Del http://www.netpackrat.com/planes/bearhawk.html http://ashley.jbc.edu/~paul/Bearhawk/ http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4424 Russ Erbman http://www.eaa1000.av.org/pix/erbpix/bearhawkcd.htm david.a.steele http://members.tripod.com/~Knightflyer William Johnson http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/ +++ #25 Subject: Sun N' Fun From: Mike M. The fuselage packs are finally finished - i am picking them up Tuesday and I'll have them out in the mail by friday. These guys are a quite bit different from the wing sets each photo takes up a whole page - a description is also included of most photos in an index section. There will also be updates until the photo pack reaches 150 photos or there abouts. I will send out what I have and then announce updates in Bear-Tracks - you will then need to send a SASE only to cover shipping (the notice will say how many stamps are required). +++ #34 Subject: Bearhawk at Sun'n'Fun Report From: Russ Erb BIG PICTURE: After having spent 3 years with the plans, I did not find anything that surprised me, with one minor exception, and that was something that was better than I had expected. I killed off about 7 rolls of film taking detailed photos of the entire airplane. Eventually I will release these on a CD along with archives of interesting e-mails and anything else useful I can find to stuff on the CD. I had announced this earlier, and still plan to ask $20 a copy to cover my expenses. The expected release date will be sometime after you read this. Or if you prefer, it will be out by Christmas. Notice I didn't say what year... So here are the things I noticed, in no particular order: Getting in and Out Unlike the Cessna 180 that I travelled to Sun'n'Fun in, the prototype Bearhawk does not have an external step to aid in boarding. Of course, you could design and add one yourself if you so desired, assuming you're willing to accept the weight and drag penalty. Without it, here is a description of the boarding procedure for the front seat as best I can remember it: Stepping up to left side, rotate the handle to unlatch the window, and swing it up toward the wing. The same latch hooks into a clip on the lower surface of the wing to hold it open. Open the lower half of the door, which swings out toward the strut. Facing forward, hold on to the wing strut with your left hand, and the back of the seat with your right hand. Now swing your right leg up onto the seat. You don't have to be able to kick as high as the Rockettes, but it wouldn't hurt. Make sure your leg is on the right (far) side of the stick. Now reach forward and grab the tube that runs diagonally across the windshield with your right hand. Use this hand to pull yourself up into the seat, then drag your other leg in. If you think this all sounds rather ungainly, then you understand the description. Not only would this not work for a woman in a skirt, but shorter folks might not be able to do it at all. It did occur to me that a small step stool 6" to 9" high would make boarding much simpler. A small line attached to the stool could be used for pulling it on board after getting in. Getting out is more a case of getting your leg over the stick, sticking your legs out of the door, and just sliding out to the ground. Getting in the back seat is not as complex, since it is lower and there isn't a stick in the way. Just throw your leg up there and haul yourself in. Forward Visibility I felt the forward visibility on the ground was not bad for a taildragger...er...conventional gear aircraft. This is based on my vast experience in taildraggers, which consists of the right seat of a Cessna 180. Still, while sitting comfortably in the seat I could see directly forward sufficiently to feel safe taxiing without s-turning. This was better than the 180, which requires leaning forward and stretching to see past the nose. This makes the Bearhawk very good when you consider that some aircraft you can't see straight forward on the ground no matter how much you stretch. Examples include the Pitts Special and the F4U Corsair. As implemented, the seat moves up as it slides forward. This should help our builders who are not in excess of 6 feet tall, like myself. I took some pictures for the CD as best I could at my eye height. I say "as best I could" because using a SLR looking through the viewfinder puts the axis of the lens about an inch below eye height, which can make a big difference in how much you can see. Therefore I raised the camera until the lens was roughly at eye height. Of course, at this point I was blindly aiming. They turned out reasonably well. What I noticed later was that while looking out the windshield I didn't even notice the tube across the windshield. I figure this is because when you are focused outside the cockpit (effectively at infinity), your binocular vision sees on either side of the tube, such that each point in the distance is covered by at least one eye. To see the effect for yourself, next time you're out driving, hold up an index in front of your face at arms length to simulate the tube. Focusing at the distance, you'll see what looks like two transparent fingers. For those of you who care about such things, my sitting eye height is 61st percentile male. If you don't understand that, I'm 5'9" tall. You can decide how that compares to you. Rear Seat Legroom The one surprise I had was when I realized the amount of space between the front and rear seats. I found the rear seats to be quite comfortable, and spent somewhere between 15 and 30 minutes sitting there while talking to Mike. Pat Fagan has also sat in the rear seat while visiting Virginia and found it to be comfortable. Part of the reason for the large space between the front and rear seats is that the rear seat is rather close to the floor, being more like sitting in a sports car than sitting in a chair at the dining table. It uses horizontal distance instead of vertical distance to store your legs. Small Baggage Door I noticed that the small baggage door I've proposed on my Bearhawk web page isn't going to be as easy as I had first thought. This is because the outer fabric does not rest against the fuselage frame, but is held out by an inch or so by the stringers. I'm thinking about building a door frame out the same distance. Just another design challenge. I don't have to limit myself to the triangular shape, but the diagonal tube will still be there anyway. Rear Mounted Updraft Carburetor For those of you wondering how Bob got the cowling to be so small in the vertical direction (unlike a Cessna 172), his O-360 uses the rear mounted carburetor, not the carburetor mounted to the bottom of the oil pan. For reasons I don't know and didn't bother to ask, instead of using a side-draft carburetor, Bob built a 90 degree elbow and uses an updraft carburetor. Think about that when you're looking at the great deal on an engine you saw in Trade-a-Plane. 8.00x6 tires That's how big the prototype tires (tyres for the Queen's English) are. Just in case you cared. Interior Appointments All of the interior "walls" of the prototype are fabric covered. It's lightweight, looks good, and it sure beats Royalite. Mike pointed out to me that you have to remember to cover the inside of the cabin first, then cover the outside. I haven't thought all of the way through this, but I'm assuming there would be an access problem if you tried to do it the other way round. Seat belts As pointed out in the most recent newsletter, the prototype uses a "3-point" harness, which is basically the lap belt/shoulder harness you use in your car (you do use it, don't you?). In the prototype the shoulder harness has a loop that the lap belt goes through before buckling. One thing I did not care for on the prototype belts was that the shoulder strap had no inertia reel. The result was that if I had the shoulder strap properly tightened, I couldn't reach the flap lever or the fuel selector. Flying with the shoulder strap loose enough to reach these items would render it effectively useless. I plan to install inertia reels on all of my shoulder straps. However you install the shoulder straps, it is CRITICAL that the shoulder strap release with the lap belt. DON'T do what I saw in a particularly poor installation in a Cessna 150. In that setup, when you released the lap belt, the shoulder strap stayed attached to the fixed part. It had to be released separately. Imagine yourself doing an emergency egress--you release the lap belt and try to get out. Only you can't because the shoulder strap is still holding you in! So now you have to either swim out from under it--not necessarily easy, or take the time to release it--an extra step. Better just to design it right in the first place. Instrument Panel Much as I expected, the instrument panel is fairly small top to bottom. As it stands, you can get two rows of 3-1/8" instruments on it. One limitation is that a structural tube runs across the bottom of the instrument panel. Trying to raise the top would put it above the cowl line and probably not give sufficient room for instruments. Extending it down below the tube is somewhat questionable, since it will start impinging on your leg room. The overall height of the cabin is not as much as in a typical Cessna, and one thus you can't have one of those tall panels you've seen in Cessnas. Much as I had suspected from information I had seen, there is no static system in the prototype. The airspeed indicator, altimeter, and VVI are just open to cabin air. This can lead to larger airspeed and altitude errors, and is dependant on such things as whether the window is open, the heat is on, etc. Rather than mess with trying to find a good location on the fuselage for a static port, I plan to mount a Pitot-static probe in front of the wing, hopefully far enough forward to be mostly out of the wing upwash. I did find the instrument panel to be closer to me than I'm used to, but that should just make it easier to reach the various knobs and controls. However, it did put the throttle, prop, and mixture controls closer than I liked. The resulting arm motion was more of a forearm motion rather than a whole arm motion. I think I'll investigate mounting these controls under the panel, set back a little bit. Flooring You've probably seen in the newsletter that the recommended flooring for the Bearhawk is just a simple piece of 0.032 aluminum. I was surprised (okay, that's two surprises) at how strong this thin sheet was. I didn't see any dents in it, and it felt solid under my feet. Mike told me that another manufacturer experimented with a thinner aluminum on some sort of composite sandwich structure and was not happy with it. Too many dents. Open Cockpit Bearhawk As you probably know, the windows in the Bearhawk can be opened in flight. Well, I found out more details on that. The prototype has a really slick clip on the underside of the wing to hold the window up, at least on the ground. In the air the airloads do a lot of that. In fact, the reason for the hook on the window handle on the inside is to give you a fighting chance of holding on to the window as you open it in flight. The air loads want to snatch it open--something about still air in the cabin and fast moving air outside the window. Ask Mr. Bernoulli. Mike says that that airspeed limit for window opening or window open should be about 100 knots (115 mph for those of you still using archaic units). With the window open you should be able to get really good air-to-air photos since there wont be a window in the way to distort the picture. However, if you have someone in the rear seat, you may want to keep them closed, since Mike says it gets really windy back there. Rod Ends--The Good and the Not-So-Good I finally got to meet Bob Barrows, and the first thing he did was take me to buy some rod ends that were at least reasonably priced. The plans call for MS 21152-2 rod end bearings for the flap and aileron hinges. Aircraft Spruce wants $49.95 a pop for these. Bob showed me some that he had found for $12.50 a piece. For 10 of them with tax, it was something like $136. These had the hollow shank but it was filled with some sort of resin which will help keep the rivets from buckling. That's the good news. Now the not so good news: I found out when I got home that these were not MS 21152-2 rod end bearings. I figure they're still good enough since Bob recommended them to me. The differences I've noticed is that the MS 21152-2 shank is .625 diameter, these were .555 diameter. The MS 21152-2 inner ring width is .593, these were .6875. I've determined that it will be easy enough to compensate for these differences. Instead of using a 3/4 x .065 tube for the hinge mount, I'll change to a 3/4 x .095 tube. I'll move the hinge brackets on the flap and ailerons apart by 1/8". There's plenty of room to do that. These are the things you can do BEFORE you drill holes and such. Had I already made these parts, someone else would be getting a good deal on rod end bearings. Of course, many of you are wondering how you can take advantage of the same good deal. I bought them from Freeman Aviation (www.freemanaviation.com, 800-635-5631). The catalog says "We have many different types and sizes of rod ends from 3/15" (sic) to 3/4". State male or female, bearing size and body thread size. Give part number if known. We can save you up to 1/2 standard price." Realize too that the catalog also says "Office Hours Open most days about 9:00 or 10:00 Occasionally as early as 7:00 but sometimes as late as 12:00 or 1:00 We close about 5:30 or 6:00 but sometimes as late as 11:00 or 12:00 Some days we might not be here at all Somedays we're here all day, then again, we're not here at all. But no matter what time of day, if you need us, GIVE US A CALL If the phone rings long, we won't be far. We give good service, no matter who you are. Y'all com back now, ya hear!" I have no idea what that's all about. Fuselage Picture Book Mike showed me a copy of the fuselage construction picture book. He's done an excellent job on this one, and I think it's even better than the wing book. He's added some captions for some of the pictures, and the pictures are bigger, too. The pictures show a lot of things that don't show up in the plans. You need this! Buy it now! Find out about the optional bug installation. I've already bought mine. Bearhawk Cleaning Tip One of the things I noticed as I was crawling around the prototype taking pictures was how clean the belly was. This is where the exhaust, oil, and what-not usually stain the airplane. Mike told me that they cleaned it off pretty much after each flight. The interesting part was that he said they use standard shop hand cleaner to get the oil and stuff off. Seems to work! Still to Come That's about it for the Sun'n'Fun Bearhawk report. Eventually I'll get two more reports to ya'll. I've been using the metal shear from Harbor Freight that Mike recommended and like it a lot. Also I've started practicing with my new Henrob 2000 welding torch that I picked up at Sun'n'Fun. I'll tell you about how that acquisition went, the best place to get you one, and my experiences re-learning what I'd forgotten since Dec 1996. +++ #35 Subject: Bearhawk Sun'n'Fun Report Continued From: Russ Erb Control Stick Location I was concerned that the control stick position would be right in the middle of my lap, such that I wouldn't have room to put a chart, approach plate, lunch, or any of the multiplicity of things that seem to end up in your lap when flying. I was pleased to find that the stick in the nominal center position was just like the old F-4. By that, I mean sit in a chair, rest your left forearm/wrist on your left leg, and the stick is right where your hand lands. As a I recall I had adjusted the seat to properly reach the rudder pedals. That gives me about 10" of usuable lap space. Of course, this also depends on things such as how far I pull on the stick to maneuver and how much more weight I gain. I did not do a control sweep stop to stop to see