4 seats, 200 mph, AC, and parachute, fully built for $247K?

M

MountainDude

Cleared for Takeoff
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
1,466
Display Name
MountainDude
Home Airfield
KPDX
It's called BD-4.
Am I understanding correctly that this company builds the plane for you?
This seems like the best deal in GA, but I have never seen this plane before, or heard anyone talk about wanting one.

 
Uncle built one. One of the ugliest planes around. Don't know much about the current company but Jim bede was a notorious dirtbag. Enough for me to be turned off with anything using his name.

Edit: apologies if anyone takes offense to the above. I'm 4 very strong old fashioned's deep.
 
Last edited:
Racerx said:
Uncle built one. One of the ugliest planes around. Don't know much about the current company but Jim bede was a notorious dirtbag. Enough for me to be turned off with anything using his name.
Click to expand...

This is my completely ignorant take also. I dunno anything BD-* but the legacy is terrifying.
 
MountainDude said:
It's called BD-4.
Am I understanding correctly that this company builds the plane for you?
This seems like the best deal in GA, but I have never seen this plane before, or heard anyone talk about wanting one.

Click to expand...
Go to https://www.surewings.com/ and the first title is "Kit description." It's not built for you. It's a pretty much complete kit.

The BD-4 was popular in the 1970s. First introduced in 1968. It was easy to build, strong, fast, and some thought it was ugly. At a time when most homebuilts were two-seat wood or tube and fabric airplanes, this was a four-seat all-metal airplane. It could be built as a trike, or as a real airplane, a taildragger.

Yeah. Jim Bede was a lousy businessman. But his designs were remarkable. Every Grumman light single owes its ancestry to him. His BD-1 became the American/Grumman Aviation AA-1.
 
A 2+2 1968 plans built, high wing EAB design ain’t getting M20J speeds without trickery.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Go to https://www.surewings.com/ and the first title is "Kit description." It's not built for you. It's a pretty much complete kit.

The BD-4 was popular in the 1970s. First introduced in 1968. It was easy to build, strong, fast, and some thought it was ugly. At a time when most homebuilts were two-seat wood or tube and fabric airplanes, this was a four-seat all-metal airplane. It could be built as a trike, or as a real airplane, a taildragger.

Yeah. Jim Bede was a lousy businessman. But his designs were remarkable. Every Grumman light single owes its ancestry to him. His BD-1 became the American/Grumman Aviation AA-1.
Click to expand...
The guy in the Youtube video is the owner of Surewings, and I interpreted him to say that they build them for $247K.
 
Two of my fellow engineers in EAA chapters owned BD-4s. Both really liked the aircraft.

Roger did a lot of improvements, even sold wing kits. One day, he lost his engine taking off from a small field during an EAA picnic, and ended up ground looping to keep from going over the embankment. The chapter members ran out, recovered the pieces of the aircraft and stowed them in his hangar before the FAA showed up. "What accident?"

He had to rebuild the BD-4, and in the process decided to install a Blanton Ford V-6 conversion. He gave a presentation at EAA once, explaining his reasoning. Showed the result of his trade study-- in every category, the Lycoming was the better pick. But his last chart said, "But I'm going to do it anyway...."

This was in the middle of the Blanton controversy, with Blanton bitterly complaining about people (and Kitplanes magazine) pointing out problems with his system. Roger kept publicly quiet, but within the chapter pointed out that the PSRU had mis-drilled holes that messed up the alignment.

Roger fixed the PSRU, and the conversion was pretty successful (though confirming his estimates of the performance loss due to heavier weight, etc.). He flew it for about three years, then switched back to a Lycoming. No specific event led to the engine change. He just never felt confident in the reliability of the package, and hesitated flying his family in the aircraft.

One story he told me about the BD-4. Builders of the early models complained that the ailerons were stiff in flight. They eventually found that the aileron control system was too tight, and the normal flex of the wing in flight was basically jamming the ailerons. It was fixed, of course.

Roger was a stalwart of the BD-4 community, and had a cordial relationship with Jim Bede. Even invited me to dinner with him and Bede. Bede seemed a bit leery of me throughout. Might have been due to my association with Kitplanes magazine, whose editor at the time was a major critic of Jim Bede.

