Bearhawk video footage

[schu]

Yeah...because Alaska pilots are just that much better than everyone else🙄

Actually that event draws the very best bush pilots from all over. One of the peeps that wins the experimental bush class doesn't live in Alaska.

I'm not saying that Alaska pilots are better (though, I suspect they may be at bush ops, since there are way more C180/C185 Beavers, Otters, and cubs up here than anywhere else, and they are rarely operated on pavement ) but that the competition is super tough. If you win a cross country skiing comp in Missouri, that doesn't mean you will also win in Colorado.

You might think your airplane is fast, but then you get to Reno, and are promptly corrected. It's got nothing on those that build fast airplanes every day.

[schu]

The planes involved, are a different story. I've been around C-170's, 180's and 185's a bit. Great airplanes. It's been a few years now, but I logged several hours in a Bearhawk with an O-540. I never (and I repeat) NEVER saw or felt any of Cyde Cessna's planes launch like that Bearhawk.

Here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oCwqarKrfg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0w63cNKME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkb7jHUYeDs

Anyway, I was looking around and found a bearhawk takeoff that shows what it can do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFM6jKq2cIM

Battson, very nicely done. That's worlds better performance than anything else I've seen on the Internet. Do you have the landing video too?

[JimParker256]

As far as comparing results from the Texas competition with the Valdez numbers, there are a LOT of factors that influence the raw numbers. One of the more significant one is wind effect, along with density altitude. Last year's Texas competition took place with almost zero wind, and that is reflected in the raw numbers. Variance between winning numbers at Valdez this year versus a few years ago (when the winds were pretty calm) were pretty significant as well. Many of the same planes and competitors from Valdez were in Texas as well. It is a really fun event, and well worth making the trip to attend!

But the point about pilot skill is very well taken. Those who fly into tight strips on a regular basis hone their skills to a level most of us will never achieve. And those who fly 500 hours a year in those conditions either become very good, or they become statistics.

I would hope that none of us are deluded enough to think that a "straight" Bearhawk is going to out-STOL a slatted, cuffed, extended wing cub-clone that has been stripped of everything not essential to the competition. But most of us will gladly trade off using an extra 100 feet of runway for the extra 40-50 mph in cruise speed.

[schu]

If competing in these events really means anything (win on Sunday-sell on Monday!) then I have an idea: Mark could build a competitive Bearhawk! I'm thinking 4' extended wingspan, VG's, Keller's double slotted flaps, no interior, pilot seat only, maybe even no fuselage fabric aft of the wing. Extend the gear about 10" forward, to allow really clamping down on the dual calipers on each wheel. Build up a turbocharged IO-580 with dual electronic ignitions. 50" @ 3,300 rpm should do it. Put a nice 4 blade MT on the nose. One 20 gallon wing tank only. Put a Bearhawk sticker on it and give it to Wayne, so he can practice all year long. Betcha Mr Massey could compete anywhere....for a while.

That would be cool, but you would be in the experimental category, in which case you need to be doing 40-50 foot combined take off and landing to be competitive. The lil cub lands shorter than it is long.

[Bdflies]

So, to be clear; A stock Bearhawk would compete against modified Cessnas. But a modified Bearhawk would have to compete against purpose built craft, like Lil Cub? What if we bribe the rules guys? If that doesn't work, what say we slap a Bearhawk sticker on a R-44?
Just kidding. Like I said, I really enjoy watching the competition. Don't feel it demonstrates anything that affects my decisions, but it's great entertainment! And yes, my hat is tipped to anyone who can make a Skywagon perform like those folks do. They're truly skilled pilots.

Hey Mark: A reversing propellor would be great!

Bill

[JimParker256]

Just for the record, "Lil' Cub" competes in the Light Sport category, where the Bearhawk LSA would compete. There was about 15-knots of headwind when Frank Knapp set the new world record of 25 feet combined takeoff and landing distance. And 15 knots is pretty significant when your stall speed is just over 20 mph... The next best was combined performance was 121 ft, and mid-pack performance would have been 200 ft. At the 2016 Texas STOL Roundup, Pops Dory won the LSA class with a combined 468 ft in no-wind conditions, and mid-pack performance would have been anything under 700 ft.

In Valdez, the Patrol would compete in the "Alternate Bush / Experimental" class, where a "respectable" performance would be about 160-200 ft combined distance. The winner, Tom Huzinski, used only 75 ft, and 155 ft would have earned 4th place. By contrast, Phil Whittemore won in Texas with a combined 441 ft, with no wind at all. Wayne's mid-pack performance — good for 3rd place — was 936 ft.

In Valdez, the Bearhawk 4-place would compete in the Heavy Touring (2500+ GW) class. The winner, Wes Erb, used 225 ft, and anything under 300 ft would have been mid-pack or better. At the Texas event, John Sessions won with a combined 631 ft, and mid-pack was around 950 ft, again in no-wind conditions.

At the Texas event last year, winds were pretty much dead calm, and ALL the classes used at least 3-5X the distance as at Valdez. How much of that was the lack of 15-knot headwinds, and how much was the nearly 50° F higher temperatures, and how much was pilot skill? Who knows?