how much travel was there. Oops. One other issue to consider if you get any ideas about extending the instrument panel any lower is possible interference with control stick movement. Getting the stick caught under the panel is something that you'll have the rest of your life to figure out how to fix, and that'll be about all you have time to think about. Control Stick Removal I had been playing with ideas for ways to make the right side stick removable. This would be for cases such as when my non-pilot wife (as opposed to my pilot wife?) flies in the right seat, she might not want the stick between her legs. This would be especially true if she had some reason to be wearing a skirt at the time. I'm sure you can think of other reasons. Turns out Bob has already come up with a solution. In the horizontal part of the stick, he nested one tube inside another and put a bolt (AN3?) vertically through the tubes, with what appeared to be a home-made wing nut on the bottom. Pictures will be on the CD. Elevator Trim For those of you thinking about installing electric trim, this might make you reconsider. Mike showed me how much they typically need to turn the trim wheel during flight--about an inch or so of movement. Not a whole lot. If you've still got to have that coolie hat on the stick grip, you may want to increase the gearing on the trim system lest it become too sensitive. Or ant least leave yourself an option to easily change the gearing. +++ #197 Subject: Beartracks index From: shell- I have compiled and index of subjects covered in "Beartracks". If this interests any of you, I can send it to "Float-by" to put in his FAQ, or e-mail it individually to any of you as an attachment. I really don't know if I can post an attachment to this group It just makes it easier and quicker if you want to reference anything in the newsletters. +++ #231 Subject: Proto II Pictures! From: Russ Erb Mike Meador sent me some pictures of Proto II to post for ya'll. See them at http://www.eaa1000.av.org/pix/erbpix/erbpix.htm. +++ #251 Subject: Re: Proto II Pictures! From: Russ Erb > >Is there anyplace a picture of that side door opening before the fabric was > installed? You can see portions of it in Mike Meador's Fuselage Picture Book. Everyone should have one. The wing picture book too. +++ #258 Subject: Re: Time From: Mike Meador > Are there any realistic time frames on Bearhawk Completions? Hours > required to build said airplane with no previous experience. Well - this is a good question and it is one that we get a lot. We usually tell people that it will take approximately 2000 hours to build the BEARHAWK if you have never built anything before. To put that in perspective that is about 40 hours a week for one year, most people can only work on their project much less than 4 hours a day. If you can work on your airplane EVERY DAY at least for two hours, your time will be cut by 1/4 because you will have a building rhythm. Now none of what I have told you can be proven - just sort of a historical observation. I know guys that can knock out one plane a year (from plans) and others that claim to have 6 or 7000 hours in a single kit-built airplane. The amount of time that it will take really depends on you - you will have to give something up if you want to make time to work on your airplane. I have, for example, given up most TV - it is a waste of time anyway - that right there gives me 20 or more hours in a week. (OK - so I do sneak in a football game or two). You can't go into a project like this thinking "OK - I'll have this thing knocked out by next year." - it will not work. You will have to enjoy building just as much or even more than you do flying. You really need to work on your project a little each day, everyday. If you need an airplane then buy one, if you want a BEARHAWK you will have to build it and that is going to take a lot of time. As for actual time reports - we have received only 3, all for the wings. 575 for Ray Thurston (an experienced builder and retired). 700 and 1020 from two first time builders. Judging that the wing is the most complicated and has the most individual pieces for each single assembly, we feel it is safe to say that when you have your wings done you are about half way. We would like to hear more from the builders on this subject. +++ #259 Subject: Re: Time From: Tim Time....always an interesting subject in HBuilding; Just a guess, but I'd say 2000-2500hrs, that is unless Al Dunlap of Arlington-Wash, was building it. He has over 10,000 logged hours over a period of a decade on his Longeze...What the Hell, it's a hobby, right? +++ #261 Subject: Re: Time From: Russ Erb > As for actual time reports - we have received only 3... Let me put in my input for the upper 3 sigma. I recently added up the building log, and I've passed 1800 hours. So I'm 90% done, right? In that time, here's where I am: - One flap assembled, one about to be riveted - Aileron parts ready for assembly - Wing steel parts 98% complete (remainder need to be fabricated on assembly) - Wing parts ready for assembly Caveats: Everyone counts hours differently. My time includes time redrawing plans in CADD for dimension check/analysis/modification plus fabricating jigs and tooling. I'm on the high time corrosion control program (alodine and prime all aluminum parts, prime steel parts). That adds over 300 hours so far. The more picky and precise you are, the longer it will take to build. Of course, the payoff is a better airplane. I suspect the times quoted by Mike are not including as many activities as I am. ERBMAN'S OBSERVATION ON BUILDING TIME DISCUSSIONS: The important thing is not so much how much time you have logged on your project, as is maintaining a reasonable building RATE. If you keep the rate up, someday you'll suddenly notice that it's time to go fly. If you don't keep the rate up, you'll never get there. +++ #262 Subject: Time and Money From: Rod Smith I have to agree with Russ that a lot depends on how you keep track of your time. I have spent a tremendous amount of time studying plans, working up materials lists, thinking about how to do a particular task etc. I wish I had kept track of that but I haven't, I'm not even very good at keeping track of actual hands on time although I'm trying. So far my builders log shows 230 hours. For that I have a growing pile of steel parts and I am just now bending tubing for the rudder. I'm starting with the tail and fuselage instead of the wings. I did make the wing rib form however and the c-frame dimpling tool. I'm counting building jigs and tools in my total. I agree 100 percent with the comments concerning consistency in working everyday. Recently there have been questions again about the cost of the airframe. I sure dont know and am not too worried about it because I know it will be the cheapest high performance airplane to build. Compare the Murphy Super Rebel for instance. The airframe kit costs about $25000. I have bought every piece of steel tubing and plate I will need for the Bearhawk (I hope) and the cost was $1510 from Dillsburg and $524 dollars shipping from PA to AK. For those interested in trivia, that is 783' of tubing in 46 different sizes, lengths all rounded up to the next foot. Locally the same material would have cost over $4000 and I couldn't even get some of the items. Two years ago I bought enough fabric for two Bearhawks for about $500. That was the last of the Stits HD 2x2 which is no longer available. As far as the cost of the necessary aluminum goes someone else will have to help out. When you find really good deals on materials please let the list know. I have spent $630 dollars on tools so far, that is just a start also. The bottom line is you have to decide what you really want. The cheapest and quickest way to get in the air is to look for a good deal on a used airplane. If you want an airplane that is in many ways superior to anything on the used market, that you can maintain yourself, you are going to have to invest the time and there is no better time to start than today. +++ #265 Subject: Re: Time and Money From: Bruce A. Frank A reasonable estimate might be gained by looking at a similar plane. I helped a friend with the later stages of building a 2+2 Sportsman. This plane was highly modified to produce a wider and taller cabin with redesigned main gear to move the bungees inside the fuselage. The wings may have taken less time as he rebuilt a damaged pair from a Super Cub--designing and installing larger flaps and ailerons. He was retired and worked 20 hours a week. He built a Ford engine for it and fitted the PSRU. His well documented hours, from pile of tube on the hangar floor until first flight, was 2300. This did not include the hours redesigning the cabin size and main gear. This also did not include the stripping of two part urethane fabric paint that failed to catalyze. He was not building a show plane but it was very well constructed. In fact, this was the plane that showed up in Sport Aviation as representative of the Bearhawk (well, the were parked near each other at Sun 'N Fun) 2 or 3 years ago. +++ #537 Subject: fuselage photo pack From: Float-by Shooter I received Mike's fuselage photo package yesterday and thought I would post a short note about it. Everything is black and white, but the pictures are very clear and a lot of detail is present. It's definitely a worthwhile supplement to the plans. Other than that, about all I have to say is I wouldn't want to leave anything laying around Bob's shop, out of fear he would drill it full of holes. 8^) +++ #547 Subject: Photo Pack and Sun N' Fun From: Mike Meador Thanks for the plug. I am working on the 20 photo supplement right now and I hope to have it ready for distribution by Dec 1. I will have a notice in the next issue of Bear-Tracks and I'll let you guys know here. I am going to request that current fuselage photo pack owners send in $2 to cover the cost of postage. That will give you a current total of 110 detail shots of the fuselage. I hope to finish out the pack at 125 - 130 photos as needed. +++ #669 Subject: steel CAD From: Mike Guthrie Just in case anyone is interested I had one of the design guys at the shop I work at look at the plans and flatten out all the steel parts and plot them onto paper. They are all labeled with the material thickness, piece's required and drawing #. I did find that the piece # was wrong in one instance and I won't know for about 5 to 10 years if any were missed. I'm told I can Email t he file even though I don't have have CAD at home, you will need it to open. If anyone would like file send me your address. If you want a ploted copy it will cost a couple of bucks for paper postage etc. +++ #770 Subject: Re: Proto I vs. Proto II From: budd davisson I don't know what Bob has been putting in the newsletter about Prototype II, but here's what he said about the speed in a note to me. He ran all the speed tests at square settings, e.g. 1800 rpm, 18" and gave no fuel consumption numbers. Also, the prop is an experimental combination of blade and hub, so that's an unknown in terms of efficiency. Here are the speeds quotes: 18/18 = 118 mph 19/19 = 126 mph 20/20 = 131 mph 21/21 = 137 mph If you plot a curve from that and ignore drag rise (which you can't do), at a normal 65% power setting it would probably be doing 150-155 and higher at altitude. One of the advantages of the big motor is that the drag falls off at altitude, but there is still a bunch of power left. Personally, I think with some aerodynamic clean-ups, the airplane would be good for 165 mph easily at altitude. A 182 is nearly that fast and it's a bigger airplane using less cubes and horses. He said rate of climb at 2650 and 24" is 1500 fpm. Since he should pull 26-27" easily, that means 1,500 fpm is extremely conservative. The big engine's advantage would be primarily in climb although TAS at 8000 feet and up would also jump. Also, you can bring the power way back and sip fuel. And I'm willing to bet you can build up a six cylinder almost as cheap or cheaper than a four be cause flat-four cores have become so ridiculously expensive. +++ #789 Subject: P-II power/speed From: budd davisson Someone had asked what kind of speeds Prototype II was getting and I said Bob had told me 137 mph at 21 square, but didn't know what that equated to in percentage. A friend checked on that and said the power charts show that to be 51% (128 hp) at 10.1 gph. Pretty wild! +++ #843 Subject: Russ's CD From: pfflyer- Russ has done it again with his CD reference. It is packed with every imaginable thing you could want as far as Bearhawk information, as well as a superb compilation of photos of various components and assemblies, all in a very easy to access format. Even I was able to find my way around. I would highly recommend it to everyone. I don't know how he manages to get any work done on his plane when he puts in this kind of effort on other projects. +++ #849 Subject: Order your Bearhawk Reference CD Now! From: Russ Erb Now that Pat has already given you a review of the Bearhawk Reference CD, I guess it is time to put out the official announcement. I'm waiting until I get Beta reviewer comments from Pat and Del before releasing, but that should happen soon enough to be transparent to you. So here goes... The long awaited, somewhat hyped, and definately must-have Bearhawk Reference CD is now available for the ridiculously low price of $20. That's only 0.33% of the projected cost of your airframe! What Is It? The CD is a "web-site" on a disc. Written in HTML, you access it using your favorite browser, just like a web site. However, all of the data is read off of the CD at high speed instead of being downloaded at a snail's pace throught the World Wide Wait. A good thing when you consider there is over 70 megabytes of stuff there in pictures and text. What's On It? Everything applicable to the Bearhawk that I could dig up and legally include. To wit: Bearhawk Specifications You probably know this stuff already, but I included it anyway. Also includes the text of Budd Davisson's original article in Sport Aviation that started me on this "little" project. Prototype Photos Includes over 200 photos of the prototype Bearhawk. Most of these were taken by me at Sun N' Fun 99, with the others taken by Pat Fagan and Del Rawlins. With all of these photos are my comments about what you are seeing. Some photos include annotations to highlight a point. Also includes photos of Proto II sent by Mike Meador. NOTE: These photos are mostly of the aircraft completed. This CD does not replace, but rather complements the Wing and Fuselage Photo Logs that Mike Meador sells, which show Proto II under construction. You'll want those too if you don't already have them. Construction Photos Includes 228 construction photos, mostly of my Bearhawk. Others are from Pat Fagan and Del Rawlins. See how I did stuff. Each photo includes comments on the contents. Tool Reference Extensive notes on about every sheet metal tool you should need. Article on several big tools for steel working (recently published on this e-mail list). EAA Chapter 1000 Standardized Work Tables. Modifications to small sheet metal brake. Safely transporting welding gases when you don't own a pickup truck. 