185 vs. Bearhawk

[Zac Weidner]

I've also read since posting about the Murphy that it seems many have not had the best of luck with the factory support while building. And a heavier, more expensive aircraft is not what I'm looking for, so I guess I'll avoid that route. It also appears that 185's in the condition I'm wanting are at least $40,000 out of our price range. A 180 or Bearhawk seem to be my two best options still, and the Bearhawk has the benefit of all new construction and I get to have the satisfaction of flying my own handiwork.


So the CG range is wide on the BH, and I assume the pitch sensitivity hasn't been corrected much by the airfoil shaped horizontal stabilizer. Is there a particular reason AviPro has not corrected the trim tab issue to mirror what a few of you have done to remedy the sensitivity?

By correcting the servo trim tab, does this make it fly hands off more readily, or is it solely an issue of maneuvering better? What I'm getting at is, in cruise, is it somewhat unstable in pitch if you don't keep a constant eye on it?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kestrel]

Depending on which model 180/5 you look at the CG envelope is between 11" and 12" the BH has a 12" CG envelope so no difference.

Yeah, that. The Bearhawk has a very nice, wide CG envelope. The pitch sensitivity can be fixed by changing the operation of the trim tabs.

[kestrel]

Is the Super Rebel something I should be looking more into? I wasn't able to find a lot of data on them...

I believe the Super Rebel is now known as the Murphy Moose. They show up for sale from time to time. As Battson says, it is a larger, heavier, more expensive aircraft.

[Battson]

I know, I shouldn't be asking a biased crowd these sorts of questions, but I'm assuming at least a few of you have already done all this research.

Is the Super Rebel something I should be looking more into? I wasn't able to find a lot of data on them, so do you happen to know a few of the real specs of this airplane? It appears it's very similar but with a little higher useful load. I just don't know if it will actually do what the "calculated" specs are. I also don't see any for sale or any pricing on their website for the kits, so perhaps that would eliminate it also. The total investment is definitely the deciding factor because I think a nice 540 BH will be at the top of our price range.

When you say "similar" - I'm not sure which planes you are comparing. The Super Rebel 2500 is a totally different proposition to a Bearhawk. Imagine a different-looking 185 and you've basically understood where the Super Rebel fits in. A larger hp 540 engine, alloy skin, 6 seats, spring gear, etc. Of course the SR2500 owners will tell you about all the subtleties and how they are "totally different" to a 185 (just like all the different models / years of 185 are totally different to each other...err-emm) - but as a potential buyer, the first think you want to know is that they occupy the same operational niche. It's a bigger more expensive aircraft more suited to a heavier hauling mission, operating from nicer airfields, with different maintenance needs.

[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 know, I shouldn't be asking a biased crowd these sorts of questions, but I'm assuming at least a few of you have already done all this research.

Is the Super Rebel something I should be looking more into? I wasn't able to find a lot of data on them, so do you happen to know a few of the real specs of this airplane? It appears it's very similar but with a little higher useful load. I just don't know if it will actually do what the "calculated" specs are. I also don't see any for sale or any pricing on their website for the kits, so perhaps that would eliminate it also. The total investment is definitely the deciding factor because I think a nice 540 BH will be at the top of our price range.

[whee]

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?

I wouldn't consider trim tabs a negative; many airplanes use them and they work fine. I don't think a PF trim system is a must do item I chose to do it because I'm be flying with a really aft CG a lot and in that situation it will be beneficial. There are plenty of other BH pilots that fly their planes at aft CG and don't have a problem with it. I can't wait to fly with the PF trim system...I think it is going to be awesome.

I seriously looked at going to a jackscrew system and it would have been a major modification. Installing a jackscrew tower wouldn't have been terribly hard but designing stabilizer struts that moved with the H-stab was further into the experimental realm than I was willing to go. If you have deep pockets you could buy the PA18 tail struts from Crosswinds and modify it to fit the BH but really I don't think the benefit would be worth the time and cost.

Depending on which model 180/5 you look at the CG envelope is between 11" and 12" the BH has a 12" CG envelope so no difference.

[Bcone1381]

Post #11 in this thread under "Trip Reports" has a first hand comparison between a Bearhawk and a C-180 with a Pponk engine conversion on a trip to Alaska.

http://bearhawkforums.com/forum/trip-reports/24336-alaska-by-bearhawk

[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

[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!

[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?

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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