Talk:Bede BD-4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aircraft WikiProject

A fact from Bede BD-4 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 17 June 2007.

"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)

[edit] 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... This is the latest incarnation of the Bede Bd-4. Compare it to the photo,

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).

[edit] Earliest Kit

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)