185 vs. Bearhawk

[Zac Weidner]

I'd like to start off by saying; please forgive me for posting so many questions about the Bearhawk. I've been busy with harvest for the past 2 months, but I'm getting finished up and beginning to think about airplanes again. I think the only way for me to really decide some of these things is to find someone to take me flying in both models, but I'm wanting to get as much input as possible.
This afternoon I took a short (50nm) trip up to Jacksonville, IL for a baptism with my family of 4 in the Tri-Pacer. We could have taken the Twin Comanche and shaved off 10 minutes or so, but the whole time, I was thinking about how much more fun I was having with the high wing and being able to sit back and enjoy the scenery. That is what flying is truly all about for myself, and I don't want to give that up by having only a low-wing aircraft. However, I want to be able to go places and take more than the Tri-Pacer sometimes merits. I've narrowed it down to thinking the 180 or 185 or the Bearhawk are my options for this mission. Have any of you flown all 3 to compare? I know real life performance varies in 40+ year old airplanes, but it appears that the 185 has a respectably higher useful load and around 10 knots higher cruise. I would think this is probably due mostly to higher HP, but are there some airframe differences that I'm not aware of? I also have read that the 185 is a much heavier feeling airplane. Perhaps it would not be such a joy to fly as a BH or 180? I think, based on the current values of the Cessna airframes, that I could end up with a better equipped airplane for the same value as a QB BH, but I also know it's a big investment of my time to build a homebuilt. However, I know I'm up to the task if I'm sure the end result will please me for years to come.

Mark has gotten in touch with a fellow up in WI that is willing to take my father and I for a flight when I get the time, so I will most likely be doing that sometime. I also need to find someone around here with a 180 and 185 that would be willing to do the same.

Like I said, sorry for posting so many questions, but I'm just wanting to get as much input as possible to aid in decision making here.

Thank you for your time,

Zac Weidner

[Flygirl1]

Zak, if it makes any difference to you the homebulid allows you to do your own annuals and be your own mechanic, which in my opinion, for what it's worth, is worth way more than any differences in those two aircraft. Also once your done building the accomplishment of what you did is awesome!! I have not flown the Bearhawk enough to say, but the little itty bitty time I did have in Mark Goldbergs was the controls are very light compared to the 185. I have had a lot of time in the 185 and it kinda reminds me of the difference between a car and a truck, where the 185 is the truck. But I'm a Female and a guy might not find the controls as heavy?? There is a bit of a difference between the 180 and 185, but I think the Bearhawk is still lighter on the controls. My original thought was the Scout, but to get the light feel of the Bearhawk, you need spades-YUK!! D.

[Mark Moyle]

Personally...my preference is the Bearhawk hands down.. Dave Robert's 260 hp Bearhawk is like no 185 I've flown...absolute hot rod! Although...I would have the 185 with the IO520D....that is if I weren't building a Bearhawk with the 300 hp continental.....it's on the back burner whilst I rebuild my Pacer. Then to compare the Bearhawk to a Maule M7.... No comparison...like comparing a corvette to a chevette. Did my bi-annual this year in a 180 hp M7. Aileron and rudder effectiveness sorely lacking compared to a shortwing and the Bearhawk...so don't go there.

[Wayne Massey]

You do realize you are asking a bias crowd right?

Sounds like you are in the same thought process as I was when I first considered the Bearhawk. I have flown several hours in all three aircraft. I've always been a huge fan of the C180 and C185. If there were no such thing as a Bearhawk I be a C180 owner. The C180/185 is a great airplane. As already mentioned the C180/185 handles differently - its heaver in the controls. Not that it’s a big deal it’s just a difference than the Bearhawk. The Bearhawk is lighter in the controls and requires less input. The Bearhawk feels sportier in the controls. Plus I prefer the stick over the yoke. The Bearhawk has the advantage of a huge cargo door also.

If I were to own a C180 it would be an early model, 57' 58' range so with the Bearhawk there is the advantage of owning a new airframe vrs and old airframe. There is added expense when owning an older airframe that needs to be included in the operating expense. Most likely the less you pay for the initial sale price of the C180/185 the potential there is for unforeseen expense. Also as mentioned you can do the required maintenance on your own Bearhawk as the builder.

