185 vs. Bearhawk

[JCD23]

Where can I find more about Pat Fagan’s Trim Mod?

[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

[Glenn Patterson]

I agree. I think by the time a person factored in all their costs honestly that the cost saved by putting the labour into a scratch is small. The years of labour to get the scratch built to the level of the kit likely leads to burnout. If a person expends the same energy of scratch building to get the construction to the state of a kit to completing a kit they will be done years sooner and less likely to burn out. It is idealistic thinking that if a person does all the work themselves that they will have an inexpensive airplane. It takes the same qty of materials, consumables, instrumentation, power plants etc for a flying aircraft built from scratch or a kit. The only savings a scratch builder can put into the equation is labour. All the costs to support the labour of scratch building with tools, equipment, consumables, shop operating costs etc cuts the savings to a point that is very low. A person would not work for an employer at that rate retired or not. Burn out is serious risk and may be why there are so many homebuilts of every variety for sale in various stages of completion. The partners in our scratch build made the commitment to complete the build and we held one another to that commitment. We are at the point where it is ready to fly and want the construction out of our lives.

Realistically a person could get a second job at a higher rate than the hourly rate than their scratch built labour equates to in order to pay for the kit and be better off. The savings in life hours could justify the second job.
Glenn

[JimParker256]

I found it even "cheaper" to let Mark Goldberg and AviPro do all that purchase negotiating for me, including negotiating the skilled labor to weld up the fuselage and build up the major portion of the wings... My time may not be worth much there days (retired), but avoiding aggravation and frustration is priceless... And I hope to eventually see my airplane fly - which I'm not sure would have happened if I tried to scratch build... LOL

[Glenn Patterson]

Thank you. It is experience from a different perspective. Normally consumables are not on a person’s radar but it is a lot of small spending that quietly rolls up into a good number. Another factor common to budget estimating is a 10% for contingency and higher if there is serious risk. My partner was frustrated when I started to talk about consumables and after awhile he just surrendered. We laugh about it now.

We found over a life time of project experience that most of the 10% contingency is spent and the project usually squeaks in just under budget. The accountants took contingencies away so we bloated all the costs 10% in self defense. Eventually the bean counters figured it out and allowed contingency to return to the budget.

This is how people get stung on home renovations as they only see the big numbers and have no awareness to budget for contingencies or for other costs that sneak in. It comes as a shock when the money runs out. I designed an expansion and a make over of a friends house. He was upset and angry with me when I told him it would be cheaper to take a backhoe to his old house and start fresh. I told him to add in about 15% for contingencies as it was an old house and god knows what they may find when the opened it up. He listened to me and secured the loan approval at the higher numbers. We were talking later and he told me it would have been easier if he had knocked it down. There was a lot of work stripping and renewing an old structure so the labour is almost double. His contingencies went to repairing dry rot and upgrading the old structures where it was inadequate.

The best thing for a scratch builder is to claw costs back where possible. We combined the aluminum order with a fellow builder and got a 10% discount for volume. Credit cards clip the vendors and it is factored into the costs. I ask if I can get a discount for cash. Most will give 5% without a second thought. I secured large orders with my MasterCard so they can assemble the order and the vendor released it when the cheque arrived. We had all the aluminum for the entire project in one purchase except we had to buy a part sheet to finish the wing and stabilizer fairings. We saved $660 with seeking quotes and negotiating for cash. I went out for quotes to several vendors then negotiated with the lowest bidder. The lower vendor had knocked 10% off for the volume and I asked for the discount for cash. It does not matter to the vendor if I get the discount for cash or he gets clipped by the credit card company as credit cards are factored into everyone's pricing. It is better to give the customer the break for cash as he will be back. We bundled all the steel into one order and went to the market. The steel vendor gave us a 10% discount for volume and I asked if we could have a discount for cash so they offered 10%. The savings on the steel was around $600. We did the same with ordering all the hardware in one bundle to save about $500 over the catalog prices. The piece mealing of materials over time is a budget killer and pay as one plays is expensive. Better to negotiate the best deals on volume and use PLC if it takes a few months to pay off. We bought the aluminum out of pocket and set an amount aside each month to build a fund and the money was there when we had to buy the steel. When the fuselage was done the money was there. If a person bought a plane they would have monthly payments so the same mentality needs to apply to building. Take the project & use the best business sense possible.

