesthetics in this day and time. Just my impression. Back then, construction of kit planes was a greater challenge than it is today, I think. Kits were less developed and less builder friendly.
Thanks for being here. I agree that building has become more of a reality for a larger part of the community as time has progressed. I just hope I don't end up being the who doesn't finish his as that seems to happen too often!
@@MyTimeToFly Cory, for the past few years I fantasized about constructing an EAB kit from Van's. Finally, reality set it and at my age, I realized that was a pipe dream. Maybe one of my descendents would finish it! But, I never stopped watching TH-cam construction videos of RV-10s and other aircraft (even ultralights). I have observed all sorts of starts and stops of projects during that time. That doesn't count outside influences which might force stoppage. There are so many factors that could derail a project. Maybe this is one sort of long project that should be treated as a 'dash' as opposed to a marathon. Too many bad things could happen, the longer the project remains unfinished! 😀
If I was not so enamored by my Velocity SE, the BD-4C would be my choice. Its numbers are amazing. It also has the one mission profile my Velocity lacks, the ability to use unimproved runways. Not a good idea in a small wheeled pushed but I’d love the option to camp under the wing at some remote location. I wish I were younger (turned 63 on the Wednesday, the 8th), as I’d love to build and have a BD-4C too. But first, a helicopter 😊. That way I can fly the Velocity to a hard surface runway (preferable Gelespie County in Fredericksburg, Texas) then hop into my chopper to get to my future property nearby or camp sight. Hey, goals are important 😁
Another experimental 4 place that has better numbers then the certified you mentioned, but it's mission is a little different. It is more of a Bush plane. Is the bear hawk 4, and the new 5 model. It has decent cruise numbers and useful load for what it is. but it's a little slower then a rv10 if speed is what you really want.
I’m in the same boat right now and despite the cost, I’m leaning towards the new Sling HW (the TSi High Wing). I understand that the kit is top notch for quality and pull rivets make it way easier for a single person to build. The other factor is the resale of the Sling 4 and TSi is well above the kit cost right now and is expected to stay that way for quite some time. What’s the used market for the BD4C like?
I'll have to look into that Sling HW, I haven't done any research on it. I agree, the resale value of the TSi is incredible, probably even good enough right now to go into business making them. Anyway, I couldn't find any BD-4's for sale currently, but I certainly don't believe the market to be as good as the RV or Sling.
@@MyTimeToFly There have been lots of price increases on the Sling TSI. If anyone selects that kit they should buy the hole thing at once to prevent cost hikes.
Maybe it's been covered but how does this performance compare to a Bearhawk or Moose? Obviously cruise speed is a little lower, possibly a deal breaker for some, but weight/people/fuel capacity would be an interesting comparison. I'm admittedly a high wing taildragger fan so take that for what it's worth.
It's all good to have a bias, I haven't compared them directly but I've heard many people speak highly of the Bearhawk and Moose, perhaps I'll have to feature them soon.
Nice video. I had not considered the BD4 in my search for a kit to build. RV-10 is at the top of my list, followed by the Bearhawk model B (4-place), Sling, Saberwing, and perhaps a RV-9. My biggest thing that is stopping me is the engine cost. It blows my mind that an IO-540 from Vans is $61k. All in, the RV-10 is going to be $225 to $250k. I'm struggling with that. I like to weld, so I'm considering a scratch build tube frame build (Bearhawk), but I know that is a long road. The Bearhawk is interesting with the tube fuselage and the aluminum wings. I also like the Wittman Tailwind, but I think it is just too small for me. Also, the lead times for kits and materials is pretty long!! 8-10 months for Vans. I'll be curious to see what you decide.
Lots of good points here, I’m most interested in engine cost. I’m going to put a video together taking about options (popular and seemingly unpopular options alike). I can’t believe how much engines / avionics cost!
The plane resembles a box fish. Not pretty, but pretty efficient, with it’s tiny propulsion. I have decided to build a BD-4C with the Viking 195 and in-flight adjustable propeller.
Experimental is a lot cheaper om finding out. My Mooney landing light went out on the final check for the annual. LED I said as I always wanted to get rid of the old incandescent, but, the LED cost about $300 for a certified bulb. The same uncertified LED bulb can be picked up at Auto Zone for about $7 bucks which is about the price for the incandescent bulb.
@@MyTimeToFly it's brutally cold my side. Just thinking now that my son will be 3 months next week and this entire paternity leave I haven't flown the Mooney😔. This weather ain't helping either.
I'm a bit biased but have you considered the velocity SE. You seem to want something cross country. Same engine as the bd4 a bit more useful load, narrower, faster but longer takeoff and landings. Like you said, you have to build it to maintain it and since you're going to spend a lot of time and money you might as well make the project a big one since you probably won't want to do it twice.
I can’t say I have looked at the velocity, I certainly will. I’m still a year or more away from being able to start building. I’ve got to start making some decisions though!
Never heard of this one either. The shape is similar to what used to be the Gipps Aero airvan although that plane was an 8 seater and no longer in production
I've definitely been leaning towards E-AB myself. It'd be nice to be able to do my own maintenance. It's a lot of build time though. More time spent building than flying. So I don't know if I'm ready yet to make the plunge. I've considered the RV-10/14 (and looking forward to learning more about the RV-15), the Sling High Wing, and the BD-4.
I didn't want to build at my age, 66, so - I was fortunate enough to be at the right time & place and now own the factory demo, N4BD. They are building a new one. I live just north of Ft. Worth, Texas. Feel free to message me if you want to chat. Fernando
Pretty impressive numbers (speed, pay load, etc..) compared to looks of that air plane. For this reason I start to think that certified aircraft means "with lower performances" 🙂 😀
Home builts have come a long way since I looked at the BD4 in the 1970. I did a cost probe and decided to buy a C175 for $ 5600.00. Building a home built should not be taken lightly. If You work eight or more hours a day at a regular job finding the time to build one can become a problem especially if married with kids. If You are retired and can devote the time You could create a nice airplane. The difference on the price experimental and certified is crazy as I posed this question at an IA meeting several years ago. How can a IFR certified GPS G430 WASS cost so much and the experimental which flies in the same airspace as Part 91, 135 and 121 installed by the Homebuilder make sense? No answer from the FAA.
Good luck getting those answers, I don't know if they will ever come. You make a great point about the seriousness of building your own airplane. I certainly agree, it's not something to enter into without serious consideration. Ask yourself if you really have the ambition and resources to finish the build.
The catch with this aircraft is its wing loading at 23.20 lbs/sq-ft, which is pretty high. For comparison, a C172 has a wing loading of about 14 lbs/sq-ft. The short wings surely reduce drag (hence the great cruise speed!), but this also means that you have to land and takeoff at faster speeds. So not good for short field operations, but great for cross-country (which matches your mission). Otherwise, the specs are pretty impressive!
@@revocatuskasikana5240 They would help redure the stall speed, but just a little, maybe 4-5 mph at most (just guessing). The same goes with vortex generators and STOL kits, they definitively help reduce the stall speed and therefore the landing/takeoff distances, but they can't change the original design philosophy of an airplane.