After I compared the C180/185 and Bearhawk it was an easy decision for me. Now having flown several hours in Bearhawks it has made me even more confident in my decision to go Bearhawk. I’m just grateful there is such a great homebuilt aircraft like the Bearhawk available that I didn’t have to compromise my initial goal of owning a C180 comparable airplane.

[whee]

Like I've said before, if I could have afforded the purchase price of a 180H that's what I would be flying right now but I couldn't. There are also other financial reasons why I chose a BH but it seems you aren't all that concerned with ownership costs so I won't go there. I think your on the right track by looking for rides in the various airplanes and making your own judgment. I've never flown a 185 but I've flow a C180, 182, 206 and 207. only for an hour each except the 182, and really they all felt good on the controls to me. Sure the 207 was heavier than the 180/2 but it is a bigger plane. To me a BH is a flying SUV and it handles like one. A 185 is a flying truck. If you want a plane that handles like a sports car go buy a RV4. I think by the time you hang a big engine and add a 108 gallons of fuel your aren't going to have a light feeling airplane anyways. But, for the purchase price of a 185 you could buy a pretty sweet already built Bearhawk.

I don't know what to think about the speed. Both BHs I've flown weren't as fast as a C180 but I know other BH owners say their planes are as fast as a C180. It has to be about how the builder finished the plane. Hopefully next summer I'm get to put my BH up against a friends C180

Honestly, I don't think you can go wrong either way.

[Zac Weidner]

I should have mentioned that the cost of ownership is the reason we're wanting to get rid of the two airplanes we have currently. I would never consider any other airplanes if cost of ownership wasn't a concern, because I believe these two airplanes fill both ends of the spectrum for us right now, but we just can't afford to spend what needs spent on the twin, and still have the normal maintenance expenses down the road. We're both A&P's and dad's an IA, so the costs are as low as possible already.
I'm pretty sure the BH would be as affordable to maintain as anything I've looked at, and the Cessnas, I'm sure, are going to have all the usual things an old airplane has to deal with. Probably not as much as a retractable twin, but more than the BH or the Tri-Pacer. The Tri-Pacer is about as simple as airplanes come, and I think the BH with a fixed pitch prop will be about the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[whee]

In my opinion there are three reasons to go with an experimental rather than a certified airplane.

1. You can do your own annuals.
You already have that covered since you dad is an IA and you can easily become an IA.

2. You don't need the FAA's blessing to do mods.
With a plane like the C185 all the mods you could possibly want are already STCd. Only thing missing is reasonably priced EFIS but if your like me and don't care about a fan glass panel then that doesn't matter.

3. Replacement parts are less expensive or you can build them yourself.
"Owner produced parts." And since your the guy doing the annuals you don't have to convince a mechanic that the parts you built are safe; you only have to convince yourself just like you would with an EAB.

Here's how the fixed costs worked out for me purchase price aside. Obviously a very basic breakdown.

C180
Annual Inspection: $1000
Squawk repairs: Unknown and not fixed so not included (IA allows me to do the repairs myself so this is only parts cost)
Squawk repair inspection: $60/hr (typicality I hour)
Insurance: $1600/yr ($1200/yr once 100hrs in make/model)
Storage (tiedowns): $120

Total fixed costs: $2780/yr

Bearhawk
Condition Inspection: $0
Squawk repairs: Unknown and not fixed so not included (repairs done myself so this is only parts cost)
Squawk repair inspection: $0
Insurance: $2600/yr ($1800/yr once 100hrs in make/model)
Storage (tiedowns): $120

Total fixed costs: $2720/yr

It was uncanny how the numbers worked out and it made my decision that much harder. What it ultimately came down to was the unknown repair costs. If I had a engine issue on a C180 I'd be stuck paying for a mechanics time to tear it down, send out the parts for repair, then reassemble and that would be very expensive. That's just one example. If I had my IA then the C180 would have been the clear winner from the financial standpoint. Either airplane would have been satisfactory to me performance wise.

Unless you really want to build an airplane for the enjoyment of building then I'd suggest buying either a flying BH or buy a C180/185.

[cgalutera1]

Are you sure about the costs of experimental vs. certified aircrafts? I get different answers especially on experimental aircrafts. Some say I still need to go through the FAA inspection just like certified ones. At what point when the FAA inspections ends? I just don't like paying just because the person is "certified".

