Are Cheaper Airplanes Actually Better? 

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 😁

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 !

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 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!

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!

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 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.

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.

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 love the bd4, definitely on the shopping list. Great information as well.

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.

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.

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 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!

The Thatcher CX series of aircraft is often overlooked.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Love the fire place

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 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.

The only concern is the slightly higher stall speed

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.

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

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.

There are many choices out there. Have you ever heard of the Glasair Sportsman? Any thoughts about that model of aircraft?

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!

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" 🙂 😀

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.

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"

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.

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?

Fab video

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!

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

Thanks, Thanks, Thanks!!!

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.

The Tesla Cyber truck will help make the BD-4 look like the most modern aircraft!

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.

Comparing BD-4 (with a 4 cylinder) to the RV-10 (with 6 s is apples to oranges).

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.

OK here I go with my selection : Piper pacer/tripacer, BD Aero and a kitfox maybe.

Bearhawk is another 4-place option, but not as fast (but fast in its class of bush planes).

Another plane you might consider it the Murphy Yukon a 4 place but it may not have the cruise speed you're looking for.

Check out the Veloce 400

hmm what about S21 Outbound from rans ? looks pretty good

So, roughly $60K for plane and engine. Can you give a rough estimate of the cost of basic avionics?

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.

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.

Have you considered the Velocity XL? Check it out

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.

Check out the Veloce 400. It has better numbers than the Sling thing or the rv-10.......and looks like a Cirrus sr22.

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 !!!

Have you considered the Cozy Mark 4? If so, what do you think of it?

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.

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 RU-vid 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.

Ever thought of the cozy Mk4?

Ever considered the Murphy moose or yukon?

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.

I’d take the Bede with a Viking engine. Those other a/c engine producers can shove it. Their prices way to high.

A Sonex is boxy and it looks ok.

Prices lately have gone through the roof. It's insane.

For those of you that are interested, check out this short video to give you an idea of the BD-4C in flight. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dIqfX__d9T4.html

The only thing is about stall speed

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.

bearhawk?

Cheap airplanes crash just as good as expensive ones, it's the pilot that needs to be better.

Has anyone registered one in the UK, will it pass the UK regs?

Is this a public service announcement, or do you get a better deal with this video????

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.

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.

The BD 4 tail dragger is better looking. try that

LOL, "specs" from BD. Right....

Tecnam P2008 is all glass and better looking, probably 200k lightly used and you don't have to spend 2 years making it

Uhh,, Bede sez 600 hrs total!! That engine hung, electrics all the minutia! It s built like an erector set.

About a quarter of the cost of these planes is to pay for the company's insurance etal....

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!!❤😂❤❤❤

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.

Velocity airplane

Hahaha very entertaining! But Bede specs. The kingdom of lies.

Short answer, NO...

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.

This plane looks awful, in a good way 😂 I wonder how this compares to a bearhawk!

$100k for 180hp engine, prop, and aviaonics?!?!?! you're insane. you need to learn to shop better.

see if someone has ever done a 4 place whitman whirlwind ? equally cool ( but 2 place ! ) OR a velocity ! or a 4 place Funk ! ( they never made one ) stretch a 2 place ! will not stall or a 4 place ercoupe ?( " " " " ) " " " " " "