All-in-all, I have a positive impression of the BD-4, and think it's a good potential pick.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
How would that be done without a type certificate?
Trying to squeeze into experimental exhibition? For a generic A-B-A homebuilt?
Click to expand...
Lots of people out there in experimental land trying to push it right up to the line that kicks the fed's into action. The feds have a lot of fish to fry, and I suspect that questionable homebuilt construction/licensing is low on their list.
 
kyleb said:
Lots of people out there in experimental land trying to push it right up to the line that kicks the fed's into action. The feds have a lot of fish to fry, and I suspect that questionable homebuilt construction/licensing is low on their list.
Click to expand...

This particular guy’s idea is vaporware. In the video he references MW Fly for the engine in an hp rating they don’t have. On the SureWings website, he’s spec’ing a turbo FADEC Viking that doesn’t seem to exist.

My guess is the concept exists exactly as that; a concept. He hasn’t TC’d it, so it would have to be build assist. I think he thought he had a hi wing competitor to the Sling TSI and then they brought their own high wing to the game and now the business plan languishes.
 
After the bourbon has metabolized, I regret nothing. I stand by my statement of being one of the ugliest planes ever constructed. Jim Bede being a "lousy businessesman" is being polite. This new entity appears to be cut from the same cloth.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Go to https://www.surewings.com/ and the first title is "Kit description." It's not built for you. It's a pretty much complete kit.

The BD-4 was popular in the 1970s. First introduced in 1968. It was easy to build, strong, fast, and some thought it was ugly. At a time when most homebuilts were two-seat wood or tube and fabric airplanes, this was a four-seat all-metal airplane. It could be built as a trike, or as a real airplane, a taildragger.

Yeah. Jim Bede was a lousy businessman. But his designs were remarkable. Every Grumman light single owes its ancestry to him. His BD-1 became the American/Grumman Aviation AA-1.
Click to expand...
dan you are normally the man, however, i have to disagree with you on this. his designs were not remarkable, every one of them took a lot of redesign before they became usable aircraft. yhe grumman line had real wing design problems and took a lot of redesign before they could considered good airplanes. we won't even discuss the bd-5 and bd-10 they were both death traps. bede was a dreamer with some grand ideas, however, his business sense and engineering left a lot to be desired. that being said, the BD-5 is still one of the coolest looking airplanes out there.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
How would that be done without a type certificate?
Trying to squeeze into experimental exhibition? For a generic A-B-A homebuilt?
Click to expand...
It's called builder assist. Basically, a "factory" holds your hand through the whole build, and does all organization/non-legally required builder tasks. This allows Glasair to create its two-week-to-taxi program, where the build only technically takes 2 weeks of the "builders manpower," and then you get a new aircraft and a repairman's certificate. The FAA sanctions it.

www.aviationpros.com

Two Weeks to Taxi Program Adds Vans RVs

Two Weeks to Taxi LLC will focus exclusively on assisting builders of various kit aircraft types in rapidly completing their aircraft.
www.aviationpros.com www.aviationpros.com
I do believe that Glasair paused it post Covid.
 
unsafervguy said:
dan you are normally the man, however, i have to disagree with you on this. his designs were not remarkable, every one of them took a lot of redesign before they became usable aircraft. yhe grumman line had real wing design problems and took a lot of redesign before they could considered good airplanes. we won't even discuss the bd-5 and bd-10 they were both death traps. bede was a dreamer with some grand ideas, however, his business sense and engineering left a lot to be desired. that being said, the BD-5 is still one of the coolest looking airplanes out there.
Click to expand...
Yes, they were flawed, but the early models of many airplanes are troublesome. Luscombe had spar carrythrough corrosion problems. Almost every Cessna model had cracks forming in some areas. The Mooney is famous for rusted-out fuselage steel cage tubing. Champs and Citabrias with wooden spars have problems with spar cracking and loosening rib nails. The Corvalis had a tee in the oil pressure system that was installed as an overhung load on a small pipe nipple that would crack and break under vibration and starve the engine of oil. Cirrus parachutes have been known to set fire to the airplane as they rocket out of it. This is not minor stuff. There are numerous airworthiness directives for relatively new airplanes, and many more SBs.

How many homebuilt designs made it to certified production levels? The Corvalis is one. The Pazmany PL-1 is another. The Bede BD-1 made it and it kept growing until it was a twin-engined airplane. I count nearly 9000 singles built.