Could a Bearhawk flown by someone who had really practiced up for the event perform mid-pack or better? I don't know, but it sure would be fun to find out...

[Baloo]

hwre is a little taste of today's morning adventure before going to work.

[Mark Goldberg]

You sure are taking some great video Mr. Baloo. And enjoying your BH. Mark

[redbowen]

The STOL Drag races at the High Sierra Fly In next month would be great for the Bearhawk. I'll be entering my Kitfox Lycoming powered model 5, but when my Patrol is finished I look forward to giving it a try. I hope to see some Bearhawk there this year.

[svyolo]

Bill. I actually am having a friend build me a new Model B Bearhawk for a company demonstrator. Starting on it soon. While it will not be as extreme as you suggest above - it should be light. No aux tanks (-30 lbs), carbon fiber Trailblazer two blade prop (-15 lbs more or less), & Oratex (-10-15 lbs). It should have a 250-260 HP new engine from Lycoming depending on how good a price I can get from them. I would like to see an empty weight in the 1425-1450 range. We will see how it turns out. Bob's 540 powered BH prototype was in the 1300's. A 540 powered BH that light with the strong take off thrust of the Trailblazer - will be a very strong competitor with Wayne flying. MG

Mark;
For a frame of reference, how light can you build a QB kit, bone stock, with a 540 and a composite CS prop? Same as your description, but cloth interior, <10 lbs of avionics/instruments, minimal fairings, lightweight uppholstery, very minimal electrical system (40 lbs). I know you don't want a demonstrator that minimally equipped. But that is what I want to build. Ballpark figure?
Plus or minus 30 lbs?

[Mark Goldberg]

I pretty much give my thoughts above on what you quoted on the weight parameters of a 540 powered BH. To make one as light as Bob's is very hard. But building one in the lower 1425 - 1450 lb range is doable for sure.

[schu]

Here is some pretty good rough thoughts:

A 540 powered bearhawk works out like this:

1400-1450 Very light, omits most electrical except starter, minimal panel.
1450-1525 Average, full panel, electrical system
1525-1600 Lots of interior, full panel, electrical system
1600+ auto conversion, heavy prop, plus all of the above.

So if you want a really light airplane and you are willing to omit lights and panel, you could certainly get one down in the 1425 range, but most will be around 1500.

[svyolo]

Thanks for the quick response, Mark.
Taking a QB and making it light, there are only a few areas to do better. The airframe is optimized already. The first is, well, don't install it. The second is better, lighter non-structural parts. Firewall, floorboards, aft bulkhead,sidewalls. I think for 300 to 700 dollars you can reduce the weight by 15-20 lbs. Lithium battery also. But that is about it. The rest of weight savings is "weight not installed". If, after a couple of hundred hours, I can't figure out how to do without something, then I will install it. Not before. Maybe I will end up with a 2 axis autopilot and aux tanks. But for sure I will start out without either.
My choice and opinion. Everyone else is entitled to theirs.

[schu]

I wouldn't build a 540 bearhawk without aux tanks. Not enough range, and that would be extremely difficult to add later.

If you want super light, build like this:

Simple light dynon panel. Use a skyview so that you don't need any external map or gps. Use their radio, it's 12oz. Try to keep the avionics under 5lbs.
Lithium battery
Carbon fiber panel
Fabric seat pans
Gravity fed fuel system (no fuel computer)
Simple fuel valve
Single LED map/panel light
No night VFR lights
No rear seat
No inertia reels
No skylight
No extra windows
Little tires / tailwheel
Single trim turnbuckle
No brakes on right side
Light weight alternator and starter
PCU 5000 Prop governor
Light weight composite prop like a catto or whirlwind or MT etc....
Oratex interior

If you did all of that, I suspect you could get down into 1350, but in my opinion, it's not worth it.....

[Mark Goldberg]

The new Model B fuel tanks have 55 gallons total. I am going to have my new one built without aux tanks (30 lbs), but am going to install the fuel lines in the aft part of the wings (to transfer the fuel to the aux tanks) so when and if I want the aux tanks - the installation will be very doable. Mark

[schu]

I stand corrected, that's a good way to go. Are you going to add the fuel pump and wiring while you are at it? Have you thought about other engines like the IO-390?

[Mark Goldberg]

No. I am not going to install the transfer pumps nor wiring as that can be done later without too much trouble. However, the fuel lines themselves would be a total pain to try and do later.

Personally - I want a 540 as that gives some pretty impressive take off and climb for an airplane doing demo flights. But light. The IO390 would be a good choice as would be the IO/O 375/370 stroker engines that make about as much power as a 390 and are cheaper by a good bit.

With the 55 gallons the plane can be safely flown for over 5 hours at 9 GPH truing out 125-130 MPH TAS. Or over 4 hours at 11.75 GPH truing out 150+ mph. With the exception of the trip to Alaska that seems like enough fuel. Mark

[schu]

yea, up here, it's return gas. With 72gals I can fly to Lake Clark and back no problem. With 50gals, it gets much closer, so I might get a splash of gas in Port Alsworth, but it's $8 a gallon.

[svyolo]

Yeah Mark;
I was thinking about something similar with the aux tanks. I don't think I will need/want them, but I might change my mind.