Building an airplane is a multi year project and builders should have some factors estimated in.

Glenn

[DemoDollCate]

Consumables, I would not have given them a thought. Loved reading your breakdown of it Glenn.

[Glenn Patterson]

You are considering a Bearhawk at a great time as the new 4 place version 2.0 is just about to come out. The new Bearhawk Bravo has the improved handling and greater speed built into it from the lessons learned with the patrol. We finally have our BH 4place running and getting close to final inspection after 12 years. We were told at the outset to go with a kit from a scratch builder and we elected to scratch build. The airplane is a nice piece of work and is one to be proud of. The savings with the QB kit in terms of years is priceless in my opinion and we regret that we did not take the sage advice of experience.

Assembling a kit shaves thousands of hours out of the build and the learning process. I cannot say how many 100's of hours are involved in home schooling one's self for the scratch build process. Building a kit with the knowledge and skills in your family would make this process go a lot faster. For most of us the learning curve is vertical. Stay on the traveled path of other builders when it comes to power plants and stick to the plans. Most common engines with lots of experience are the Lycoming 360's or derivatives, Lycoming 540's and Continental 470's. We went off the path with a Continental IO-360 210hp. It will be good but I know of 2 others with no BH experience to lean on. I had to go to the Cessna 170 forums for advice as this is a regular upgrade with 170's and 172's. It took time to research the idiosyncrasies of the engine, best prop & governor, and a unique engine mount. We mocked up a custom exhaust and had it built and had to modify the two halves of the typical BK nose bowl, I had to create a mock up of the bottom half, made a female mold and then cast the part. It looks great but a lot of hours chewed up walking off the path. We emulated the pressure cowl to get good airflow through the engine, set the exhaust up to have a good clear air exit lane and rounded the lower firewall to make it friendly for the air exit. All the work seems to have paid off as the nose bowl cowl arrangement is clean and it can run with good engine temperatures. The front 2 cylinders run cooler at idle until the throttle is applied. The cylinder temps are all the same with power applied. A lot of thought, attention to details and fingers crossed that the cooling worked, It is an accomplishment but again ground up 100's of hours that could have been avoided following the regular BH power plant choices. It is done and will sip fuel so it will be good to see how it behaves in the long term.

Keep it simple, fabric interior and get it done faster. Sell one of the airplanes to finance the kit and enjoy flying the other until the BH Bravo is ready to fly. To get the build done requires more dedication than procrastination. Those who set their airplane projects on the back burner are the least likely to return to it with the enthusiasm it takes. There will be some days where you would rather be anywhere else but turn the radio on and power through it. Progress fuels the spirit to continue to the next phase. The kit eliminates the tedium of making countless parts, tooling etc.jigs, welding, a small fortune in shipping costs to accumulate materials and parts. With a kit the visual progress is bigger and the progress will be a quantum leap as the way the kit arrives is what all of us scratch builders envy & strive for. The QB kit is an excellent start point. A friend who built a Murphy Rebel was admiring our completed wings. He commented that when you think your are 95% done there is 85% to go go. There was never a more prophetic statement. It is important to maintain work life balance with the Mrs. and kids. Especially the Mrs. as it would be nice to still have her there long after the airplanes and kids are gone.

