+++ #1024 Subject: Suitable Bearhawk "Trainers" From: Bob Romanko I've decided to buy an inexpensive airplane (oxymoron) to fly while I build my Bearhawk. I like to build, I like to fly. I was going to shoot for a Tri-Pacer, but it dawned on my that it would be a good idea to make the switch now to taildraggers. It just seems smart to get in significant taildragger time before I finish the Bearhawk. Something about busting up that nice big 650+ hour aluminum wing in a groundloop makes me shudder. So now I'm looking at a few possibility of 4-place taildraggers: 1. Aeronca Sedan 2. Stinson Voyager, Station Wagon 3. Piper Pacer or 4. Cessna 170. I know that NONE of these will perform as good as the Bearhawk, but I'm hoping that it's possible to rank these on how they would handle, especially on landing. The only people I know of on this group that have flown the Bearhawk are Mike Meador and Budd Davisson. I'm sure that Budd is probably most qualified to respond to this, but how would you rank my four candidates as trainers? My gut feel tells me the order would go Aeronca, Stinson, Piper, Cessna. I think I'm close on this. Moneywise, the prices are pretty close, although the Cessna 170 is a bit more than the others. I'm ranking them in terms of how they behave on approach and landing configurations. Am I close on this? Can you think of other planes I may be ignoring? I'd prefer to stay under $35,000 (rules out most 170's), so please don't suggest a Maule (grin)! +++ #1026 Subject: Re: Suitable Bearhawk "Trainers" From: budd davisson The Bearhawk is a super straight forward airplane on the ground. More so than just about eveyr airplane on your list except the C-170. The 108 Stinson is close but doesn't have anywhere near the rudder authroity needed and may teach you bad habits. The Aeronca Sedan is hard to find in decent condition and can't get out of its own way. The Pacer is about three times harder than the Bearhawk and would definitely get you over-prepared for it. The C-170 is probably going to be too expensive. Mostly what you need is tailwheel time and it doesn't need to be in a four seat airplane. Birds like PA-12's, etc are getting really expensive although they would teach you well and resale is easy. If you get completely comfortable in the PA-12 in any wind (it's brain dead simple to land in normal winds), you'll be okay in the Bearhawk. The only acclimation necessary will be the side by side seating. A Luscombe would also be a good, and cheap choice, and would get you over-prepared, except they are almost too light for this use. However, get comfortable in the Luscombe in all situations and you'll be well ahead of the Bearhawk. +++ #1031 Subject: Re: Suitable Bearhawk "Trainers" From: Bob Romanko Budd, thank you so much for your insight! I do have to stick with a 4-seater, as my wife and three-year old son love to fly as well. I also have "one on the way". Having said that, would you go with the 170? The money isn't really THAT big of an issue. I've heard horror stories about landing the Pacer. Are they true? Is it possible for a low-time puke such as myself to learn to handle one without groundlooping every three landings? I really like the Tri-Pacer/Pacer airplanes, but I've heard that the reason they came out with the Tri-Pacer is because the Pacer handled so poorly on the ground. Getting back to the two-seater option: Bob Barrows is selling his PA-17 Vagabond, a side-by-side two-seat taildragger. I trust Bob 100%, and would buy it today, it's just that it's missing two seats (grin). +++ #1032 Subject: Pacers From: Bill Cox I rebuilt a PA 16 Clipper in the early 60's. The entire time I was worried about my ability to fly it when finished. I was a 100 hour Cub pilot. All the hangar fliers were full of terror stories related to the Clipper and Pacer. Well I finished it and a Crop duster buddy test flew it. The checkout the next day was a total non-event. I flew the Clipper for about 4 years while I built a T-18. The Clipper went on to someone else who flew it without incident for many years. In the early 90's I restored the PA20 Pacer I fly now. My brother-in-law who is a Cub, Aeronca Chief pilot flys it with no problem. They are a little quicker on the ground than the Cessna or Stinson, but they can be quickly mastered by most folks. A set of more modern brakes (clevelands)will enhance the handling. Originally they were equipped with the same wheels and brakes as a Cub and they were marginal at the best. Good luck on your search! +++ #1036 Subject: Re: Pacers From: budd davisson Bill is right about the Pacer/clipper. In my view, the horror stories about just about every airplane are largely BS. Yes, the Pacer is a little quicker, but what it actually is is a little more responsive, that's all. It follows your feet more quickly than the rest. Like all airplanes, it only asks that you do your job and land with no drift and the tail behind the nose. Do that and almost all taildraggers will roll straight and stay under control. Land any of them crooked and you've got your work cut out for you. It is this latter case that makes the Pacer's reputation. Land it crooked and it'll swerve a little harder than the rest. The cure to that is don't land it crooked. In 29 years of Pitts landing instruction, it never takes more than a couple hours to get someone so they can keep it between the ditches. they may not be pretty, but they'll be safe. Getting to fly a good approach, however, is a different story. That'll sometimes take 4-6 hours all by itself. Fortunately, the Bearhawk only asks that you don't get too fast and land it straight. +++ #1093 Subject: Questions from a wanna be builder From: Alan Nauman 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? 2) What tools are required to build a Bearhawk? 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)? 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. 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. I would also like to thank Float-By Shooter for pointing me in the direction of this list and the Bearhawk from r.a.h. +++ #1094 Subject: wanna be builder...licence From: Tim Cramb Alan, Tim here......Had a few beer's tonight so I'll take a crack at this; Many have started homebuilt projects that 'they' never finished. Many more have ventured into Private Pilot training which was never completed. The 'odds' of obtaining both within a reasonable time frame, would invent yet another game table in Las Vegas. I don't want to piss on annoys parade, but some do and some don't. There are one's that do.... (Doer's) and the ones that don't.... (Dreamers). Nothing wrong with dreamers, the world is a better place for it. You are right about guidance The doer's like 'Del' he starts building....set's up a dynamite Web-site....jumps out and gets his license in one quick shot and returns to help guide us all, while himself building......Rightstuff or lets call it the Wright-stuff (2 brothers).....Russ another example. My advice Alan, before putting down hard earned coin and building, would be to get a license and see if this sport is for you.....Perhaps it may even lead to a career. Many roads to travel, much to see and learn, your choices may change several times. Believe me grasshopper when I say "So many women so little time". But...........If you are one of those lucky few that Time & Money is of mere consequence......DISREGARD ALL OF THE ABOVE......Dude! +++ #1140 Subject: Tex-Montana Express From: Russ Erb > The trip to Montana fro San Antonio takes about 24 hours in a car. I > have done it in one day but I prefer to spread it out to two or three > days. That makes the amount of time I can spend with relatives a lot > shorter though. It's roughly the same distance from Southern California to Texas where both sets of grandparents live, about 9 hours apart. For a two week school break, 3 days to get there, 1 day between grandparents, and 3 days to get back (with kids in the car) leaves only 3 days or so in any one location. More time driving than visiting--not worth it. We only go when there's more time available. This is of course one of the positives toward building and having an airplane. +++ #1391 Subject: Pilot in right seat? From: Chad Eyanson I am thinking about setting my plane up so that the PIC is in the right seat (right hand on stick and left on throttle). Why is the PIC traditionally on the left, and will it cause any major problems by changing it to the right? Can't seem to find that answer on the net or by asking around. "That's the way it's done son" doesn't seem enough of an answer, and I was hoping that someone in the group could help. +++ #1392 Subject: Re: Pilot in right seat? From: Tom Kennedy I think most GA types fly left hand, "counter clockwise," approaches and therefore need to be in the left seat to see the runway during down wind and base leg. +++ #1393 Subject: Re: Pilot in right seat? From: budd davisson Re: Right Command A number of side by side foreign military trainers, including the Siai-Marchetti SF260 (in its original form) are right command airplanes. There are, however some things to consider when doing that for a taildragger, none of which are a deal breaker. Most of the time you'll be flying left hand approaches (dependingo n your airport, and it's much better to be on the inside of the turn for better visibility. The Hawk is far from being blind, but it's still better to be where you never lose sight of the left side of the runway, no matter what. One of the few things I do well is teach people to land Pitts Specials on narrow, short runways and the primary key is a turning, slipping approach which uses the inside corner of the runway as the reference point. On the right side of a side by side airplane, you won't have that. Also, most people seem to be more comfortable using the left side as their initial key, althouhg I hammer them to look at both sides during flair. On my airplane, I'm setting it up with dual throttles so I too can fly the way man was meant to fly, with the throttle in the left hand and stick in the right. +++ #1394 Subject: Re: Pilot in right seat? From: Bill Cox We fly off a field where it is right hand traffic more than 90% of the time and being in the left seat doesn't seem to hinder the approach. I think the pilot is on the left because american made cars place the driver on the left. Most instructors who fly extensively from the right seat will tell you it doesn't make any difference in the flying. If you put in dual brakes you can fly from either seat. My only thought would be if you decide to put the flight instrument cluster on the right it might cause some problems if you ever decide to sell, since nearly everyone who trained since the demise of the Cub flys from the left seat. +++ #1395 Subject: Re: Pilot in right seat? From: Tim Anderson It would be my guess that the "left seat" was probably derived from the left seat in automobiles, and now with the majority of traffic patterns being left hand patterns, you would be at a slight disadvantage by having a "right seat" airplane. That would be my un-informed answer. +++ #1396 Subject: Re: Pilot in right seat? From: Tim Anderson I thought the "stick in left hand, throttle in right hand" seemd a bit ackward (I'm right handed) when I was performing my "imaginary" flights in my kitfox while I was building it. But once I started flying, it was a non-issue. It's not like trying to write or throw a baseball with my left hand, that's disasterous. I guess I do tend use my right hand while in cruise flight though. Our mind has a wonderful way of adapting to the environment. +++ #1397 Subject: Re: Pilot in right seat? From: zippydog- A bit of insite, for what it's worth. As a student pilot (military), I flew Right Stick, Left Throttle (RS,LT). As a co-polot, I flew Right Yoke, Left throttle (RY,LT). When I upgraded to aircraft commander, I flew Left Yoke, Right Throttle (LY,RT) with the instruments as a "mirror immage" of what was on the co-pilot's side. As an Instructor Pilot, I flew right seat, Right Stick, Left throttle, insturments on other (student's) side. Yes, you learn to fly with the attitude indicator, altimeter, etc. on the other side of the airplane. In military side-by-side trainers that I'v seen, the cockpit is set-up for the student in the left seat with enough equipment on the IP's side to operate safely. It really doesn't seem to matter after the first few flights. You shouldn't need to spend a lot of time looking at the flight instruments (other than engine instruments) anyway unless you set-up for "hard" IFR. (By the way, IFR in a single engine airplane is an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE for me) I would set up the aircraft in the "traditional" way as the lightest with the highest appeal to the general public for re-sale value. I plan to fly most often from the right seat with the engine instruments in front of me. This is my plan for BH401 under consturction. +++ #1408 Subject: Couple of tidbits on throttles From: Lee H. Erb 1) Helicopter PIC is on the right side with throttle on collective stick (left side, twist grip). This is because "in the old days" your could lock your collective stick while you operated the radio, etc. The cyclic stick had so much feedback that you did not dare let go of it. 2)On the P-39 for Britian in WWII (P-400 I think) the throttle quadrant was on the left side but.... You pulled the throttle lever back for more power. A bunch of them ended up in the South Pacific for American pilots. I was told they had fun for a while. (Now it wouldn't bother me because, although the throttle is on the right side, you pull for more power on my Farmall H tractor.) +++ #1411 Subject: Re: Pilot in right seat? From: Russ Erb I might as well add my opinions while we're at it. 1. Left seat PIC/Left patterns: A chicken/egg problem. Do we sit on the left because we do left patterns or do we do left patterns because we sit on the left? I certainly don't know. 2. Left seat PIC because we drive cars on the left: Useless trivia--Apparently we've always driven on the right side of the road here in the US. Rebellion against England? Don't know. Stagecoaches and carriages were driven from the right side so the driver could keep an eye on the ruts on the side of the road and not go in them. Many early cars drove from the right. Henry Ford decided on the Model T that he was more concerned with not hitting the oncoming traffic than he was in avoiding the ruts, so he moved the driver to the left side. Eventually sheer numbers overwhelmed the status quo and we all drive on the left side of the car. 3. Helicopter PICs typically sit on the right side. I thought it was because there was only one between the seats, but Lee corrected me on that. 4. The Slingsby T-3 Firefly, the semi-stillborn pilot screening trainer bought by the Air Force is set up with the primary seat (flight instruments) on the right side. This gives the student Right stick/Left Throttle. The IP in the left seat has a left throttle also, for those fighter jocks who just can't switch. (No, you can't buy one off the Air Force and rip out the 260 HP AEIO-540 for your Bearhawk. For liability reasons, they're going to scrap them or sell them outside the country. Thank your local lawyer for that one.) 5. I learned to fly in a Piper Traumahawk with left yoke/right throttle. I also occasionally get my hands on the controls of Air Force jets (T-38, F-16) and fly left thottle/right stick without thinking. All GA airplanes that I've flown since 1993 I've flown from the right seat, looking at instruments cross cockpit. Not because I'm an instructor (I'm not), but because other people own the airplanes. A little more difficult to see and interpret the instruments, but my hands don't get confused. 6. Occasionally when flying gliders (right stick, left spoilers), I'll fly with my left hand on the stick instead of my right. Both hands fly just as well, except in the pattern (hard to reach the spoilers with the right hand). 7. If you choose to mount a left throttle in the left seat and a right handed stick, you'll probably run into the same problem AF students in the left seat of the T-37 experience. Since the radios and avionics are usually in the middle of the panel, everytime you change something on the radio, transponder, or whatever, you have to switch hands (left on the stick) so you can use your right hand to operate the avionics. You'll be surprised how often you do that. 8. Personally, I have no intention to ever sell my Bearhawk. I'll build it the way I want it without concern about resale value. Has any of this helped you make a decision? Probably not. Now that you've wasted a couple of minutes reading this, just build your airplane the way you think best and don't worry about what anybody else thinks (as long as safety isn't an issue). +++ #1413 Subject: Re: Pilots in right seats. From: Tony, Geri and Jarrah Enough of the silent listening. By way of intro my name is Tony and I live in tropical North Queensland, Australia. I've been looking for a suitable flying contraption for a number of years and just when the Hienz 801 starts looking like trumps I find this mad group of ...well, people.... talking about a Bearhawk. Mid 1999 Australia finally legislated an experimental category. I'm not going to rush out and buy plans but I will certainly be finding out if the Bearhawk can be built in Oz under the new rules. If it can be, expect my plans order. Just a couple of comments. 