I think the Experimental Aviation Channel, or some name like that, once did a walk through of the BD-4C factory, and showed some of the kit's being packaged or built up. I agree though, the BD is definitely a beauty is in the eye of the beholder sort of plane. Sort of the same vein as the Zenith planes. I thought at one time Zenith had a four place plane (801 or 850 or something), but I'm not sure what they listed for a useful load with it. I'm looking forward to see how this journey plays out.
@@MyTimeToFly true , she is a brick with wings - but look at the mission she was designed to accomplish and where she would be a perfect match ?? STOL designs are not fast flight solutions
You plan to build from a kit? I plan to do a scratch build of the BD-4C it's going to be awesome. I too have scoped the gauntlet and the BD-4C kept coming back up I don't care for the box either but it's fast and affordable.
I had a Velocity Standard 4 seat and I loved it. IO360, 175-190 mph, depending on engine and fixed or variable pitch prop. I had to sell mine when I retired, and I am crying every day for having to do that. In today's prices, you may find one between $80k and $140k. Check it out.
That is the one negative about the Velocity. I know experienced folks who land and take off at 2400 ft but I don't think I can. 3500 is a reasonable length and 4000 if you are close to gross
Rotax engines? Forget it. The price is on the moon. Lycoming O-360 or even Superior. Reliable, better price and parts distribution all over the U.S. Let alone you would find A&P more easily than mechanics to work on expensive Rotaxes. I am an A&P so I work on my Lycoming )-360 myself. The engine is AWESOME! Powerful, low RPM run and a bunch of other advantages. I like the Sling airframe. Engine option? No Rotax for me. If they offered an option for Lycomings I would go for it. The BD-4C is very economical. I have built my RV-8 with 90 % pull rivets. There's no way I am doing any dimpling in my entire life. Nonsense, takes four times more time to rivet instead of round head. Aerodynamic drag? BS, it does not eat 3MPH speed. Wherever there were 3/32 solid aluminum flat head rivets I substituted for 1/8 galvanized shanked steel pull rivets. It is at least 2 times stronger. I made myself a practical shear test load gage. 1/8 rivet to 5/32 and so on. Using a Whirlwind propeller, the weight of the aircraft is on the low side the minimum empty weight.
Definitely a concern if you're transitioning from a training airplane (Cessna, Piper, Etc). If you coming from a Mooney, or something a little faster, I bet it's not much different.
Keep in mind selling it. Hopefully you never have to or want to but if you do: either way you will have a lot of money it. An RV10 will sell overnight while a less known plane may be hard to sell. Good luck!
If you can stomach the cost and find one still, the Lancair IV is bar none (in my opinion) the best 4 place experimental. Better yet is the IV-P. My father has the pressurized variant and the composite construction, speed, and fuel burn are incredible. That all being said, I like the looks of the BD-4C and it will be my first build.
Velocity XL... that is a true cross country beast. 200kts burning 12 gallons and that is real world numbers. Cannot stall and thus no chance of stall/spin when low and slow. Only con in my books, need long paved runways, if it fits your mission then look into it
You have me very interested in the BD now, I’ve been sold on the Sling for a while though. With similar specs and lower price tag I may go that direction. Seems you can build them with same avionics and interior. Do you know if the BD can be equipped with a handbrake? I ask because I’m a right leg amputee and handbrake is unfortunately the only way to go for me currently. Thanks for the video!
I'm not sure on the handbrake, I've never seen that application. I can say though, it's experimental...you can do whatever you please. You won't go wrong with the Sling either, they are great airplanes.
Bradley... The BD-4 uses a full castering nosewheel so directional control is via differential braking. You might be able to rig dual handbrakes but I've never seen it done. Having said that, where there's a will, there's a way. Good luck!
I'm actually looking for something very similar, except it needs to be a High wing 6 seater, due to the difference of salaries here getting a 300,000$ Airplane is the equivalent of a 500,000 Airplane, but I have found that the Murphy moose and bearhawk 5 are perfect options, I'm still trying to think which one to pick however, since both are capable and would be finished at around the same price.
Looks like a Tesla cybertruck with wings. Will be interesting if aircraft and vehicle design language starts to resemble the BD4. What was old becomes new again !!!
The BD looks is what bothered me, they should improve that , I am sure there are low cost ways to add some curves to the plane. The folding wing must be something new, before, it was like a 6 inch? pipe and you just slide the ribs on to it. As a homebuild, I will not use Lycosaurus engines, instead I use something like Aero Momentum or Yamaha engines.
The BD-4C sounds "too good to be true", so what's the catch? Very few seem to have been built. There are almost no TH-cam videos about them. Sure, they're a little boxy looking, the ease of construction, the price, the performance specs, and the folding wing option are so attractive. Again, "What's the catch?". Something must to be wrong with the design or the company.
I'm not sure what the catch is, but it has to exist. There is a company called SureWings that is trying to package the airframe with Viking engines and GRT / Garmin avionics for about $200K.
BD. Cuz doing the same for less, better, outperforming for the same cost, and properly applied paint schemes can slightly hide the no tech boxiness, IS working smarter. And I'll always believe the best option is the the simplest route for same performance. And, 9g+ rating what? Everyone has the other popular planes. NO ONE has the BD4, super sleeper special. Deck it out with avionics and luminous flashing beacons, and a no compromise diesel jet fuel engine. It'll blow fellow 4 seat kit people away. They'll want one.
Buying used is certainly leads to the fastest gratification and is more cost effective…I’m just curious if the pride developed through the build is worth it.
So if I wanted to install an engine in a frame & I need good nuts/bolts to secure the engine, how can you make absolutely sure that the parts you bought are up to the specs that you need? I recall reading about some issues w/ plane parts whereas a lot of parts dealers got arrested for buying / selling parts that fell short of their specifications. How can you know & I'm not all that bright so I'm asking you instead.... thanks for being kind. peace
It does look pretty good, but I have a hard time believing it has a 325' takeoff roll and still cruises about 150 mph. I'll have to find somebody that has one.
Okay so you want to save 25k on initial investment. I'm reasonably sure that is not the best move. The others that cost more have many more advantages, most importantly resale. You plan do not sell but just operate this plane - it still matters. You very well might change your mind on things a few years down the road.
@@MyTimeToFly I'm an expert in the auto market not the airplane market. But one of my go-to rules for buying an automobile is always look for the makes and models that tend to hold their value the best. It's basically Honda Toyota Mazda Lexus. I'll be looking for the Toyota of airplanes if that makes any sense.
The more you research I think you will fall in love with that ugly airplane. I was actively looking for a BD4 when a zenith deal came that was impossible to turn down and I also realized that a 2 place aircraft was all I actually needed. Be sure to look at unfinished kits on barnstormers, that is where you can save huge amounts of money on a project that someone has just lost the drive to finish and put the savings towards an engine. The cruise and economy of the BD stem from the semi lifting body design and efficient airfoil. You don’t hear much of these designs like the BD or the Tailwind because they are old technology and not sleek and streamlined, but they have endured and have a very devout following. Good luck with whatever you choose, and I can’t wait to watch the process.