I am not a Bede fan at all, but I also never designed and built an airplane. I have had several building and restoration projects, but that is not the same at all. Jim Bede was unscrupulous, but not at the level of Moller, who spent $100 million of investors money and 50 years on a pipe dream.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
How would that be done without a type certificate?
Trying to squeeze into experimental exhibition? For a generic A-B-A homebuilt?
Click to expand...
read the purpose of E/AB. you can totally build and sell an E/AB.. several per year if you like. FAR 21.191 g

Exhibition is a complete non-starter.

$250k+? lol no. Ever since the BD-4 went with honeycomb ribs the price of the kit almost doubled.

why pay $100 per rib when you can bang one out for <$30. It's saves some time using honeycomb... but there is no difference otherwise
 
pfarber said:
read the purpose of E/AB. you can totally build and sell an E/AB.. several per year if you like. FAR 21.191 g
Click to expand...
And under that part we read:

(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

"...solely for their own recreation or education." How does building and selling several per year fit into that?

No doubt it's happening in places, but someone that builds and sells several aircraft a year is no longer an amateur builder. He's a commercial builder. Different rules for that. Much different.
 
Dan Thomas said:
And under that part we read:

(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

"...solely for their own recreation or education." How does building and selling several per year fit into that?

No doubt it's happening in places, but someone that builds and sells several aircraft a year is no longer an amateur builder. He's a commercial builder. Different rules for that. Much different.
Click to expand...
The problem is the FAA is trying to regulate intent. If you are building for a hobby and then selling them because you want the money for the next one - that happens. Just like you can fly your buddy over to Denver to see the Colorado Rockies while you hang out at a Hooters and split the expenses. But, if you advertise "I will build you an airplane for $xxx,xxx" then, no, ain't gonna fly.
 
Dan Thomas said:
And under that part we read:

(g) Operating amateur-built aircraft. Operating an aircraft the major portion of which has been fabricated and assembled by persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own education or recreation.

"...solely for their own recreation or education." How does building and selling several per year fit into that?

No doubt it's happening in places, but someone that builds and sells several aircraft a year is no longer an amateur builder. He's a commercial builder. Different rules for that. Much different.
Click to expand...
Actually, as long as the prolific builder is doing the work, then registering and getting the AWC in their name before selling, the "recreation" intent kicks in regardless if they are making bank on the sales or not. In such cases the FAA doesn't care. What the FAA cares about are the so called "hired guns" who do most if not all the work and then the "builder" swoops, sets a rivet and then completes the registration and AWC process as if they met the 51%rule criteria. There was a big crackdown on this a few years ago. Note, this is not the same as the Builder assist programs which have FAA blessing.
 
FAA has changed what major portion means.

In the past, it meant that the builder did 51% or more of ALL the labor.

Now, it means 51% of the tasks. So if you build one rib, you have done the task of building ribs. The company can make the rest of them.

This how several companies are doing very quick builds with only a couple of weeks of the "builder's" time,
 
Pinecone said:
FAA has changed what major portion means.

In the past, it meant that the builder did 51% or more of ALL the labor.

Now, it means 51% of the tasks. So if you build one rib, you have done the task of building ribs. The company can make the rest of them.

This how several companies are doing very quick builds with only a couple of weeks of the "builder's" time,
Click to expand...
Wow, that is quite generous of FAA. Very cool.
 
Pinecone said:
FAA has changed what major portion means.

In the past, it meant that the builder did 51% or more of ALL the labor.

Now, it means 51% of the tasks. So if you build one rib, you have done the task of building ribs. The company can make the rest of them.

This how several companies are doing very quick builds with only a couple of weeks of the "builder's" time,
Click to expand...
THIS.

Build ONE rib, the other 20+ can be bought and you're still an E/AB. Its a fair interpretation. There is 'educational value' in learning to build 'A' rib. Repeating the process 19 more times, not so much.

You can even go so far as to say if you trim a spar to final length is enough to get credit for the entire spar.

I got into E/AB back in the late 70's... the FAA still had precover inspections back then. Now its just a final DAR signoff.

The E/AB (and companies like Vans) would never reach the scale of today if the FAA didn't make these changes.
 
Pinecone said:
FAA has changed what major portion means.

In the past, it meant that the builder did 51% or more of ALL the labor.

Now, it means 51% of the tasks.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Do you have a reference on the labor vs task change? I did some research on the amateur-built major portion rule some time ago for a unique E/AB helicopter project and only found references indicating it was task or portion based. There was also similar discussion when FAA wanted to "restructure" the E/AB building process concerning commercial assistance, etc. in the mid-2000's or so with their 20/20/11 proposal. However, as I recall the FAA stated they would not change to a labor time-based system, which points to a task-based system. One interesting note, the major portion rule wasn't codified until after the FARs were introduced.
 