1. I believe that the left circuit saga had something to do with the touque reactions from big radial engines early on in the game. 2. I've racked up 1300 hours left seat Bell 206 (left throttle[collective] and right stick) as an Observer and I believe that "natural" is just what your used to doing. I can fly left stick, right throttle but prefer it the other way. +++ #1414 Subject: Re: Pilot in right seat From: Chad Eyanson Thanks to all for the answers. PIC will be on the right for my plane. I also do not intend to sell my bearhawk, so that is not an issue for me. I was concerned about any safety problem that might arise, but that too appears to be a non-issue. I took my initial training in an O-1 Birddog and just 'have' to have the stick in the right hand. It seems that in turn, the wing always gets in the way (of seeing the runway) anyway and I just have to stay heads up about where I am. I expect that from any high wing plane, so left pattern-left seat also appears unimportant. As it was pointed out, right stick-left throttle on the left side of the plane results in a lot of hand switching and I consider that to be a safety issue (especially in a busy pattern and at low speed). Thanks again to all for helping with that decision. +++ #1415 Subject: Re: Pilots in right seats. From: Tim Cramb I'm with 206 Tony......; OKAY....., me a true South Paw. Left handed and in my right mind (right hemisphere). Now lefties being know as Creative are sometimes seen as doing things backwards, as in sports. I do everything with my left hand (ya that too). But in Flying I much prefer to have my right hand on the Stick and Left on the Throttle. Maybe it's from starting out in U/L's, but throttle control always seemed more important & demanded a little more finesse than flight control. So why aren't fighter jets configured opposite?......I will ask our resident....Test Pilot, Paul +++ #1417 Subject: Re: Pilot in right seat? From: pfflyer- I have had serious thoughts about flying from the right side also. I considered dual throttles, but that doesn't solve the problem of operation of the trim and flaps, at least as designed. I intend to install dual brakes regardless, since my wife is also a pilot. As an old glider pilot, I don't have much use for instruments, so I won't have any problem flying with the engine instruents in front of me. I have experimented, in the Pawnee I fly occasionally, with using my left hand on the stick. Although I am sure you can adapt to anything, it just feels WRONG. Haven't yet had the nerve to try landing with my left hand while reaching across my body to operate the throttle with my right. +++#1421 Subject: Re: right hand, etc From: budd davisson Yet another opinion: I don't think it makes any damn difference which side you sit on or which hand you fly with 99% of the time. It's the 1% I generally design for. For instance, I feel much more comfortable flying formation with my left hand on the throttle, stick in right. Also, most of the time, when I'm working a really (as in REALLY) short, narrow field, I'm slow and slipping at the very end of it, which is probably unnecessary in the Hawk because of its good visibility and high seating location. Since, like most folks, I'm more comforgtable slipping left, than right, I want to sit on the inside of the slip/turn and I want to be in my comfort zone to meet the tight situation. The reality is most folks acclimate to either situation in amatter of minutes. I'm just a creature of habit (mike buttons, for instance, DON"T belong anywhere but on throttle, just a habit), because nearly all of my flying is right stick, left thottle and almost all of the side by side is as CFI looking cross cockpit. The changing hands on the stick problem with left command, left throttle, is a factor I'll have to think about. I may relocate the flap handle. Since my engine will pose a visibility problem looking across the nose, that may be another factor wanting to be on the inside of a left turn. Incidentally, if you want to try something that feels really wierd, climb up on the RIGHT wing of a tandem airplane, like a T-6 or Pitts and try to get in. We almost can't do it because it's so unnatural. The left-boarding of tandem airplanes supposedly is a hold over from cavalry days: ever tried boarding a horse from the right? +++ #1424 Subject: Re: Hands, entry and exit ..Bearing status From: bearhwk27- Yes. I can mount my horse from the right. I am fine She is so,so. Airplanes do not care....... until you step thru a wing.... oops! Most of my current flying is tandem seat, tailwheel. LT/RC. When I fly 4 place LC/RT seems more natural. I find that right hand free to fiddle with charts, food and radio is more natural for me. On cross country in tandem I find lots of auxillary chores a pain to perform left hand. Get supplies from back seat with left body parts a real pain. So I guess that the issue is 2 place vs 4 place? +++ #1426 Subject: stick/throttle From: tertur- An interesting application is one used by Jibiru...throttle lever in front of the seats between your legs and stick between the seats. Pilots say it becomes very natural. +++ #1450 Subject: canadian bearhawk builders From: mike&cathy lamb Good day eh, Just wondering if any of you canadian builders have had the Bearhawk plans inspected to show transport canada that it meets the 51% rule, as we all know it does.I have seen a list of acceptable aircraft from T. C. and did not see the Bearhawk there. Maybe Tim from Cold Lake could answer this question for me. +++ #1460 Subject: trans ca. From: dean robert cramb At our meeting last week Gord stated that he had the same problem. So I would Guess that although several sets of plans have been sold in Canada, no one yet has coifed up the 100 bucks that Transport Canada requires to inspect, approve and add them to the list of approved plans. +++ #1765 From: Kissmann Subject: [Bearhawk] Re: Pilots in right seats. Don't really know the answer to the right throttle / left throttle decision. I have flown plenty both ways and can tell you that it doesn't seem to matter after a very short period of time. In the Hornet, we also have several other functions which are accomplished on various buttons on both the stick and throttle - with neither really being less tasked than the other. Not a good answer I know; but, hey I just test the things alright?!! +++ #2251 budd davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: Bearhawk 260 Pirep is Up In most of my conversations with Bob, we referenced 2400 pounds gross, which I guess, based on what you just said, would make it at 4.75 G's. In reality, the airplane is plenty strong. All airplanes have a sliding scale gross weight, we just don't talk about it, as it confuses the issue. Usually the gross weight is stated at, I believe, 4.4 G's. Some one will have the straight skinny on that. >The only possible discrepency I noticed is I think you were implying a >2400# gross. My plans indicate 2300# at 5gs and 2500#s at 4.5gs. +++ #2333 From: John Morrison Subject: Geez guys!!?? Hey all, boy can this forum ebb and flow, my inbox (which glowed red all week) is empty!! So, to put an end to this sanity, I will ask the following question of thee: Looking at the original specifications, I saw the range given as 800miles on 55 gallons. This equates to roughly 14.5 miles/gallon. I don't know the missing variables of speed, engine size (assuming 180hp) and throttle setting, but can this mileage be correct? Is it even appropriate to discuss aircraft in terms of mileage rather than fuel burn & range? I ask because 14.5 miles/gallon is really awful when you think about it (my 1/2 ton 350cid truck gets at least 18 on the highway). +++ #2344 From: Mike Eldredge Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Geez guys!!?? About mileage comparisons - if you are going to compare mileage, take into account the fact that flying will take you in a much less circuitous route than driving. You might still come out ahead mileage wise, since you don't have to go as far to get to the same spot on the map. I do agree with Budd, though, I'm doing this for the pure joy of being up there, and the fact that I can get in 2 or 3 hours what takes me 7 or 8 in a car. +++ #2653 From: budd davisson Subject: Hawk versus Cubs and Cessnas Re: B/Hawk versus Cubs and Cessnas With the new ailerons the Hawk is quicker and crisper in roll than any Cessna or Cub. Visibility on takeoff and landing is at least as good as the Cub and much better than a C-180. With a 180, the Hawk will perform right with a C-180 and, with the big engine, will blow its doors off. It'll make a C-185 look realy silly. On the runway, its about like the Cub but better able to handle crosswinds, etc. The Cub might work a shorter runway beczuse of its weight and speed, but not while carrying four people adn 1200 pounds (heh-heh). So, what's not to like? +++ #2863 From: Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] 180hp pirep Is the 180hp pirep still available anywhere on the net, or did anybody copy it? I noticed the link on Airbum hasn't been working. +++ #2865 From: budd davisson Date: Wed Jul 19, 2000 2:34am Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] 180hp pirep I just tried the 180 BH pirep and it's definitely working. Maybe your wife put a Bearhawk filter on your computer. +++ #2881 rom: Tim Cramb Subject: Websites...First Flight G'day, 'eh'...; I've added Budd's Flight Report site Links (and rebooted his membership) and also added Kent's website url to our Egroups Bearhawk Builders Links...http://www.egroups.com/links/bearhawk As a short note the first modified plansbuilt #077 did fly this year. The 3.9hrs I mentioned after Arlington, 'was' flying time. Due to an old injury, Steve changed the sticks to yokes, also moved the lift struts. This was done to ease his entry/exit. He is going to build another BHawk clone but with a wider fuselage and use a 68" cord 'Harry Riblett' airfoil. The present plane is crated and heading to his brother in S.America who raises Beef for the Golden Arches 'M' ickey Dee's..... Steve is quite busy, but I imagine sometime in the future and after building my fuselage he will comment ;-) +++ #3002 Subject: Re: official kit status and more BH flight info From: budd davisson On a different subject: I flew the 260 prototype again, but this time it had about 400 pounds of stuff in the back as Bob was just getting ready to leave for home from Osh. First, the airplane didn't even know the extra weight was there. at 100 mph and 25 square it was climbing out at 1100 fpm. Also, at a 23 square cruise setting, it was still truing 155 mph but the wing was nearly level, rather than nose down, because of the weight. At Bob's 19 square setting it was still truing 125-128. Repeated full power takeoffs were too much for the outlet area in the cowl as the oil temp climbed up to 210 degrees. Bob flies at such low power settings, he never sees more than about 180 degrees. Big engine guys could think about cowl flaps or just a bigger outlet area. I'd also think about putting louvers on the lower cowl ala Husky/Pitts. All my impressions are unchanged. The area of the airplane I think still needs work is in the rudder balance because the break out forces are so low that coordinating with that light of a rudder that is so powerful takes a little getting used to. This was also my first opportunity to slip the airplane, which it does very nicely and very, very smoothly. I was doing it with three notches of flaps and about 70 mph. Incidentally, we found a minor glitch everyone should think about. With my seat well forward, the flap handle hit the edge and stopped me from getting the last notch of flap. The seats only have to be another 1/2- 3/4 inch further apart to clear. Also, I saw an interesting thing on a Russian STOL bird that could be worked in to Alaskan BH's where you have to wear heavy coats: don't widen the fuselage, just bulge the doors out slighly as they go back towards the shoulder line. This airplane had glass top and bottom doors and you hardly noticed the bulge. You could pick up an easy three inches that way. That's it for now. Any questions? +++ #3091 Subject: Re: BH Ground handling From: budd davisson The Bearhawk is an excellent ground handling airplane. On my last go with it, I let it get a little loose by being late with initial rudder applications. This was aggravated by the CG being well aft. The nose zigged and zagged a little, but it was obvious, it wasn't going to get centrifugal force going and do anything stupid. Bob got nervous, however, and started to get in the act until I called him off. The cue on how bad things are about to get in any tailwheel airplane is the centrifugal force build-up as felt in your butt. No side force and the airplane is just turning and there's no reason for concern, just use normal rudder. Lots of side force (and/or whining tires) and the crap's about to hit the fan, get with the program. The Bearhawk, when it gets loose with the CG that far aft, asks that you be reasonably quick with the transition from rudder to rudder. A champ doesn't do that, nor do most other two place trainers, because you can't move the CG very far back. I'll get into this subject deeper when I have the time (...when I have the time? Did I actually say that out loud?). +++ #3308 Subject: Bearhawk Model for Jeppesen FliteStar From: Russ Erb I have finally collected all of the performance data that has been published for Proto II and put together a performance model of the Bearhawk. Later I'll publish some performance charts like you would find in the back of a flight manual. For those of you who use Jeppesen FlightStart flight planning software, I have uploaded N6786E.ACT in the files section on e-groups. This is the aircraft file for a 260 HP Bearhawk based on the best information I have available. To use it, download the file and put it in the "aircraft" directory under the directory where FliteStar lives. I'd like to hear from anyone who tries this. +++ #3674 From: Chad Eyanson Subject: Re: Kits and Aerobatics I wrote a letter to Bob B. a while back about aerobatics in the Bearhawk. I specified flight conditions of half fuel and a single 200 pound pilot (the g allowance at this loading is over 7). His response was that loops, rolls, Immelmans (Immelmen?) and mild, positive g maneuvers should be okay. He did advise that the Bearhawk had been tested for spin entry and recovery only. Multiple spins are unknown territory. His other admonition was that the Vne had only been tested in level flight and that the pilot needs to be sure to adhere to that limitation. +++ #3677 From: Donald Schindler Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Kits and Aerobatics Don, Budd Davidson is at the helm of the Bearhawk kit project so you might drop him a note at www.airbum.com. While you are there you can read the pirep reports on the Bearhawk and check out the gorgeous pictures and links to other builders that will give you tons of info. Acro in a Bearhawk? I dont think so but I've been wrong before. Don't miss Budd's novel "Cobalt Blue" You can build alot of different planes but the Bearhawk is the one you will inevitably wish you had. Good luck Don 068 +++ #3678 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: Kits and Aerobatics A note about aerobatics and the Bearhawk: I'm certain Bob hates to hear people talking about this kind of thing, whether the airplane is designed for it or not, so, as a long time (35 years, 3000 hours plus in Pitts Citabria/Decathlon) aerobatic instructor and G-freak, I thought I'd toss in my two cents. The question of airframe strength is NOT what makes an airplane aerobatic. That strength is only there to protect you from screw ups and gust loads caused by turbulence during maneuvers. What makes an airplane aerobatic is a pilot who understands the speed/G relationship well and can adapt it to any airplane's envelope. ANY airplane can be rolled and looped, as long as it is done correctly. REPEAT: DONE CORRECTLY. Aerobatics, to those who have not done them, is NOT the yank and bank affair people would make them appear. Aerobatics, especially in something like the Bearhawk, would be a graceful application of energy management that keeps the airplane well within its strength and speed evelope. High G's is not needed for any of the more normal aerobatic maneuvers. I can do a complete aerobatic routine in almost any airplane, including every single inside maneuver you can think of and not exceed 3.2 G's. I'd bet any amount of money, that any competent akro pilot can do the same thing in the Bearhawk and not go over 2.5 G because of its power and wing loadings. Eliminate vertical maneuvers (loops, etc) and the G meter won't be over 1.5. G's aren't required for rolling maneuvers, only roll rate, of which the Bearhawk has plenty. I'm only mentioning this because aerobatics is something that requires some training with an eye towards understanding the speed/G relationship. This is a really lousy place for self education unless you have an airplane you can't hurt, like a Pitts. There the pilot is the weak link, strength wise. Also, although I'll bet a year's pay that the Bearhawk is totally normal in its spin recoveries, don't start playing with vertical maneuvers until someone has done a spin series in it. btw, it is my plan that one of the first things I'm going to do while we're burning off the restriction time on our demonstrator is investigate the complete aerobatic envelope in it. I can guarantee that it is a much better aerobatic mount for inside maneuvers than something like a Decathlon. ...more opinion that's worth exactly what it cost you... +++ #3679 From: Bruce A. Frank Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re: Kits and Aerobatics I would certainly like to see a spin series done. I would expect no surprises any more than that found in a Cub. +++ #3967 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: Fuselage Questions Here's my two cents on your questions. About C.G. Any Bush plane needs the CG forward, when empty, so you have plenty of envelope to move it back with a load. That means it's a bear to three-point, when empty. The cure to that is a 20 or 30 pound bag of "something" maybe your survival gear, that has two stowage positions, one far back, one against the back of the front seats. When I was doing an extensive evaluation of an MX-7-235 Maule, I found the CG so far forward with two people it was unsafe with heavy breaking. So, I put a big bag of bird seed as far back as I could get it. No more problems. +++ #4014 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Alternate solutions / was Squeamish > I would suppose that we BH builders are interested in the low > speed end of the flight spectrum, or we would have selected > another design. I would think that we would learn as much as > we could about maneuvering the aircraft at these slow speeds, > and other "advanced" techniques for operating out of short > fields. The time to learn these techniques (IMHO) is before > they are needed and the learning should be systematic and > conducted with as much safety as possible. Now I something to > do during the 40 hours the FAA alocates to new aircraft. When > the group moves from the build stage to the fly stage, I'm > sure we will have many discussions and "war stories" to > discuss. I'm looking forward to it. Actaully there is a good book available from the EAA on test flying a homebuilt. I bought the book and immediately found some good information on safety equipment, seatbelts, etc. I'll get the name and author and drop it on the list. Also, there was a good "Sport Flying" episode on how to test fly a homebuilt. It was short but there were some good ideas. Whatever you do, do not invite a crowd to witness and celebrate your first flight. There have been a couple of accidents where a pilot was not comfortable with making the first flight, but was committed to due to the guests he had invited. 