Talk:Bede BD-4

Comments on Bede manual, other "facts"
"that gave even the tyro a good perspective on construction techniques"

Wazza? I see no other editors so it doesn't seem to be vandalism... what is a "tyro"?

Maury 14:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We should also mention that the reported cruise speeds are higher than what the aircraft actually seem capable of. There are numerous stories about owners quoting the manual's speed as their own, but then being easily outperformed by "slower" designs. Maury 14:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Maury, sorry for slagging vocabulary about; "Tyro": A beginner in learning something. FWIW Bzuk 15:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Good point on the performance capabilities- can you incorporate it into the text? (BTW, our friend in the Amelia Earhart controversy has resurfaced. She/he is a delight to watch, I should pull up a chair and get popcorn.) {:)} Bzuk 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC).

I'd love to, but the only ref I can find is a newsgroup post (= no no). I'll do some poking about for better refs. In the meantime, would you mind giving the new Bede BD-10 article a look-see? I've been meaning to do that one for a while. Maury 20:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo not a BD-4
1) The aircraft shown in the upper right corner is not a BD-4.

2) In regards to the performance discussion: The values from the manual have been achieved by many builders. Others have gotten less performance. The reasons for the differences vary from aircraft to aircraft. The BD-4 is hardly "easily outperformed" by other designs with a smaller powerplant. As much as that would be appreciated by some.

3) Powerplant: up to 350HP have been installed and flown. Also, the most used engine is a IO-360.

4) Maximum speed depends on the powerplant, but for a 234 mph you'd need more than 300HP. Refer to http://bd-4.org/specs.html for the 'book' values.


 * If that isn't a BD-4? what is it? Curious? Bzuk 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC).


 * I don't know what that photo shows, sorry. Looks a little like a Glasair Sportsman, but that's not it, either. Definitely is not a BD-4 though. Saltoricco 05:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It matches up with the latest BD-4 profile including the spats. I took the photo and had identified it at the time as a BD-4, but I have been known to be wrong... Bzuk 06:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
 * The more I stare at the photo, the less sure I am...[[Image:Bd4 2.gif]] This is the latest incarnation of the Bede Bd-4. Compare it to the photo,[[Image:BD-4.jpg|thumb|150px]] there are some similarities but I can also see Glasair Sportsman there. Bzuk 06:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
 * OK, as an experimental the BD-4 can be built as one pleases, i.e. mine is longer, higher has different wings and what not. The original BD-4 has a completely flat wind shield (although many use a curved one), no wing struts, no kink in the leading edge (but one on the horizontal stab.), the landing gear is straight and the fuselage is does not have any compound curves besides the cowling. All attributes of the plane in the picture. The one in the photo appears to have a composite airframe with metal wings. It does look familiar, I'd like to say I've seen it in Europe, but can't quite put my finger on it. Saltoricco 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, here's a solution; do you have a photo of your Bede BD-4 that can be accessed for the article? Upload the image file to replace the infobox photograph. IMHO Bzuk 15:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC).
 * My aircraft is not yet flying, plus it is too modified to be representable. But when the author of the article contacted me to provide a photo I had sent in the one that is also seen, on the left side. That BD-4 is very close to stock. Saltoricco 16:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm hardly an expert on the type, but the BD-4's fuselage is slab-sided, which doesn't seem to be the case with Bzuk's photo... --Rlandmann 02:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am looking for another photo, in the meantime, I will replace the infobox photo with one that works. Bzuk 03:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC).

Earliest Kit - Not BD-4?
Wouldn't the Heath Parasol of 1926 be an earlier aircraft offered in kit form? Ferritecore 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right you are, an amendment to the article needs to be made. Perhaps the Bede BD-4 represents the first "modern" successful kitplane. Bzuk 02:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Googling around, the Heath Parasol was offered complete ready built, without an engine, as a kit, or as plans. It could be the Parasol was primarily a ready-built aircraft that was also available as a kit. The BD-4 is primarily or exclusivly a kit. The Parsol also, as you say, predates the FAA and modern regulations. Ferritecore 02:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless (and the Heath Parasol, circa 1929, WAS primarily sold in kits, by the hundreds), it is clear that the assertions that the BD-4 was the "first kit plane" are flatly false, and should not be made in this article, or any other. I've corrected it.
 * ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 06:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Gross weight?
The Variants section says 2400# for both, but the Specs section says 2000#. Steve8394 (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out! . - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bede BD-4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tvap.com/bede_bd4.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130917072908/http://www.bedecorp.com/store/books to http://www.bedecorp.com/store/books

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ - Ahunt (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

No obvious relation to the BD-2
The text indicates that the BD-4 was, in part, an outgrowth of the BD-1 and BD-2. Arguably true about the BD-1, but no obvious relation to the BD-2, which (as I seem to recall) was just a Schweizer glider, that Bede put an engine into (for a transatlantic-crossing stunt). Correct me if I'm wrong; correct the text if I'm right.

Frankly, the text in this article seems borderline promotional rather than strictly encyclopedic. See articles on other homebuilts for comparaison. ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The text actually says Based on his previous work with innovative light aircraft, the BD-1 (eventually developed into the American Aviation AA-1 Yankee) and BD-2, Jim Bede designed the BD-4 to be the first real "kitplane" in the world. It is unsourced, but probably not an unreasonable assertion that the experience gained working on the BD-1 and BD-2 projects allowed Bede to create the BD-4. It doesn't say that the design was actually derived from, or based upon those previous designs. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Credibility of Article & Sources
This article is corrupted by the abusive over-reliance on sources with a clear conflict-of-interest in this subject. Too many of the assertions are made only with reference to materials from Bede, his affiliate enterprises, his cult-like fans and customers, and their support enterprises. Very little of this material is from comparatively independent and neutral sources, in violation of WP:NPOV. This article reads like a Bede advertisement.

The above-noted false statement that the BD-4 was the "first" kitplane -- twice repeated in the article prior to my edits this evening -- is an echo of notorious Bede's continuous stream of falsehoods, and exaggerated and deceptive promotions, harking back to the earliest days of his business activities. There are two simple reasons that Jim Bede was THE most distrusted pariah in general aviation: chronic dishonesty and unreliability.

And it doesn't help that many of his very recklessly designed aircraft (and their derivatives) have terrible safety records, as well. General aviation is fraught with mischief and dishonesty, but Bede raised it to an infamous art form.

Consequently, ANY article touching on him or his aircraft should be scrutinized, carefully, for falsehoods, and should NEVER rely solely on Bede's own communications (nor those of his affiliated enterprises, echo-chamber fan base, or their support enterprises) as sole supporting references -- EVER. For the facts about Bede and his planes, there are plenty of credible, reputable, independent major-media and industry-media sources to cite, instead. Use them, please.

~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)