@@MyTimeToFly i figured. They are basically bush planes but i see the useful load and the seating plus the cost and actual full metal construction as a bonus. Im in the process of getting my PPL and me and my family make roughly 65k a year, so building seems to be the only possible path to owning one large enough for our family of 5.
I've been trying to look up foreplace aircraft on the internet, but google lost its marbles when I used "foreplace single-engine two-seat airplane" as the seach terms, so I'm assuming that I've made some kind of horrendous spelling mistake. If somebody could advice me as to the proper spelling of "foreplace" or whatever it is, then that'd be most welcome.
@@MyTimeToFly Alas, that just sows more confusion. My initial (mis?)understanding was that a "foreplace" airplane is slang for a plane with tricycle undercarriage (the three ground contact points forming a triangle pointing towards the *fore* end of the plane) that's fixed in *place*, as opposed to something like a fixed taildragger (aftplace?) or retractable (forefolder?/aftfolder?) landing gear. Now obviously if the BD-4 has three wheels and is referred to as a four-place aircraft then I was way off. What does "place" even mean in this context?
@@MyTimeToFly Seats huh? I can't really make sense of why anybody would start to call them "places", but it seems widespread enough that there'd have to be a good reason for it. Anyway, thanks for the translation.
I can see thE city fathers at the local airports realizing the rich, and this what you are, if you own an new or newer airplane today, start charging major hanger rent. As well, I suppose thEy should for it is not the price of hanger rent which are driving those who make less than well into six figures out of the aviation world. I would like to say general aviation will be saved by the experimental crowd but with the almost monopoly of limited power plants and designs which are designed for certain power to weight only, I don’t see this happening. Scratch built with analog gauges with IPad tablets supplement and a rebuilt Lycoming or the like is the likely poor man’s option. High rev-ing geared converted pavement rippers just do not appeal to many but I can see why they do. Maybe the future of aviation will be similar to what happened to the American Pick up truck. The industry sat on its hands until………The Toyota 172 arrived with folding wings.
You are minimizing "building" your own aircraft. And not realistic about "maintaining" it yourself. Sweat equity building a house or aircraft is still time and effort spent that you could use to EARN the money to buy it from someone else. Realistically, the ONLY real way to get cheaper than a new Cessna or Piper or Cirrus is to either buy USED, or get an SLSA. Building the aircraft from a kit takes years, costs thousands of hours, and more than half of kits started are never finished. And doing your own maintainence is not worth the risk of being an under-experienced, under trained A&P on an aircraft that YOU will bet your life on.
You know Im a Mooney fan, but I’m not really familiar with J that has 1,100 pound useful. And although I love them, one with upgraded avionics to “new build” standards is going to cost big $$$.
u have found something😂 square is easier and cheaper to build. short list stay vfr, chevy alumiumn 350 or ford equilivent mo money. me two place long eze or cozy for you. im to old to build and fly now. electric bikes utility. ive already flown everywhere i want to go!!❤😂❤❤❤
Bearhawk much better for short fields. The BD stall speed is way high for my liking. The BD is yet a very attractive aircraft to me as a great xcountry airframe.
I am very “pro” RV, but you need to look seriously at the labor involved in building ANY kit airplane. Time will kill your motivation to complete a project. Between the RV and Sling, I would pick the Sling just because of the pulled rivets. You will have something that looks like an airplane a lot faster. The high wing Sling would be equally as awesome! Also, don’t underestimate the builders groups for each aircraft. They can be a WEALTH of information when you run into a trouble area during the build. The BD has a lot going for it. It appears to be a relatively quick build, the price is right, the stats look good, not sure about the builders network, I looked into it at one time and it was okay, at best. You may not be into auto conversions, but I believe Viking Engines had just put one of their engines on a BD? Just another potential engine option. As I sign off, lead times for kits are INSANE right now! That might be a factor to consider as well! Good luck!
Such great points! I’ll be pinning this comment. You’re correct on the Viking engine being available for the BD, it’s a Honda engine, which tends to give me a high degree of confidence. It’s also way less money than the Rotax or any conventional engine. I’ll be doing a video on engine options right quick!
Sling builder here and build time was definitely a huge part of the consideration. The Tsi also should outperform the RV10 at altitude due to the 600lb difference and turbo v. naturally aspirated engines. That all being said of course it's hard to argue with the success of all the RV's and the BB4 definitely would fall into the "strong consideration".
Right on man, thanks for the thought. Blind rivets for the win!
@@MyTimeToFly You mean pulled rivets. :)
That’s exactly what a “blind rivet” is. It essentially means you only have to see one side of the rivet
I didn't read through all of the comments so I don't know if anyone else posted a correction (though that would surprise me). A major error in the information you provided viewers was that if the build an airplane they can do all of the maintenance and repairs on it.
This is false.
ANYONE can do maint. and repairs on an experimental amateur built aircraft. Even major repairs after it has been damaged. The only thing a non builder owner can't do is sign off the annual condition inspection that is required by the operating limitations. For that a person has to posses a repairman's certificate specifically issued for that aircraft (only available to the primary original builder) or and A&P mechanic.
People need to like this comment so it can be found by more people. I also caught the error but this correction was way down in the comment list.
I'll add to the info too. Even though anyone can legally do a major alteration on an EAB, the paperwork needs to be updated with the FAA. This is something to be mindful of if you are looking to buy a used EAB since it seems like a lot of owners don't both with this when they change the prop for example.
There’s no denying the BD-4 is the homeliest of the lot. But I don’t fly the plane from the outside, so for me it is about performance and comfort.
What a great way of putting it, and a great mindset!!!
I went to the factory and flew the BD4C, climes fast, turns quick, and most importantly the landing gear made my bad landing "feel" like a soft landing, it was like having shocks. the Building community seems active, they answer my questions within about 2-3 days when I post and everyone is willing to give out there phone number to have a phone conversation to clear up any texting confusion that happens. All in all the only draw back is the baggage compartment being small, but lots of builders have installed extra baggage doors. All in all I keep coming back to this bird.
Great thought from someone who’s been hands on! Thanks for sharing.
Can you share the BD-4 builders group info? I'm really interested in the plane. It looks so builder-friendly and the flight specs sound impressive.
I am currently flying a BD-4 B. We also have two more BD-4Bs, one is a restoration and the other is a scratch build. While a friend of mine went with the RV10 at a finished cost of 400k, ours has about 40K invested. Performance of the two aircraft is pretty closely matched. Yes the RV 10 is a prettier aircraft, but bang for your buck, the BD-4 can’t be beat. When you read the company spec sheet, remember that those numbers are based on the aircraft at gross weight. My previous BD-4 with a O-320 160 hp was able to cruise at 180 mph. Not bad at all. Build it light and you will get the performance you are looking for. Best thing about the BD-4 is that it is simple to build and fun to fly. The is a very good group of builders that are willing to share information. Most of all, it is built like a tank, very strong airframe. If cost is you issue, the BD-4 is hard to beat.