2-3 people is all that's needed as a ground crew. An experienced pilot on the ground can provide a level head to bounce ideas off of in the event of an in-flight failure. One or two beople in a 4x4 with basic first-aid and survival tools (axe, knife, etc.) is not a bad idea in case a landing goes bad. Borrowing a parachute is also a good idea as is having an experienced pilot flight test your plane. I have already found a pilot that is willing to test mine. He is a high time pilot with lots of Super Cub and Citabria time. I haven't decided if he will do the first flight or if I will, but at least he is available. I will be doing the taxi tests. +++ #4015 From: budd davisson Subject: Re: flight testing/characteristics When anyone gets down to the test flying stage, give me a shout. Norm Howell and myself were central in putting together the Flight Advisors programe and I've got a lot of bits of acquired wisdom which came out of that experience that may apply. I also wrote the Flight advisors handbook using mostly my own mistakes as starting points. Also, as soon as we get our demonstrator flying later this year, I'm planning on doing a complete flight envelope investigation and publishing a little "how-to" on the airplane that explains all its nuances in all realms of flight. +++ #4089 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] 0470 ... The only other interesting problem was while taxiing into a small cove toward a dock. Dad was on the right float watching for rocks and I was in the left seat. At the appropriate time, I pulled the mixture....RIGHT OUT OF THE PANEL! The cable had broken. Not to be easily daunted, I switched off the ifnition. That's when we discovered that the plane was suffering from a mag grounding problem. At this point Dad was feveriously motioning for me to shut off the engine. He turned around to see me holding up the mixture in one hand and the keys in the other ;-). I was able to get out of the cove without any firther problems although I got awfully close to the shore to do it. Once in the open I started fiddling withthe ignition and was able to shut down the engine. However, neither Dad nor I thought of the obvious method to shut it down. How quick can you come up with the other method? +++ #4094 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] 0470 > Great story Ken. Has me laughing. I'd say fuel switch next > to shutdown the engine Of course you are right...But considering that the fuel selector is NEVER indicating anything but BOTH, you tend to forget that there is an OFF position ;-). +++ #4095 From: Jim Ash Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] 0470 I was thinking fuel valve, but in my plane that's still good for 2-3 minutes at idle. That's a lot of tree-dodging. +++ #4098 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] engine shutdown That would speed up the process as the strainer is downstream of the valve. However, there are two problems with that. One is the potential for fire as you may experience a backfire as the engine sputters and dies from fuel starvation. Second, we have a hard and fast rule of NEVER going ahead of the strut with the prop spinning, especially on floats. With only a narrow deck to stand on that is covered with water , it is just too easy to fall into the prop. It's not so bad when had propping an engine as the plane hasn't started moving and there is generally less water on the deck. If the plane rubs a rock with someone ahead of the strut, they are very likely to fall into the prop and that makes for a real mess. The fuel valve idea would work OK as it only takes a minute or two for it to shut down and I was still able to stear in circles and paddle in after. Fortunately, our emergency kit contains snare wire and we were able to make a quick fix to get us back to town (mixture was wired to full rich). We figured out the fuel valve idea before we took off and had no trouble shutting down withthe ignition switch when we returned home. The switch and mixture cables were replaced and live-mag checks confirmed that the problem was solved. +++ #4151 From: "Michael Geurink" Subject: Re: engine shutdown > At the appropriate time, I pulled the mixture....RIGHT OUT OF > THE PANEL! The cable had broken. Most of my flight training was done in upstate South Carolina. Our approach from the north into Greenville Downtown and traffic conditions sometimes required a hot, power-off descent down the south side of Paris Mtn. into a 2 mile final for Rwy 18. Friend of mine was an instructor in exactly this situation decided it would be a good idea to "clear the engine" of the 172 in mid-descent to make sure the engine was healthy in case power was necessary for the landing. Advanced the throttle, nuthin! Throttle cable broke in the idle position. They were over a congested area and looked like they might be able to make the runway. Soon became apparent that it would just be way too close and they made a miraculous landing between very closely spaced power lines on a very busy 4-lane undivided highway perpendicular to the runway about 100 yards from the threshold. Talk about a prayer increaser. This was an extremely well-maintained fleet airplane with religiously followed 100hr. checklists including control cable function. Moral: it can happen to you. Forced landing hasn't happened to me yet, but I'm sure the general rule holds true: There's them that has and them what will. I've heard the same rule for gear-ups, but that shouldn't be a problem with the Bearhawk. +++ #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. +++ #4960 From: Jim Ash Subject: Gross me out I was wondering of somebody could either briefly explain, or point me to a quick reference on how the gross weight limit is calculated for a given aircraft. +++ #4962 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re:gross weight Re: Gross weight Gross weight isn't calculated, it is a design factor which is set right at the beginning of the design process. Gross weight is decided upon by the designer before he does any calculations at all. He generally picks a weight which is consistant with the power loading and wing loading he wants. He then applies the applicable load allowables (9 G's, 4.4 G's) etc to that weight and carries the resulting loads throughout the design. He then works backwards and the useful load is a function of how good he is at designing the lightest structure possible to carry the specified gross weight. If he's a ham handed designer that's not detail oriented he has a 2500 pound airplane with a 1000 pound useful, if he's Bob Barrows, he has 1300-1400 pounds. The gross weight is figured at a given G factor. Once the gross weight is set, reduce the number of Gs that will be pulled and more gross can be carried (i.e. more stuff can be carried), for instance an airplane designed for 2500 pounds at 9 Gs, can probably carry 2700 pounds at 6 Gs (that's a guess, not a calculation) and even more at 4.4. Then there's the discussion of ultimate versus yield. You don't load your airplane to ultimate, you load it to yield, the point where stuff will bend but nothing breaks. As a normal rule ultimate is 1.5 times yield, so a 9 G airplane will hit yield at 6 G's, a 6G ultimate airplane will hit it at 4 G's. You have to leave enough of your load allowable to counter gust factors (turbulence) which can add as much as 1.5-2 Gs (another guess) in extreme cases. So, for instance, loading your airplane to the point there is only 3 Gs left of the airframe allowable, can put you in the arena where a mountain gust load or desert sharp edge turbulence can fail part of the structure. Of course, then it's up to the builder to realize the tradeoffs when he starts adding leather upholstery, color radar and the rest of that stuff that detracts, rather than adds, when an airplane is struggling to get over the trees. Sorry I rambled. +++ #4972 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re:gross weight Budd, I'd have to disagree with you on this one point. Gross weight very much is calculated. Most comercial designers start with a mission profile; a 4 place, Normal Category plane capable of 150 mph cruise and a 600 mile range with 100 lbs baggage and a given runway performance, for example. The design process becomes an iterative process based on the engine size, fuel burn, ans aerodynamics. There is no decision at this point about gross weight, just payload (useful minus fuel load). So the designers start with the only fixed weight they have...780 lbs for people and bags. They can then approximate an engine, fuel load and empty weight from similar aircraft. The aerodynamics guys take this information and the performance profile and come up with a shape that will house it all. From the shape, they can get a better idea of the thrust requirements, then prop, then engine and finally fuel load. of course, the new numbers for fuel load and engine are used to calculate a new gross weight and the process starts over. So if Bob Barrows were to follow this regiment, he would have started with 780 lbs. Since this is similar to a Maule, he would have used a 180 hp C/S powerplant, and a 9 gph fuel burn for a total of 256 lbs of fuel. He would hen have added this to the Maules empty to come upo with, say, 2500 lbs. Those numbers would be used to design a shape based on performance. It may turn out that a 200 hp engine is required. The struture is then layed out to match the shape and a new empty is calculated based on the structure required to lift the estimated 2500 lbs with Normal Category design factors and the new engine. Of course, we're now burning more fuel which is added to the payload and empty to get a new gross weight. The new gross weight is fed through the aerodynamic calculations to see if the performance is still being matched. If not, a new engine or new shape is selected (airfoil, streamlining, etc) and everything goes back to the structures group for a redesign. This iteration process continues until everything balances out. This is how designers are able to build competitive planes. The weight is kept to a minimum by designing the parts exactly strong enough giving it the lightest possible structure. Why design a stabilizer to withstand a 12 G pull up when the wing fails at 9G's? Of course, amateur designers may sometimes take a different approach. For example, they may have a certain engine in mind and will design a plane to house the engine. They may have a specific shape in mind and will add power and structure to make it work (scale replicas, for example). Even then, the iterative process is still done, but without the precision that commercial designers use. The only case I can think of where you would choose a gross weight and work back is where there is a licensing issue involved (trying to stay under 4000 lbs for a light single or under the 254 empty weight restriction of ultralights. If you want more info, there is a great book called the design of the aeroplane by Darrol Stinton. It's a fantastic book with lots of great info. It even goes through the process of designing a replica. +++ #4973 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Re:gross weight Of course you're right, and even as I pushed the send button, I thought about going into the additive/subtractive compromising that goes into adding up the original design gross wieght. What I was referring to was the original question, which basically asked how you calculated the gross weight of an existing airplane. Once the airplane exists, there isn't much calculating to be done. When an airplane is being designed, the gross weight IS a derived given, derived via the process you outlined, but once it's set, you try not to change it because, if you do, you have go go through the entire shuffle dance again, to work out its effects on so many different factor. If one thing is clear from this exchange it is that the chain of interrelated design parameters has to be understood, beginning to end, before anyone decides to modify a design and, in so doing, introduce some questionable unknowns. There just ain't no such thing as a simple change. And thanks for clarifying things. +++ #4984 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Gross meets Godzilla I guess I should have been a bit clearer with the explaination I gave. The point of outlining the design process was to make you aware that there is generally a critical path in the design. For example, the 180 and 185 have about a 300-400 lb difference depending on the model and year when the only visible difference in the two is the engine. However, digging firther finds several other differences. For example, the vertical stab is larger on most 185 to accomadate the extra 70 hp. Also, the gear legs are beefier on 185. So, let's say you do change these two items (our late model 180 has the larger 185 stab and heavier 185 gear legs for ski flying), what is not generally known is that the horizontal stab spar is lighter ont he 180 than 185 making it the critical design path. So, you overload up the plane and end up in some turbulence. You slow down to themaneuvering speed and end up having to muscle the plane out of a dive. That's when the aerodynamic forces of the elevator cause a stab spar failure. Unless you know where the critical path is, you will have to re-calculate everything to find it. Generally high useful loads are a selling feature of a given design. If those marketting types could not raise the gross weight to make the plane more competitive, there must be a good reason ;-) Now, the addition of floats has a MAJOR aerodynamic effect on a plane. The entire flight envelope changes as the drag and lift (yes LIFT) of the floats are calculated and added to the aerodynamic model. I talked to some of the EDO guys at the function that they sponsored in OSK in '92 and asked that very question. Thier answer was that teh design of most floats will actually produce about enough lift to support thier own weight. In other words, Unless you plan on retesting the plane, I would not suggest fooling around with the max gross weight of the plane, especially an airplane as old as a J-3. +++ #5280 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: Snoozin... Which brings up a question that I haven't taken the time to investigate, so I'll ask on the hope that someone else has... With 4 seats in the airplane and a boatload of stuff in the back, there would obviously be nowhere to lay down to sleep. So if we take out the back seat and all of the stuff, is there room on the floor to stretch out? How short would you have to be? I'm guessing there would only be room for one unless the other is your spousal unit. Has anyone investigated this? What is it like sleeping on that much of a slope? +++ #5281 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Snoozin... I hadn't figured on anyone but my spousal unit! 8^O In my plane my rear seat will be removable and will fold up. There are no obstructions on the floor from the back of the front seats to the rear bulkhead of my baggage compartment which is a distance of about 7.5 feet. My intent is to either spread the baggage into that area and sleep on top of it(covered by an air matrice) or move it to the tent outside the plane. I am not claiming that it will be the Ritz, but better that trying to sleep on soggy ground in the pouring rain (90% of my stuff goes in water proof duffels ) It is a lot easier to get in and out of the plane's door under the shelter of the wing than crawl in and out of a tent while trying to exclude mud and water on your clothes. Sleeping on a slope with your head at the high end is very comfortable. My fuselage, at about the hip point when lying down in the back, is about 36 inches. Two cannot lie flat but my wife and I have slept in smaller backpacking tents sometimes in the same sleeping bag (no, we can't quite do that any longer). +++ #5282 From: Joel Mayhall Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Snoozin... For a nice level sleeping surface, take out the rear seat, and place it on end, under the tail wheel. Also, don't wiggle. +++ #5299 From: Pat Fagan pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Snoozin... I have actually investigated the sleeping postion in my fuselage and I think it might be a little tight. I intend to make a flip up door on the bottom of the rear wall to allow my feet to extend beyond the baggage compartment. I will put in one more floor panel and probably mount the battery in fuselage center at the end of that bay. The sleeping angle thing is not a problem. Looks like a very comfortable way to go for two "close" friends. +++ #5312 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Bearhawk Sleeping I have a friend who built a modified 2+2 Sportsman. He created a fabric deck at the top longerons. This is a sleeping cubby that will take a sleeping bag (on the Sportsman the fabric formers extend above the top longerons allowing for this pigeon hole sleeping loft) His wife has the floor from the back of the front seat to the rear baggage bulkhead for a somewhat roomy-for-one bed. (Of course the Sportsman is Ford powered) This particular plane, blue and white orca pattern, was actually in either Sport Aviation or Kitplanes mis-labeled as the Bearhawk. (built and owned by Karl (Bud) Davidson. BTW "Bud" once said that if Budd were going to use his name, he ought to at least spell it correctly. 