Bearhawk 5 vs 206

[scotthayd]

Considering a bearhawk 5 or a 206 and I'm looking for thoughts, especially from people who have flown one or both, and especially on floats.
Mission: I live in Alaska and fly mostly on floats in the summer. I love going to remote places in the mountains and landing on lakes for camping or hunting. I have five kids although not all of them are always interested in camping trips.
I fly out to hunt moose or caribou for most of my protein.
I currently have a 180 HP stretched pacer on edo 2440 floats and I love it! That huge wing is a beautiful thing.

A 185 could be good but I like the big doors on a 206 or Bearhawk. I would like better cruise speed than what I currently see, about 100 mph. Bearhawk or Cessna speeds would get me significantly longer legs for exploring Alaska.

Questions: can you load a Bearhawk 5 with 6 FAA adults and remain within W&B? Can you open the rear doors with the flaps down (safety)? What floats have people used on the 5, and how is performance?
I am assuming that with the BH wing and much lighter airframe it should eat up far less water on takeoff than the Cessna but I wonder what people are seeing?

I have been dreaming of the Bearhawk 5 ever since it first came out. It seems like the ideal backcountry heavy hauler but I'm very curious how it performs on floats and how hard it is to keep in balance and whether you can actually fill all those seats (I know camping gear with full seats would be out of the question- although maybe not with a belly pod??)

What do you all think?

[Jhankins]

The very back seat in the 5 does not sit full grown adults well, I 5'10" and my head would hit the top fuselage tubing with the slightest bounce or bump

[Allen B]

I haven’t flown a 5 yet. I’m building one but never been inside one. I have flown a ton of 206’s. Great airplane but it’s built for a slightly different mission. It’s a runway eater in comparison to the model 5. It’s also significantly heavier. I can’t imagine it’ll have the same climb performance. If I was looking at experimental, the Murphy Moose is a a much closer candidate to a 206 than the model 5. I’ve been in a Moose a few times and they are enormous inside. They have a greater useful load (3500 pounds) if meat is your mission. Similar to the 206’s they eat up a little more runway and don’t have the low end speeds that the 5 has either but if you’re looking for space, it’s the biggest option out there.

[Battson]

Questions: can you load a Bearhawk 5 with 6 FAA adults and remain within W&B? Can you open the rear doors with the flaps down (safety)?

<abridged>

What do you all think?

Opinion only, based on experience with all manner of Cessna and Bearhawk Aircraft:

I think a Bearhawk 5 is probably sitting halfway between the 185 and 206. Definitely more useful than a 185, but a 206 is sitting at another level. Especially a 206 on floats.

1. Loading six full grown adults (assuming full fuel, normal build, etc) seems unlikely to me. Even if you can get it to balance, there will certainly be no CG left for baggage. But floats may change the equation.

2. I am pretty sure the forward-swinging rear door arc interferes with the flap arc, it certainly does on the 4-place.

But I stand to be corrected!

[Allen B]

I’d be very interested in the performance on floats as well. Has anyone had one on floats? I know there’s been plenty of other Bearhawk models on floats. I don’t recall seeing a 5. My plane is to put it on floats after a few hundred hours. Seems like a fantastic plane for that mission.

[scotthayd]

I haven’t flown a 5 yet. I’m building one but never been inside one. I have flown a ton of 206’s. Great airplane but it’s built for a slightly different mission. It’s a runway eater in comparison to the model 5. It’s also significantly heavier. I can’t imagine it’ll have the same climb performance. If I was looking at experimental, the Murphy Moose is a a much closer candidate to a 206 than the model 5. I’ve been in a Moose a few times and they are enormous inside. They have a greater useful load (3500 pounds) if meat is your mission. Similar to the 206’s they eat up a little more runway and don’t have the low end speeds that the 5 has either but if you’re looking for space, it’s the biggest option out there.

My dad had a 206 on floats when I was growing up. Great airplane! But on floats with a load it ate up a lot of water. My more likely load is 4 with camping gear, which I suspect the 5 would handle at least as well as either Cessna.
The power to weight ratio and wing loading are far more favorable than the 206 or 185. Also a slower stall speed means less acceleration on draggy water, which is very helpful.
Would love to hear thoughts on this as well.

I dreamed of a Murphy Moose until the day I saw the 5. But the 5 is so much lighter!

[scotthayd]

I think a Bearhawk 5 is probably sitting halfway between the 185 and 206. Definitely more useful than a 185, but a 206 is sitting at another level. Especially a 206 on floats.

1. Loading six full grown adults (assuming full fuel, normal build, etc) seems unlikely to me. Even if you can get it to balance, there will certainly be no CG left for baggage. But floats may change the equation.
But I stand to be corrected!

Between a 185 and a 206 would be a pretty great spot to be. Not sure that I would load 6 adults in there, but mostly I am curious if it would be possible. Helps my brain comprehend the w&b situation.

206 rear doors don't open with flaps down either, unless you open the first door a crack then open the second door. Is that an option in the BH, or are the rear doors just sealed shut with flaps down? Doors are life saving devices.

[Battson]

You can still open both the rear doors, with the flaps in any position. The forward rear door cannot travel through it's full arc, but it opens enough to allow the back door to be opened. You could probably still squeeze out, if your life depended on it, and your build is athletic.

[svyolo]

A 185/205 or a 5 are pretty hard to beat. The only negative for a 185 are age and cost. 205's negatives are cost and maybe age, depending on year and where it lived.

A new 5 is pretty tough to beat. Even if you could buy a new Cessna, the cost would be 4X.

The only negative for a 5 is you can't use it for commercial service.

My 4 works for me for now. So far, no size envy.

[rodsmith]

One thing to consider is how much cheaper it is to maintain/modify an experimental. Seems like a standard annual with no issues runs around $3000 now. I put in a full Garmin panel, the equipment itself cost thousands less than for a certified aircraft and I saved another $20000 installing it myself.

[Allen B]

I look hard at all of those aircraft before settling on the 5. For me it was about takeoff distance and climb rate. Living in Idaho every airport is 5,000 ft elevation or higher and most of the time less than 2,000 ft long. Nothing seemed to compete for that mission like the 5. If it helps, my decision was pretty much based on the fact that nothing (certified or not) can carry 4 people and a bunch of crap while taking off from a 2,000 ft runway at 5,000 ft except for the 5. A 185 would likely do it but with triple the takeoff distance and it couldn’t carry the same useful load.

[scotthayd]

I look hard at all of those aircraft before settling on the 5. For me it was about takeoff distance and climb rate. Living in Idaho every airport is 5,000 ft elevation or higher and most of the time less than 2,000 ft long. Nothing seemed to compete for that mission like the 5. If it helps, my decision was pretty much based on the fact that nothing (certified or not) can carry 4 people and a bunch of crap while taking off from a 2,000 ft runway at 5,000 ft except for the 5. A 185 would likely do it but with triple the takeoff distance and it couldn’t carry the same useful load.

Yes this is absolutely the draw of the 5 for me, except instead of density altitude I am interested in short takeoff distances on floats. The stretched pacer is one heck of an airplane, but I'm constantly flying it with heavier loads than I would like.