4130 Tubing Bender. Press Dies for bending steel. Wing/Flap/Aileron Jig. Tool Suppliers. Bear-Tracks Archive The complete text and graphics of non-perishable articles from every Bear-Tracks ever printed (since Winter 1995). Reprinted by permission. Technical Guidance A hyperlinked index to every issue of Bear-Tracks (much easier to find that page on fuel tank design than flipping through all of the Bear-Tracks issues). A hyperlinked index to the FULL archives (messages with perishable or non-applicable information deleted) of the Bearhawk e-mail list, both the old jbc.edu list (including the "missing" year) and the egroups list. Again, easier to find stuff than paging through all of the messages. Also include discussions of design modifications and why you probably don't want to do a lot of them. Bearhawk Web Sites Links thereunto. Reference Material Includes the complete FAA Advisory Circular AC 43.13-1B, Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices -- Aircraft Inspection and Repair, 8 September 1998 and FAA Advisory Circular AC 90-89A, Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook, 24 May 1995. Where to get other must-have references. Additional Web Links -- courtesy of the EAA Chapter 1000 Web Site. So How Do I Get One??? Can't stand it now? Just gotta have one? Well, you can't get it on Amazon.com, no matter how much you enjoyed their Christmas commercials. Nope, we have to use older technology. Simply send to me by snail mail three things: 1) A check or money order for $20 US. 2) A note stating what operating system you are using (Windows 95/98, Windows 3.1, Macintosh, UNIX, etc). (You'll need a web browser such as Netscape or Internet Explorer or such) 3) The mailing address you want me to send it to. Send these three items to me by snail mail to: Bearhawk CD Russ Erb 6708 Doolittle Dr Edwards CA 93523-2106 +++ #856 Subject: Re: CD. From: Russ Erb > Hey Russ did you include the steel list on the CD. Yes, I did. However, when I went to verify this, it took me far longer to find it than I thought it should. Therefore, I took the .zip file, extracted it, and converted the spreadsheet files into HTML tables so that you will be able to see it in your browser without needing a spreadsheet. The original spreadsheet and text files are included too in case you want to make some modifications, expand it with prices, or whatever. I like this arrangement much better. Before I was in a rush to complete the CD and I hadn't thought of a good way to handle it. When you guys get your CDs, please feel free to suggest other things you think should be included. Someday I'll figure out a pricing structure for updates. +++ #860 Subject: Bearhawk Pix You've Got To See! From: Russ Erb > I'll pass your note along to Bob. I have a couple of more photos here > you if you want. I took them for the newsletter but they will not > print well and need to be in color. Warning to Budd Davisson: Delete this message NOW! DON'T RISK looking at these pictures! They will only cause frustration. For the rest of you who can use a shot of motivation, go immediately to http://www.eaa1000.av.org/pix/erbpix/erbpix.htm and see the two latest pictures from Mike that I just posted. They're at the bottom of the page. Mike's explanation of what's going on is listed below. After you drag yourself away from the pictures, tell the rest of us what you think! +++ #872 Subject: Nameing Names! From: Mike Meador What an interesting topic. How on earth did we come up with the name Bearhawk? I did have a small part in this but none of my ideas were used (thankfully). I was still only part time out at the field and Bob had yet to fly the airplane when we started to work on the name. Up until that point it was referred to as RB4 - Robert Barrows 4th design. RB4 does not have much going for it - much like cars that have numbers instead of names - what sounds cooler Firebird, Mustang, Laser or 300m, 280Z, 911. Now we motorheads can tie a picture to any of those numbers but that's only because we have been into that stuff since we could walk. We knew that the load capabilities of the RB4 were going to be tremendous so the name had to convey power and utility Bob's name, Bearhawk does the power side more- my suggestion - don't laugh - was the Barrows Burro - a bit more of a utility name. Who would want an airplane with a name like that? Now that I think about it - it was an awful suggestion. After Bob flew it - he really thought that the name fit well and I have to agree. The name Bearhawk was recorded as a trademark in 1996 by Bob. Our biggest problem is with people calling it the Bearcat - even plans owners will do that on occasion. +++ #877 Subject: Nameing Names! From: Russ Erb >Our biggest problem is with people calling it the Bearcat - even plans >owners will do that on occasion. I get this frequently. I keep reminding them that a Bearcat is a large radial engined Navy fighter (warbird), and a little out of my price range. You're right--Burro would be an accurate name, but it lacks marketing appeal. +++ #886 Subject: Re: Bearhawk Takeoff Performance From: budd davisson Re: 235 Maul comparison I have a fair amount of short field experience in the 235 Maule (MX7) and there is no comparison to the Bearhawk. As you pointed out, between the weight, wing and horsepower, it's not a fair comparison. The 180 hp Bearhawk would do everthing a 235 Maule would and carry a lot more load. The most important factor, however, is that it's a more honest airplane on short final. In doing Maule check-outs I spent a lot of time making sure the pilot knew the airplane changed personalities with only 5 knots difference down around 60-65. The Bearhawk is much happier at much lower speeds and acts the same all the while. I think it's a much safer airplane, not to mention has much better vis and all around handling. Now that you can use the Maule as a point of reference, you know what you're getting into with your Bearhawk. +++ #907 Subject: new builder From: Russ Erb > Every time I look at the plans or the materials lists I freak out, and > think I must be crazy. (Because I literally have no idea what I'm > doing, I am the proverbial empty slate). Then I remember what Bob > told me at his place when I picked up my plans. Not exactly chatty > but right to the point."start with the wing ribs, take one drawing at > a time, don't get overwhelmed." I've said it before, but it bears resaying. Building an airplane is like eating an elephant. How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. I'm at a point now that I can look at things (like the wing structure) and wonder how I ever got this far--it looks way too complicated. But as I did it one operation at a time, it was easy. People talk about building hours. ("How many hours do you have logged so far?") I think building RATE is much more important. If you keep the rate of building up, eventually you'll find out it's time to go fly! +++ #909 Subject: Re: new builder From: budd davisson I echo Russ's comments. Too many people building airplanes keep looking down the road, seeing themselves wafting out over the horizon, rather than concentrating on the project at hand. That's a great way to get discouraged. Rather than thinking in terms of building an airplane, think in terms of "I'm building a rib" or "I'm building a fitting." When you're out of all the little projects, it'll be time to go flying. One other hint: working on an airplane is like excercising or losing weight. You have to touch the project every day, in some way, even if its just sweeping the shop floor. If you don't, you find it easy to skip a day, then two, then... That's why so few of us are in shape and so many are over weight. +++ #910 Subject: Re: new builder From: Float-by Shooter > People talk about building hours. ("How many hours do you have logged > so far?") I think building RATE is much more important. If you keep > the rate of building up, eventually you'll find out it's time to go > fly! Okay, I have to say something. How many people are actually keeping track of the hours they spend on their Bearhawk? I've been doing so from the start and am about ready to discontinue the practice. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't show up at a particular time each day to work on it, and not all the time I spend at it is actually productive (slacking off?). Do I have to allow time for a soda and sandwich break or what? Then about half the time I forget to write anything down and have to guess at the time spent next time I remember (if I even do). It isn't like I'm ever going to need to know how long I worked on the #3 aileron nose rib or the date on which I did the work. So I won't be providing a data point for the question of how long does a Bearhawk take to build when and if I ever finish it. I feel much better now, though with my luck, I'll probably be the first homebuilder ever audited by the EAA. 8^/ +++ #915 Subject: Re: new builder From: Russ Erb > Okay, I have to say something. How many people are actually keeping > track of the hours they spend on their Bearhawk? I am, but that's just the kind of numbers geek that I am. I agree that it is data that is only meaningful once you know all of the assumptions. Everyone has a different accounting system. I just got in the habit years ago of noting the time when I first walk into the shop and then when I quit. I'm not so much interested in the amount of time (I think I may have just passed the magic 2000 hours--so where's my airplane?) as I am in making sure that I maintain my building rate. +++ #916 Subject: Re: new builder From: Tim Anderson Here are my thoughts for what it's worth. One should keep somekind of construction log, in case the FAA wants to see that one was kept to verify that you actually built it. How detailed? well that a personnel thing. Hours? yea that's seems to be a big question the kitplane companies like to brag about. It's king of nice to have a good log as a momento and look back and get an idea of HOW LONG IT ACTUALLY TOOK. XX hours on wings, XX hours on fuselage, XX hours on engine, and then double all that time to finish it. For those of you that haven't built an airplane, the finishing work can be a time consuming, aggravating, hair pulling process. So close, but so far. Doors, windows, cowling, instrument panel, wiring, UGGGG. 90 percent done and 90 percent to go type of thing. ha +++ #922 Subject: Re: new builder From: Float-By Shooter On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Tim Anderson wrote: > Here are my thoughts for what it's worth. One should keep somekind of > construction log, in case the FAA wants to see that one was kept to > verify that you actually built it. How detailed? well that a personnel > thing. Has anybody who actually built an airplane (as opposed to hiring it built) ever been denied their certificate of airworthiness because the FAA didn't believe them? With all of the pictures I've been taking I don't expect any problems and I have been keeping all the materials receipts just in case and so I can calculate the damages after the thing is built (and not a second sooner). Actually I think that if I finished the thing and the inspector didn't issue the C of A cause he thought I didn't build it, I'd probably fly it anyway. This is Alaska afterall, if I kept to the bush I could probably fly it for years without ever getting caught.... 8^) +++ #1048 Subject: Re: Steel List....Maybe better group pricing From: Rod Smith My list is available at Dels website http:/www.netpackrat/bhfaq/bhsteel.html This gives the exact amount of steel necessary for the Bearhawk, you will need to add some extra for mistakes etc. +++ #1097 Subject: Re: Questions from a wanna be builder From: budd davisson Okay, guys, now it's time to pull out my soap box full of opinions, of which, i'm seldom in short supply. Sorry. I spend much of my time counseling wanna be pilots, builders and Cessna drivers who aspire to being pilots. I'm going to intersperse my thoughts through out the following two e-mails. Stephen Wolfe wrote: > > Alan- > I haven't built an airplane yet, but I bought one (a Cessna 150) when > I started flying two years ago, and I've put over 300 hours on it > since. I've also bought an engineless Cassutt project that I happened > on to by accident, and I find that I want to fly it badly enought that > I'm actually spending time working on it. I'm good at putting things > off, but the love of flying is a strong motivator. I guess what I'm > getting at is that you really have to want to do this to be > successful, and it needs to revolve around the flying. Also, you're > going to be doing mountain flying, which is a pleasure on perfect > days, and a scare-the-snot out of you endeavor any other time. There's > no substitue for the skill that comes with practice. Besides, if you > love the flying, you'll be doing what you like the best while you're > looking down. Go get your license, and spend as much time as you can > above the planet. I've never been convinced that pure love of flight is enough to motivate the finishing of a project. In fact, in some ways it could be viewed as a detriment. For one thing, for an airplane project to get finished it quickly ceases to be something you do and becomes something you are. The flying aspect of it gets pushed off center stage to become replaced by the desire to create. We often call it building, but in actuality what we're doing is creating something that flies. We're breathing life into a bunch of inanimate stuff. If flying is your main motivation, rather than building, you'll eventually get frustrated because your flying is going to be severely curtailed during the 3-4 years you're building. You have to be just as in love with the process of creating the little gussets at the back of the tailwheel bracket at the base of the tailpost as you are with turning final to an unbelievably beautiful high mountain valley. > Back to the Cassutt project I bought, the builder did a beautiful job, > spent a lot of time and money, and flew it twice. It scared him too > bad to take it off the ground. If he'd spent a few hours in that type > of airplane, being taught how by someone, he could have made better > choices, i.e. build something else, or get the knowlege he needed to > fly the Cassutt. As it was, he sold it for the engine, and it sat in a > warehouse for several years, where I found it. What a waste. Your > passengers will appreciate the years of skill you have when the wheels > leave the ground. I'm off my soapbox now. About airplanes like Cassutts: first, there are no airplanes like the Cassutt. It's by far the biggest bang for the buck in sport aviation but it's not everyman's airplane. It has a bunch of unique characteristics, not one of which is dangerous, but not one of which you've ever seen in another airplane. You can training in any one of a dozen airplanes and transition into the Bearhawk. The only thing that prepares you for a Cassutt is some high performance time and enough odd-airplane experience that your adaptability factor is able to sort out what's going on and you can control yourself while compensating for it. First two hints: set the stick slightly aft of neutral on takeoff and don't move it again until you're at 500 feet. On landing, back out so far you can barely see the airport, keep the speed down under 100 (if you can) and set up for a wheel landing. That should give you a perfect three point. Last hint: talk to a bunch of high time Cassutt pilots. Carl Pascarell, St.Augustine Florida would be the best. > I am considering the purchase of the Bearhawk plans but I still have a > few unanswered questions: > > 1) What is a realistic max cruise speed be with a 260 hp(max?) engine > and loaded up? Depends on how much gas you want to burn. Bob is saying about 150 at 23 square. I think as soon as someone starts messing with aerodynamic clean ups the airplane has a minimum of another 10 mph in it. > 2) What tools are required to build a Bearhawk? Usual shop stuff plus welding, rivet equipment and skills. > 3) I can guess a little from the engine posts but is there a specific > weight range for the engine (I would like to use an auto conversion)? Bob is saying around 400 pounds but a few of us are going a little over that (wink, wink). If a first time builder and serious about the auto conversion, pick one that is completely sorted out with at least one having a minimum of 500 uninterupted hours on it and is offered in a package that requires a minimum of improvisation on your part. > I am interested in flying between San Antonio Tx and Billings MT. > Could I reasonably make that flight in one day in the Bearhawk? I am > guessing that three hours between pitstops( for the passengers) would > be attainable. Yeah, you might make it in one day in a Bearhawk during the summer, but you'd better not plan on doing anything the next day because you're going to be a wreck. That's a LONG trip! Flying fatigues you more than driving, for a lot of reasons, and your judgement and skill go down the tubes as you go past much more than six hours in a day. My record in the Pitts is 8.7 hours (5 fuel stops :-)), Florida to New Jersey, and when I got back, I was so wiped out I didn't care if I dove it in the lake at the end of the runway. Also, weather on that long of a trip is going to be a major factor. That has to be something like 2000 miles. At 150 mph that's 13 hours in the air, realistically probably 16 or more. I'd check out the Southwest flights, if it was me. Or plan on making it a leisurely 2-3 day trip. > I am not a pilot and I would prefer to devote my time and money to a > construction project and get some flight time and a ticket once I am a > lot :-) closer to completion. Tim hit it on the head and I'll give it yet another bang to make sure it's really seated: Building an airplane is an all engrossing project. Learning to fly is an all-engrossing project. Living life is an all-engrossing project. Somewhere in between there you have to make a living, eat and go to the latrine. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. My advice is to spend a bunch of time hanging out at the local airport, hit Oshkosh a time or two and devote your time to learning to fly. If you have someone like Tailwheels and More (Prescott Arizona) or Andover Flight academy (Andover, NJ) around you, learn to fly right in a taildragger. Better yet, find a willing and dedicated tailwheel instructor (make sure he actually IS a tailwheel instructor and doesn't just say he's one), buy yourself something like a PA-12, Champ, 120/140 or better yet, a Luscombe (re-read what I said about verifying how good your instructor REALLY is). You'll spend $15-$20K on the airplane. Set a time limit, say six months to get your license so it doesn't drag on too long. Fly the airplane for a year or two. By that time you'll have been exposed to enough aviation that you'll have soaked up most of what you need to know to start something like the Bearhawk. Going into the project at your level of overall experience will likely result in yet another unfinished project. I've been sticking tubes and stuff together for over 35 years on a series of unusual airplanes and, as I stand on the threshhold of kicking off my own version of the 'Hawk, I'm very conscious and worried about the time/dedication involved and am seeking help, even though I know it's going to cost money I don't really have. In my case, I'm not even thinking about the flying, but I'm absolutely bat-shit inlove with the idea of creating such a lovely looking artifact as the Desert Hawk. I'm going to love just sitting and staring at the project as it grows. A last word: don't ever underestimate the enormity of an airplane building project. +++ #1164 Subject: Re: Tex-Montana Express From: Float-by Shooter > Could you list the book title, ISBN etc? I would like to see if the > local library has it. The title is "The Racer's Guide to Fabricating Shop Equipement" and if that isn't enough I can try to find it down at the shop today, if and when I get out of the yard. > Northern Tool and Equipment (www.northerntool.com) lists a 3/16" > heavey duty rivet gun for $129.00, item #157632-F718. It comes with > 3/32, 1/8 5/32 & 3/16 nose pieces and sets all types of blind rivets > and mono bolts. My brother tells me Harbor Freight sells one for > $40.00, but I don't have any other info on it. I would imagine both > sell riveters for solid rivets too. Just be sure you are getting a rivet gun and not an air hammer. > Don't forget about the local EAA chapter. What's that? 8^P +++ #1165 Subject: Re: Tex-Montana Express From: Bob Romanko > Could you list the book title, ISBN etc? I would like to see if the > local library has it. The ISBN # is 0936834455, and it's available from Barnes and Noble at http://www.bn.com for $14.95 plus shipping. They give 3-5 weeks for delivery. +++ #1166 Subject: Re: Tex-Montana Express From: budd davisson Try Amazon.com, they are much faster and might be cheaper. +++ #1167 Subject: Re: Tex-Montana Express From: Bob Romanko Budd, I go back and forth between the two. It really depends on the individual book. Neither one is "better" in my opinion, but it sure is a lot more convenient than trudging across the street in the snow. +++ #1280 Subject: Mike's Photo Log....etc... From: Tim Cramb Just finished putting Mike Meador's photo paks into plastic slip covers. I bought both his Wing photo log and Fuselage photo log. All are good quality photocopies. Lot's of the wing construction colored pics....The fuselage pics are black&white and take up the full full 8.5"x 11." sheets. You know with Mike's stuff, Russ's CD, email group and the great Web-site's, I think we have the RV-Builders Beat.....in fact I know we do, cause it ain't a Kit! Time for an Article in Kitplanes, don't think they have done one yet? Get out the typewriter, Budd!........Caption: "Do Kit Suppliers offer this much Support?" +++ #1309 Subject: Re: Weight of Aluminum From: Pierce Terry Civ 412 TW/TSI Aircraft Spruce shows .032" (2024T3)as .461 lbs/sq. ft. Even if you don't order from them, call and get one of their catalogs to use as a resource. They are free. Such a deal. +++ #1603 Subject: "OTHER" BHawk CD-II ??? From: Russ Erb > If you ever are considering another CD...Bill Johnson's picture > library is becoming a classic. This site is going to help a lot of > BHawkers when moving into fuse const....Hope all these pics are saved > elsewhere! Already in progress... I've downloaded a bunch of his pictures already. I too thought they were excellent, and I know I'll be referring to them. I've already secured Bill's permission to use them. Also found the "lost" roll of pictures from the spar assembly, plus additional rolls of pics of my own project as it progresses. Then of course, there's all of the latest postings to be added and the latest Bear Tracks. As before, Ver 2.0 will be ready when it's ready. I'm skinning my first wing right now. When it's ready it will ship in place of Ver 1.0 for any new orders. As far as the "upgrades" go, you may not want to order a newer version until you are about to go past the point shown in your current version, unless you just like sending me money, which I won't argue with. For those who have purchased the Bearhawk CD Ver 1.0, I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on pricing for "upgrade" CDs for those already holding a CD. The "upgrade CD" would be a complete replacement for the previous CD, being the same thing but with more stuff added. Do you think the current price of $20 would be fair, or should it be something less? Of course, it will still be something more than my costs to create it. Respond to me at erbma-@compuserve.com if you don't want to clutter up the list with your ideas. +++ #1635 From: Kelvin Gurney Subject: [Bearhawk] Re: Finger gussets, et. al. Thanks Archie! George, I don't know if you have Russ's CD. If you do it's in folder "AC43", Adobe file "1v-ch4_5.pdf" page 11 of 26. +++ #1651 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: [Bearhawk] Re: Plans TOC (was: Flying wires) > What sheet number has the wire plans on it, so I don't have scrounge > through them all. Bearhawk plans sheet titles: 1 - Three View 2 - Wing Assembly 3 - Wing Main Spar 4 - Wing Rear Spar 5 - Wing Spar Plates 6 - Wing Ribs 7 - Wing Rib Form Block Layout (mylar) 8 - Flap & Aileron Spars 9 - Flap 10 - Aileron 11 - Aileron Drive Linkage 12 - Flap Drive Linkage 13 - Aileron & Flap Hinges 14 - Aileron & Flap Control Assy. 15 - Wing Strut 16 - Fuselage Side Layout 16A - Fus. Mod Rear Doors 16B - Rear Door Fittings 17 - Fuselage Top & Bottom 18 - Fuselage Sta. 19 - Fuselage Tail Section 20 - Horizontal Stabilizer & Elevator 21 - Rudder 22 - Fuselage Top Fittings 23 - Landing Gear 24 - Landing Gear Attach at Fus. 25 - Landing Gear Shock Strut 26 - Control Stick Assy. 27 - Rudder Pedals & Brakes 28 - Flap Control Assy. +++ #1729 From: Russ Erb Subject: [Bearhawk] Bearhawk Airfoil/NACA 4412 Previously in this forum, we have discussed what the origin of the Bearhawk airfoil was. Someone had purported that it was a modified NACA 4412 with a drooped leading edge. Well, I couldn't stand it anymore, and while too tired to actually do anything on the airplane, I plotted an NACA 4412 per Abbott and Von Doenhoff in the same CAD file as my original airfoil. When I overlaid them, they were close enough to be called a direct match with no modification or drooped leading edges. Will this info help you build your airplane? Probably not. Is it important? Probably not. Is it something that we certified engineering geeks just have to know? Yes. (Well, at least speaking for myself) If anybody disagrees with me, let's post our respective drawings and compare. +++ #1735 From: Rod Smith Subject: [Bearhawk] Re: Bearhawk Airfoil/NACA 4412 > Previously in this forum, we have discussed what the origin of the > Bearhawk airfoil was. Someone had purported that it was a modified > NACA 4412 with a drooped leading edge. Well, I couldn't stand it > anymore, and while too tired to actually do anything on the airplane, > I plotted an NACA 4412 per > Abbott and Von Doenhoff in the same CAD > file as my original airfoil. When I overlaid them, they were close > enough to be called a direct match with no modification or drooped > leading edges. Guess I have to disagree. When I overlay the two airfoils they are identical from about 15% chord back but the leading edge of Bob's airfoil appears to be drooped about 3/16th of an inch. Bob told me he had modified the 4412. I've talked a lot to Harry Ribblett about it and he offered to take a look at the airfoil to see if it was drooped correctly. He said it is, what he calls a 4412 corrected airfoil. Nearly identical to his 30-612, main difference being he thinks the 4412 profile is too thick from about 70 percent back (roughly rear spar on the Bearhawk) and thins it accordingly. Says you would be hard pressed to see different performance between the two. > Will this info help you build your airplane? Probably not. > Is it important? Probably not. No. We know that Bob selected a good airfoil for this aircraft from its performance numbers. Some of the airfoils selected by kit manufacturers just blow me away. > Is it something that we certified engineering geeks just have to know? > Yes. (Well, at least speaking for myself) Yeah me too. > If anybody disagrees with me, let's post our respective drawings and > compare. I've never digitized either airfoil, just hand drew them out +++ #1951 From: budd davisson Subject: [Bearhawk] Re: BH flight report if I can stitch up a few details, my website, www.airbum.com, will be up and running next week and the complete pirep on the 180 hp Bearhawk will be on it. I'll be flying the 260 version at Sun n Fun and will put up a pirep on that as soon as I'm back. +++ #2012 BC & G Holzwarth Subject: Re: posters (and wallet-cards) I'd take a whack at running 'em off on 'photo-paper' on an ink-jet printer. Size would be limited to 8 1/2 x 11 (or maybe legal size) on my printer, but the price'd be right -- around a buck a sheet. If Budd expects new pictures from the next expedition, I'd consider running off some of his pictures in sets for cost. Background -- A while back someone suggested 'wallet cards' to whip out when someone asks, "what's a Bearhawk". I'd never played with photo-paper for my ink-jet printer, and thought it was a good reason to get some and give it a whirl. The results were outstanding, I thought, and the paper has been both waterproof and rugged -- my copy's been riding in my wallet for a month or two now, with only a little discoloration around the edges. The resolution was outstanding -- really *very* photo-like. I used two of Mike's pictures, on one side proto-1, and on the reverse the two prototypes nose to nose with the performance specs floated over them. (The paper is actually one-sided, but I flipped one picture upside down then fold the card at the middle for front/back.) They're laid out four to sheet so they're pretty cheap to run off. If anyone wants one -- and it's OK with Mike to distribute the pictures -- drop me a line (please NOT broadcast to the egroups list!) with an mailing address, and I'll send one out, gratis. > My first run of the poster 22'x30" on fuji paper including mailing > tube & postage was $20 to your door. The poster was the pic on Del's > main page and also at Russ's Edwards site.....The response was warm > and it took over a year to sell 15 of them at cost......Think > carefully +++ #2013 From: BC & G Holzwarth Subject: Blueprint working copies Thought I'd share some info -- I took my set of blueprints down to the local Kinko's to see about making copies to work with in the garage. I wound up using their 'oversized' copier, at about $0.33 per sqft. Copy quality was good, and cost was about a buck a sheet, but it wasn't a contact print, and the size came out about a 1/4" larger on the width, and 1/8" smaller on the height, so I'll have to be careful when scaling from the prints, working with that set. Next time, I'll try to find someone that does 'contact prints'. +++ #2015 From: Kelvin Gurney Subject: Re: Blueprint working copies I took my to Kinko's. They did contact prints at this store. Forget what they charged for "contact prints" but I do remember I thought it was reasonable. Have extra copies of the airfoil made so I had a few to play with. +++ #2018 From: david.a.steele Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Re: posters (and wallet-cards) On this note, assuming we can provide a ready to print file, the cost for an 11x17 color laser (very high res) is $2 plus postage. Going larger than that is when the price really starts to jump. +++ #2093 From: Tim Cramb Subject: Other....Bearhawk RC Model...Arlington EAA I may do an introduction to the BHawk at Arlington EAA 2000.....Have contacted the flyin reference Forum Tent space. This would be the basics about our building group, what is available to builders ie Websites, CD's, Plans purchase, material info number flying ;-) etc.........Of course Bob's blessing required (Mike has my email).... +++ #2095 budd davisson Subject: Budd's SnF/P-II comments Thanks for the kind words and believe me when I say you're only seeing a cyber-ice cube when there's a real iceberg down the road. I have literally hundreds of articles to put up (I've published 2200, but a lot are not worth reading a second time) along with thousands of pix. Just need the time to get at them. Also, we've decided to make AirBum an actual on-line magazine and will put up articles seen no where else. Next issue includes the Bearhawk and a pictorial on SnF and some of the neater stuff seen there. Here's an update for the B/H group: To answer the important question: yes I did fly the 260 prototype. In a word...FANTASTIC! It's an excellent job of refinement. Ailerons are lighter and quicker and control harmony is as perfect as any airplane I've ever flown. Has the wonderful karhma of my S-2A Pitts (pick of the Pitts litter for handling), but obviously more sedate. Very beechcraft like in its control feel. Takeoff sets your hair on fire. Power up, plastered to the seat, barely got the tail off the ground and we were climbing at close to 2,000 fpm. YEE-HAH! Was a nasty little croswind, about 12-16 knots, shifting from barely infront of the wing tip to well behind it. Very, very bad conditions for a tailwheel airplane, but I painted it on three-point without so much as a wiggle (I'll take luck over skill any day). Airplane was absolutely no sweat! Only downside is that at 23 square (Bob cruises at an amazing 19 square for 7.5 gallons and 120-125 mph) it's only cruising at about 150 and the wing is nose down about 2 degrees, which puts the fuselage about 4 degrees tail high. A huge amount of horsepower is being wasted. We talked about fixes which includes