8^O +++ #5321 From: Blair tigan@c... Subject: Size I'm fairly new to the list and have enjoyed the give and take. One question..... I'm 6'7' and 240 lbs. It is absolutely impossible for me to fly a 150!! It's just a bit to tight, heck, I can't even get in.... now, a 172 is a little snug and a commanche is pretty comfortable so my question is, has anyone my size tried the bearhawk????? Or is there a stretched version being planned?? After reviewing all the available aircraft being offered, it has come down to the Bearhawk or the larger version of the North Star. I would appreciate any comments from the members. +++ #5322 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Size Re: question of size First, what is the inseam on your pants? That'll give us a feel for your sitting height. However, none of this makes any difference as you can build to suit. There's plenty of room to move the rudder pedals or seat and, if you're wide in the shoulders, bulge the doors a little. Right now it is about an inch wider than a 172 and bulging the doors slightly would give you more than plenty. +++ #5324 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Size You could always remove the front seats and fly from the back seats ;-). From a quick look at the plans, I'd say that there is enough room to play with fore and aft so that you could set up a comfortable seating arrangement. The plane is about the same size as a Cessna 180 in width so you could see how you fit in it as a comparison. I'm a little on the portly side at 240 lbs and 6'-0" and I've never had a problem fitting in the 180 even with a larger passenger. +++ #5327 From: "Bill Cox" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Size I'm 6"4" and weigh 230. I sat in Bob's bird a couple of years ago and was very pleased with the room. One thing I really liked was the ability to see out the side without ducking down to look under the wing root. In my Pacer my eyes are about level with the bottom of the wing. In the Bearhawk I am several inches lower. +++ #5329 From: Tim Subject: Size Reference size width & berth.......This pic below is of me budder. He's 6' 230lbs and is sitting in the BHawk at Arlington flyin...I'm 6" 4" 225lbs and have "a ton of headroom"....Both of us sat together in Proto I and found it OK (summer dress)...Although Bob mentioned that the 42" width could be increased to 44" and the factory type windshield should still fit. Note 44" is similar to the front seat width/ interior of a Beech Musketeer. +++ #5336 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Size To pick a nit, the Bearhawk is slightly narrower than a Cessna 180 (at least a 1977 model), but only by an inch or two. This is based on extensive non-scientific research, namely a friend and I sat together in Proto I at Sun n' Fun 99 after having spent two days together sitting in his 1977 Cessna 180 while flying across the country. It was comfortable in the Bearhawk without being so close as to feel too "cozy". The noticeable difference in the 180 was the gap (about 1-1/2 inches) between the seats to reach the fuel selector. Still, the Bearhawk far exceeds the Wag Aero Sportsman 2+2 in space, which just looks small looking through the windows. +++ #5387 From: Mark "Mark and Tina Lapierre" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Insurance for Bearhawk The Cherokee started at $1300.00 /year with a replacement value of $25,000. The premium went down to $1200.00 after I reached 200 hours. Avemco said it would go down about another $100.00 once I get my IFR ticket. The Bearhawk figures are based on a replacement cost of $30,000 and my current status of more than 200 hours, but not yet obtaining my IFR ticket. They put it at $2000.00 yr. They said that the difference is largely because it's an experimental certificate and it's a taildragger. I need to look into what a higher replacement value would cost in premiums if I want to consider my labor as worth anything. I was suprised that it's even listed with Avemco at all. As far as I know the only two flying are Bob's prototypes. +++ #5388 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Insurance for Bearhawk Re: insurance I'm surprised at $2000 for insurance. I'll bet when we get more of them out there and they have a track record, it'll come down. At least I hope so. With $65K hull value, $500 deductible and commercial use, I'm only paying $3000 on my Pitts and they know I'm teaching people to land in it. In fact, the underwriter is on the field and sees me falling out of the sky all the time. If I was them and saw me, I wouldn't insure me. +++ #5390 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: [Bearhawk] Insurance for Bearhawk I'm not surprised that it is listed. If you look back in the archives where I talked about buying project insurance on the Bearhawk, I spoke to the guy who is their "homebuilt" guy. He knew all about the Bearhawk. He says that he makes it his business to know ALL of the new designs being offered, both in kits and plans. Can't shake a stick at that! Who among us wouldn't love to have a job that REQUIRED you to attend Sun N' Fun, AirVenture, and other major fly-ins each year. Good work if you can get it. +++ #5393 From: Jim Ash Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] Insurance for Bearhawk This year, I paid $1000 for my J-3, valued at $23k hull with a $500 deductible. About a year ago I heard that Avemco re-assessed their risks and raised the rates for tailtraggers and RG's. This from a friend with a Mooney, 5000+ hours in a Beaver, and an unblemished record. My rates went from $800 to $1000. I found out recently from a local FBO that Avemco won't write him commercial for his rental J-3 any more. He ended up with someone else, at $3600 a year, a good part because he'll let his J-3 go solo. He's thinking next year he won't be able to get the solo coverage at all, only dual. What's the typical insurance spread between standard and experimental, all other things being equal? I'm also curious how the spread changes for the liability vs hull portions. +++ #5453 From: Pat Fagan pfflyerz@c... Subject: sleeping area Last night I laid down in the back of my fuselage to see how it would be for sleeping. It would be fine for one, but a little tight at the shoulders for two, but if it is raining outside, it would be serviceable. Despite being a taildragger, the floor is almost level. You do need to tuck your feet aft of the rear cargo bay bulkhead as the center front seat support tube prevents anything more than a pillow from filling the space behind the front seats. That is my completely scientific analysis. +++ #5813 From: Bob Romanko Subject: Other Planes I Considered (Was: Great Group) My biggest concern is to keep on renting these @#$% spam cans, only have minimal taildragger time in, and then do something stupid to the Bearhawk in the first 40 hours. I would probably totally lose my last three marbles if that were to happen. So, now I'm going to make an official "Planter Bob" recommendation to all of my fellow builders right here: Buy an Aeronca Champ! The Champ has almost the exact same wing as the Bearhawk, and that's the plane Bob Barrows recommended for me to become familiar with prior to flying the Bearhawk. A Champ has a bigger payload than a Chief, and it's dirt cheap to own and operate. Since the majority of my flying is alone, the Champ makes sense. At the most I have have one pax when I'm not alone. Yes, I think I'd feel muchvmore secure flying off my Bearhawk's 40 hours after logging about 200 hours in a Champ. Wouldn't most people with no taildragger time? I know I'm not the only one here... Hope that helps you with the "which to build" and "want to fly" questions you have. This all makes good sense to me, but then again, usually when I write something it does. Well...at least to ME anyhow. Your own perceptions and mileage may vary... Planter Bob +++ #5881 From: "Bob Marek" Subject: BH N156RM first flight N 156RM was inspected by the FAA on May 3 and flown the first time on May 4. After several take off and landings the BH out performs my 150hp citabria, the controls are more responsive. This plane flys fanstastic its Stol alright. The only problem a bad tailwheel got to get rid of the Maule and replace it with either a Scott or a Bob Wheel. My first flight was over an hr, had to quit because of shortage of fuel on hand. Got to get my fuel barrel filled. Its hard to keep from flying it, FANTASTIC! Bob Marek 019 +++ #5888 From: "Bob Marek" Subject: Re: [Bearhawk] BH N156RM first flight > Congratulations. What engine, prop combination are you using? > Electrical system, instruments and radios (if any)? Way to > go. Look forward to seeing your pride and joy at Oshkosh. N156RM is powered by a lyc 0360 with a fixed pitch prop 78 X 60p. Skytec starter, Nipon Denso Alt 55Amp and Sealed battery under the front seat. Instruments include AH, DG, and Electric TB. No radio in the panel only hand held. +++ #7047 Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 07:25:18 -0700 From: "Dan Montee" montee@ Subject: Re: Re: Oshkosh > What could be the "real" gross weight that the fuselage and > wing can handle? I found the fact that the data plate on proto 260 lists gross at 2600 lb. interesting. Dan Montee # 415 +++ #7048 Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 06:45:54 -0700 From: Budd Davisson buddairbum@ Subject: Re: weight versus strength The BH is rated at 6.6 G's Ultimate, 4.4 yield at 2500 pounds. That is Utility category limits. As you load it over 2500 pounds, the available G goes down. From a practical point of view, it is extremely rare that an airplane sees even 3 G's in even the hardest turbulence like we have here in AZ. The unknown that always haunts you, however, as you load n airplane over gross is the size of the gust load the airplane can absorb. Just like there can be a rouge wave out there, the same is true of gusts, so any airplane carries a margin for that. For over 30 years my airplane has always had an acelerometer on board and I've never seen it approach 3 G's. At the same time, I've never heard of an airplane being ripped apart by normal turbulence with the sole exception of a Maule that lost a wing but they were high in the mountains and may have been playing with thunderstorms. The probability is that the BH could be considered a 2600 or maybe even 2700 pound airplane, but you do so with the understanding that you've given up some strength in the bargain. The best deal is to keep it within limits when the air is bumpy. I'm trying to remember what Wil Graft said his 0-470 bird came in it, but I think it was about 1300 pounds. Even if an airplane hits 1400 pounds (interior and avionics may approach that), you've still got room for four people, full tanks and 100 pounds of stuff. So, overloading a BH shouldn't be a necessity for most people. Our AZ demonstrator is going to be a test case for empty weight because it's going to have a full interior and probably an IFR panel, with an 0-540 and a two-blade Hartzell, rather than a lighter Hoffman or MT. bd +++ #7056 Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 11:19:54 -0800 (AKDT) From: Float-By Shooter del@ Subject: Re: Re: weight versus strength Depending on the available power, might there not be an issue with max gross, full flap go-around performance? That'd definitely be something I'd want to test over a LONG runway. Del Rawlins-- del@netpackrat.com +++ #7057 Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 12:30:13 -0700 From: Budd Davisson buddairbum@ Subject: Re: Re: weight versus strength You're thinking Cessna 180 here: full flap go arounds with the BH aren't an issue with any weight. You just can't believe how this thing performs with a 540. Shoot, think how a C-180 would perform with one. We're talking a much lighter airplane with much more hp, cubic inches and thrust. The only problem with a full-flap goaround with the big engine is fighting the nose up trim. How it will perform the same act with the smaller engines, I don't know, as I didn't do it with the 180. Bob and Wil can fill us in on that, but I'd be surprised if it was a factor, even with the smaller engines. Bob M's little 160 might be huffing and puffing though. bd +++ #7287 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 09:57:44 -0500 From: Tim Hickey tjhickey@ Subject: Does anyone have a weight and balance diagram for the Bearhawk that they could scan and email me? (to save bandwidth, if you do, email me with an acknowledge first, and if there are multiple response I will pick a lucky winner and email back with a request. I really don't need 25 copies sent in) Thanks. Tim Hickey +++ #7290 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:07:07 -0400 From: Bob Romanko romanko@ Subject: RE: (Weight and Balance) This would be VERY helpful to the whole group. Mike or Budd (or anyone with a completion), do you have a copy of this we could post in the files section? I'd love to see the comparisons between the different Bearhawks, especially the effect of the different engine choices and props. As long as we're asking, an Excel spreadsheet would be nice to have. Budd, ever do one on the Desert Hawk, taking into account the elongated fuselage? The closest I got to W&B was a discussion (in person) with Bob Barrows down at Fincastle when I just acquired that 'ol Ranger from Lou Casey, who was going to put it on Lindbergh's Miles Mohawk. Bob said that although the weight was in spec, with the length of that inverted six I'd have to fly the thing from the back seat. Seemed like a simple enough mod, so I'll probably go with it (NOT!). I'll probably just go with the O-540, but still would like to see some hard W&B data. What I'd REALLY like to see is an idea of what the individual components should weigh during the build process. Erbman, do you have any data on that? You posted something about your wings earlier I think. In fact, through the archives I've seen posts on the weight of elevators, ailerons, wings, and a few other things. Wouldn't hurt to compile all of our measurements into one file somewhere to help those behind us. Then again, I had an instructor once who told me when we were discussing W&B during a restoration of a PT-19, "It weighs what it weighs. The pilot will deal with it." Kind of tough to swallow that answer when I'm the pilot. Planter Bob +++ #7281 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:44:41 EDT From: bearhwk272@ Subject: Re: (Weight and Balance) I think that Bob covered the weight and balance of both in past Beartracks. Not where they are at the moment # 2 proto was about a year ago . Kevin #272 +++ #7300 Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 13:03:06 -0700 From: Russ and Penny Erb erbman@ Subject: RE: (Weight and Balance) W&B for Proto I and II were both covered in Bear-Tracks. The charts are on the Bearhawk CD. If you don't have one and would like me to post the numbers, just say so. The weights P-Bob referred to are also on the CD, but are spread out in various areas. If there is interest I can compile those together too. Russ Erb +++ #7336 Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 17:59:38 EDT From: nov222pa@ Subject: Off Topic: Seaplane training syllabus Seaplane training syllabus http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/general/flttrain/planes/seaplane/index.htm Fred Kess GreenBay >>> 2mar02 #7686-9153 +++ #7835 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: a newbie > What I wnat do to is there a way to use a Bearhawk for Crop > Dusting > > I work for a winyard about 150 acre in France please tell me > is it possible you can crop dust with anything (F6F Hellcats were even approved for it), but the BH would work especially well and probably wouldn't need an external hopper like a Super Cub does. With its useful load, you could be carrying 125 gallons or more plus 30 gallons of gas, which isn't too bad. We're giving some thought to that kind of application in Mexico and Central America. It would make a good small field sprayer. bd +++ #7936 From: "Bob Marek" Subject: Re: AviPro Aircraft Website Sorry Fellows, I am having a lot of fun flying the Bearhawk (N156RM) but I also follow the BH web site. It performs like Bob claims it will, no bad flight characteristics, flys hands off in clam air. Take off and landing better than my Citabria also faster cruise. 