Consumables. No one ever talks about consumable but scratch built consumables impose a good cost into the project. I have 40 years of project engineering design, construction and management. Consumables on a job are usually in the range of 10%. One of my partners absolutely hates the term now as the consumables would pay for a great all inclusive trip to the Caribbean. What are consumables? Construction tables, sandpaper, sheets of MDF, welding gases, grinding discs, sanding belts, long and short cobalt drill bits, scuff pads, primer, paint, jigs, support frames for wings, nails, screws, miles of masking tape, printer cartridges, solvents, alcohol, silicone and wax remover ad infinitum. Add to the overall costs are years of utilities such as fuel to heat the shop, & years of electrical cost for the shop. We give our partner $1k a year for fuel and electricity and he is likely coming up short being in a colder area.

Tooling specific to the build such as routers, router bits, grinders, welding equipment, rivet squeezers, large c frame for dimpling, dozens of clamps, hundreds of clecoes, cleco pliers, temporary spray booth. Avoiding the majority of the cost of the consumables, a lot of tooling and a pile of shipping would pay for half of a quick build wing. The consumables in a project are a dead loss. In hindsight consumables are hard to ignore. The definition of experience is something one has when they are finished that they could have really used when they started.

If one assigns half the consumable cost to the wing with shipping and some tools at $5k, wing materials around $4k and 3 -4 years of shop utility costs at $3k that totals about $13k. The wing kit is $19k so that leaves $6k for labor. Eric Newtons log gives 1225 hours to complete the wings. So to be kinder & keep the math simple lets say 1000 hours that means a person's time is less than $6/hr. Newton took 1225 hours to scratch build a pair of wings and 111 hours to complete the patrols QB wings. The difference is 1114 hours or a half year of labour savings based on a 40 hr work week. The same thinking would apply to the fuselage. It gives thought as to how many hours of ones regular work went into paying for the scratch built consumables, utilities and shipping costs that add no value to the airplane.

This is not to be negative but to show the advantage of a quick build kit to get flying sooner with little difference in final costs. There was an article years ago in the Beartracks of an AME completing a quick build kit in less than a year. He would have dedicated a good deal of time in a short window. His advantage is that he had the skills to charge through the project while most of us are learning on the fly. You have the skillset to get completed quickly and the ability to keep costs down.

Glenn
BH727

[Battson]

So from some of the reports I'm seeing - a Bearhawk with a O-540 is about 10Knots slower then a Cessna 180 with a O-470 (is that what others are seeing) What is the major drag that is slowing the plane up... maybe perhaps with the Bravo that difference would be smaller, maybe 3 knots or so slower then a 180 (assuming same size tires, etc)? Is there anything else that can be cleaned up to gain a few knots. I'm trying to avoid calling my buddies (all 180 guys) and asking them to pull back power and let me catch up. One thing I noticed is the windshield on the bearhawk seams to be at less of angle (not as aerodynamic compared to a 180) - or am I off there? Nothing that can really be done I about that. I guess one could put on something to clean up the landing gear shock strut - I think there is something on Bob's site for the shock strut fairing.

But hey - if with the Bravo Bearhawk ends up being 3-4 Knots slower then a 180... I can live with that - lots of pluses on the Bearhawk side.

Lots of guys say their 180 is 10kts faster than a Bearhawk.... But when I fly with them they don't seem to be able to pull away at that kind of speed. Maybe their 50 year old instruments aren't so accurate any more. Sure they are often a little faster, but they have tires about 1/3 the size of mine and no VGs installed, so that has to be considered.

My plane is certainly slower than a fast 180 (small tires and no VGs) in a high altitude cruise situation, if we use the same power settings. About 2" MAP slower, to look at it another way, it wouldn't be 10kts, probably more like 5 to 6kts. So I therefore assume they are capable of similar speeds with a similar fit-out (tires / VGs). I think the flying wires and tailwing braces are the key source of drag which differentiates the two designs, those things add drag like nobodies business. I don't think the windscreen is a big deal, the shape is still aerodynamic, it's the total frontal area which counts.