changing angle of incidence to level fuselage in high cruise (won't change wing nose down), clipping the wings for the big engine birds (to load the wing more) or changing the airfoil slightly. Clipping it or changing the airfoil enough to get the airplane level would add AT LEAST 12-15 mph to the cruise and hardly effect the low end with that power. If used as a pure bush bird, I wouldn't do either as it's perfect for the mission right now. I'll put a full fledged pirep up on it at the first of the month. If I get it up sooner, I'll tell you. Incidentally, I apologize to any who couldn't get in to the site since Saturday. I didn't hear about it until I'd been at SnF a couple of days. We'd modified the graphic on the cover page and forgot to link the "enter" button. That's a little like inviting company over for dinner then nailing the front door shut with the cookin smells coming through the windows. Sorry. Anyway, that's it for now. Got to catch up on 170 e-mails. +++ #2109 From: bearhawk Subject: Reminder - BHawk Chatroom Meeting We would like to remind you of this upcoming event. BHawk Chatroom Meeting Date: Saturday, April 15, 2000 Time: 7:00PM - 7:30PM PDT (GMT-07:00) First ever BearHawk Builders Chatroom Meeting/BS session....Duration, till the last two person leave ;-) +++ #2113 From: Tim Cramb Subject: BHawk Chatroom Meeting...... That last Chatroom reminder, is a preprogrammed automated message. For the challenged Goto the Bearhawk site> http://www.egroups.com/group/bearhawk/info.html Click on 'Sign in' (top right).....enter your email and password, that is if you haven't checked the 'recognize me' box previously....Then look over to the left for 'Chat'......Click on this, it will open up the Chatroom window. Type in your comments in the white bar near the bottom, hit your 'enter' key or click 'send'.... to Post Message. That simple......easier than reading the above instructions ;-) +++ #2218 From: Shelly Subject: index I have updated the index with the addition of April 2000. I have sent it to Del for additin to the FAQ, but I know that he has temporarily withdrawn from BH asctivity. So, I will try to send it to this egroup as an attachment. If that doesn't work, I will send it individually to each of you who asks. +++ #2249 From: budd davisson Subject: Bearhawk 260 Pirep is Up HEY, GUYS (and gals, if there are any), THE BH-260 PIREP IS ON AIRBUM.COM, AS OF ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AGO. GO HAVE A PEEK. FYI, I'm not telling folks any new A/B stuff is up until week after next in the Airbum e-newsletter (all you guys ARE on it, aren't you?).But, I figured I owed it to you to give you a sneak peak. Just go in to the pirep section and both BH reports are there. Incidentally, get back to me if you have any problems either getting into the site or making the pirep work. My computers gave me heartburn all day, so there's no way of knowing what the pirep will look like on other computers. +++ #2425 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Published Letter Writer In Our Midst... > Steve mentioned something about an article on "Building On A > Budget." I must have missed this somewhere--when/where was it > published? There's a chance he's referring to a series about scratching building on a budget I did sometime in the early 90's. I'd forgotten I did it, but I just looked in the files and it was a five part series on controlling cost in homebuilding and the files are dated 1993. 'Can't tell you when it ran, for sure. Steve, Thanks for reminding me. That's probably good fodder for Airbum.com +++ #2433 From: Steve Eldredge Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Published Letter Writer In Our Midst... My birthday yesterday and I took it off from work to go flying, build bearhawk parts, and a bike ride with the kids... I also happened to receive my copy of Experimenter mag and saw my reply about the AL strut material. Good Day all in all! Anyway, although not as accomplished a writer, nor anywhere near as talented as BD, I did write an article on building on a budget that was publish in the FEB 2000 Experimenter. That is the source of the editorial that appeared in this months issue. Thanks for noticing! +++ #2437 From: Steve Eldredge Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Published Letter Writer In Our Midst... Opps Make that January 2000 p.40. +++ #2515 From: bearhwk272 Subject: EAA Tech Advisor Has any one out there started the process of involving a tech advisor on their project at this point? If so how was your experience? How was their review of the Bearhawk in general? How detailed was their checking conformity to the plans? Did the advisor have a background that was adequate to the various disciplines involved in the Bearhawk? Is a gratuity for time the usual compensation or does beer and doughnuts suffice? Just Wondering +++ #2516 From: newbegin Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] EAA Tech Advisor I have two neighbors that are EAA tech Advisers, one has came by and looked at my workmanship on ribs. I need to have a plan set up with him to do inspections. as far as paying, I don't know how much or if there is a charge. If anyone knows what I'm supposed to do, let me know, +++ #2517 From: Vberthels Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] EAA Tech Advisor > as far as paying, I don't know how much or if there is a charge. I am an EAA tech adviser. There is no charge for these services and it is against EAA policy for there to be one. Bribes in the form of donuts assorted food stuffs & coffee will be accepted but I didn't tell you that. +++ #2518 From: budd davisson Subject: EAA Tech Advisor pay Re: EAA Tech Counselor I'm the guy who wrote the ops manual for the counselor program and there is not supposed to be any money change hands. They are supposed to be volunteers. Lemme know if anyone has different experiences. I supposed it's okay for you to try to compensate them and it's probably okay if they take it, but they aren't supposed to ask for anything. Also, once they go past demonstrating and start helping you build, they have taken off their EAA Counselor hat. +++ #2531 John Morrison Subject: Training wheels... A recent posting asked "Can I build it?"...this question is one I ask myself. It can be restated "Am I just kidding myself? Am I going to screw up a weld and kill myself and my passengers?...welding is magic and I'm no magician...etc" Now you guys/gals out there who wake up to welded fuselages and/or finished wings know that the process is a challenge not easily equaled in an average life, but as a prospective builder...I need to hear a different story. New builders (like myself) want to hear things like "You can do it man! Just take your time and have fun! It'll be the greatest expereince of your life...etc" Who was it that responed by saying (in effect) "start with making some ribs, see if your like it..." This is pure genious...get your feet wet, build your confidence! Zenith sells a fleet of CH 6,7,801's every year because they give new builders a warm and fuzzy feeling about the construction process. Budd, have you considered the following: 4-5 page manual with plenty of photos and materials to make a BH aileron for under $200? Get Bob on board with the idea, he'll have trouble keeping up with the subsequent plans orders, and your sub-kit business will explode. The new builder will have a shiny tribute to his/her ability to continue with the project, and we'll have another smiling face on the forum! I like this forum because I can whine and bitch about my own lack of decisivness and you don't pull the plug on me (yet)...but how about a little more warm and fuzzy for the new guys? +++ #2534 From: Russ Erb Subject: Warm Fuzzies You want some warm fuzzies? How 'bout this for encouragement: Instead of debating whether you can build an airplane, do one of the following: 1) Attend one of the many workshops already mentioned. 2) Get the plans, get some materials and some tools, and start making some parts. Then let us know how it went. If you're happy with it, we'll all be there to congratulate you. If you're not happy with it, we'll tell you how you can get some help so that you will be happy with the results. In summary, (at the risk of using a copyrighted slogan) "Stop debating, Start building." Or if you prefer, "Just Do It!" +++ #2538 From: Donald Schindler Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Warm Fuzzies OK, here's my warm fuzzy! If you are dreaming of a Bearhawk you've got to realize that the dream will not go away. The reason that it recurs is that it is appealing to your super good sense, cause it was designed by that super sensible guy Bob Barrows. This is the airplane that you will be flying when you get old enough to lose your medical cause it is the practical best of all compromises. Have confidence-just start. Look at many of the folks on this site who bravely confess their mistakes. No one is talented enough to not make mistakes-be proud of them-do it! Speaking of dreams here's mine; I arrive at Osh in my Turbine powered Bearhawk accompanied by Elizabeth Hurley. She begs me to take her to the dorms, but unfortunatly she has to wait till we're done touring the exhibits and flea market. +++ #2882 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: re: Wallet Cards > Benton Holzwarth has these very nice folding wallet cards of the > Bearhawk Proto I, on the front and I/II on the back with the > specs...Don't think I asked Benton, if he was going to make these > available to plans holders (dam beer got in the way). Beer aside, you didn't see 'em until the next day. I dropped 'em off at your campsite, while you guys were away. I'd *meant* to give 'em to you sooner, but forgot to dig 'em out of my daypack. Yes, these are the same cards I'd offered to mail out a couple months back, and the offer stands, tho' I'll probably tweek 'em a little before I print more. The key thing was that they were printed on (Epson's) 'photo paper' and really are rugged enough to ride in your wallet without falling apart. It's a nice cardstock, waterproof, about the size of a business card, and folded for front-n-back pictures. (Might flip the back picture upright, since most people seem to unfold it to look at it anyway.) So -- if you'd like one (gratis!), email me a USPS address, and I'll pop some in the mail when I have a chance to print more. (If you asked for one before and never received it, I didn't get the note -- try again.) +++ #2897 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: re: Wallet Cards > Just an idea, don't shoot me (I saw your permit, remember?). > perhaps a schematic of the Hawk, like on the mainpage of the plans, in > the white (blank) folded out portion of your card. Lessee, you're talking to an EE who does SW. Would that be an electrical schematic or a UML diagram? I don't see either being of general interest. 8*) I'd thougth of re-drawing the three-view in reduced detail, suitable for printing off and sitting down with kids and colored pencils to try out different paint schemes, but wasn't ready to go forward with it yet. (I've enough irons in the fire already, and work just isn't loosening it's grip yet.) When/if I do, I'll certainly post dwg-files to my webpage for all to share. The photo-paper is advertised as being strictly one-sided, tho' now that you ask, I don't know if they mean, not photo-quality, or doesn't work at *all* on the back side. It'd be a bit thicker, but they could certainly be printed to fold to quarters. I think the three-view is a great idea, and if it's too thick, one could always cut 'em apart. > If your offer is to plans holders only, I can help there. Hey everyone, Tim's buying us all plans! Until it gets out of hand, I'm happy to share with anyone on this list, or any plans holders. Or probably anyone else that asks, tho' I'm only 'advertising' here. The paper's not free, but it's also not so expensive that it's worth spending 33c to reimburse me. I'm getting *far* more value out of this group than I'm paying back, and am delighted to have something to contribute. (Sincerely, thank you all very much -- I think about the people with 3/4ths of a Glasair and realize that if Bob/Mike were to drop out of sight tomorrow, I could still complete a Bearhawk.) +++ #2918 From: Russ Erb Subject: Fuel Tanks, Causin' trouble again... I posted my stats on building time and budget to generate discussion, and seem to have been successful at doing that. I can't help noticing that the most vocal of you at questioning the number of hours spent are those who aren't all that far into the building process. Those who are farther along have been noticeably silent. Even so, it's much ado about nothing (hmm, why does that line sound familiar?). Each of us will take as long as we are comfortable with, and that's the way it should be. I would hate to think that someone would commit what they thought was less than adequate workmanship just to meet some arbitrary timeline. No, I don't plan to win major awards at major fly-ins (although some of you might try to argue that, but only I know what is in my head [you don't want to--it's scary in there]). I do, however, only plan to build one Bearhawk and I want it to be something that I am not ashamed to show to other builders. If that means I take longer than you, then so be it. By the way, when I was ready to start riveting on the skins, I had our chapter tech counselor come and look over the project. His only squawks were two rivets that he recommended they be replaced, but would be okay even if they weren't. That's about as close to a perfect score as you can get! (I did replace the rivets, plus a couple others I decided I didn't like.) Enough of that--on to the next subject from the guy who over-analyzes everything (note to Planter Bob--you may not notice, but I'm not spending much time at all looking at the things that are in the plans--I'm looking at those items that are NOT specified in the plans): Reviewing the great holy works of the homebuilding movement (in this case the blue Bingelis book), I found the statement "Place the filler neck so that when the aircraft is in its normal attitude (3-point), an expansion space is automatically created, even though the tank may be filled to the top of the filler neck" (p 268). Farther down page 270 "About 2 or 3 per cent of the tank's capacity should be sufficient for the expansion space." This, of course, made me wonder what the capacity of the tanks really was. Yes, I know we've been told 55 gallons (27.5 each tank), but I thought I would try some CADD magic. I've designed my tanks to what was specified in the newsletter to the best of my ability, and analyzing the CADD drawing tells me that each tank would be just a little over 25.5 gallons. Not news we like to hear, but news nonetheless (If losing 4 gallons is a major problem to you, I'd recommend that you immediately start planning to add the aux tanks shown in the newsletter, because you were cutting it too close). Even with the long distances "out west", I'll still plan to make one more stop and save the weight, complexity, and added maintenance of the extra tanks. As for the expansion space, I found that placing the aft edge of the hole for the filler cap flange 5.9" aft of the forward edge of the tank will give between 2 and 3 percent expansion space in the 3-point attitude on level ground. If you draw out that location, it doesn't look unreasonable based on other aircraft we have seen and is not that much different than what was drawn in the newsletter. Back to reading Bingelis...hope to see some of you at Oshkosh... +++ #2919 From: Robert L. Thomasson Subject: [Bearhawk] Fuel Tanks, Causin' trouble again... > I posted my stats on building time and budget to generate discussion, > and seem to have been successful at doing that. I can't help but wonder how much of your building time was actually spent documenting your progress and communicating to your fellow builders about problems you encountered and how you resolved