Thanks so much for the great info Mike! I'm glad to hear the success stories!
Can you share the BD-4 builders group info? I'm really interested in the plane. It looks so builder-friendly and the flight specs sound impressive. I'm also intrigued by the folding wings, but can't find any details about how well it works. I'd assume it requires draining the fuel tanks, right?
I was walking the field at Oshkosh this year and saw a nice yellow and white one . Struck up a conversation with the owner and he mentioned all the numbers to me and I was very impressed !
That's the best, talking with the owners directly!
What an amazing airplane! I had never heard of it. Unfortunately, I’m afraid of getting a homebuilt because I’d never finish it quickly enough. Don’t want a “project”, unfinished, taking up space in my shop. I have plenty of those. 😉
I completely understand that fear. That's a big reason we are building our current home. I too, have many projects that don't get finished...just ask my wife!
I know I'm 10 months late to the party, but I have a few words of advice. There are 3 types of lies: lies, damned lies, and kitplane spec sheets. All kitplane manufacturers heavily pad their performance numbers.
You do not want to go down any unbeaten paths for your first build. Go with an airframe and engine combo that has many flying examples each with many hundreds of flying hours. Leave the "experimental" part of E-AB to the people with multiple builds under their belt and a lot of time and money to blow on a pet project.
Everything that I've heard about Rotax engines is great except for maintenance. Everything has to go through them. They only allow you to do a certain amount of work yourself and it isn't much more than the preventive maintenance in Appendix A of Part 43. All other maintenance has to be performed by mechanics that they authorize and they control the supply of spare parts.
New Lycomings and Continentals are way more expensive than Rotax and both are having supply chain issues right now (but who isn't these days). That being said, if you get in over your head on a maintenance issue, any A&P will be able to take a look at them. Be careful buying a used one. If an engine gets pulled off an airplane there is usually a reason why.
I'll second Mike Hildebrand's thoughts on pulled rivets vs. solid. I'm building a Zenith 750 Cruzer like him and I can say that pulled rivets are WAY quicker and easier than solid. Even Vans has gone to mostly pulled rivets for the RV-15.
The one thing about the BD-4C is that the wing skins require applying a special epoxy to bond to the ribs. The factory does provide a builder assist option for this part as they know it is the most complex part of the build, but that adds to the cost. The rest of the airplane looks pretty straightforward, though. Since I'm building a 750 Cruzer, I can't make any disparaging comments on how the BD-4C looks. The best looking airplane is the one you own.
Peter, what a fantastic write up. I appreciate you sharing all of these thoughts with the community. Good luck as you progress through you 750 Cruzer build!
Around a year or so, I watched a video for the "BD", and I fell in love with the airplane. Precisely because it's boxy look, I think it's a sexy, gorgeous, stylish airplane. That video was taken at the BD factory and I enjoyed it tremendously because of its symplicity of construction. The spar is a round pipe from side to side and it is noticeable from pilot/copilot seats. Again, I think this is a great video. Thank you for this great channel. Please keep up the great work!
Thanks again! It is an interesting airplane for sure. A lot of people love it, but there are also many who dislike the appearance. It’s hard to please them all I guess!
Truly, the BD-4 is the winner here... Beauty... it grows on you. This is by far the best 4 place airplane to build and fly. Thanks Jim for giving us a winner ! BTW, you retirees with wives that will not fly with you anymore ( many ), Check out the BD_6... everything you could want. Cheers, and success !
Thank you kindly, you sound like a BD owner to me!
@@MyTimeToFly I only wish I were...No, I fly a 1949 Navion, but would be willing to build a BD-4 ...lol ! Thanks !
Very cool. The Navion is a neat airplane!
I thought I was geeked out enough to know the players in that market but totally missed that option. Very interesting specs! You have given me a new web site to geek out on. Thanks for sharing!
Right on Russ. Thanks for being here!
You and I have a similar mission. I'm looking forward to watching you go through this process to evaluate the airplane you might build.
That said, I'm leaning towards a Sling TSI mainly due to the Rotax engine. Savvy Aviation's discussion of that engine is a big influence.
I'll have to check out that discussion, Mike Busch is the best. I was definitely impressed with the TSi I flew in, you wouldn't go wrong there!
A thing to think of is how often will you fill 4 seats, If you really want to build and can afford it, keep the Mooney while your building the BD then sell the Mooney to finance the engine, radios, etc.
Roger that. The simple answer is, I can't afford to do both. But it sounds like a great plan if I could.
At first I only knew of two four place experimentals, the RV-10 and the Velocity selection. It was hard to find, but eventually I found the Bearhawk, the sportsman 2+2, the delta dyke (!), the BD-4 (I think it's a good option), and one I'm really liking, the Cozy MkIV. Didn't really know about the slings, I'll have to learn more about those. For some reason it seems to be difficult to find all of the fairly limited 4 place EXP options out there.
I've also decided that unconventional engines would be my choice (Aeromomentum and the Yamaha Apex conversation both have my interest), and GRT has a well featured and affordable avionics option.
Great thoughts man, thanks for sharing. Going against “normal” sounds great to me!
I bought my first aircraft in 1991. A low time 1978 built Piper PA38 Tomahawk. Price then $15,500. I wish I kept it but I needed the money for other projects.
I completely understand. It seems like I'm constantly juggling projects, there's always time for another one!
I think I have a new favorite kit plane! Before this I was dreaming of the Sling TSi. Or a Mooney. But after seeing your avionics video detailing prices for upgrades in the Mooney it reminded me of the advantages of Experimental. Then to see this video and find out about kit plane that is significantly less than a sling with similar performance! Hopefully I will be lucky enough to build one someday. Thanks for introducing me.
My pleasure. Check out “Surewings”. It sounds like they are going to have an excellent BD-4C based kit coming out very soon.
I’m kinda partial to my Mooney J model.
Upgraded the avionics to an Avidyne 540 and Lynx L3. It’s a cross country machine with fuel sipping performance. There’s just something to be said for a certified aircraft when you’re putting your family in it.
Not to say the experimental world is pretty amazing but it’s a huge commitment to get to the point that you’re finally flying it. We have a neighbor here that had a BD of you want to see one sometime.
Thanks Mike! You’re right, it’s a ton of work. But it just might be worth it if time allows.
@@MyTimeToFly I think it would be hugely rewarding. We have a few experimental guys in the field here. RV-10 as well. I’d be happy to introduce you to them if you want to look at them sometime. Just say the word. We are just a short hop from your place.
That sounds great Mike. Remind me, where are you at? If somebody with an RV-10 is open to it, I’d love to film their airplane.
I love the bd4, definitely on the shopping list. Great information as well.
Thanks so much
I had a 1948 35 Bonanza, and the voltage regulator went out. I went to the parts dept at an airport, and they wanted some outrageous price for it. Went to the auto parts store and picked it up for 12 Dollars. The insides were the same, so I just replace the original cover for the regulator. Worked fine for years!
I love it, I would do the same on any system I knew well.
What the hell does your comment have anything to do with what this video is about???