50+ hrs on the tack as of now. Since the first flight I had a little problem with Scott tailwheel replaced it with a Bobwheel, it tracks real well, no shimmy on hard surface. Bob Marek 019 ( Sorry will miss the barbeque) Cadott, Wi. +++ #7941 From: wellsrv@p... Subject: Re: AviPro Aircraft Website > I am having a lot of fun flying the Bearhawk (N156RM) Thanks a million for checking in. That's exactly what I was hoping to find out. As a Citibra owner, have you tried a few aerobatics in the Bearhawk. How'd they work out? No flat spins I assume? What cruise speed do you obtain at whatever load and setting you prefer? Would you have done anything differently now that you've flown it for a while? Sorry to bug you but living vicariously is the best I can do for now. Thanks again for keeping the rest of us updated. Dave +++ #8063 From: Wilbur GrC Graff Subject: Re: Digest Number 590 Thanks Planter Bob for defending me for not putting out a pirps on my Bearhawk. I have been busy making it IFR and flying. The plane handles admirably thru all flight configurations, especially in t-offs and landings. Now I get claustrophobia flying in planes like Tri- pacers or Cessnas. The cockpit view is about equal to a cub or Champ. It climbs to cruising alt. in rapid time and is easy to fly from the right seat. I'll make a complete pirp later. Thanks again -we're all in this together. Wil Graff 365 +++ #8065 From: bearhwk272@a... Subject: Congratulations Mr. Wil Graff Well, you say that you have been flying and working to make it IFR, did you also mention that you have been going to flyins and winning awards? Check this November Sport Aviation, MERFI, pg 73. Kevin #272 >>> 4sep02 #9154-11297 +++ #9322 From: "teyeomans" "Tom Yeomans" Subject: Re: insurance I have talked to several insurance companies. one didn't like experimentals, one didn't like experimentals with auto conversions, Avemco seemed to be very accomodating. Cost quote for hull and liability was around $2800. liability only is under $400. with the extra cost of hull and the deductable I will be going with the lower amount. I have talked to several RV builders and they have better pricing elsewhere.. +++ #9495 From: "rodsmith52" "Rod Smith" Subject: Insurance, Was: Is Bearhawk #399 Dead? The aviation insurance industry long ago priced itself out of the Alaska market for private, non commercial airplanes. Now they are going to do in air taxis and small commercial operators who cant fly without it. They also this year seem to be getting out of experimental aircraft. So how about insuring a Bearhawk on floats in Alaska? I dont know any private pilots in Alaska who carry insurance of any kind. They either pay cash or borrow from their 401k to purchase a plane. How about liability? You can either never fly with anyone besides a family member or just fly like your life depends on it and chances are you will be just fine. I always informed my passengers of the lack of any insurance coverage during the passenger briefing and no one changed their mind about flying. +++ #9498 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: re: Insurance I added an av rider to my homeowner's unbrella policy for a couple hundred dollars (*) a year. I remember at the time that my agent thought it was included in the base umbrella -- it was a fairly recent change, Allstate making it an extra-cost option. Of course, they *know* my house isn't in Alaska. If I have to fly w/o hull, I will. +++ #9504 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: re: Insurance > I was not aware that for aviation liability insurance you could add a > rider to a homeowner's policy. Is that what you're saying Benton? > If so, I need to call my agent. I don't need hull insurance, but > would like to have liability. I have the standard homeowners policy as required by the mortgage company and my own need to shed risk. Additionally, I have an 'umbrella' policy for $250/yr that runs my liability coverage up to $1M -- just in case someone I didn't want on my porch anyway, trips on their shoelaces and gives themself a whiplash or something. Until a few years ago this 'umbrella' policy would have included any liability due to my flying activities (with Allstate), hence my agent's mistake -- he was telling me to put away my checkbook, that it was covered. I read the policy and found it wasn't covered, but was available for an extra charge -- $100/yr it turned out. I also have an Avenco renter policy, but take the minimum liability they allow to get the level of hull coverage I want, knowing I'm covered for liability on this umbrella. * - so as long as I can contrive to crash the plane into my own house, I'm covered! 8*) ** - shhhh, don't tell anyone, or the lawyers will come out of the woodwork finding an angle to blame me for accidents anywhere in the neighborhood. *** - so ask me about life insurance... +++ #9510 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: Insurance, Was: Is Bearhawk #399 Dead? My liability insurance problem is solved, at least until I build more hours in the plane. I have a firm quote from Jeff Sutton at Falconcinsurance.com from the Seattle office. $1,000 per year. He's sending me the details of the policy, but on the surface I can live with that. Based on my quotes, I'm not sure I'd be quick to recommend Avemco to anyone. +++ #9518 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: re: Liability Insurance > > I read the policy and found it wasn't covered, > > but was available for an extra charge -- $100/yr it turned out. > > Does it apply to homebuilts? I couldn't lay my hands on the specific policy when I went to check, but know I was thinking 'homebuilt' when I took out the coverage, and remember asking my agent just to be sure. I believe they do not distinguish between experimental and certified GA. +++ #9703 From: Bob Romanko Subject: Aerobatics in the Bearhawk (Was: Bearhawk Muster 2002) > The Bearhawk is exactly what I want in an airplane "but" I just wonder > if it would be ok to roll her over or do a loop or spin it around > every now and then? I spoke with Bob Barrows back in October at the Bearhawk Fly-In regarding spins. As I recall, he said he once entered into a spin but pulled out of it pretty early into it. That was the extent of his aerobatic activity in the Bearhawk. Budd, didn't we talk about this before? Are you planning on any testing in your demonstrator regarding mild aerobatics (is that an oxymoron)? I think what drives a lot of us to wondering about the Bearhawk and maneuvers is that @#$% PITTS NOSEBOWL! +++ #9708 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Aerobatics in the Bearhawk (Was: Bearhawk Muster 2002) The question of aerobatics is fraught with all sorts of controversey and opinion. First, bear in mind that great strength isn't needed for aerobatics. You can do a complete, positive-G airshow routine, including loops and never see 3 G's. What the legendary 9 G's is needed for is the possibility of screwing up. It is purely there for insurance. This is another way of saying, "if you don't screw up, you can do akro in nearly every airplane", which of course is a wildly dangerous thing to either say or do. In the case of the BH, I'm going to test it in loops and rolls, which I'll guarantee you it does well. It, however is NOT a 9 G (9 ultimate, 6 yield) as required in aerobatic category certification. It is a 6.6 G ultimate, 4.4 G yield airplane, approximately as defined in Utility category. It was never designed for aerobatics and we're not going to approve it for aerobatics. I will, however, do aerobatics in it. It's an individual choice with no endorsement from either the factory or the designer. +++ #9710 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Aerobatics in the Bearhawk (Was: Bearhawk Muster 2002) I have a friend who is a firm believer that a plane's ability to hold a stable spin with easy exit is essential for safety. In Alaska he uses the spin to descend through a cloud deck in a stable attitude to get through clouds of known thickness...breaks out in the clear, exits the spin and proceeds to the destination. Is he doing something beyond what one should expect from the Bearhawk or similarly constructed craft? +++ #10019 From: "Del Rawlins" del@r... Subject: Re: Re: fitting in > Since the Bearhawk doesn't have jury struts... Buy a "Co-Pilot" from Wild West Guns (www.wildwestguns.com). I'm trying to decide if I can afford to have their take down conversion done to my .450 Marlin over the winter. +++ #10021 From: "rodsmith52" "Rod Smith" Subject: Re: fitting in-extended baggage > Buy a "Co-Pilot" from Wild West Guns (www.wildwestguns.com). Great website Del! In all seriousness I plan on installing a tube extending from the back of the baggage area back to the tail for long items like rifles, fishing poles, skiis etc. The danger with something like this is loading yourself out the rear end of the balance envelope. You need to placard it for max weight and would only use it for light items. Could be a good place to store emergency down sleeping bag etc. The reason you see so much stuff hanging off Supercubs is the lack of internal space, not a problem with the Bearhawk +++ #10023 From: "Del Rawlins" del@r... Subject: Re: Re: fitting in-extended baggage > Great website Del! In all seriousness I plan on installing a tube > extending from the back of the baggage area back to the tail for long > items like rifles, fishing poles, skiis etc. The danger with You probably still need something for skis (design a carrier which bolts to the float and gear mounts?) but consider fishing poles that break down into 4 or more pieces. I have a graphite Eagle Claw Trailmaster rod that is 7.5 feet long assembled and breaks into 4 pieces, and has its own short aluminum case no longer than 2'. It converts between conventional and fly tackle and is fine for anything up to silver salmon (though a little on the small size for a large silver). It casts a #7 fly line beautifully. It was not terribly expensive IIRC, either. > Buy a "Co-Pilot" from Wild West Guns (www.wildwestguns.com). I'm > trying to decide if I can afford to have their take down conversion > done to my .450 Marlin over the winter. By the way if anybody is interested, Wild West did some custom work on my Marlin last year (oversize loop lever, pachmayr decelerator pad, aperture sights and trigger job) and their work is first-rate. The trigger is sweet and between the pad and the new lever, although recoil is still stiff it is 100% more comfortable to shoot than it was stock. +++ #10294 From: "teyeomans" "Tom Yeomans" Subject: update 075 Got the DAR out today and Bearhawk 075 is now N416TY and has it's certificates all in order. I promised the boss I would get some dual in another tail dragger (not an easy task)to get more current before the wheels leave the ground.. I plan to do some taxi tests over the next week, then start the serious stuff. I will file another update after the first couple of flights. +++ #10424 From: "teyeomans" "Tom Yeomans" Subject: first flight Today was the first flight for 075.. I have done several hours of taxi tests and tuning of the engine.. I had the preflight done last night. This morning was too good to pass up. I started the takeoff roll slowly in case of something in the steering wrong (PILOT input problems) indicated about 40 mph then added the rest of the throttle, the plane just left the ground. I decided to circle the airport and if all was stable go to another airport with a larger strip.. this feild is 30 ft wide.. I was not comfortable with the water temp so I elected to do a straight in and call it a great flight. The landing was very easy. I have not logged tail wheel time for a while and wasn't sure what to expect.. The Bearhawk was absolutely straight on landing and rollout. The pilot bounced a little but overall was very happy with the first flight.. taxi and flight was .4 hours. Now to get the temps where I want them and fly again. Hope everyone has a great day +++ #10614 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Bearhawk specs > I am a little confused on the available speeds. I was looking at the > specs posted on Budd's site and thinking about previous posts and I > was wondering about the Vne of 175mph. If you can cruise at 160mph > with the O540 and you reflex the flaps, add wheel pants and such, > won't the plane be approaching Vne in cruise? Just kind ov curious > about the safety. > > I was also curious about what the true gross weight is. I think the > number that came with my plans was about 2300 lbs and I know Budd has > 2500 lbs posted. I was doing some math and I was a little concerned > about the weight. I imagine what I build will be on the heavy side > since I am fond of conviences like electricity and starters. Are > there any more true weights from the currently flying Bearhawks? I > have only seen info on Bob's and estimates. The Vne is a indicated air speed, IAS. If you're cruising at 160 mph true air speed TAS, as we're all hoping for, you're down around 145-150 mph IAS depending on the temperature/altitude. Doing a quick, average calculation, 175 IAS is about 192 TAS at 5,000 feet and 15 degrees C. 2500 pounds is the gross according to Bob and the limiting factor is the landing gear, not the air frame, according to a conversation we had a week or so ago about what it would take to increase the gross and still meet the FAA requirement of a four G landing (which is a near-crash). The airplane is stressed to 6.6 G's ultimate (utility category) at 2500 pounds. +++ #10871 From: Bob Romanko Subject: OT: Anyone Experienced With Flying the Alcan? Well, N6942E is in at the avionics shop now. I'm having a new attitude indicator, directional gyro, ADF, NAV with GS marker beacon, and audio panel installed. Basically, giving myself an instrument platform to continue my instrument training up here in Alaska. Only issue is the plane's still in Virginia. Hence, my question: Does anyone on the group have experience in flying the Alcan? I'm taking along Dick Yates, a good friend of mine, and a CFI-I. He owns Charlottesville Flight Center, and is looking forward to some great fishing up here in Homer. I'm looking forward to logging about 30 hours of dual time (grin)! Dick's a good Joe, and I'm looking forward to spending the time with him. Right now I have Larry Bartlett's video, just ordered the needed US sectionals and the directories, and still have to order all the Canadian charts and supplement. I also have a copy of the Milepost left over from my trip I made moving up here three weeks ago. We're leaving CHO on September 1st, and I'm probably going to register the flight with www.flightacrossamerica.com and I'm pretty sure I'll have the single longest flight on the record. Sure, I'm not going West to East, and won't be carrying the Alaskan flag in Manhattan, but at least it's a good show of solidarity with GA. So, if anyone's had experience with flying the Alcan, please fire off an email to me. No need to bore the list with this stuff....I do enough of that already! +++ #10878 From: "bubba98042" "Varun" Subject: Re: OT: Anyone Experienced With Flying the Alcan? This site has a pretty good write-up on flying the ALCAN. http://www.avweb.com/articles/aksabbat.html +++ #10880 From: "Del Rawlins" del@r... Subject: RE: OT: Anyone Experienced With Flying the Alcan? > ADF? Why? So you can listen to Rush Limbaugh while you're flying? > That's all we ever used it for, other than setting the target altitude > on the indicator. There are a number of NDBs still in operation in Alaska. One of the instrument approaches here into CDV is an NDB approach, which might be handy if your GPS decides to crap out. +++ #10882 From: Bob Romanko Subject: RE: OT: Anyone Experienced With Flying the Alcan? ADF for two reasons......Rush Limbaugh and a poor man's storm detector. +++ #10883 From: Tim Subject: Re: OT: Anyone Experienced With Flying the Alcan? Bob, here's one of the popular Pilot supply business http://www.vippilot.com/ a map that might be handy is the 'Alaska Highway VNC- Air 5099 updated this last April 2002......It coves the Hwy route. I fired off mine and the Fly Alaska Hwy video to Bob Barrows for his and Mike's trip a few years back.......Here's a giff of available maps and you can see the different shape of this unique map. [ This message contained attachments -- BJH ] +++ #10887 From: Rodney Smith Subject: Re: OT: Anyone Experienced With Flying the Alcan? I flew from Anchorage to upstate NY and return in my Maule Jun/Jul 1989. I had a nearly new instrument ticket at the time. Only used it in the lower 48 due to icing conditions in Alaska and Canada. My biggest suggestion is dont push the weather. The Canadians were great as I am sure you found on your drive up. On the way back north we crossed directly into Ontario from NY and flew north of the great lakes. Have a fun and safe trip! >>> 20may03 #11298-18250 +++ #11437 From: charles.k.scott@d... Subject: Re: Digest Number 906 > and we had a solid 10 GPH fuel burn leaning on the rich side, even > at only 3000'. Planter Bob, have you had the chance to read Deakin's "mixture magic" column in AVWeb? Corky Scott +++ #11455 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Digest Number 906 It won't help--all of the techniques Deakin espouses require a fuel injected engine fitted with GAMIjectors. That pretty much limits it to big fuel injected Continentals. Carbureted engines have a much poorer mixture distribution and therefore it won't work. Read the articles to understand why. Erbman +++ #12178 From: Del Rawlins Subject: Pre-heat This isn't specifically related to the Bearhawk, but I can't think of a better place to get suggestions so here goes... I get to babysit my brother's Citabria this winter here in Anchorage while he finishes grad school down in DC. It's a hell of a problem to have (heh) and in addition to keeping the snow brushed off it, my duties include making sure that it is regularly exercised so its muscles don't atrophy over the winter, requiring an expensive rehabilitation. Since it can get quite cold here in the winter, I need some means of pre-heating the engine before starting. It has a sump heating pad installed, but the only tie-down space I was able to get at Merrill doesn't have an electrical hookup. The good news, is that it is within sight and about a minute walk to the building where I go to class each day, and I can park my Jeep next to it if I want to. What I was thinking, is there is a dual battery kit available for my Jeep, and I could install a second, deep cycle battery with an isolator to keep it separate from the starting battery. If I installed an inverter would that provide enough juice to pre-heat the airplane engine with the Jeep parked there, turned off? I was thinking I could set it to pre-heat for a couple hours while I am in class and go flying afterward. Feel free to shoot holes in this idea, or to offer a better suggestion, thanks. -- Del Rawlins +++ #12180 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Pre-heat RV suppliers have diode controls that isolate one battery in a two, or more, battery system (for large motor homes who have high power demands when parked but not hooked to outside electricity) This allows normal charging by the vehicle's charging system but isolates the aux. battery so that there is always a fully charged battery for starting the vehicle. Simple to wire. Now, as for the battery being able to supply enough current to actually raise the temperature of the VERY cold soaked engine and its oil is another problem. Looking at the wattage available from a large automotive battery I'd be surprised if is temps could be raised and held for two hours. Not saying it cannot be accomplished, but investment in a small gasoline powered generator, which will have other uses, that you could leave running during class time might be a more productive purchase (considering the size battery you might need to buy). Bruce A. Frank +++ #12181 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Pre-heat I was just at Home Depot and they had a new series of little torpedo heaters (propane, contractor types) I'd never seen before. Some were really cute as they were nothing but scaled down versions of the big muthahs. They looked ideal for engine heating if you attached a long piece of 6" scat hose although I'd be happier with some sort of heat exchanger between the airplane and the blow torch at the end. bd +++ #12172 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: re: Pre-heat > I was just at Home