them. I am convinced that a great deal of your "building time" was actually spent helping us out, and we owe you for that. +++ #2927 From: Float-By Shooter Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Hello > experience. Mostly on heavy jets,, with the last three years being in > general aviation. I currently reside in Washington state, where I work > for a rather large float plane operation. I hope to stay in touch with > all as the project progresses. Also, if I can be of any help , just > ask. That wouldn't happen to be the same large floatplane operation which produces a nationally recognized line of floats, would it? AKA the DeHavilland Beaver experts? As Kevin mentioned, some of us nutcases want to put our Bearhawks on floats eventually, so in a few years you may find your hands full answering questions about how to rig floats. In addition to the pilot reports, you should get a copy of Russ' Bearhawk CD, which contains more information on the Bearhawk than you can handle all at once, guaranteed. http://www.eaa1000.av.org/pix/erbpix/bearhawkcd.htm for more information. To tide you over while you wait for the CD to arrive, I humbly suggest heading over to the "Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ" which I maintain; it consists mostly of general information for new and prospective builders. The FAQ's URL is: http://www.netpackrat.com/bhfaq/ If you don't mind, I wrote up a section about floats for the FAQ based on what I have been able to learn from the local bush pilots and internet sources, and if I've made any glaring errors I'd love to know, since I'm not a mechanic or even a float pilot yet. Then take a spin through Bill Johnson's picture site of his Bearhawk under construction, http://home.fuse.net/wjohnson/ That ought to be good for at least 6 months worth of building motivation. And despite all the fears (including my own) that this email list would get too big, it just continues to get better all the time and the traffic has remained manageable for the most part. By no authority whatsoever, I hereby nominate Paul Beam and Tim Cramb to the order of Bearhawk sainthood. +++ #2939 From: Russ Erb Subject: [Bearhawk] New member > I was wondering if there exists a zip file or something that will let > me download ALL of the previous group messages in ONE GO so that they > can be studied at leisure. *Marketing Hat On* I know of no such file or capability that exists on e-groups. However, if you order the Bearhawk CD, you will find all of the messages up through the end of 1999, including the three years or so before we moved to e-groups that now no longer exist online. As an added benefit, the messages are sorted by thread and indexed. Go to http://www.eaa1000.av.org/pix/erbpix/bearhawkcd.htm and you'll read about all of the other reasons why you'll want a copy. When you send for one, be sure to tell me what operating system you use on your computer and include some sort of international monetary instrument payable in US dollars ($20). As for those of you who already have one, sometime after Oshkosh and I get this wing moved out of the garage, I hope to force myself to get Version 2.0 done. Included will be new pics of details from Proto II, Bill Johnson's pics (by his permission), the e-mail archives since Version 1.0 (which is almost as many messages as are already there), more of my pictures, and anything else I feel like. Just have to interrupt...er, take a break from building for a while. *Marketing Hat Off* +++ #2940 From: Shelly Subject: Index I sent the Beartracks index to Float-by for inclusion in the FAQ. Please let me know if there are any suggestions, additions or subtractions. +++ #2963 From: Float-By Shooter Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Bearhawk kit > Erics'....As of this writing the Rocket isn't on the Approved Kit > list.....A year ago at Arlington (99) they told us that the Rocket kit > was being examined by the FAA for approval after the 99 Airshow. So > far the Rocket isn't on the Approved list...I imagine there will also > be a wait for the approved BHawk. Just to clarify things, not being on the "approved" list doesn't necessarily mean anything. Being on the list just means that the kit manufacturer has gone to the trouble of demonstrating to the FAA that there is in fact at least 51% of the aircraft left to be completed by the builder. Not being on the list, may mean that you'll have to document your build process more thoroughly to demonstrate that the majority of the aircraft was amateur built. There isn't any requirement for the manufacturer to get their kit put on the list. +++ #3141 Subject: Bug Eyes and Messages From: Bion Rogers I have been lurking about here these last two months, and am still studying the books and plans. I don't know if anyone is interested, but I just completed an exercise in tedium. I now have all 3140 of the group messages and attachements downloaded one at a time in html format. 46.1 megabytes. In 13k to 14k files. God, what a eye bending, numbing experience. I have also downloaded all of the menu pages by thread and date so that I can get the subject lines for the messages frome the source code. They only have numbers for filenames when you download the files. I will now attempt to create an html index of the files by thread, subject, and by date. Russ, let me know if you think I'm barking up the wrong tree, or if this is worth it. If you think it is, let me know your thoughts on how to proceed. I don't know if you would be interested in something like this for your CD. You can have it gratis if you want it. Also, Russ, Thank you for the monumental work you did making the CD. a true work of art. +++ #3172 Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] newsletter ? From: Steve Eldredge Decided to answer my own question and called Fincastle... Just in case anyone else wanted to know... $16 per year and future years (within reason, ie; 2 or 3 years) $66 for all back issues (includes the rest of 2000) $12 for hats. This was my first phone interaction with Mike and Bob, very helpful and friendly. Made me feel like a life long member of the club. Cool Plane, Cool People. +++ #3482 Subject: Another Bearhawk Magazine Article From: Russ Erb Well, Budd no longer has a monopoly. A friend brought me a copy of the Summer 2000 Sportsman Pilot, Jack Cox's magazine. In it is an article by Jack Cox about Bob and the Bearhawk. It is not a flight report like Budd's pieces, but more of a descriptive and historical piece. Definitely worth reading--you may learn some details or history that you didn't already know. Described as a "Purely conventional in configuration...", he goes on to say "To date, over 430 sets have been sold, which is truly exceptional for a utility-type airplane and, in this age of quick-built kits, a scratch-built one at that." Of course, I don't have to explain to you why... +++ #3565 From: Tim Subject: Homebuilders Links More BHawk awareness...... > Bearhawk builders and websites owners should join Del Rawlins and ad > thyne names to this site list> > > > Main page is +++ #3647 From: Russ Erb Subject: Official Bearhawk CD Release Notice Yes, it's true. The Bearhawk CD Version 2 (BHCDV2) is ready to ship out the door. I've updated the web page that describes it (http://www.eaa1000.av.org/pix/erbpix/bearhawkcd.htm). Here's the pertinent info so you don't have to go looking for it: +++ #3673 From: Float-By Shooter Subject: faq update The most recent version of Shelly's Bear-Tracks index has been placed on the FAQ. Thanks again Shelly for taking the time to compile it and for making it available. +++ #3703 From: Russ Erb Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] ALASKA > Could the time per plane be significantly cut by getting together > with a couple of other builders and doing 2-3 planes at once? I > guess what I'm really asking is how much time is involved with > making the tooling required? It depends. If all of the builders can agree on how to build their airplanes (i.e. all identical), then savings might be realized. I'm working on my second wing assembly right now and it is going together much faster than the first wing. I think the difference is not because I learned how to drill a hole or drive a rivet. The difference is because I have already figured out on the first wing how to do things, such as where to put the wiring conduit, how to attach the wingtip, how to integrate the landing light, etc. Tooling only had to be made the first time. Additionally, as I was building brackets, fuel tanks, whatever for the first wing I also made them for the second wing, so I don't have to stop the second time to make those parts. While I don't have exact numbers, if the first item (wing, fuselage, whatever) takes 100 percent of time to build, then the second might take 70 percent, the third 60 percent, and all following 50 percent of the time. The biggest problem I would see would be finding two other builders who want to build an airplane exactly like you want to and want to work at the same rate that you do. There are some groups that can pull this off, and there are a lot that can't. As bd sez, them's my thoughts. I'll be celebrating Veteran's Day tomorrow and Saturday by remembering those who have gone before us and by skinning my wing. +++ #3709 From: Rob Gaddy Subject: Re: ALASKA I built my first airplane with another guy, building one then the other. Yes there was an improvement of build time for the second airplane. There was mutual support and motivation that cancelled out BS time. I did however end up marrying his sister-in-law. So I guess you sometimes get more than what you bargin for. +++ #3734 From: Michael Cheshire Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] ALASKA Russ (and the rest of you guys with several years of building behind you), Do you think your experience re. building time is going to be typical for the first time builder? Is it possible that, being an engineer in the aerospace industry, with years of experience working in flight test, you are being more thorough than Bob would deem neccessary? I ask because I am intimidated by a 3,000 hour build time, much less twice that. +++ #3735 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: Building times Here's some observations from oldfartdom: In 35 years of being actively involvedin the homebuilding movement, I've come to view all estimates of building time with suspicion. Only those guys who actually keep a building log know the exact numbers and, personally, I'd rather not know the exact number as it would probably depress me. However, if you look at averages through the years, you have to realize that there are building times and there are building times. An enormous amount of time goes into building in super detailing e.g. finishing, interiors, and extravagant detail. Fitting an oil door in a cowling can absorb twice the amount of time if one of the goals is making certain the gap around it is exactly the same and the cowling curve is exactly matched. What is a one hour job to an average craftsman is a three hour job to someone who is looking at it like an Oshkosh judge. The average building time for something like an RV is in the 1800-2500 hours and that is an airplane that is thoroughly debugged and totally kitted. A scratch built like a Bearhawk is easily twice that, especially if great detailing is a goal. We've just finished building the fuselage jigs for the kits and it wasn't until then that I/we realized how many more parts there are in an airplane this big and complicated then there are in something like a Pitts or a Tailwind. The parts count is staggering. None of the parts are even remotely difficult to make, but there are a lot of them. As I remember, there are nearly 100 fitting pieces in the fuselage alone, not counting the tubing. Building ANY airplane, kit or otherwise is a humungous committment. Building a scratchbuilt airplane moves the decimal point over another notch and building one this big adds another time factor. However, you can't look at the total number of hours required to complete it. "Project mentality" which is required to finish any airplane, dictates that you only think of the given piece that's being worked on at that moment. Then, as you finish each tiny part, you are seeing progress towards the eventual goal of being finished, and you won't get discouraged. If you start measuring each part against the number left to be done, you WILL get discouraged. There's only one (repeat, ONLY ONE) reason to be building any airplane and that is because you like building. Flying it is just icing on the cake. Of course, it's nice if the airplane being built is worth the effort, which is why we're building Bearhawks. As probably the only one in the group who has actually flown the airplanes, let me categorically state that it IS worth it. No one who finishes is going to be disappointed. For those of you who are spooked by long build times, you can cut the building time by at least 60%, or more, by buying our kits next year. The trade off is financial. The less you spend, the longer it takes to finish and vice versa. The ultimate 51% Bearhawk quick-biuld kit (wings/fuselage basically finished and ready for cover/paint, etc.) will be $24,000 and will save the average guy an easy 2,500 hours. Doing it Russ's way, it'll save you twice that. $24,000 is a big number (actually low compared to many kits), but then, so is 2-3,000 hours. It's your call. Isn't America (and homebuilding) wonderful in the ability to make decisions which it gives us? +++ #3736 From: Russ Erb Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] ALASKA bd said it very well. I only have one thing to add... Thoughts from notquitesooldfartdom: I'm going with Planter Bob on this one. You have to build because you enjoy building. If you must concentrate on a metric (govt employees beware), then track your building RATE. If you keep up the rate, eventually you'll find that you are done. If you are enjoying building, you won't care how many hours you've spent. You might even start worrying about what you'll do nights and weekends after the airplane is done. Hours spent building is fun to think about in the past tense. Since I do keep a log, both out of interest and to justify insurance claims if required, I can look back and be amazed at how many hours I've spent. My wife likes it because I prefer to be at home instead of somewhere else (let's not talk about when I have to move to the airport). Don't look at hours in the future sense. None of us have a real feel for how much 2000 or 4000 hours is, other than "a long time." Choose your airplane based on more important factors, like your mission statement. And yes, Planter Bob, I have thought about what my next project would be (no, it's not another Bearhawk--one will be plenty)... +++ #3746 From: William & Delinda Johnson Subject: Building Time My 2 cents to the building time discussion with specifics instead of general overall build time numbers. Overall numbers are influenced by finish work, interior details, panel, etc. Take for instance plans page 13 (Aileron and Flap hinges). Everything on that page, including the newsletter jig, I made in about 30 hours using only a gas welder, bending block, band saw, grinder, belt sander, and drill press. If someone has specific questions on build time for a component ask about that part - it will be much easier to get the groups opinion vs the overall number. BTW, Budd's fuselage jig is impressive. I stopped by on my way to Bob's for the annual Bearhawk fly-in. +++ #3879 From: Russ Erb Subject: Re: Digest Number 222 > Russ, would you please post your address and the amount of the > 2nd CD again, thanks. Well, okay. $20 US. BHCDV2 is fully self contained. It is a replacement, not an "upgrade". Everything that was on the first version is on Version 2. BE SURE TO TELL ME WHAT OPERATING SYSTEM YOU USE! (Win 95/98, Mac, Linux, etc) Bearhawk CD Russ Erb 6708 Doolittle Dr Edwards CA 93523 +++ #4241 From: Pat Fagan pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] And