BeDe offers a build option for an extra $22,000 where they do most of the work for you at their shop in Ohio. You have to visit & help with the build a certain number of times for it to be a legal homebuilt. I don't know if that includes finishing off the interior. I think including the kit package the total is around $60,000. Then you'll need an engine & avionics, which would cost $30-40,000. That would allow you to get it built ASAP, maybe in a couple of months or so, depending on scheduling.
That seems like a good way to buy a brand-new plane with minimal labor and time. It's not cheap, but it won't take 2 years to build.
I couldn’t agree more, it’s a great way to keep you accountable to a build schedule.
I would choose the BD-4 as well. I didn’t know about the foldable wings. Not paying hangar fees would pay do a lot of gas. My engine of choice though would be the UL Power 520s for around $35,000 new. 200hp
UL power is certainly making a name for itself.
The BD4 has always been a top performer. A not so well known contemporary and a bit more stylish is a plans built wittman W10 tailwind, add the cabbie woods plans addition to the W10 to build the tailwind into the fourrunner and you will have, imho, a better bPerformer, and easy to build one at that. Tube and fabric fuselage, with wood wing, wood wings are often poopooed by folks, but an honest dive into the construction medium, yields an easy to build, super strong wing. The 17-30A bellman a Viking is an oft overlooked top performer as well but due to its chosen construction design, it is misunderstood and way undervalued in todays aircraft market.
Thanks for all of the great thoughts! I had never heard of the Tailwind. At first glance it’s a pretty sweet bird!
The Thatcher CX series of aircraft is often overlooked.
Nice…a scratch built option. They claim on the website (under $20k including and engine). That’s a BOLD claim!
Thanks for the video. I agree that EAB seems to be the most economical approach for those who are capable of employing it. And for those who are not, there are builder assist programs available in some areas. Construction time is a factor.
I'm so old, I remember when the BD-4 was first introduced. I think you are correct about its boxy appearance. I recall feeling that way when I first saw it a long time ago. The boxy appearance could possibly limit its resale marketability shoud you ever desire to part ways with it. OTOH, you would only need one buyer and its perfomance specs could outweigh the aesthetics in this day and time. Just my impression.
Back then, construction of kit planes was a greater challenge than it is today, I think. Kits were less developed and less builder friendly.
Thanks for being here. I agree that building has become more of a reality for a larger part of the community as time has progressed. I just hope I don't end up being the who doesn't finish his as that seems to happen too often!
@@MyTimeToFly Cory, for the past few years I fantasized about constructing an EAB kit from Van's. Finally, reality set it and at my age, I realized that was a pipe dream. Maybe one of my descendents would finish it! But, I never stopped watching TH-cam construction videos of RV-10s and other aircraft (even ultralights). I have observed all sorts of starts and stops of projects during that time. That doesn't count outside influences which might force stoppage. There are so many factors that could derail a project. Maybe this is one sort of long project that should be treated as a 'dash' as opposed to a marathon. Too many bad things could happen, the longer the project remains unfinished! 😀
If I was not so enamored by my Velocity SE, the BD-4C would be my choice. Its numbers are amazing. It also has the one mission profile my Velocity lacks, the ability to use unimproved runways. Not a good idea in a small wheeled pushed but I’d love the option to camp under the wing at some remote location. I wish I were younger (turned 63 on the Wednesday, the 8th), as I’d love to build and have a BD-4C too. But first, a helicopter 😊. That way I can fly the Velocity to a hard surface runway (preferable Gelespie County in Fredericksburg, Texas) then hop into my chopper to get to my future property nearby or camp sight. Hey, goals are important 😁
Another experimental 4 place that has better numbers then the certified you mentioned, but it's mission is a little different. It is more of a Bush plane. Is the bear hawk 4, and the new 5 model. It has decent cruise numbers and useful load for what it is. but it's a little slower then a rv10 if speed is what you really want.
From what I know the Bearhawk is a great plane, it’s just a little thirsty for me with that O-540 hanging off the front.
I’m in the same boat right now and despite the cost, I’m leaning towards the new Sling HW (the TSi High Wing). I understand that the kit is top notch for quality and pull rivets make it way easier for a single person to build. The other factor is the resale of the Sling 4 and TSi is well above the kit cost right now and is expected to stay that way for quite some time. What’s the used market for the BD4C like?
I'll have to look into that Sling HW, I haven't done any research on it. I agree, the resale value of the TSi is incredible, probably even good enough right now to go into business making them. Anyway, I couldn't find any BD-4's for sale currently, but I certainly don't believe the market to be as good as the RV or Sling.
I've heard wait time for a Sling HW kit, due to the popularity, is well over a year, so suggest checking that out.
I believe it…I guess that gives me time to save $$$.
@@MyTimeToFly There have been lots of price increases on the Sling TSI. If anyone selects that kit they should buy the hole thing at once to prevent cost hikes.
Great point! This the world we live in…prices go ⬆️⬆️⬆️
Maybe it's been covered but how does this performance compare to a Bearhawk or Moose? Obviously cruise speed is a little lower, possibly a deal breaker for some, but weight/people/fuel capacity would be an interesting comparison. I'm admittedly a high wing taildragger fan so take that for what it's worth.
It's all good to have a bias, I haven't compared them directly but I've heard many people speak highly of the Bearhawk and Moose, perhaps I'll have to feature them soon.
Nice video. I had not considered the BD4 in my search for a kit to build. RV-10 is at the top of my list, followed by the Bearhawk model B (4-place), Sling, Saberwing, and perhaps a RV-9.
My biggest thing that is stopping me is the engine cost. It blows my mind that an IO-540 from Vans is $61k. All in, the RV-10 is going to be $225 to $250k. I'm struggling with that.
I like to weld, so I'm considering a scratch build tube frame build (Bearhawk), but I know that is a long road. The Bearhawk is interesting with the tube fuselage and the aluminum wings. I also like the Wittman Tailwind, but I think it is just too small for me.
Also, the lead times for kits and materials is pretty long!! 8-10 months for Vans.
I'll be curious to see what you decide.
Lots of good points here, I’m most interested in engine cost. I’m going to put a video together taking about options (popular and seemingly unpopular options alike). I can’t believe how much engines / avionics cost!
The plane resembles a box fish. Not pretty, but pretty efficient, with it’s tiny propulsion.
I have decided to build a BD-4C with the Viking 195 and in-flight adjustable propeller.
Nice! I like the Viking power, although some people don’t believe it’s for aviation…it’s hard to argue with Honda power!
I’m liking this combo option. Have you already received the kit?
Experimental is a lot cheaper om finding out. My Mooney landing light went out on the final check for the annual. LED I said as I always wanted to get rid of the old incandescent, but, the LED cost about $300 for a certified bulb. The same uncertified LED bulb can be picked up at Auto Zone for about $7 bucks which is about the price for the incandescent bulb.
Hey there Jerome! I hope the winter is treating you well. I hear you, it drives me crazy to have to pay more, and not be able to do the work myself.
@@MyTimeToFly it's brutally cold my side. Just thinking now that my son will be 3 months next week and this entire paternity leave I haven't flown the Mooney😔. This weather ain't helping either.
