ready to order plans.....

[fairchild]

I am ready to order my plans... but which one ! I like the patrol and I like the beta. I think the 2 main deciding factors would be engine cost and
ease of entering and exiting and general associated interior comfort.
i would assume - enginewise- I 'd be comparing some kind of O-360 or IO-360 for the patrol vs. some kind of O-540 or IO-540 for the 4 place.
Fuel consumption for both sizes seems to be identical for the same air speed..... so it comes down to comparative parts cost for the rebuild. (assuming a high time core used)
(and the lyc. vs. continental thing)

I am thinking... that its more pleasant to sit beside a passenger (or instructor) vs. tandem..... maybe getting in and out a little less gymnastic ?
How would yall compare the comfort between them once you are in and situated inside ? I havnt gotten to sit inside either yet.....
I would guess the Patrol might be a little more streamlined and less draggy since it has a smaller frontal area....

I really could do either..... more cargo room is nice ---- but maybe a 360 might have more good used parts floating around .....(?)
I hadnt considered a 360 powered 4 place---- figured if I wanted THAT levle of performance I'd be thinking of a cessna 172 (not that its a bad plane- i like them too)
I WAS thinking a 200 HP version of a 360 might be fun for the patrol....... (?)

Decisions-decisions..... :-) Somebody help me ! ( "Isnt somebody going to help that poor man?" ---- Mel Brooks's blazing saddles )

Tim

[jaredyates]

The 360 4-Place performs better than a Cessna 172 in all measures except cruise speed, where I'd say it is comparable. The side-by-side vs tandem is a matter of preference. I have flown next to lots of folks of average size and haven't found it to be cramped. The 360 and 540 will pretty much burn the same at a given airspeed, but the takeoff/climb power will be 10gph more on the 540. There are 50% more pistons, plugs, valves, etc to maintain (or fail) and you'll probably spend on the order of $10k more. Have you decided on what your mission will be once the airplane is completed?

[fairchild]

Hi Jared-
No specific mission..... just a very nice all arround flying machine. I noticed that the overhaul prices at FBO's seemed to be 8-10K more for the 540.
I guess a conservative approach would be a patrol with a 360 (of some kind) and aluminum fixed pitch prop (?)

This is to be my first home built. I have about 4 years as an AMT. helping my relative restore his fairchild F-24 (round engine). I remarked to him that
I could scratch build a bearhawk with way less hours than he has put into his restoration. --- tho his will be museum quality when it is done in a few months.

just have to decide which one to pull the trigger on- Seems like a 360 patrol might be a "safe" pick with fewer avenues of difficulty for construction.

Tim

[jaredyates]

One of the things I really like about a 360-powered airplane is that we can just go fly around and not feel so bad about burning a lot of expensive fuel. I'm usually below 8000 feet DA, and very frequently have four people. So that's why I have a 360-powered 4-place.

As you know, it's not possible to make an airplane that does everything, so you have to decide which levers to adjust to make the best compromise.

It's funny, when I'm on a 4-hour cross country, I think it sure would be nice to have an extra 50 knots of cruise. Sometimes it would be nice to be able to climb to 10k feet in 6 minutes. When we are going on vacation, I think it would be nice to have 6 seats to take along more friends. There are always times when the airplane doesn't do as much as we'd like, but that's because it isn't a magic flying carpet.

Even though it doesn't seem like you have a clear mission, odds are that you do have one hiding in there somewhere. Deciding on what your mission is will help narrow down the compromises. For example, will 70% of your flying be you by yourself going up for a 20 minute hop at sunset? Or will you most often by flying with someone else to go eat lunch 30nm away? Even if you're at 50% XC and 50% local, you still have a mission, it's just split between two different, somewhat exclusive, uses. And as you also probably know, it's important to think about what you'll be doing for most of your flying, not just the occasional outlier flight.

[whee]

Jared pretty much covered it.

Airplane choice is a personal thing so while others opinions can be a great help it really just comes down to what you need/want. For me, I don't see much use for a two place tandem unless it was purely a toy like an RV4. It would be something I could go play in after work or on a Sunday afternoon. For my primary plane I want something that can haul a significant load with ample space for whatever. On top that, I have a wife and kids and my primary mission will be adventures with the family...I really need a Cessna 207...

First thing I'd do if I were you is look up some Bearhawk owners and go visit them. See if they will let you fly there plane a bit to see if you like how it flies and go from there.

I've gone for a ride in a O540 BH and have some time in a O360 BH. The 540 is a hotrod, super fun to fly and just cool...kinda like a 800hp diesel pickup. The 180hp BH was nice flying, had great performance, and provided all the utility I needed...just like my bone stock diesel pickup. The only thing I was disappointed with when flying the O360 BH was the cruise speed. A friend with a O540 BH cruises at the same speed on the same fuel. If I were going to install a Lyc it would be a 540.

[fairchild]

Wow- Here I was worried I was overthinnking it..... :-)
I have a ford F-350 that i just converted to a mechanical (92) cummins 6bt. It too is an exercise in opposites in a way..... i did some internal upgrades when I went through
the engine so it COULD make more horses if I wanted...... but i retained the tiny stock injectors and it probably makes 190-200 hp as a guess. I put the cummins in because
of the horrific reputation of the 6.0 that was in it before. I didnt want or need 400-800 hp to pull sleds at the county fair (though they DO that very well !) Wanted a reliable-
relatively good MPG machine. By that same type of logic it seems like the 4 place bearhawk will by its nature be able to wear many more hats than the 2 place patrol.

I have watched for a long time for a deal on a citrabia (or champ) project-- but just about every one is either an old and rusty airframe or been twisted up in a bad incident---- So some of my
logic is why not have a MUCH better performing plane that will have brand new tubing...... and be the bast plane it can be.... (go Army!)

So it sounds like to me--- for any utility functionality (even if only occasionally) --- the 4 place is better hands down. Thats all most enough to swing it right there seems like......

Jared---- do you have the 180 hp or 200 hp engine ? ( Isnt that your airplane I have seen in a Youtube taking off with 4 people and baggage? )
Jim Clevinger is here in my general area -- he has built 2 bearhawks-- but I understand that he has sold them some time ago.....
Got to see the orange light-sport one at sun-n-fun but it want flying when I was there.....jut sitting by its lonesome.....

Thanks for the thought provoking ideas------ I guess I just have to decide......
Tim

[fairchild]

After some more thought---- seems like the 4 place is the way to go. Looks way easier to get into and out of. More space is good. Sounds like it flies fine
with a O-360 if need be. Seems like the patrol is just more preserving aesthetics of tradition....... but I think the 4 seater puts the U back into utility......
I think any trip longer than a day trip -- the extra baggage space would pay off. Also I suspect there may be a slight speed increase with the B model due to the
airfoil horizonal ????
I think its going to be the 4 place B.
Tim
PS-- Isnt it the most practical home built ever designed ? from both a construction and end use standpoint ??????

[Bcone1381]

I'll race ya when your done!

Are you picking up a quick build kit too, or building from scratch?