just where do I get one of those! In response to Russ's message about leak checking his tanks, I had an amusing story to tell. I took a TIG welding class at the local JC to learn to, hopefully, TIG weld my tanks together. There was one individual perpetually in the shop who was preparing to take his welding certification exams. I didn't much care for his personality, you know how some people just come off as know-it-alls and very obnoxious. When I felt confident enough to work on my tanks, he let me know that I would screw it up and end up with a molten pile or a potato chip. As I came to completion of the first tank he asked me how I was going to leak check it. I told him I would soap bubble it after pressurizing to 3 lbs. He advised me that I would need to pressure it to 150 lbs! I asked him where he got that number. He said 25 gallons at 6lbs per gallon = 150 lbs. I thanked him for his insight, than continued to ignore anything else he had to say. I agree with Russ that at just 1.5 to 2 lbs pressure, the tank makes enough expansion noises to scare you away from adding much more. I too used a vaccum gauge to monitor the pressure, but had no trouble adding minute amounts of air by tickling the trigger on a blow gun attached to the hose. I am now at 4 years into the construction and have been pretty consistent about logging about 600 hours a year. It took me three years to complete both wings, but only one year to just about finish the fuselage. Just finished my cargo doors, they came out fantastic. I have only to build the front doors and windows before I take it off the table for the last time and build the stringers for the top and bottom. I'm looking forward to getting into the finish work that will make the plane uniquely mine. +++ #4275 From: Russ Erb Subject: [Bearhawk] FAA....proposing....AC20-27E A little more info from the AvWeb newswire: Amateur-built aircraft guidelines are headed your way from the FAA in the form of a proposed Advisory Circular (AC) 20-27E. The AC provides information and guidance on the assembly, airworthiness certification and operation of experimental aircraft. Comments are requested by February 22, 2001. If you'd like to see the proposed AC and offer your comments to the FAA, call the Airworthiness Certification Branch at 202-267-8361... So does anyone know what AC 20-27E covers? +++ #4289 From: Tim Subject: Bob Barrows.....The new year Just talking with Bhawk designer Bob.........; He wishes all of us, a very good year! and hopes to see some of our Group again at S&F 2001....Apri l 8-14th First off as most of you know Mike Meador is now incharge of the newsletter and is working on the January issue (usually out by the 15th). Bob is flying his two machines on an average 2-3 times a week. This weekend he is delivery an engine to an RV builder....Bearhawk plans out there, around 500. Current newsletter subscribers at about half, 250-ish....The Kit Bearhawk is moving along, although this is all Budd's venture, Bob mentioned he will be suppling plans. Update Budd :-) Bob mentioned that two builders are very close to flying both Bob Merrick of WI., and John Hargraves of Austrailia....Bob Merrick is finishing off some small stuff and should be at Oshkosh, a very slim chance perhaps S&F but the mandatory flight the time and distance to the show is a major consideration. Down under 'John' was hoping to be flying by the1st part of this year!......Now relax, boy's and don't shoot the messenger here, but...... I know this is going to excite a few ;-).....John Hargraves reports his total recorded building time at 1700hrs, which when I exclaimed holy @#%!* Bob replied, about the same average construction time for each of his two Bearhawks....... Designer Bob, also mentioned that he is considering a personal 3 week National tour in 2002, of all the Bearhawks Builders which are very close to completion So I asked Bob..."Define close".....Okay my fault, I asked....More numbers here boy's....remember no shooting timmy....reply 75-80% complete, OK, don't ask no-one knows ;-)....Would love to be flying my BHawk along with him on that Meet & Greet Tour. Please excuse any miss spelling of names....S&F 2001 yeah baby! +++ #4290 From: Tim Subject: and.....one short note Of course, I missed something.....; Bob mentioned that his new project 'two place tandam 'Super-Cub' like design, is coming along...I won't go into details as I remember some of you were talking about it a few months ago when Bob left 3Dim drawings out for visitors at the Bearhawk fly-in on the Barrows Strip last October. The short of it is, more room inside than a Super Cub...Room inside close to the roominess of Mike Meador's Christavia MK1 (30"?) but built with the Bearhawk in mind. Bob mentioned, it's a challenge in this new project as he tries to keep the original lines of the Bearhawk......enuff +++ #4326 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: Kit update As per Tim's request, here's the current status of the kit project: We've pulled three test fuselages, including tails, landing gears, etc out of the jigs to ascertain that everything is as it should be, and it is. The jigs are all headed south this mouth and we expect to have everything set up mid-February/March. Sun n Fun is hitting us a couple of months too early in the sequence, but we will have small parts (tails, landing gear, etc) at Bob's airplane so you can examine their quality etc. Just so everyone knows: we're going to do our best to avoid the usual marketing pipelines which includes displays at Oshkosh and Sun n'Fun. They are incredibly expensive and hard to put together. We'd rather put the money into a demonstrator that is going to hit every fly-in worthy of the name. It will have a complete wing kit in the cargo bay for inspection, along with the usual brochures, etc. This airplane will be set up so that anyone who wants to fly it can. We feel the best way to sell the Bearhawk is to let people fly it. The demonstrator, which will be a 260, should be flying We will be in a position to supply completed fuselages, which includes tails and landing gears, by late May or early June. Wings will be ready late August/September. Complete quick-build kits will happen about the same time. We're leaving a good margin between us and the 51% rule, so you'llhave to assemble the preformed aileron and flap kits yourself, although the hinging will be done. Same thing with the fuselage doors. The tubing will be hinged, but you'll have to weld the doors together, although there'll be a sub-contractor who can do that for you. Once we get the first dozen or so kits out there, we're going to get the FAA to sit down with us and see how much more we can finish and not step over the line. Don't anyone hold our feet to the fire on these schedules, however, because nothing is leaving until it's proven perfect. Just so everyone knows: the fuselages are gas welded and the tails/landing gear, etc will be TIG'd with stress points stress relieved. All production fuselages will be set up for floats with the utility doors. The flap linkage will be set for a 2.5 degree reflex, but the builder doesn't have to use it if he doesn't want to. The engine mounts will be for 180's, 260's and 0-470, with the 0-470 coming last. We're also ging to try to make the mounts so mufflers can be used. We're trying to keep the number of component variations to a minimum, but we're kicking around offering a few things like water jetted fitting packages. The wings will be available as A) ribs/spars only B)complete formed wing kits and C) completed wings sans fabric covering and tanks. The tanks will be available separately and will have a flat depression in the top for sending units and bosses for sight gauges so you have your option. Once we get things going and we see the demand, we'll also tool up to manufacture a BH version of the Tri-Pacer seat. Starting about the time of SnF, we'll have a separate AviPro phone number and e-mail so you can get ahold of us directly. My partners and I will be handling the manufacturing, but the marketing will come directly through me here in Phoenix. Aircraft will be shipped FOB Austin, Texas. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to e-mail me. Budd Davisson AviPro, Inc. +++ #4362 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: Kit update > Did I see in an earlier posting the the kits will be shipped > out FOB Austin? No, they are being built in our own plant about 100 miles south of Mexico City and will be imported through Austin. +++ #4411 From: Tim Subject: BH Newsletter Editor.... For those of you that haven't been to the bigger 3 Eaa fly-ins which R&B Aircraft have been at.....Here is a picture of the new OPI of our Bearhawk Newsletter, Mike Meador... I took this picture at Arlington 98. Mike is sitting in a completed Christavia, which flew to the EAA Flyin... Mike's current project is also a Christavia MK1..........131k Click-on -da- Link ... +++ #4754 From: Tim Subject: Reducing empty weight...Link Several yrs back, I bought all the BD4 newsletter back issues and maintained a subscription due to the great tech stuff and innovative thinking.....I knew Roger Mellema (prev Editor) and talked with him for the last time, on Sunday at the July 99 Eaa Arlington. He was killed at the end of Aug, while flying a gyro. Below at this link is a good 'practical' article (NLl#28) on reducing weight & a good pic of all the stuff you can cram into one, which is close to the interior size of the Bhawk...I think this 'How much Can you Carry'.... pic was taken the same year Bob/Mike were at Arlington.....Goto> scroll down....inexpensive Oil Cooler?...yikes?......... ;-) +++ #4976 From: Russ Erb Subject: Shelly's Bearhawk in Experimenter Check out page 41 of the Feb 2001 Experimenter. The subject of the article is constructing a dolly to move your fuselage around. Though not mentioned explicitly, any of us would instantly recognize that fuselage truss in the pictures. Lookin' good! +++ #5053 From: Doug Knight Subject: More Lightening Hole Stuff I haved added more picks to my web pages and thought another view might be needed. http://www.geocities.com/doug_knight_94501/Bearhawk/pic12.html Also adding nightly other pics as I find time. I have a some welding questions tomarrow after I upload some more pics. Formboarding, templating, masterjiging, cutting, routing, edgedeburing, flanging, lighteningholing, fluting, bobing done. Need spars. +++ #5166 From: Kevin Deutscher bearhwk272@a... Subject: Bearhawk Builders Visits Finally getting caught up enough to create this infomercial. A few weeks ago I had the privilege of visiting Russ Erb and Pat Fagan as I wandered aimlessly thru California. What an inspirational experience, (Motivational for those of a different secular order) Seeing actual Bearhawks well under construction was a real treat. Visiting another's project is a great way to clarify your building task ahead and validate that which you have done. If you have an opportunity get out and visit other builders. Both Russ and Pat are doing a great job and it was good to receive their advice and guidance. Russ, his activities are well chronicled in this group and on the CD. The timing of my visit was great in that I have my wing skeletons well underway and was able to view a wing skinned but not yet riveted. Russ has put a lot of thought and effort into his wing mounted landing lights. It is easy to see how whenever you depart the plans the task expands as do the challenges. Russ's wingtips came out great and changed my outlook as I will probably tackle them myself also. When it is all said and done Russ will get the "Builder Award" for the most compact and high density work shop. His single car garage can handle the whole project! Do not worry it can be done. The only down side is that when two people are in the work area they have to coordinate breathing. Pat, I had an opportunity to visit him about 18 months ago, at that time one wing was complete. What a change, both wings finished, fuselage on the gear. It looks like an airplane! Pat is living proof that things move quickly once all the wing details are complete. Pat did himself well by taking a TIG welding class at the local college and then doing his tanks. The other nice item was how well his strut fittings turned out. Just a saw, milldrill and a file yielded some very good looking fittings. The fuselage looks like a lot of work but Pat said that it was the most rewarding part of the project and went together well. It looks great! Road Reflections. There are various different ways to fabricate the detail components. Russ, Pat and I used different manufacturing techniques for Ribs, Spars etc. When complete they look about the same, when they are all assembled the big picture overtakes the small details and the end result is impressive. Make Quality Parts, if they are not good make them over. Pay attention to details on the detail components. The individual component is important, how you get there is the variable. Think ahead of where you are working. Do not do anything permanent until you absolutely must. Seek guidance from those who have walked the path. Work on it every day. Enjoy all the activity. After three years of activity I am at peace with my selection of the Bearhawk and still feel that I am building the "Correct Aircraft." +++ #5269 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: Batching parts > Bearhawk #295 has been picked up and put down several times... > I have the nose ribs all cut out and about half are flanged. > That's it. Wish I had more to report. I've been working about a dozen nose ribs through the process at a time. I find that's about the right number -- when my arm is tired from whacking down edge flanges on the form block it's time to segue to fluting and finish-flanging, then lightening holes; or when I'm loosing my enthusiam for flanging, it's time to fly-cut another set of holes. Do other people work the whole set of 46 nose ribs through the whole process one step at a time, or break the processing up into sub-batches? Didn't get as many hours in on the project last month as I'd have wished. I'd be on my last dozen nose ribs (or perhaps done) if I hadn't scrapped the first batch. +++ #5272 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Batching parts I did one operation on all nose ribs, then moved to the next operation. Same for center ribs, back ribs, aileron, flap, and tip ribs. At least I think I did...that was a long time ago...am I done yet? +++ #5279 From: Pat Fagan pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Batching parts I slogged through each step as well. I found that if I skipped around, when I got back to starting at the beginning again, I had to relearn all the little time-saving helps that I had learned the first time around. Besides, it also nice to work on a piece and say "That's the last one of those I will ever have to make." +++ #5343 From: Tim Subject: Aluminum Bending/Building Website This site is worth a look. One of the best I've seen with some good tips and practices when building/bending Tin (RV6)..............I sent 'Sam' an email at his 'site comments' about how impressed I was at the quality of his site and mentioned I 'm in the Bearhawk Builders Yahoogroup....He replied, Bearhawk?????????? My GOD! What???......Well he's now informed.....His shop is empty now perhaps he needs another project, like a high wing ;-) Clickon 'Guy' at the right with the Filter mask, for the construction photo journal +++ #5496 From: rsmith@a... Subject: Re: Another bearhawk project > Just received the plans on Friday. Been looking them over. The > newsletters seem to indicate that the best place to start is > the wings. I'd rather start with the fuselage first. Anybody > see a reason why not? I've got plenty of room to put the > fuselage, on the gear, once completed and I'd rather not have > something as vulnerable to damage as an aluminum wing hanging > around the shop any longer than it has to be. I have teenage > kids at home so the damage factor is a big consideration for > me. When I asked Bob about this he said he was afraid that if builders built the fuselage first, they would bog down on building the wings and not complete the project. I felt that the opposite was true, if I had a fuselage to look at it would inspire me to build the wings as quickly as possible. Waiting on the wings has paid off for me as Budd should have his wing kit ready about the time I run out of other parts to build. Rod Smith #246 Wasilla, AK 99654 +++ #5502 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: Another bearhawk project I have to agree with Rod. That's how I built the Christavia and found it very inspiring to walk into the shop and see a "plane", not just a pile of ribs. It's also inspiring when you go to show the friends and relatives the "plane" you've been building for a considerable time. Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace) Barrows Bearhawk #468 +++ #5504 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Another bearhawk project > Just received the plans on Friday. Been looking them over. I think Bill Johnson has done this. Some guys have since they felt more comfortable with welding than sheet metal work. However, as I'm getting ready to rivet the second wing, I'm thinking that far more than 50% of the work in building this airplane is in the wing. I think Pat Fagan has said something to this effect, and his wings are built and he's fitting out the fuselage. Which do you want to do first, the easy part or the hard part? > Russ did a super job of putting the CD together. Besides all > the information in it, he did a great job of presenting it. If > he triples his price on the next one, I'll pay it without a > second thought. Special for you, Mark. BHCD Version 3.0, only $60. Available at some as yet undisclosed date. Or you can assuage your guilt and just send me another $40. I won't complain. > Has anyone tried to put together some dies to press out the > rib parts? I bet I could hammer the flanges on the rib blank faster than you could get one set up in the press. It's really not that hard or time consuming. The time sink is in all of the other operations. Russ Erb #164, Edwards CA +++ #5566 From: "William & Delinda Johnson" Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Another bearhawk project Russ is part right when he said I started with the fuselage. I started by pounding out the ribs and building the spars. I moved on to the fuselage, tail, cabin and engine mount. The wings are tedious BUT the fuselage is expensive with the instruments, engine, prop. I wanted to spread out that expense and relieve some boredom. Now I am getting ready to assemble the wings having finished all the steel components. Simultaneously, I will finish the boot cowl and doors/windows. Simultaneous with that I will restore the Culver, rebuild an O200 and O540, do the annual on the Meyers, and go to my day job. Perhaps time for the family somewhere in there . . . Oh, and go to Sun and Fun - did we decide on a meeting place and time? Bill +++ #5836 From: Bob Romanko Subject: Conversation with Bob Barrows (Was: Build Times for Completed Projects) I called Bob Barrows today to talk with him regarding a big Fly-Market that's going on at New London (Whiskey 90) Airport. I knew that Bob and Rucker Tibbs are pretty close, and wanted to discuss the inventory. Looks pretty attractive: http://www.newlondonairport.com Anyhow, we got on the subject of build times, after I had to hang my head and tell him I was now building a house instead of an airplane. One thing led to another, and I ended up reading my Bob Barrows "Top Five List for Faster Build Times" (see below) to him. He liked the list, and basically stressed the number one thing is CONSISTENCY of effort. He also made a correction. He frequently WILL polish a "hidden unstressed part", just as a pride-of-craftsmanship effort. Guess that explains the award at Oshkosh, eh? Bob especially liked it when I told him that there are a few builders in the group who think he builds quickly because he has a "high-tech shop" (that got a big chuckle out of him), or that building the Bearhawk is all he does. Folks, the guy spends hours every day on his engine business. Last time I was at Fincastle he talked about his huge backlog of work. Bob then mentioned Wil Graf (Wadsworth, Ohio, #365). Wil purchased his plans in November, 1998. He called Bob recently to discuss hooking up his exhaust system and the fit of the pipes around the cowling. Yes, his Bearhawk is assembled, painted, and upholstered. The engine is hung, and now he's fitting the exhaust pipes. He's in his 60's, retired, and the only other plane he's built was a Pietenpol. Consistency. Bob added that Wil also loves building. I'm plans #399, so he's only 34 sets ahead of me. More completion news from Bob Barrows: Bob Merrick in Wisconsin, (#019) is now waiting for his FAA inspection. Bob said that he's hoping to see both airplanes at his October 2001 Bearhawk Annual Fly-In BBQ at Fincastle. We all are too! Now, an update from Bob Barrows on the Two-Seat Bearhawk: He started work January 1st. One wing is skinned, the other is in the process of skinning. Bob said that a FULL set of bearhawk (4-seater) ribs, including aileron and flap ribs, takes him two months to fabricate. That's not using a router OR dies. (Sorry...couldn't resist) He also added that to rivet the spar together takes about a week. Anyhow, that's the latest news from my talk with Bob Barrows. As always, very enlightening and encouraging. That is All, Planter Bob +++ #5989 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: the kit This whole how-long-does-it-take-to-build subject has been pounded into the ground something fierce, although the AK (after kit) factor has not. Bob swears he builds his airplanes in 2000-2500 hours from scratch which is all hand labor as his shop is on the level of the blacksmith shop at Williamsburg. Granted, he really knows what he is doing. Russ has pointed to sometihng like 2000 hours just to do a wing or two. So, the scratch build thing is all over the block. Prior to Russ, we had two builders clock in at 600 and 1000 hours to build their wings. I don't think we've heard an estimate on how long it takes to build the steel parts. About all that can be said for the quick build kit that is definitive is what it WON'T take. All of the time estimates we've seen on the e-group WON'T happen with the kit, as there is none of the normal fabricating/tooling time invested. A closer parallel would be having someone drop a stripped Tri-Pacer airframe off that needs no restoration, just assembly, system installation etc. Russ, think how far ahead you, for instance, would be time-wise, if the wing-fairy dropped off a set of finished wings. I'm going to ball park some estimates based on 40 hour weeks here and see what they add up to: -covering fuselage/tail, w/paint- 160 hours -installing control system/ cables, etc - 80 hrs -instruments - 80 hrs -cowling/firewall/boot cowl - 80 hrs -interior - 120 hrs -wings/fuel tank install - 160 -brakes, landing gear - 120 -engine install - 160 -windshield/glass - 120 -misc. -240 This totals 1350 hours. Our man, Jim Clevenger, who helped us build all the hard tooling and is working on our demonstrator is doing it for a fixed value at 1000 hours. This includes paint and avionics. He is convinced he can beat 1000 hours by a sizeable margin, but he is also a very experienced builder. So, for a basic, flying airplane from the quick-build, I think 1000-1400 hours is reasonable depending on skill and complexity of avionics, paint and interior. Them's my thoughts. bd +++ #6162 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Auto engine conversions If anyone is interested in looking for this thread, all of the old jbc.edu archives are on the Bearhawk CD (V1 and V2). Russ Erb #164, Edwards CA +++ #6284 From: kac@g... Subject: New wanna-be builder Hi all! I'm a "newbie" on this forum and have been enjoying this forum for about a two weeks, after I became interested in the Bearhawk about four weeks ago. My name is Keith Confer and I live in Anchorage, Alaska. I enjoy working as an Electrical Engineer most of the time. Well, enjoy might be too strong a word for it, as the hours are long and arduous. It is how I earn a living, how's that. I am looking at somewhat of a long term plan in getting into this (or another) plane. Here is my long term plan: 1. Research plane against my mission profile. 2. While doing number one, I will begin to aquire the skills neccessary to building a "plans" built aircraft, i.e., take a welding class or two at the local community college, and a sheet metal class. All are useful skills, that I would like to acquire, for no other reason than they sound useful and would definately help me IF I decide to build a plans built aircraft. It will be fun! 3. After picking an aircraft, and learning a few skills, I will be at the point where I decide whether I am capable of taking on a project of this magnitude (I am unsure as of yet, but like the idea). 4. Decide whether I can pursue a project of this magnitude. Airbum.com has an excellent write up (about ten steps) to determine if one is prepared for a project of this magnitude. 5. If yes to (5) above then pick aircraft design and continue with practical education regarding welding, sheet metal, covering, etc. Also continue as below. If not then STOP and admire all of you fine people who have the where-with-all and fortitude to take on such a project. Skills have been obtained; however, so I won't look back if I decide not to build. 6. Begin acquiring tools needed and continue practical education as outlined in (2) above. 7. Acquire and/or arrange space to accomplish the project. Again Airbum.com has a good article on this subject. 8. Begin building. 9. Ask tons of questions on this forum. 10. Finish plane without engine. 11. Buy engine. 12 . Finish project with engine. I'd be less than honest if I did not state that I have decided on my mission profile and the planes that would fit the bill are the Cessna 185, 180, Piper PA-14. Essentially I want a four place plane with good short field performance (Alaskan short field). I'd also be less than honest if I didn't state that I approached my mission profile from a "pocket book" stand point as well. To wit, a 185 runs at least $70,000 up here and a 180 at least $60,000. A friend of mine just bought a PA-14 for $56,000 (with floats). Although SuperCubs don't exactly fit my mission profile, I might sacrifce four seats for great short field performance. I won't even get into Supercubs price though, as they run anywhere from about $55,000 to about $70,000 up here. Huskey's run about $120,000+. I read Bud Davisson's "Pireps" on the 170 HP and 260 HP Bearhawk on Airbum.com and was immediately captivated. Here is a plane that suits my mission, while at a price that I could ease into (discounting all labor). Of course the engine is the catch, but I'm sure I could get recommendations in that regard from this forum. With the aforementioned, I have laid the ground work of my knowledge, my ability, and my determination (if I decide I cannot do this project I will not start it). Having said that, I always finish a project I start. I usually waste 4 hours/night and most of each weekend doing "other stuff" so my time can definately be put to more constructive uses. I would welcome it as a matter of fact. Almost seems as though I'm asking permission to build this plane, but really want I want is to have people comment on the Bearhawk vs. the 185, 180, PA-14, and the PA-18 since that comparison interests me as well. Therefore I ask interested parties to help me with step (1), knowing my background and motivation. I apologize for the long post and hope I didn't waste anyone's time. Keith Confer +++ #6287 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] New wanna-be builder Del, Rod, by the assumed power invested in me by no one in particular, I hereby appoint you in charge of taking care of this fine new member of our fold. Keith, you left out one step: 10.5 Endure the never ending string of people asking "What engine you going to put in it?" (This question is asked several times more often than any other--I don't know if it annoys anyone else, but I always feel like answering "An appropriate one") All I can tell you comparison wise is that I fly occasionally with a friend in a 180 with an O-470-U. An outstanding airplane, taller cabin than the Bearhawk, but look at the weights. I think they both have similar useful loads, but the 180 is heavier, so at gross the same engine is dragging more weight through the air. Also remember that unless you have an A&P/IA certificate, with any of the certified aircraft you're going to have to pay big bucks to someone else to fix any problems or do the inspections. On the other hand, you can trade money for time and be in the air a lot sooner if you buy an airplane rather than build a scratch built. You're on the right track--you've defined your mission and are evaluating the purchase against it. That's the only way to do it right. Russ Erb +++ #6291 From: rsmith@a... Subject: Re: New wanna-be builder Keith, I can see that you are approaching this decision in a very organized, logical manner. Stick with us and in short order we will have you programed where the only choice will be the Bearhawk. All the planes you mentioned are great choices, but if you really want a 4-seater and have a limited bank account, the Bearhawk is going to be real hard to beat. Russ mentioned the weight of a 180 versus the Bearhawk. Maules are of very similar size and construction and yet weigh a good 250 pounds more. The 235 hp Maule I owned was no slouch in performance so I salivate at the thought of a 260HP Bearhawk. Unfortunately, mine will weigh a good deal more than the prototypes, like Russ I will be equipping mine for IFR flight, and it will either be shod with skiis, tundra tires, or floats as the season dictates. You will not be able to go everywhere that a Super Cub can but that is one of the things you give up when going to a 4-seater. I think that the greater load capacity, much greater speed, and greater range more than make up for the few really short rough strips you wont have access to. As far as building it, there will be no shortage of help. Are you a member of EAA chapter 42? Some great folks there. Also if you have more money than time or endurance, Budd Davidson will shortly have a Bearhawk kit available. Del Rawlins lives in Cordova and I live in Wasilla. You are more than welcome to come see my project at any time, I also have some great photos of the 260HP Bearhawk that I took at Sun&Fun this spring. I'm home about half the time and on the north slope the other half, call me at 376-9537. Rod Smith #246 +++ #6295 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] New wanna-be builder As you can probably guess, not a lot of us have flown the BH. However, I'll try and give you my thoughts. First off, I love the 180 but the $60K + USD is well out of my price range. In fact, I would say that I plan to build a Bearhawk because I cannot afford to buy a 180 and this is the next best alternative. My parents have owned one on Edo 2960's since 1975. It was bought as a wreck and first flew in 1980. I've accumulated a couple of hundred hours as PIC and hundreds more in the right seat (both before and after obtaining my license). The 180 is a real workhorse and has an extremely long and proven carreer. The Bearhawk, by comaprison, is an unproven design. The 180 benifets from it's all aluminum structure in the sence that there is little to no worry about leaving it outside year round and is generally viewed as being more resiliant. We flew our 180 for 18 months with practically no paint on it whatsoever, something that cannot practically be done on a fabric plane. It does have a significantly higher stall speed than the BH, but in Newfoundland, where I've done most of my flying, this is a benifet. We ge