But then again, in different circumstances I have had no trouble keeping up with a slow 180 airframe, and the same for a 185 on 31" bushwheels and with VGs. I was cruising lean of peak at 120kts near sea level on a cold day, and easily able to keep up - maybe their instruments said their aircraft were going a little faster... but I wasn't getting left behind and I was burning a fraction of the fuel they were. We all had a decent load aboard during that formation flight. In fact, in a cruise-climb I was fractionally faster than both those aircraft.

As always in life, the simple rules of thumb don't hold true in every situation.

I would have a Super Cyclone before I had a 180/185

[corefile]

So from some of the reports I'm seeing - a Bearhawk with a O-540 is about 10Knots slower then a Cessna 180 with a O-470 (is that what others are seeing) What is the major drag that is slowing the plane up... maybe perhaps with the Bravo that difference would be smaller, maybe 3 knots or so slower then a 180 (assuming same size tires, etc)? Is there anything else that can be cleaned up to gain a few knots. I'm trying to avoid calling my buddies (all 180 guys) and asking them to pull back power and let me catch up. One thing I noticed is the windshield on the bearhawk seams to be at less of angle (not as aerodynamic compared to a 180) - or am I off there? Nothing that can really be done I about that. I guess one could put on something to clean up the landing gear shock strut - I think there is something on Bob's site for the shock strut fairing.

But hey - if with the Bravo Bearhawk ends up being 3-4 Knots slower then a 180... I can live with that - lots of pluses on the Bearhawk side.

[Pat Fagan]

Kevin has done the modification on his scratch built. Scott would have liked to but had already progressed beyond the point where it could be readily done. I used to have to remind myself that I was heavy before takeoff and act accordingly with pitch. I no longer have to do that as the plane now flies the same heavy or light.

[Battson]

They are different aircraft, SR2500 vs SR3500, the Moose is bigger (heavier) again. Plus the wing spar is different, stronger fittings, etc etc.

[whee]

What Mark said is absolutely true, I've never flown a BH with the PF trim system and I certainly don't take offense. Most of us will likely never get the chance until we install it on our own airplanes. These statements from Budd Davisson is what made me decide that Pats solution was the one I wanted to follow:

"BH'ers, I just came back from flying Pat Fagan's rehabilitated Smokey Bearhawk and I just want all of you to know that his modification to the trim tab system has made what was a good airplane into one that is as nearly perfect as an airplane ever gets."

"I flew the airplane at the same time that long time BH pilots Kevin Deuscher (spelling?) and Scott Williamson did and we were all wildly enthusiastic about the improved handling."

[tailwind]

What I think you will find is that the sr2500 will have far less support than our Bearhawk. Last years Oshkosh was the first year in several years that they have had a presence at Oshkosh. There is an active user group for the Murphy models. Replacement parts are hard to obtain. Prior to the new model there were no parts made until they have firm commitments for 10 new aircraft. There are also mods that need to be incorporated so that the plane is stronger. As designed it has some week areas that need to be addressed. Done right it is a nice plane. My 2 cents is that a tube and fabric plane will stand up to off airport operations better than a sheet metal aircraft. No lose rivets. Bob's design has proven to be a great compromise.

[Mark Goldberg]

Most airplanes are pitch sensitive when loaded to aft CG. All the certified planes I have flown were like that. I remember well a few flights with aft CG that got my attention.

Now I will make a comment that some might take offense to but is a fact. There is one BH flying with the trim system modified. The owner likes it. No problem it is his plane and these are homebuilts that we can do what we want with. But of all the builders planning to do this modification - I bet very few (or none) of them has flown the plane with the modified trim system. Something to consider. Mark

[whee]

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?

The plane flies hands off just fine in most situations. At extreme aft CG loads then it does take constant attention, for lots of guys this isn't a big deal and becomes something you don't even notice. I wouldn't say it is an "issue" that needs to be corrected. It is something I didn't like so I changed it. Bob doesn't mind it so as of a year ago he had no intention of changing it. If I wasn't going to be flying around with 5 people and camping gear at a far aft CG I wouldn't have changed it either.