Carlo

[Bdflies]

Zac, it sounds like you've got the maintenance issues covered, with certified aircraft. And you seem to be comparing the right planes, although I'd include the M7 Maule, in the conversation. All of these airplanes are heavy lifting, STOL operators. Speeds are dependant on how heavy and how much gas you want to burn. They're all reasonably close, in that regard.
The most important issue, by far, was buried in Whee's last sentence. Do you want to build an airplane? Make no mistake about it, it takes a different personality to commit to and stick with the tasks required to build a plane. If you're not passionate about the building process, buy an airplane. Maybe you should buy a Bearhawk. Maybe you should get a C-185. (I know of a pristine, low time, beautiful example for sale!). In my mind, the real decision shouldn't be which plane, but whether or not you want to be a builder.

Bill

[whee]

Well said Bill!

I admit, I'm not a builder, I'm building out of necessity and there have been months were it has been downright miserable. I'm more of a flying project guy. But, if I could afford to own a flying plane while building another then I'd love to build another airplane.

[Battson]

The 180 and Bearhawk are comparable, of course I think the BH is the better machine.
The 185 is a totally different aircraft and not really in the same league as the Bearhawk, it's a level up. It's more like a Murphy Super Rebel.

[Zac Weidner]

The 180 and Bearhawk are comparable, of course I think the BH is the better machine.
The 185 is a totally different aircraft and not really in the same league as the Bearhawk, it's a level up. It's more like a Murphy Super Rebel.

I've gathered this from the past few months, but I'm trying to figure out what makes it so much different? Isn't it the same airframe more or less, except with a bigger engine?(and some 180's are upgraded to the same HP)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kestrel]

I've gathered this from the past few months, but I'm trying to figure out what makes it so much different? Isn't it the same airframe more or less, except with a bigger engine?(and some 180's are upgraded to the same HP)

Older 180's are lighter than the 185. The 185 is built for a heavier load and more power. More recent 180's are the same airframe as a 185 so they are heavier, but with less power. The differences are in empty weight, useful load and power. The right 180 with an engine upgrade probably has be best performance, but perhaps less useful load. Of course, there are mods for gross weight increases too. ...but I presume the empty weight keeps going up as you make it more like a 185.

[Zac Weidner]

I was doing some reading on the 180/185 forums, and I came up with another question and possibly a negative of the Bearhawk. They were talking about the difference in CG range between a 175 and a 180, and it sounds like it's mostly due to the trimmable horizontal stabilizer on the 180 vs. trim tabs on the 175. Does anyone know why the Bearhawk got a trim tab instead of a trimmable stabilizer? It sounds like the BH has CG limitations, so why not fit it with a trimmable stab. with a jackscrew? It might be too big of a project and too "Experimental" to change it. It sounds like the trim tab has some negative performance issues, namely the "pitchy" feel, so perhaps this would be a viable fix for that issue?

[akb3]

I've never been in a Bearhawk. But I've been in plenty of 180 / 185's. The Cessna's will probably out run a 260 hp Bearhawk by 10 kts if they've got a 520 or 550 in them (145 kts), from the numbers I've seen, but that is absolutely the ONLY thing that is a negative. Bearhawk wins every other category hands down in my opinion. Plus, I'm a Super Cub driver, and stick vs yoke is a no brainer as well. Stick all the way!

[rv8bldr]

I was doing some reading on the 180/185 forums, and I came up with another question and possibly a negative of the Bearhawk. They were talking about the difference in CG range between a 175 and a 180, and it sounds like it's mostly due to the trimmable horizontal stabilizer on the 180 vs. trim tabs on the 175. Does anyone know why the Bearhawk got a trim tab instead of a trimmable stabilizer? It sounds like the BH has CG limitations, so why not fit it with a trimmable stab. with a jackscrew? It might be too big of a project and too "Experimental" to change it. It sounds like the trim tab has some negative performance issues, namely the "pitchy" feel, so perhaps this would be a viable fix for that issue?

Hey Zac

I think the reason for the "pitchy" feel on the Bearhawk is from the servoed trim tab design where the tab changes angle relative to the elevator with stick movement. I'm changing the design to be similar to Pat Fagan's and Whee's where the tabs are driven by a cable and bellcrank in the fuselage. With this design the tabs do not move relative to the elevator with stick movement.

I'm waaaayyyyy more comfortable making this change than engineering and manufacturing a jackscrew mechanism for the horizontal stab.

Cheers