I hear you, we’re also have a brutal cold snap. It can make it difficult to stay motivated!
I'm a bit biased but have you considered the velocity SE. You seem to want something cross country. Same engine as the bd4 a bit more useful load, narrower, faster but longer takeoff and landings. Like you said, you have to build it to maintain it and since you're going to spend a lot of time and money you might as well make the project a big one since you probably won't want to do it twice.
I can’t say I have looked at the velocity, I certainly will. I’m still a year or more away from being able to start building. I’ve got to start making some decisions though!
Never heard of this one either. The shape is similar to what used to be the Gipps Aero airvan although that plane was an 8 seater and no longer in production
It never ceases to amaze me just how many airplanes exist that I’ve never heard of. Absolutely astonishing!
I've definitely been leaning towards E-AB myself. It'd be nice to be able to do my own maintenance. It's a lot of build time though. More time spent building than flying. So I don't know if I'm ready yet to make the plunge. I've considered the RV-10/14 (and looking forward to learning more about the RV-15), the Sling High Wing, and the BD-4.
RV-15…can’t said I’ve heard of that! Time to start researching.
@@MyTimeToFly No real details right now, but something I'm interested in following. Van's Aircraft announced it at Oshkosh.
Anything Vans does is worth keeping an 👁 on, thanks for the info!
I didn't want to build at my age, 66, so - I was fortunate enough to be at the right time & place and now own the factory demo, N4BD. They are building a new one. I live just north of Ft. Worth, Texas. Feel free to message me if you want to chat. Fernando
That's very awesome. Is it a great plane to fly?
Pretty impressive numbers (speed, pay load, etc..) compared to looks of that air plane. For this reason I start to think that certified aircraft means "with lower performances" 🙂 😀
It sure seems that way. Perhaps a higher premium on safety for certified airplanes vs. a higher premium on performance for experimental?
Home builts have come a long way since I looked at the BD4 in the 1970. I did a cost probe and decided to buy a C175 for $ 5600.00. Building a home built should not be taken lightly. If You work eight or more hours a day at a regular job finding the time to build one can become a problem especially if married with kids. If You are retired and can devote the time You could create a nice airplane. The difference on the price experimental and certified is crazy as I posed this question at an IA meeting several years ago. How can a IFR certified GPS G430 WASS cost so much and the experimental which flies in the same airspace as Part 91, 135 and 121 installed by the Homebuilder make sense? No answer from the FAA.
Good luck getting those answers, I don't know if they will ever come. You make a great point about the seriousness of building your own airplane. I certainly agree, it's not something to enter into without serious consideration. Ask yourself if you really have the ambition and resources to finish the build.
@@MyTimeToFly Bede offer a quick build option with 2 weeks at the factory!
That sounds pretty awesome,
The catch with this aircraft is its wing loading at 23.20 lbs/sq-ft, which is pretty high. For comparison, a C172 has a wing loading of about 14 lbs/sq-ft. The short wings surely reduce drag (hence the great cruise speed!), but this also means that you have to land and takeoff at faster speeds. So not good for short field operations, but great for cross-country (which matches your mission). Otherwise, the specs are pretty impressive!
Thanks for the details, makes good sense to me.
will putting the leading edge slats change the landing & taking off distance?
@@revocatuskasikana5240 They would help redure the stall speed, but just a little, maybe 4-5 mph at most (just guessing). The same goes with vortex generators and STOL kits, they definitively help reduce the stall speed and therefore the landing/takeoff distances, but they can't change the original design philosophy of an airplane.
I think the Experimental Aviation Channel, or some name like that, once did a walk through of the BD-4C factory, and showed some of the kit's being packaged or built up.
I agree though, the BD is definitely a beauty is in the eye of the beholder sort of plane. Sort of the same vein as the Zenith planes. I thought at one time Zenith had a four place plane (801 or 850 or something), but I'm not sure what they listed for a useful load with it.
I'm looking forward to see how this journey plays out.
Thanks Reuben, I think it's the 801 you're thinking of. Useful load is around 900 lbs, but the cruise speed suffers at 106 mph.
@@MyTimeToFly true , she is a brick with wings - but look at the mission she was designed to accomplish and where she would be a perfect match ?? STOL designs are not fast flight solutions
You plan to build from a kit? I plan to do a scratch build of the BD-4C it's going to be awesome. I too have scoped the gauntlet and the BD-4C kept coming back up I don't care for the box either but it's fast and affordable.
Hard to argue with the specs, I figure I’d get used to the looks.
@@MyTimeToFly Same. I figure I can make up for exterior with interior.
Truth
Another plane you might consider it the Murphy Yukon a 4 place but it may not have the cruise speed you're looking for.
It’s certainly not horrible, but 135 mph on 210 hp is in fact a bit slow for me. I’ve been spoiled by the Mooney.
Bearhawk is another 4-place option, but not as fast (but fast in its class of bush planes).
Definitely a great option if your mixing “off airport” with cross country travel.
I had a Velocity Standard 4 seat and I loved it. IO360, 175-190 mph, depending on engine and fixed or variable pitch prop. I had to sell mine when I retired, and I am crying every day for having to do that. In today's prices, you may find one between $80k and $140k. Check it out.
I will check it out. I love the 360 motor, and those are great speeds on that power.
what is the shortest runway you could get in to with the Velocity?
That is the one negative about the Velocity. I know experienced folks who land and take off at 2400 ft but I don't think I can. 3500 is a reasonable length and 4000 if you are close to gross
Rotax engines? Forget it. The price is on the moon. Lycoming O-360 or even Superior. Reliable, better price and parts distribution all over the U.S. Let alone you would find A&P more easily than mechanics to work on expensive Rotaxes. I am an A&P so I work on my Lycoming )-360 myself. The engine is AWESOME! Powerful, low RPM run and a bunch of other advantages. I like the Sling airframe. Engine option? No Rotax for me. If they offered an option for Lycomings I would go for it. The BD-4C is very economical. I have built my RV-8 with 90 % pull rivets. There's no way I am doing any dimpling in my entire life. Nonsense, takes four times more time to rivet instead of round head. Aerodynamic drag? BS, it does not eat 3MPH speed. Wherever there were 3/32 solid aluminum flat head rivets I substituted for 1/8 galvanized shanked steel pull rivets. It is at least 2 times stronger. I made myself a practical shear test load gage. 1/8 rivet to 5/32 and so on. Using a Whirlwind propeller, the weight of the aircraft is on the low side the minimum empty weight.
The only concern is the slightly higher stall speed
Definitely a concern if you're transitioning from a training airplane (Cessna, Piper, Etc). If you coming from a Mooney, or something a little faster, I bet it's not much different.
Comparing BD-4 (with a 4 cylinder) to the RV-10 (with 6 s is apples to oranges).
You’re saying the HP difference makes them incomparable or simply the cylinder count?
Keep in mind selling it. Hopefully you never have to or want to but if you do: either way you will have a lot of money it. An RV10 will sell overnight while a less known plane may be hard to sell.