Depot and they had a new series of little torpedo > heaters (propane, contractor types) Back in my R/C days, I played around a little with Sterno and alum dryer ducting, trying to make a chimney I could use at the field to tighten monokote. Never got very far with it, but thought at the time that it looked like it might also be adaptable as a preheater. I was thinking of just a three-foot section, hanging vertically from the cowl inlet (or exit), with some mechanism to hold the alcohol tin in the far end, and screens to block any flame. Then just let convection carry the heat up into the cowl. You might go double-wall on the dryer tube to reduce heat loss through the chimney wall. Maybe clamp it to a gear-leg rather than let it swing. Problems would be making sure the air temp was reasonable, and precautions against the fire getting loose, either in the plane or on the ground under the plane. With a little bi-metal (raid an old furnace thermostat) you could rig some sort of vent opening to throttle the combustion air or as a damper; and with solder you could rig a safety shutoff that would drop a lid on the sterno if the chimney air gets too hot. I liked this idea, assuming the problems could be worked out, since parts cost would be about $10, a tuna-fish can of Sterno would go for a couple hours -- and it's light enough to take with you into the back-country. I'm not sure it'd be enough heat, but people seem to use 100W lightbulbs to keep engines decently warm, and I think the part about waiting a couple hours really works in your favor. Seems like the monster heaters are for the folks that want to be flying in 15 minutes. Just put a good blanket over the cowl and let time work for you. It sounds like one of those things that would be really difficult to make safe, but the simplicity seems really attractive. Wonder what the regs would be about unattended, open flames? And of course, you'd have to mark it 'EXPERIMENTAL' in two-inch letters. Benton +++ #12183 From: Del Rawlins Subject: re: Pre-heat > It sounds like one of those things that would be really difficult to > make safe, but the simplicity seems really attractive. Wonder what > the regs would be about unattended, open flames? And of course, > you'd have to mark it 'EXPERIMENTAL' in two-inch letters. I am fairly certain that it would not be approved by the aircraft owner, regardless of any regs. -- Del Rawlins +++ #12184 From: Del Rawlins Subject: Re: Pre-heat > RV suppliers have diode controls that isolate one battery in a two, > or more, battery system (for large motor homes who have high power > demands when parked but not hooked to outside electricity) This > allows normal charging by the vehicle's charging system but isolates > the aux. battery so that there is always a fully charged battery for > starting the vehicle. Simple to wire. That is exactly what I had in mind. The aftermarket battery tray is sized to hold a pair of Optimas, so I would get a red top as a normal battery, and a yellow top deep cycle for preheating (or running tools, or whatever). > Now, as for the battery being able to supply enough current to > actually raise the temperature of the VERY cold soaked engine and > its oil is another problem. Looking at the wattage available from a > large automotive battery I'd be surprised if is temps could be > raised and held for two hours. That is what I am afraid of. I need to find out what the draw of that heater pad is I guess to determine if this is even feasible. > Not saying it cannot be accomplished, but investment in a small > gasoline powered generator, which will have other uses, that you > could leave running during class time might be a more productive > purchase (considering the size battery you might need to buy). I thought about that too. My concerns with leaving a generator running unattended are theft, and fire due to its being gas powered. I guess I could devise a theft resistant means of mounting it to my bumper if I have to, and I suppose the risk of fire is probably pretty small. -- Del Rawlins +++ #12185 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Pre-heat I have the red top Optima. Two of them died on me in the first 4 months of ownership. Both were killed by dome lights being left on over night. The batteries would not take a full charge after that. The manual on the battery says that they were susceptible to such full discharge damage. Damage may actually be caused by difficult to control high recharge rates that take place after the automobile is started. I would use two of the yellow top (deep discharge acceptable) models rather than the red top. The yellow top Optima is more than capable of starting the engines of boats left for long term without use (like a plane) so use as your Jeep's primary battery presents no problem. I was offered the option to upgrade to the yellow top after the second red top died, but the up grade cost was too high. I have gotten four years of trouble free service out of the red top I have now. Bruce A. Frank BTW, the selection of the Optima for my Explorer was actually intended as a test of the suitability of the Optima for my V-6 STOL project. The attractive thing is a very low self discharge rate...a month of no usage and it'll still start the plane in very cold weather. +++ #12186 From: Art Womack Subject: Re: Pre-heat I bought an 1800 watt Coleman generator at Home Depot in Anchorage back before moose season for $375. It is small and light enough to put in the back seat of a cub (or Citabria), will run about 3.5 hours per fill up and can be used for lots of things other than your immediate purpose. +++ #12188 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Pre-heat I was thinking of a small generator, 1500-2000 watts that would fit in the back seat or cargo area of a car/Jeep. Something kept inside a heated vehicle until it is needed to supply power to the engine heater of the plane. Then again, preheating the airplane engine I thought is not just to get it started, but to reduce start up wear that shortens the life of the engine. The one lung engine on the generator when cold can probably be started with a shot of ether with little worry about TBO longevity. Bruce A. Frank +++ #12189 From: "rodsmith52" Subject: Re: Pre-heat My feeling is that Bruce is correct, you are not going to be able to get enough power out of a battery that will fit in your jeep. The generator idea sounds good. You need to be very careful using a propane or other flame producing heater. The first time I used a red dragon or something similar I left it running about an 1 1/2 hours, it was -5F that morning. When I looked in the cowl everything was nice and warm including the insulation on some of the wiring that was starting to drip off the wires. A good insulated engine cover will help warm it up faster and of course you have wing and tail covers? Sure beats trying to scrape snow and ice off of fabric surfaces. Rod Smith #246 +++ #12191 From: Del Rawlins Subject: Re: Pre-heat I'm thinking at this point that the portable generator is probably the way to go, as long as I can devise some means of chaining it to one of the tiedowns so that it doesn't walk away. I am pretty sure that it won't be any more expensive than the dual battery setup, with no doubt that it will do the job. Rod's post reminded me that there is an engine blanket and a set of wing covers for the plane, which should help. Thanks for all the input. -- Del Rawlins +++ #12192 From: "John" Subject: Re: Pre-heat Since you are parking the car right at the plane anyway, how about a small covered trailer to hold the generator, extension cords, plane covers, tools and everything else? Then you wouldn't need to load and unload all your stuff from your vehicle all the time and could keep it secure.... John Kozak. #511 +++ #12193 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Re: Pre-heat This reminds me of a method I have used to carry my generator while out gathering firewood (using dynamite ~20 years ago). I had a receiver type hitch on my vehicle. I built a small platform that slid a piece of square tube into the hitch receiver. I used one of those key operated locking pins in the cross bolt hole. The generator was solidly bolted in place and covered with an expanded metal box with small openings cut out to reach the electrical plug receptacles, choke and start pull cord. Usually the setup rode to and from the wood gathering area in the back of my '56 Travelall, was inserted when we got there and rode there as we trekked around the woods. Several times the generator rode there for the highway drive also. The setup was solid, couldn't be stolen and the expanded metal cage around it prevented damage from limbs and brush and curious fingers (while stopped along the route for food and gas). Bruce A. Frank +++ #12194 From: "flyingsnowboarder" Subject: Re: Pre-heat I'm new here, but thought I might chip in on this. I have family that lives in Amish country where they have no electricity, and they often just use an old Briggs & Stratton laying around hooked up to an alternator, to charge batteries, in addition to wind, solar, or in your case Jeep. That way the batteries could run it for a while and then you could fire up the homebuilt generator, and charge the batteries for an hour or two, then shut if off, versus running a generator all day. Just an idea!! Sam Butler +++ #12195 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re: Pre-heat The long term pre-heating solution is to let it sit just north of Phoenix for a couple of hours. bd +++ #12204 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: RE: B'hawk picnic pic's > But as a glider club plane it could be used. I know of a couple of > V-6 STOLs used that way. > > Howzat get around the not using experimentals for compensation or > hire rule? The pilot is a member of the club. The club fuels the plane and the pilot receives no compensation. That is all I know about it. I will try and contact one of the pilots I know who is doing that and ask him to clarify. He has even taken his plane to regional glider tournaments and towed there (though I don't know if he was limited to only his own club members) Bruce A. Frank +++ #12208 From: bearhwk272@a... Subject: Re: More Pre-heat All this preheat stuff / motors / generators .............. most of the heat in internal combustion goes out the tail pipe. Do something with that hot exhaust, like blow it in the cowl. Just more bang for the buck. Still not freezing here. Kevin +++ #12230 From: "zipppydoggg" I was thinking of a small generator, 1500-2000 watts that would fit > in the back seat or cargo area of a car/Jeep. I think the generator idea is very good, especially if you can prevent it getting stolen. As far as using other heating methods, I suppose the problem is in temperature regulation. If a person is not there to check for under or overheating, then some type of automatic temperture regulation is in order. I would think that some type of bi-metal spring or strip to move a mixer door would be the ticket. Jest set it for "full heat dump bypass" at room temperature, and "heat to the engine" at lower temperatures. Maybe just a can of sterno under a stove pipe arrangement hanging from under the cowl would work. Rob "getting cold here in Phoenix now, thinking of wearing a long sleeve shirt" Gaddy +++ #12862 From: Budd Davisson Subject: two-place, speed, etc just a thought for anyone who is thinking that speed is justification for doing anything with an airplane like the Bearhawk. On a 500 mile trip the difference of time enroute between cruising 160 mph (BH speeds) and 180 mph is 21 minutes. If you up the cruise speed to 200 mph, you save 37 minutes over the BH. Big deal! Hardly seems worth any kind of trade off. Now we know why Bob cruises his at 19" square and 7.5 gph. Once you're doing over 125-130 mph, speed doesn't really save you much time, but it can cost plenty. bd +++ #13609 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: Ask Mr. ATC... > 1. What is your proper radio call sign for your Bearhawk (like > "Skywagon 61691")? From what I've heard it would be "Experimental > 232PF" but that doesn't seem to carry much info about the > performance of the aircraft, since "Experimental" could be a > Pietenpol or a Glasair III. Yes, that is the call sign, Experimental 232PF > 2. What do you put for aircraft type (like "C180/G") on a VFR or > IFR flight plan? A Bearhawk would file a flight plan as an HXB/whatever. I assume the HX stands for homebuilt experimental. The B signifies a speed range greater than 100K but less than 200K. Therefore, a Lancair or something like it is an HXC, and an ultralight an HXA Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom, CA +++ #13620 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Surfaces > You know, other than test flights, I think this may the the FIRST > thread on typicalBearhawk flying we've ever had!I'd sure would be > nice to hear more stuff like this. I'd really like to hear about > howthe thing lands on different surfaces "real world".Planter Bob I've landed it on rolling grass and pavement and couldn't tell the difference. That's a good sign. bd +++ #14628 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: info update > I worked long and hard rigging my ailerons to have the same travel > and sit at neutral with the stick vertical. I noticed in the air > today, that the right aileron is being displaced upward while the > left is still neutral and the stick vertical. I suppose that is > causing my right wing to feel heavy. Tomorrow I will probably > experiment with lengthening the pushrod on that side to "preload" > the aileron. If anyone has an explanation why that would not be a > good idea, I'ld love to hear it. I am not an expert on rigging ailerons but I have helped rig a J-3 Cub and a 2+2 Sportsman. Both required exactly that type of fine adjustment. Ailerons would be equal with the stick centered on the ground. Both seemed to deflect with the same amount of finger pressure on the trailing edge with the stick held in place (no noticeable excess slack in one side or the other). But once flying one or both ailerons wanted to trail higher rather than in-line with the wing. Adjustment was required to essentially "pre-load" the aileron. The Sportsman continued to look uniform side to side after such adjustments while sitting on the ground. The J-3, with the stick centered on the ground has one aileron tip about 1/4 low at the trailing edge. When flying both came to perfect trailing point when the stick was centered. In both these cases(on both planes) washout had been adjusted to compensate for a heavy wing before the aileron positions were noticed. The strut adjustment fixed the heavy wing while the later adjustment of the ailerons made virtually no detectable change in the feel of the planes. But then both of these planes use the USA35b wing (or Clark Y, depending on to whom you talk) so slight deflection of your 4412 wings aileron may have more impact. Bruce A. Frank +++ #14750 From: Pat Fagan Subject: more info update >> Define pegging the VSI. Remember...you're the first BH to mount a >> VSI. OK, so I lied, the VSI pegs at 2000. I can do that for a short while, but 1500fpm is the more common rate of climb. Today, I sustained 1200fpm all the way to 10500. I explored the service ceiling today also. It would be best if I didn't admit to how high I actually got. Let's just say it was higher than I will ever have the need to go. I think I was still showing 400fpm so there was a lot left. This plane flys so comfortably that I have already covered most flight maneuvers. I did some airspeed calibrations, but only at the higher speeds. They showed my airspeed to be pretty accurate, but I don't know for sure how well it corelates at low speed. VS1 appears to be about 40K. I can fly all day at that speed with power. Stall is signaled by buffet. I can hold it in the buffet, but eventually the right wing will drop off since I am still working on the wing heavy problem. VS0 with 2 notches of flaps is 35K and with 3 notches, 30K. Both give the same advance warning of stall. Full flaps doesn't appear to appreciably lower the stall any more. All stall recoveries can be acheived with minimal altitude loss. Side slips in both directions, with no flaps, are straight forward and effective. I tried slipping with 2 notches of flaps but there is significant buffeting on the tail. I looked back and saw the elevator being pounded so I stopped doing that. It doesn't look like slipping to a landing with flaps will be a viable option. I have been doing mostly stall landings. Approach at 50K is comfortable, touch down is about 40K. I tried a few wheel landings today. Approach at 60K. My timing is not quite right yet. Each landing resulted in one hop followed by sticking the next touch. Inertial reel harnesses should be mandatory for the pilot. I need to climb out of my two shoulder harnesses to reach the fuel selector and to pull on the first notch of flaps. A central, single point inertial reel would be ideal, but would probably require beefing up the structure at the attach point. I need to get two singles for my installation. It looks like Russ's trim system might be the right idea. I like how mine works, but it is still sensitive. Fine tuning is a matter of tapping it with my knuckle. I could easily, if jerkily, fly the airplane with my trim. I could use a little more back trim for landing, but have been holding off adjustments until I see how it is with aft CG. I am getting some very definite ideas about the flaps system, but that will have to wait for another update Pat "7 hours" Fagan +++ #14774 From: Pat Fagan Subject: the revolutionary wing diet It sounds just as amazing as all those weight loss nostrums you hear about add nausem, but I no longer have a heavy right wing. My hanger mate came back from vacation today and I took him up for an evaluation of the problem. We landed and, after verifying the geometry of the bell cranks looked correct, he proceeded to squeeze down the trailing edge of the left aileron, just a little, with some paint sticks and channel lock pliers. He wanted to do it incrementally so we went back up and, surprise, almost perfect. It was close enough that he didn't feel we should try for any more. Apparently this a technique the RV boys use a lot. +++ #14804 