Quantcast

What's up at Bede Aircraft?

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

sming

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2019
Messages
119
Yes! Did i understood correctly that the bd-10 displayed here flew 126 hours? I always read it was flawed and not really airworthy?
 

don january

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
3,006
Location
Midwest
Yes! Did i understood correctly that the bd-10 displayed here flew 126 hours? I always read it was flawed and not really airworthy?
He did mention it had hanger rash but totally repairable. I do like that low wing single seat I think it's the BD-6 ?
 

Hephaestus

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
2,040
Location
YMM
PFI constructed a production configuration left side fuselage tail boom, complete with vertical and horizontal tail components. The unit was built to the same configuration as the accident aircraft components. This assembly was then mounted on a test fixture, with strain gages installed on the vertical stabilizer spars. The vertical tail was then loaded to failure. The failure mode and separation point was the same as that seen on the accident aircraft left vertical tail assembly. The test revealed that the vertical stabilizer spars began to yield at 40 percent of the failure load limit supplied by BJC (see AIRCRAFT INFORMATION section). Spar failure occurred at 65 percent of the BJC supplied load limit.
Seriously hope there's no thoughts of flying the 10...
 

djfawcett

New Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Messages
2
Actually, there were two issues with the in-flight break-up. The spar failure load is correct. But what caused the load was an incorrect incidence on the vertical. The vertical was set at 0 incidence, when in fact it should have been 1.9 deg to adjust for cross flow. At approximately 380 kts plus the vertical failed followed by the break-up.
 

pfarber

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 21, 2019
Messages
710
Location
Pennsylvania
I was at the 'factory' two years ago. The BD-4 is a remarkably simple plane to build. They put easy of build above most everything else, but I don' think they have any intention to take the plane farther.

They really need to open the cargo door (get rid of the cross brace). Also the doors are way to heavy for what they are. They really should have a composite solution by now... with a slight bow to increase elbow/shoulder room. It would be an instant hit.

They try to sell the honeycomb rib as a great solution.. but at $80 PER RIB (retail) they are way to expensive for what they do.

The fact that the skin is completely decorative is a bonus.. but then you spend a LOT of time trying to make the corners blend nicely with filler.

I hope they do well.
 

Daleandee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
1,209
Location
SC
When I was a young buck I really wanted a BD-5. Now the BD4 is looking like a great choice. But I couldn't afford to build one ... 😞
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
14,176
Location
Memphis, TN
It is one sided. Burt even says so. I’m surprised you were not banned from there. From that it was worse than I had thought. BJC, what was the check number of your deposit?
 

ToddK

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
429
Location
The Real Texas
The BD5 and 10 were both death traps. I like the B4c a lot, but I am not sure that I could trust the bonded wing. Might be great, but is a little too far out on the edge for me.
 
Last edited:
Top