MountainDude said:
It's called BD-4.
Am I understanding correctly that this company builds the plane for you?
This seems like the best deal in GA, but I have never seen this plane before, or heard anyone talk about wanting one.

Click to expand...
I was seriously considering building a BD-4c in the near future. My wife and I went to Sun n Fun this year to see one in person as we heard surewings was taking over. Surewings wasn't there but we did get to chat with Jim Bede Jr. and the first words out of his mouth were "If all goes well I'll have the company completely sold this time next year". We chatted a bit about the planes history, improvements, concerns my wife and I had, etc.. but he kept going back to the fact that he is looking to sell the company. Its great that NASA has taken on using Bede aircraft for some research projects but our concern now is that if he sells the company we are stuck with a new vendor to provide parts. He also said they just got new tooling to make the kits more like Vans in that you will get just about everything pre-fabricated so it should be an easy build with minimal if any fabrication by the home builder. The Bede is still on our list but it's moved down a spot or two as we weigh these comments. I can get past the ugly plane aspect for the pros but the last thing we want is a partially complete plane in the garage with no end in sight.
 
Will Kumley said:
I was seriously considering building a BD-4c in the near future. My wife and I went to Sun n Fun this year to see one in person as we heard surewings was taking over. Surewings wasn't there but we did get to chat with Jim Bede Jr. and the first words out of his mouth were "If all goes well I'll have the company completely sold this time next year". We chatted a bit about the planes history, improvements, concerns my wife and I had, etc.. but he kept going back to the fact that he is looking to sell the company. Its great that NASA has taken on using Bede aircraft for some research projects but our concern now is that if he sells the company we are stuck with a new vendor to provide parts. He also said they just got new tooling to make the kits more like Vans in that you will get just about everything pre-fabricated so it should be an easy build with minimal if any fabrication by the home builder. The Bede is still on our list but it's moved down a spot or two as we weigh these comments. I can get past the ugly plane aspect for the pros but the last thing we want is a partially complete plane in the garage with no end in sight.
Click to expand...
Vans does most of the work in the Philippines. Then ships to the US. Not sure how much $$$ it saves them but for me an RV was never a serious consideration due to cost for kit.

The BD can still be made from scratch. The book is still available and has plans. IIRC the frame is made from 6 4x8 sheets of AL... just gotta cut and bend them into an airplane shape, The honeycomb ribs are the real downfall. WAY to expensive. The wing kit is $19,000 LOL NO. Plans for metal wings exist and the fuselage extension is nothing more than 20-ish feet of Al and copying the gussets. Before the switch to honeycomb the entire BD-4 kit was right at $30k. Now its just shy of $50k and you still need a motor and avionics and an interior. The fuel tank shark fins are the solution to the no-dihideral wing fuel issue... I have other plans as only having a few cups of fuel in the sump when descending is not very reassuring.

BD-4s with the stretch fit my mission perfectly... I have less than $5k into the airframe and only have wings to finish. Auto engine (or a cheap O-470 if one comes up). I can't dump $100k+ into a plane... and $40k+ for an antique certificated plane is not an option.
 
Last edited:
pfarber said:
Vans does most of the work in the Philippines. Then ships to the US. Not sure how much $$$ it saves them but for me an RV was never a serious consideration due to cost for kit.

The BD can still be made from scratch. The book is still available and has plans. IIRC the frame is made from 6 4x8 sheets of AL... just gotta cut and bend them into an airplane shape, The honeycomb ribs are the real downfall. WAY to expensive. The wing kit is $19,000 LOL NO. Plans for metal wings exist and the fuselage extension is nothing more than 20-ish feet of Al and copying the gussets. Before the switch to honeycomb the entire BD-4 kit was right at $30k. Now its just shy of $50k and you still need a motor and avionics and an interior. The fuel tank shark fins are the solution to the no-dihideral wing fuel issue... I have other plans as only having a few cups of fuel in the sump when descending is not very reassuring.