From: "Shannon Spurgeon" Subject: Re: the revolutionary wing diet > I've heard of this, but no one has told me the procedure for which > trailing edge to squish and which way. If I ever find out, I may be > able to explain it. Move the trailing edge the same way you want the wing to go. Step through it: trailing edge down, when struck by airflow, will cause the aileron to deflect upward, which will cause the wing to move downward. Simple--no? Shannon - still drooling in Wichita +++ #14814 From: "collinc2002" Subject: aileron trailing edge There seems to be some confusion as to the purpose and nature of altering trailing edges to trim an airplane. I don't consider myself to be an expert or anything on the subject, but I did build a RV-6A once upon a time and still have a copy of a newsletter from Van's covering the subject. The article is quite lengthy but very informative (August 92' edition) Briefly Van notes the dramatic effect that the trailing edge radius can have on aileron control loads and the undesirable effects (even dangers) of excessive trailing edge radii. He notes that there is a tendency among builders to "underbend" the trailing edges and end up with a trailing edge which bulges out somewhat. This causes a lower hinge moment which means lighter control forces. In some cases it causes "aileron snatch", a tendency for the ailerons to seek a neutral (hands off) position slightly to either side of center. This condition is impossible to trim and makes the airplane touchy to fly because the stick must be held in the center; a condition which is easily upset by light turbulence and/or pilot inattention. Fortunately the condition is easily accomplished by clamping blocks, hand seamers, or even hand pressure. A by-product of this technique can be used for lateral (aileron) trim. Since altering the trailing edge radius alters stick force, it follows that altering only one aileron could affect laterl trim. The essential info is that lateral balance can be achieved by decreasing the trailing edge radius of the aileron on the light wing. Van refers to an article in Dec. 91 KITPLANES magazine by Barnaby Wainfan on "Wingtip Trailing Edges". Information in this article helps explain why this phenomenon works. The simplest explanation is as follows. Air flowing over any surface of the aircraft tends to remain attached to the surface. When the surface curves, the air will tend to stick to that surface until the curvature is too sharp and separation occurs. This is what happens on the trailing edge radii of the ailerons. Because the air pressure on the bottom of the aileron is greater than on the top, the bottom air tends to follow the trailing edge curvature more than the top air does. What results is an upward jet of air. This upward jet of air pulls (or pushes?) the aileron down and lifts the wing. Thus ,if we reduce the radius of an aileron trailing edge, we will decrease the jet action, that the aileron will move upward, and the wing will come down (become heavier). Hope this helps... Collin Campbell #370 +++ #15206 From: "Penner, Larry" Subject: Engine Heat The guys with diesels up north here use these when they can't plug in. Some clever individual may be able to figure out a way to use one for engine preheating and as cabin (auxilliary) heater for those -40deg days when you just gotta go somewhere. They're not cheap but how do they compare to a Tanis heater? http://www.espar.com/htm/Specs/airtronic2.htm Larry 562 +++ #15506 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: G-Factor, Gross Weight > Here's my question. With a larger engine, such as the radial, there > is a possibility for carrying a higher load more easily. But the > Bearhawk gross weight is 2500 lbs. However, that is in the utility > category. The Cessna 172 that I've been flying is utility up to 2200 > lbs, then normal from 2200 to 2400. > > Would it be possible to do the same thing with the Bearhawk? I just checked with Bob and, as we've said before, he's letting float planes go up to 2700 pounds and the airframe could go higher, but in the case of a float plane, all of the weight increase is in the fuselage. It's not distributed, so he's holding it to 2700. He'll let them go to 2700 pounds, which is somewhere above standard but below utility category, because of the landing gear limitations that don't apply with floats. He says it's okay to fly at 2700 pounds on wheels as long as you burn off enough fuel that you land at 2500 pounds. Rob is going to have to build a new, longer gear for the airplane that is quite a bit stronger because of its length and, at the same time, he'll have to beef up some lower longeron structure to take the larger spin-up loads (if same size tires, it'll be same loads, longer arm). At the same time, he'll be able to re-engineer the shock struts. I've done all the numbers and if he's willing to stay under 2500 pounds and 175 Vne, he can give up some useful load and use most of the original structure. There are some wing mods I would make, along with some more steel in the fuselage, but they are more to accept the additional FWF weight on landing and rough fields than than the power. Incidentally, you mentioned the radial would make it easier to carry loads: Believe me, any Bearhawk 180-260 hp has no problems carrying any load. Ask those who are flying them now. Carrying a load isn't a problem. bd +++ #15512 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: G-Factor, Gross Weight > Can this be interpreted to mean that the gross weight on floats is > 2700 pounds PLUS the weight of the floats and rigging(since the > airframe won't have to support them on landing)? Total weight including floats/rigging, etc, the same as it's measured on other aircraft. bd +++ #15553 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: RE: Extra fuel tanks (was: P-Bob in the trenches) > Makes me think more about fuel efficiency than brute power. Then > again, once you get to those places and are flying out gear and a > quartered moose, it's not a bad idea to have the extra horses...then > again that would add even more weight...but then....aww..forget it! The 'experts' also remarked that flying light is a major safety enhancement. Not over gross, not even at gross, but stay 200 lbs under gross. The only time they like adding weight to the planes is when it is buying more horsepower. Fuel efficiency? Fly like Ninteen-Square Bob. But know what the winds are doing to your progress, and know where you are. All the time. The sooner you can decide to turn back, the better the chance that you'll make it. Back when I was flying R/C gliders, I picked up a nifty trick -- a graphical solution to computing speed for L/D given horizontal and/or vertical winds. It's graph I expect to develop during flight test. I'll try to find time to summarize the rest of the tips. Some apply just to SuperCubs, others are universal. Benton +++ #15554 From: Del Rawlins Subject: RE: Extra fuel tanks (was: P-Bob in the trenches) > The 'experts' also remarked that flying light is a major safety > enhancement. Since they were talking mainly about super cubs, it should be pointed out that the gross weight on the piper super cub is one of the most abused limitations in all of Alaskan aviation. But I do agree that adding lightness is almost always a good thing. -- Del Rawlins +++ #15572 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: glide tests Speaking of carrying the weight, I plan to go to 2500 lbs tomorrow for the first time. I've been flying around the last couple of days at 2200 lbs. The takeoff roll and climb out are no where near as exciting as empty, but still pretty good. I did some glide testing yesterday. I have an angle of attack indicator installed which determines the proper angle for best glide. That speed consistently comes about 63 knots indicated. I made 5 passes over a one mile course, setting up at best glide, then monitoring the altimeter as I passed over both check points. Each pass was made in opposite directions then I averaged the results. The methodology is rough, but the result is probably ball park. The glide ratio came out to 7.3:1. Pat Fagan #232 Pearblossom, CA +++ #15721 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Bearhawk Camping > I just had a strange thought... what are the dimensions of the cargo > area without the rear seat? I wonder if one could sleep back there. The floor space isn't quite long enough but there's a fix to that: Have a couple of hooks/hoops welded in side members above the level of the front seat bottoms on both sides. Fold the seats forward and put a hammock affair similar to a helicopter litter in the hooks so you can stretch out. It would be suspended over stuff on the cargo floor so the airplane wouldn't have to be unloaded. The litter could be collapsible and stored stuffed in a "ski tube" running down the inside of the fuselage. bd +++ #15738 From: Pat Fagan Subject: the skinny on gross weight I made several flights the other day at an estimated weight of 2511 lbs. I also flew at three different cg locations, refueling the tanks before each flight. The cgs were at 19.77, 20.8, and 21.83. Max rear cg is listed at 22.4, but I didn't get a chance to test that. Impressions, the plane felt very solid at the first two locations and began to feel very pitch sensitive at the third. It was still stable, but the oscilations from an off trim condition were higher. It would probably feel really twitchy at 22.4 Take off roll was estimated to be around 1300 feet at 5,000 foot density altitude. The plane consistently, at all cg ranges, wanted to hop into the air at 55 knots but didn't really feel ready to fly. I bounced back down on the mains each time. I finally started holding it on the ground until 60-65 knots at which time I could make a smooth rotation to climb. By the end of the test, I was allowing the plane to come off the ground and accelerate in ground effect. It was a fine line, but would get easier with practice. Climb out, using the angle of attack instrument as a reference, was at 75 to 80 knots rather than the normal 65 to 70, but I was still able to generate 600-700 fpm. All in all, I am satisified with the performance and handling. I have a few recomendations to make, but will have to do that on another post. Pat Fagan +++ #15750 From: "bearhawk232" Subject: flaps I just remebered one other thing I wanted to mention about flaps. Most of my landings have been done with 3 notches of flaps, 1 notch shy of full flaps. The reasons are: I had heard Bob doesn't use full flaps. That last notch of flaps is very hard to pull on and latch until you get slowed to at least 60 knots. There have been several times where I have tried to apply them, but it didn't latch and all flap was immediately retracted. With full flaps, the flap handle is almost vertical. That position makes it very awkward to simultaneously pull back on the handle, to relieve tension, and push in the button. It's not impossible, but it takes some work, so I was concerned about doing it in an emergency go-around situation. Lately, I have been landing with full flaps. The reasons are: Since I still haven't bothered to "correct" the flap reflex, my full flap is bound to be less than Bob's. I can't measure how much flap is being applied since I can't duplicate the forces being exerted on them, on the ground. I've found that the last notch is easy enough to apply if you just wait until you are slow enough. With the O-540, I can climb out just fine with full flaps, so on a go-around, I can wait until the time is more appropriate to think about retracting them. Pat Fagan +++ #15998 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: High Risk Method For Choosing An Airplane To Build Sure, you can order an RV-7 kit from Van's and feel confident that you will have an excellent airplane when you're done, but where's the fun in that? Do what I did (actually it's too late now, but who knows when another opportunity will present itself), and try the high risk approach to choosing an aircraft design... Step 1: Read article in aviation rag on a new design written by some guy who writes for a living. Be sure there are no kits available, only one example flying, and it is designed by someone who doesn't have any other homebuilt designs on the market. Step 2: Buy plans. Bonus points if there is no construction manual. Start building. Step 3: After 3 years of building, go to Sun N' Fun to see prototype of what you're building. Decide if you've been on the right path for the last three years. Step 4: Build for 4 more years. As you are mounting the wings to your fuselage, FINALLY take a flight in an example of the aircraft that you've been building for the last 7 years. Decide if you've been on the right track. Who would be so stupid as to approach such a large project in this fashion? Yep! That's right! You're lookin' at him!...er...well...reading what he wrote... And since all high risk ventures are destined to fail, you've obviously figured out that I'm giving up on the Bearhawk. WRONGAMUNDO, MOOSEBREATH!!! (Of course, there were numerous risk mitigating factors that I left out, but that doesn't make as good of a story...) But the key point is Step 4 above. Yes, just slightly over 7 years since I bought my Bearhawk plans (#164--seemed like such a high number then, but now seems so low), I have finally upgraded my Bearhawker status to one who has actually flown in a Bearhawk. A select fraternity once only consisting of The Bob, Mike, and budd, but starting to grow at an accelerating rate. Pat Fagan called me yesterday complaining that he hadn't flown in about a week and the itch wasn't responding to scratching. So he fired up #232 and flew it over to the airport about 2 miles from my house. The timing was excellent, since I was just trying to figure out the ventilation system for #164 and was able to see just how he did it. I was also able to review how he protected the rudder cables on the floor. Of course, I shouldn't have to tell you that Pat has done an outstanding job of building a Bearhawk that any of us would be proud to be associated with, but I just did. After talking with another EAAer who was drawn to the airport like a fly to honey, we saddled up and headed down the taxiway. The first thing I noticed was the long proboscis in front of me. Since my fuselage currently ends at the firewall, I had forgotten how much nose there is in front of you. It did block the view of the taxiway straight ahead, but very slight turns (zig-zags) opened up the view ahead. Then again, how many taildraggers do you know of that can taxi without zig-zagging? Even P-51s do it. It's part of the mystique. The taller Bearhawkers may not have this problem. I also noticed how smooth the Bob Barrows built O-540 noisemaker was running. After a runup, we took the runway. That's when the fun really started. Pat poured the coal to the noisemaker and I was surprised at the amount of acceleration from the seat back pushing my body. Normally I only feel that kind of acceleration on roller coasters with horizontal launching and on afterburner takeoffs in jets (T-38, F-16, etc). After bouncing down the runway for a few seconds (I'm guessing well under 500 feet), we levitated off of the ground (just like budd said) and took the elevator ride up! Through all of this, I'm laughing uncontrollably--a reaction reserved for just such occasions. The airport runway is 3600 feet long, and pattern altitude is 800 ft AGL. I mention this because we were at pattern altitude by the time we got to the departure end of the runway! Is this nuts or what?! Granted, we were light weight (about 75% fuel, empty other than the two of us). budd was right--don't waste your time trying to figure out how to put an even bigger engine in this airplane--260 HP is more than enough for the vast majority of us. You'll note a theme here, summarized as "budd was right". Of course, I never had reason to doubt that! Handling in cruise was excellent. The forces in pitch and roll were sufficiently high to keep me happy. I once flew an RV-6 and thought the controls were too light. In it, you could sneeze and be 100 feet off altitude--not real good under IFR. I was able to get plenty of roll rate for normal operations with well less than full stick. I didn't notice how much stick I used, but there was plenty left. The airplane is obviously capable of plenty more--someday I'll investigate that. Maneuvering at the trim airspeed was easy and straight forward. Turns at 30, 45, and 60 deg of bank were easy without excessive stick forces. I was surprised at how easy it was to maintain altitude in a level turn. budd was right (there it is again) about the rudder. It is powerful, and easy to over-coordinate. We also noticed that (presumably because of torque effects) it took more rudder to coordinate to the right than to the left. As Pat said, his trim system is sensitive. He showed me a method to hold the lever to be able to move it in very small amounts. It reminded me of some of the sailplanes I fly. I'm still waiting to see if my system has gone too far the other way. As we slowed for some stalls, I noticed that the Bearhawk has strong longitudinal stability. Also known as speed stability, this shows up by large control forces to maintain airspeed different from the trim airspeed. Slowing for the stalls, I found myself pulling about 20 lbs of force before I remembered to retrim. I was very happy to see this. Consider yourself in the pattern trimmed to your approach speed. If you start getting slow, this airplane is going to start screaming at you to get back on speed because you'll be pulling hard on the stick. Sort of reminds me of transport category aircraft, where you don't change speed without retrimming because the forces get too big. This level of stability will also be good for cruising, especially under IFR. Note that we were at a forward cg, which will increase the stability. I once flew a RANS S-6 that had virtually no change in stick force (no more than 5 pounds) from cruise speed down to stall--did not care for that at all. For the stalls, the Bearhawk just kept slowing down, still fully controllable, losing altitude at idle power, slower and slower. I never felt any real aerodynamic stall warning such as buffeting. (Pat has installed an AOA system that kept whining at me "Angle Angle Push") The