Good luck!
Great video, full of comprehensive and clear points. I just wish this could be in metric system, it's very hard to picture stuff in "feets"
Hahaha, likewise I have no clue what a meter is. It’s crazy how we learn our measures like a language.
@@MyTimeToFly we just have to accept it I guess haha
As long as I have conversion tables I will survive. Ironically I work for a hand tool company, we make more metric tools than inch tools.
@@MyTimeToFly hahahaha that's pretty useful though, some experience under the belt
Most definitely
If you can stomach the cost and find one still, the Lancair IV is bar none (in my opinion) the best 4 place experimental. Better yet is the IV-P. My father has the pressurized variant and the composite construction, speed, and fuel burn are incredible. That all being said, I like the looks of the BD-4C and it will be my first build.
Yes, the Lancair is an awesome little rocket ship!
I hope you make a video on the build there is not enough TH-cam material of the BD4C
Biggest Lancair issue - cost of insurance!! UGH !!
That’s a big Mooney problem too!
@@kieyavorsky2188,
The Tesla Cyber truck will help make the BD-4 look like the most modern aircraft!
Truth!!!
Lol, I was comparing it to a Cyber truck as well but this plane is still better looking.
I have to agree!
Love the fire place
Nice, that was in my parents basement as we were building a new house.
There are many choices out there. Have you ever heard of the Glasair Sportsman? Any thoughts about that model of aircraft?
I’m not familiar at all (no surprise there), I’ve got it marked down to research. Thanks Sam!
Velocity XL... that is a true cross country beast. 200kts burning 12 gallons and that is real world numbers. Cannot stall and thus no chance of stall/spin when low and slow. Only con in my books, need long paved runways, if it fits your mission then look into it
You have me very interested in the BD now, I’ve been sold on the Sling for a while though. With similar specs and lower price tag I may go that direction. Seems you can build them with same avionics and interior. Do you know if the BD can be equipped with a handbrake? I ask because I’m a right leg amputee and handbrake is unfortunately the only way to go for me currently. Thanks for the video!
I'm not sure on the handbrake, I've never seen that application. I can say though, it's experimental...you can do whatever you please. You won't go wrong with the Sling either, they are great airplanes.
Bradley... The BD-4 uses a full castering nosewheel so directional control is via differential braking. You might be able to rig dual handbrakes but I've never seen it done. Having said that, where there's a will, there's a way.
Good luck!
Seems very doable! Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
OK here I go with my selection : Piper pacer/tripacer, BD Aero and a kitfox maybe.
A good lineup for sure!
@@MyTimeToFly so crazy but I really like those. Thank you for the time to answer. Excellent work you do.
That’s so much Charlie, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate the kind words.
I like this aircraft a lot the one you picked I was wondering what you think of the dike Delta
I’d take the Bede with a Viking engine. Those other a/c engine producers can shove it. Their prices way to high.
I appreciate that. It truly amazes me how much a new Rotax costs.
I'm actually looking for something very similar, except it needs to be a High wing 6 seater, due to the difference of salaries here getting a 300,000$ Airplane is the equivalent of a 500,000 Airplane, but I have found that the Murphy moose and bearhawk 5 are perfect options, I'm still trying to think which one to pick however, since both are capable and would be finished at around the same price.
Looks like a Tesla cybertruck with wings. Will be interesting if aircraft and vehicle design language starts to resemble the BD4. What was old becomes new again !!!
I wouldn’t be surprised, history does seem to repeat itself.
Have you considered the Velocity XL? Check it out
I have not. It's a sleek looking airplane, but canard style airplanes have never fit my fancy for some reason.
The BD looks is what bothered me, they should improve that , I am sure there are low cost ways to add some curves to the plane. The folding wing must be something new, before, it was like a 6 inch? pipe and you just slide the ribs on to it. As a homebuild, I will not use Lycosaurus engines, instead I use something like Aero Momentum or Yamaha engines.
Check out the Veloce 400. It has better numbers than the Sling thing or the rv-10.......and looks like a Cirrus sr22.
Sling tsi....not thing. Dang auto correct.
Ha, nice! I will certainly check out that Veloce!
The BD-4C sounds "too good to be true", so what's the catch? Very few seem to have been built. There are almost no TH-cam videos about them. Sure, they're a little boxy looking, the ease of construction, the price, the performance specs, and the folding wing option are so attractive. Again, "What's the catch?". Something must to be wrong with the design or the company.
I'm not sure what the catch is, but it has to exist. There is a company called SureWings that is trying to package the airframe with Viking engines and GRT / Garmin avionics for about $200K.
@@MyTimeToFly I can't imagine SureWings has actually sold a plane from their unfinished-looking website.
I tend to agree, but I’m curious if they can help grow the BD brand.
BD. Cuz doing the same for less, better, outperforming for the same cost, and properly applied paint schemes can slightly hide the no tech boxiness, IS working smarter.
And I'll always believe the best option is the the simplest route for same performance.
And, 9g+ rating what?
Everyone has the other popular planes. NO ONE has the BD4, super sleeper special. Deck it out with avionics and luminous flashing beacons, and a no compromise diesel jet fuel engine.
It'll blow fellow 4 seat kit people away. They'll want one.
A Deltahawk for $100,000???
What diesel engine do you have in mind?
Check out the Veloce 400
Will do, as of right now I’m completely unfamiliar!
There’s a reason we buy used but I did consider building a bear hawk. I think I will wait till I find a Maule in my price range.
Buying used is certainly leads to the fastest gratification and is more cost effective…I’m just curious if the pride developed through the build is worth it.
@@MyTimeToFly don’t get me wrong I would love to do a build and even have some experience in maintenance but not sure I have the time.
I hear you for sure!!!
So, roughly $60K for plane and engine.
Can you give a rough estimate of the cost of basic avionics?
Have you considered the Cozy Mark 4? If so, what do you think of it?
All the specs seems great, I’m just not in love with the design.
So if I wanted to install an engine in a frame & I need good nuts/bolts to secure the engine, how can you make absolutely sure
that the parts you bought are up to the specs that you need? I recall reading about some issues w/ plane parts whereas a lot
of parts dealers got arrested for buying / selling parts that fell short of their specifications. How can you know & I'm not all
that bright so I'm asking you instead.... thanks for being kind. peace
Thanks, Thanks, Thanks!!!
My pleasure
Is this a public service announcement, or do you get a better deal with this video????
Public service, I don't own this airplane. I own a 1963 Mooney M20C as seen on the channel.
hmm what about S21 Outbound from rans ? looks pretty good
It does look pretty good, but I have a hard time believing it has a 325' takeoff roll and still cruises about 150 mph. I'll have to find somebody that has one.
Fab video
Thanks a bunch!
Prices lately have gone through the roof. It's insane.
Definitely. I’m glad I bought 2 years ago!
Is there any two seater plane with comfortable seating (height adjust) and affordable, because I want to travel around the world.
For those of you that are interested, check out this short video to give you an idea of the BD-4C in flight.
th-cam.com/video/dIqfX__d9T4/w-d-xo.html
Thanks for sharing, it has some wonderful footage!