BD-4s with the stretch fit my mission perfectly... I have less than $5k into the airframe and only have wings to finish. Auto engine (or a cheap O-470 if one comes up). I can't dump $100k+ into a plane... and $40k+ for an antique certificated plane is not an option.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but I think sourcing the spar material is also complicated. The kit price is one of the cheapest available, as long as you get all the parts. Build logs show that it's not overly complicated to build so it's still a viable option. Just need to be aware you run the potential of material availability. I'm not positive surewings has finished their first plane yet.
 
pfarber said:
Vans does most of the work in the Philippines. Then ships to the US. Not sure how much $$$ it saves them but for me an RV was never a serious consideration due to cost for kit.
Click to expand...
Van's parts are all made in the US. Some of the Quick Build kits are assembled in the PI from parts made in the US.
 
Will Kumley said:
I was seriously considering building a BD-4c in the near future. My wife and I went to Sun n Fun this year to see one in person as we heard surewings was taking over. Surewings wasn't there but we did get to chat with Jim Bede Jr. and the first words out of his mouth were "If all goes well I'll have the company completely sold this time next year". We chatted a bit about the planes history, improvements, concerns my wife and I had, etc.. but he kept going back to the fact that he is looking to sell the company. Its great that NASA has taken on using Bede aircraft for some research projects but our concern now is that if he sells the company we are stuck with a new vendor to provide parts. He also said they just got new tooling to make the kits more like Vans in that you will get just about everything pre-fabricated so it should be an easy build with minimal if any fabrication by the home builder. The Bede is still on our list but it's moved down a spot or two as we weigh these comments. I can get past the ugly plane aspect for the pros but the last thing we want is a partially complete plane in the garage with no end in sight.
Click to expand...
He's a Bede. Trust nothing. New tooling probably means they found a new vendor. I doubt BD does any sort of quantity to have much equipment.
 
Bell206 said:
Interesting. Do you have a reference on the labor vs task change? I did some research on the amateur-built major portion rule some time ago for a unique E/AB helicopter project and only found references indicating it was task or portion based. There was also similar discussion when FAA wanted to "restructure" the E/AB building process concerning commercial assistance, etc. in the mid-2000's or so with their 20/20/11 proposal. However, as I recall the FAA stated they would not change to a labor time-based system, which points to a task-based system. One interesting note, the major portion rule wasn't codified until after the FARs were introduced.
Click to expand...
ac20-27g has all the worksheets and formulas for it
 
Racerx said:
He's a Bede. Trust nothing. New tooling probably means they found a new vendor. I doubt BD does any sort of quantity to have much equipment.
Click to expand...
I have no dog in the fight on trust of the man, he did say the tooling was so they could make all parts in house and provide a kit that is effectively bolt together with minimal extra work. We also can't get around the idea of buying a kit when we haven't had a chance to see a completed current model to sit in.
 
unsafervguy said:
should be called the vaporjet as i think only four have ever been built and the company does not make them anymore if they are even still around.
Click to expand...
I was told 20+ kits were sold with 8-9 built. Years ago told a customer he's on his own with the Viper but would gladly assist on a L-39.

unsafervguy said:
ac20-27g has all the worksheets and formulas for it
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I'm familiar with that info. My question was in context to the comment in Post 23 that the major portion (51% rule) was originally based on labor time and was changed to 51% of the tasks by the FAA. I've only seen a 51% task-based reference hence my question.
 
Bell206 said:
I was told 20+ kits were sold with 8-9 built. Years ago told a customer he's on his own with the Viper but would gladly assist on a L-39.


Thanks, but I'm familiar with that info. My question was in context to the comment in Post 23 that the major portion (51% rule) was originally based on labor time and was changed to 51% of the tasks by the FAA. I've only seen a 51% task-based reference hence my question.
Click to expand...
im not sure, but i think before the task based information was developed i think it was handled like porno, we can't define 51% but we know it when we see it. the task base thing came about after the quick built options and completion centers became a thing. before that there never was any doubt that you did 51%.
 
Came across this at Oshkosh on Tuesday.
Just sharing for fun.

Also, looking at the angle aluminum frame just seems odd to me for some reason. I guess in that respect, they literally are cutting corners ;)


1753395386197.png

1753395455073.png

1753395493007.png


1753395510165.png

1753395533130.png

The tents behind it made it look like weird flaps or something..
1753395590832.png

Also, the RV-15 is painted (outside only), and wing kits will be available by the end of this year, and full kits soon after.
The rep told me to expect about $170,000ish for the kit, before paint, avionics, etc. In other words, around 18-20k more than the 14.

1753395719594.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top