only indication of stall was a slight g-break with the nose dropping about 5 degrees. I don't remember any wing drop, but if there was, it was very slight. At one point I was able to get the nose to buck, much like canard aircraft do. Recovery was immediate upon relaxing aft stick pressure. I didn't even have to add power--then again, after so much glider flying, I'm not predisposed to adding power. The stall is very gentle--absolutely nothing like the Piper Traumahawk that was so nasty I didn't bother to practice stalls. We tried slow flight with flaps. As budd said, there is very little pitch trim change with flap deployment. Small enough that I didn't even notice. Pat mentioned that flap limit speeds are not a problem--he says you have to slow below 60 knots just to be able to deploy the first notch of flaps! I tried moving the flaps between the second and third notch and noted a force of 15-20 pounds. Just don't speed up with the flaps deployed. Stalls with flaps down were just like those with flaps up. That's what I remember for now. All of these investigations were done very informally, and really need to be done with more rigor. Even so, I saw enough to know that my high risk scheme paid off. I know for sure I'll be very happy with the Bearhawk, which is a good thing--I'd hate to think I'd wasted the last 7 years (and the several to come). Note to Planter Bob--If you're feeling jealous right now, you have every right to be! Russ Erb +++ #16006 From: Pat Fagan Subject: Re: High Risk Method For Choosing An Airplane To Build Russ, thanks for the report. I must admit I was some what disappointed this morning to see you hadn't mentioned the flight, but attributed it to you being so inspired you trashed your computer as an evil time waster. The only correction to make is concerning application of flaps. The flaps are easy enough to apply that you need to be aware of the white arc. It is just the LAST notch of flaps that are hard to pull on above 60K. What did you think about the noise level when I departed? I should have asked you to take notice, but didn't think about it at the time. Pat "ambassador of good vibes" Fagan +++ #16147 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Bearhawk bush plane image That's exactly what it's like. We have so many knobby tired SUVs running around here, all driven by 90 pound blondes talking on cell phones that it's amazing. Same thing with the BH. It's cool to look "bushy" but the realities are very few people will ever land on a runway shorter than 1200-1500 feet and you can do that in a 172, even with obstacles. In fact, very few will land on a surface bad enough that 600 x 6's won't handle it. What something like the BH does do for you, is that it makes medium length runways (1200-1500) into plenty-long runways and knocks a couple thousand feet out of high density altitudes. It's a usable airplane with lots and lots of performance margin built in. bd +++ #16586 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: cross-country I just returned from my first "over the horizon" cross-country today. My wife and flew to Laughlin, NV for an overnighter and had a wonderful trip. We listened to XM satelite radio's blues channel over and back. 19" map and 2000RPM, gave 11gph and 134 knots true at 10,500, and I still haven't made strut fairings. ... Pat Fagan +++ #16589 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: cross-country > I'm impressed. I make 134 knots to be 154 mph at something like 50% > power. What does 19" and 2000 rpm actually show on the power chart, > does anyone know? It can't be much more than 50%. Based on my sources, my best guess is 54% power at 10,500 feet and roughly standard temperature. Russ Erb #164, Rosamond CA +++ #16591 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: cross-country Pat's probably still asleep (it's 0530 CA time, but we're up here in AZ), so I'll answer for him: he has a 250 hp 0-540 and a three-blade Hartzel. Now that I think about it Pat said he'd be on the road didn't he. So he probably is up but not on the net. bd +++ #16655 From: pfflyerz@c... Subject: Re: Fagan's Panel > Your panel looks great Pat, I was just wondering if you have any > problems with glare? Also is there anything you would change on the > trim system or nare you completly happy with it the way it is? Thanks Russ, I get a lot of great comments on the panel. I haven't had any problems with glare. At dusk it does reflect in the side window, but never in the front window. I like the trim the way it is. It seemed overly sensitive at first, but now that I have learned where to grab it, it works great. I tell others how to operate it and they have no trouble with it being sensitive. Pat Fagan +++ #16963 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re: N285ES Info (Floats?) UPDATE > That seems to be a BIG difference in cruise speed from the proto II > and from Pat's machine. I must have missed something in the thread here. Pat was quoted as saying 135 knots true (about 153 mph) at 19" and 2000 rpm at ten thousand feet and 10 gph. Bob's airplane does about the same speed at 23 square but that was at about 4500 feet and around 13 gph. Without doing the conversions, that looks like they ought to be about the same. +++ #16965 From: Ken Beanlands Subject: Re: Re: N285ES Info (Floats?) UPDATE I was commenting on the speeds that Tim had posted for Ed Stout's plane and how much lower they were than Pat's and The Bob's. Ken Beanlands +++ #16968 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re: N285ES Info (Floats?) UPDATE Yes, I saw that too and something isn't right there. Bob, Wil's and Pats airplanes all fall into the same speed category even though Bob's is quite a bit lighter. bd +++ #17015 From: 321Tim Subject: Re: Re: N285ES Info (Floats?) UPDATE Something I forget he mentioned, but he said that after removing his fuselage from his Jig he realized it twasn't straight......Could account for some speed....> 'I guess?' 321Tim +++ #17391 From: Pat Fagan Subject: take off distances I woke up the other morning and, lo and behold, the wind had finally quit blowing. The glider operation at my field was also closed for the day so, I thought, finally, the perfect day to go and measure some take-off performance. My wife helped me mark off some distances on the runway, then we loaded up the plane to near gross weight and taxied out. Of course, by then the wind had started to pick up. Regardless, here's the results. Density altitude 4,000. Power was applied gradually, did not hold the brakes, no flaps. No wind, 2370 lbs take off distance 650 feet Light wind 2340 lbs. 600 feet aprox. 7 knots wind 2230 lbs. 500 feet flew to another airport for fuel, D.A. there was 3000' with 22 Knots wind weight 2455 lbs. take off distance 350 feet Pat Fagan +++ #17638 From: Pat Fagan Subject: Re: #357 weight > Looks like #357 is more than a touch heavy @ 1505 lbs. > - tailwheel weight is 75 lbs. @ level > - tailwheel weight sitting on the ground = 150 lbs. > - ken Ken, welcome to the "hefty heaffer" club. Glad to hear I'm not the only one pushing the scale at 1500 lbs. You'll be pleased to know that the performance will still be outstanding on the first flight at that weight. My tail wheel weight was also 75 lbs level, but I never weighed it three point. No wonder I can't lift the darn thing up. Congratulations, you're almost there. BTW, who is doing the first flight, you or your dad? Pat Fagan +++ #17648 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re:weight We did a part by part comparison of what most people are going to put on the airplanes that Bob doesn't have, including things like a couple pounds for wood floor boards versus, aluminum, etc. We assumed a little more paint weight, the electrical stuff, etc. The result was that the pound-here-pound-there approach came up to about 150 pounds more, having nothing to do with the engine. So, it's going to be tough to build a 540 powered airplane and have it come in much below 1425-1450 pounds realistically and most people will be heavier than that. We're saying the useful is about 1050, which appears to be a little conservative. Incidentally, Montana says their amphibs weigh below 450 pounds for everything. So with a sea plane gross of 2700 pounds you wind up with a useful of 800 pounds on amphibs, which I'm told, is not bad for a float plane. It would be1000 pounds on straights. bd +++ #17670 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Re:weight Thanx, budd. This is good to know--now I can feel like I've done well if #164 comes in at 1500 lbs or less. Comparing to The Bob's weight would be a certain setup for disappointment. Pat--start preparing my membership card for the "Hefty Heifer" club... Russ Erb +++ #16772 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Re:weight Having learned what I've learned over the last year while rebuilding my airplane and what I've seen with our demonstrators, I'd say that you ought to come in around 1425-1450 and the big variance is going to be in finish and interior material. On an airplane like this, it's super easy to add 30-50 pounds in unnecessary finish. If I were building one, I'd consider polishing the wings and putting a stripe on them and doing the thinnest Stits I could on the fabric with a PPG single coat of base color. bd +++ #17972 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: what the... where's the...S..T...no...%#!!!#&@*@%$#!... Let's talk (read? type?) for a few minutes about the theory of parking brake use. This is based on my experience with typical Air Force use of parking brakes. The main point is that a parking brake is used for short term use, like a maximum of about 5 minutes. For anything longer than that, get out the wheel chocks. Aircraft parking brakes are not used like car parking brakes, where you apply the parking brake, get out and leave it overnight. Times you would apply an aircraft parking brake: 1. When no one is around to pull your chocks after engine start. Apply the parking brake, remove the chocks, start the engine, do the before taxi checklist, release parking brake and taxi. 2. Apply the parking brake while doing your run-up. This reduces the chance of rolling while you are concentrating on something else, such as magneto rpm drop. 3. Apply the parking brake when pulling into the parking spot, especially if the spot has enough slope that the airplane wants to roll out of position. Place chocks in position. Release parking brake. Even when using the parking brake, especially with the engine running, the copilot/passenger should watch for any aircraft movement, showing that the brakes are not holding. I've seen it happen numerous times. Always chock the airplane or tie it down when it will be left for any period of time. My interpretation of what Pat was saying he should have done: 1. Pull airplane out of hangar. 2. Apply parking brake, especially if airplane would move otherwise. 3. Place chocks, release parking brake (if leaving for longer than about 5 minutes) 4. Do whatever you need to do. This would have minimized the chances of having to do later surgery on his Bearhawk. Clear 'nuff? Russ Erb +++ #17998 From: "fourthwedge" Subject: Parking Brakes and Hand Propping All this discussion regarding parking brakes has me wondering about their usefulness and safety in a hand propping situation? What is the proper procedure for hand starting a single engine airplane the size of a Bearhawk if the battery goes dead and you don't have anyone to stand on the brakes for you? Would you rely entirely on a parking brake (if you're lucky enough to have one)? Just using a set of chocks seems a bit risky with all the jumping, shaking and prop blast that accompanies the usual start. (Not to mention a creeping throttle) You'd still have to retrieve the chocks and get mounted if everything else did go right. What about carrying one of those "doggy tie-down corkscrews" with you so that you could screw it into the ground and tie the airplane off to it with some kind of a slip knot; then jump back into the cockpit, yank on the rope and take off. Course, you'd lose the corkscrew and maybe the rope that way but probably not as many body parts. Wouldn't work too good on asphalt either. Hummm, might be a little rough on the next guy that came through if you leave too much sticking up too. I dunno, how do you Alaskan bush pilot types do it? Carry a spare battery? If Murphy has his way, and he will, we'll all have to figure it out someday. Parking brakes are looking better by the minute. (Aren't they?) Dave (Nearby tornadoes helping my rosy outlook) +++ #18001 From: Russ and Penny Erb Subject: RE: Parking Brakes and Hand Propping If'n you don't have someone to stand on the brakes, my recommendation is to get the battery charged, or install an external power adapter (I am). If you're caught in the backwoods by yourself with a dead battery, it sounds to me like you made several big mistakes prior to getting there. I don't have a good answer, other than the expendable tie-down. If you expect this to be an ongoing problem, you might want to install a glider tow hook on the tailwheel. Russ Erb +++ #18007 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Parking Brakes and Hand Propping Having been a observer and then actively involved, in two runaway propping incidents make it a hard rule that you never hand prop an airplane without someone in it (as per FAR's), or if stuck, tie it down and chock it, start it, untie it and "walk" your way out of the chocks with power and brakes. A great reusable, pilot-removable tail tiedown rig can be made from one of the old over-center military safety belt buckles. 1. Fasten the buckle to a piece of 3/32 cable with a loop in the free end 2. The length of the cable is slightly more than the distance from the throttle to the tailwheel 3. chain (or tie) the tailwheel in place and run one link through another. 4. snap the seat belt hook through the link, thereby locking the airplane in place 5. the end of the 3/32 cable goes around the throttle so if the airplane moves, it yanks the throttle back. 6. a piece of 1/16" cable is already attached to the locking arm of the seat belt buckle 7. start the engine 8, get in the airplane 9. pull the 1/16 cable which unlocks the seat belt buckle 10. reel the whole thing back inside and take off. bd +++ #18008 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: Parking Brakes and Hand Propping My solution plan has always included a tow hook on the tail of my project. Two/three things come to mind for its use; to hold the plane when on floats to allow for runup and to fasten the plane securely when doing testing (fuel system, etc.) and when hand propping might be necessary. I have seen several hand propped planes jump their chocks when the engine started and the throttle had been inadvertently left firewalled. Bruce A. Frank +++ #18034 From: "Bruce A. Frank" Subject: Re: elevator control > our test pilot has asked for any input regarding elevator control > (or lack of) when landing at low power settings? He is currently > testing a bushmaster and said it would be nice to have a little more > control under these conditions. Could any of you that have flown the > bearhawk input to this. thanks - ken The (Alaskan) Bushmaster usually uses the original TriPacer tail feathers. Some V-6 STOL builders have opted for the Super Cub empennage because they felt they need more elevator and rudder. The Bushmaster and the V-6 STOL have the same length fuselage and the same wings so requirements may be similar. I have had only one person who is using the OEM TriPacer tail tell me that there was not enough near-stall-speed authority. Now I think maybe I should look into the larger rudder and elevator size for my project. Ask him if there is much difference in elevator control with and with out flaps. Bruce A. Frank +++ #18035 From: Pat Fagan Subject: Re: elevator control > our test pilot has asked for any input regarding elevator control > (or lack of) I don't know what to compare it to, but the elevator is very responsive. I haven't experienced any problems with not having enough rudder or elevator control at low power settings. I'm not so sure I can say the same for the ailerons in a stiff crosswind, but that may just be technique. I hope to work that out with BD when I visit him next week. At the forward CG you will be making the first flights at the plane is very solid and stable. At the rearward CG limits, it feels a lot more twitchy, until you get used to the need for a lighter touch. Hope that helps. Pat Fagan +++ #18125 From: Lynn Riggs Subject: Re: elevator control EAA's Sports Aviations in the last few issues has detailed how to develop performance envelopes for aircraft. It would be real nice if those that have flying Bearhawk would develop those enelopes and post thier results on the web board along with the HP rates of thier engines. It was under Stick and Rudder, Test Pilot. Lynn Riggs +++ #18126 From: Benton Holzwarth Subject: Performance Testing (was: elevator control) > It would be real nice if those that have flying Bearhawk would > develop those enelopes and post thier results on the web board along > with the HP rates of thier engines. < Budd, you were involved in creating the TC program, do you know anything more about this -- Wally Anderson, one of the EAA Homebuilt Council folks, came to a chapter meeting last month. One of the things he mentioned was a new program EAA HQ is testing. He was soliciting volunteers who would be approaching their first flights soon to try it out -- 'XP3'. It wasn't altogether clear, but I gather it tries to roll up Tech-Councilor visits, Flight Advisor participation and then a program of flight testing through a set of materials similar to, but more simplified or systematic than, the Ed Kolano article series. I got the impression that it's only in 'prototype' form at this point, but if anyone is interested in this, you might contact Wally at 'info@synergyair.com' to ask... Benton +++ #18128 From: Budd Davisson Subject: Re: Performance Testing (was: elevator control) I was one of the committee (which finally boiled down to two, Norm Howell and me) who put together the Flight Advisory system, but I know nothing about their XP3 thing. I'd be interested to find out. bd +++ $Id: 6.2-Ops-Flight,v 1.14 2003/05/22 04:18:14 bentonh Exp $