Okay so you want to save 25k on initial investment. I'm reasonably sure that is not the best move. The others that cost more have many more advantages, most importantly resale. You plan do not sell but just operate this plane - it still matters. You very well might change your mind on things a few years down the road.
That's a good point, resale on well known planes would be much higher. I hadn't thought of that.
@@MyTimeToFly I'm an expert in the auto market not the airplane market. But one of my go-to rules for buying an automobile is always look for the makes and models that tend to hold their value the best. It's basically Honda Toyota Mazda Lexus. I'll be looking for the Toyota of airplanes if that makes any sense.
Makes great sense to me, I’m a Honda guy myself.
The more you research I think you will fall in love with that ugly airplane. I was actively looking for a BD4 when a zenith deal came that was impossible to turn down and I also realized that a 2 place aircraft was all I actually needed. Be sure to look at unfinished kits on barnstormers, that is where you can save huge amounts of money on a project that someone has just lost the drive to finish and put the savings towards an engine. The cruise and economy of the BD stem from the semi lifting body design and efficient airfoil. You don’t hear much of these designs like the BD or the Tailwind because they are old technology and not sleek and streamlined, but they have endured and have a very devout following. Good luck with whatever you choose, and I can’t wait to watch the process.
Thanks so much Jason. I was just looking through Barnstormers last night as a matter of fact. With one search I found 4 pages of "project" airplanes.
Ever thought of the cozy Mk4?
I haven’t really. It’s just such a different design. I’d love to fly in one and see what it’s all about.
The specs and cost are just looking awesome!😎
2k fpm solo climb and 180kts on 180 horse! The pusher prop makes you feel like you are in a jet :)
I guess I’ll have to find one to bum a ride in someday!!!
Ever considered the Murphy moose or yukon?
I haven’t. They seem more like bush planes, where I’m mostly focused on the cross country mission.
@@MyTimeToFly i figured.
They are basically bush planes but i see the useful load and the seating plus the cost and actual full metal construction as a bonus.
Im in the process of getting my PPL and me and my family make roughly 65k a year, so building seems to be the only possible path to owning one large enough for our family of 5.
That makes sense to me, but it also depends on how you define owning. A good club could be an option.
LOL, "specs" from BD. Right....
Right…I’m sure they are best case scenario.
Tecnam P2008 is all glass and better looking, probably 200k lightly used and you don't have to spend 2 years making it
They are nice looking airplanes, but 2 seats vs. 4 would be a dealbreaker for me.
A Sonex is boxy and it looks ok.
The only thing is about stall speed
Definitely must keep the speed up on final!
Higher stall speeds also effects crash surviveability if that should ever come into play
Has anyone registered one in the UK, will it pass the UK regs?
There is an older model BD-4 with a G tail number that I've seen pictures and videos of.
I've been trying to look up foreplace aircraft on the internet, but google lost its marbles when I used "foreplace single-engine two-seat airplane" as the seach terms, so I'm assuming that I've made some kind of horrendous spelling mistake.
If somebody could advice me as to the proper spelling of "foreplace" or whatever it is, then that'd be most welcome.
“Four” instead of Fore
@@MyTimeToFly
Alas, that just sows more confusion.
My initial (mis?)understanding was that a "foreplace" airplane is slang for a plane with tricycle undercarriage (the three ground contact points forming a triangle pointing towards the *fore* end of the plane) that's fixed in *place*, as opposed to something like a fixed taildragger (aftplace?) or retractable (forefolder?/aftfolder?) landing gear.
Now obviously if the BD-4 has three wheels and is referred to as a four-place aircraft then I was way off. What does "place" even mean in this context?
It mean how many seats are in the airplane. “4-place” “2-place” etc.
@@MyTimeToFly
Seats huh? I can't really make sense of why anybody would start to call them "places", but it seems widespread enough that there'd have to be a good reason for it.
Anyway, thanks for the translation.
Anytime, I appreciate the conversation.
The BD 4 tail dragger is better looking. try that
I do agree they look better.
Be careful with insurance cost. Taildragger + experimental + pilot age = likely expensive
Uhh,, Bede sez 600 hrs total!! That engine hung, electrics all the minutia! It s built like an erector set.
I have a hard time believing 600 hours is doable, or at the very least I'm not sure I'd volunteer to be the test pilot for an example built that fast.
Cheap airplanes crash just as good as expensive ones, it's the pilot that needs to be better.
True that!
I 'fly' in my Corolla.
bearhawk?
I can see thE city fathers at the local airports realizing the rich, and this what you are, if you own an new or newer airplane today, start charging major hanger rent. As well, I suppose thEy should for it is not the price of hanger rent which are driving those who make less than well into six figures out of the aviation world. I would like to say general aviation will be saved by the experimental crowd but with the almost monopoly of limited power plants and designs which are designed for certain power to weight only, I don’t see this happening. Scratch built with analog gauges with IPad tablets supplement and a rebuilt Lycoming or the like is the likely poor man’s option. High rev-ing geared converted pavement rippers just do not appeal to many but I can see why they do. Maybe the future of aviation will be similar to what happened to the American Pick up truck. The industry sat on its hands until………The Toyota 172 arrived with folding wings.
Interesting thoughts...the Toyota 172, that will be the day.
About a quarter of the cost of these planes is to pay for the company's insurance etal....
🤷♂️
You are minimizing "building" your own aircraft. And not realistic about "maintaining" it yourself. Sweat equity building a house or aircraft is still time and effort spent that you could use to EARN the money to buy it from someone else. Realistically, the ONLY real way to get cheaper than a new Cessna or Piper or Cirrus is to either buy USED, or get an SLSA. Building the aircraft from a kit takes years, costs thousands of hours, and more than half of kits started are never finished. And doing your own maintainence is not worth the risk of being an under-experienced, under trained A&P on an aircraft that YOU will bet your life on.
If you want a plane that can carry 1100 pounds and fly 155 knots just upgrade to a J model Mooney and save yourself 2000 hours of work.
You know Im a Mooney fan, but I’m not really familiar with J that has 1,100 pound useful. And although I love them, one with upgraded avionics to “new build” standards is going to cost big $$$.
Bede say 700 hours, but probably more like 1000. The quick build option is just 2 weeks!
It’s got to be so hard to estimate build times. Everybody has such different skill levels.
Hahaha very entertaining! But Bede specs. The kingdom of lies.
u have found something😂 square is easier and cheaper to build. short list stay vfr, chevy alumiumn 350 or ford equilivent mo money. me two place long eze or cozy for you. im to old to build and fly now. electric bikes utility. ive already flown everywhere i want to go!!❤😂❤❤❤
Velocity airplane
They are very cool
Short answer, NO...
This plane looks awful, in a good way 😂 I wonder how this compares to a bearhawk!
Very similar specs, but on way less power. The Bearhawk specs a 250 HP Lycoming O-540
Bearhawk much better for short fields. The BD stall speed is way high for my liking. The BD is yet a very attractive aircraft to me as a great xcountry airframe.