Amphibious Bearhawk?

[SteveF]

Howdy y'all, hope you're doing well.
I am considering putting amphibious floats on my future Bearhawk, and was wondering if anybody else has done that yet.
If so, what floats were used and how did the airplane perform with them?
I've been told amphibious floats can turn a C180 into a 2-place half-fuel kind of airplane and am wondering if this is true and if they would have a similar effect on a Bearhawk.
Any other related advice, ideas, or suggestions are welcome too.

[Chris In Milwaukee]

The floated Bearhawks that I know of are on, or being prepared for, straight floats. I think that there is a Bearhawk that's been rigged for Clamar amphibs, but I don't know that it's actually flying with them.

As for the weight thing, you're certainly right. Amphibs weigh quite a bit more than straight floats, so they'll eat into the available load, even with the upgross to 2700 pounds while on floats. Maules have a similar problem where they become 2-ish-place planes on amphibs. They're in the same general weight class as the Bearhawk.

Eric Newton did a writeup on Al Robinson's float-equipped Bearhawk here:

http://mybearhawk.com/floats.html

Here's a couple of articles from past Beartracks related to floats as well:

http://bearhawk.tips/2212

http://bearhawk.tips/978

~Chris

[jaredyates]

There was the yellow airplane that was in the booth at Oshkosh some years ago...

[Chris In Milwaukee]

I'd forgotten about that one.

[Battson]

Talking with a number of float pilots, they keep telling me amphibs are the fastest way to spoil the handling and performance of ANY aircraft
I think it's half-joke, half-serious.

[Battson]

There was the yellow airplane that was in the booth at Oshkosh some years ago...

I wonder which nose bowl they used? It looks like it offers a lot more room for the engine than the modified Pitts S2 bowl.
Maybe a Bonanza nosebowl?
Perhaps they needed it for their custom exhaust set-up... custom firewall and windshield too. The whole plane looks quite custom, probably scratch-built.
bearhawk%252Bweighing%252B327.jpg

[Mark Goldberg]

It was scratch built except for the wings. t had a Cont 520 which created problems to overcome because of its weight. Mark

[rv8bldr]

I wonder which nose bowl they used? It looks like it offers a lot more room for the engine than the modified Pitts S2 bowl.
Maybe a Bonanza nosebowl?
Perhaps they needed it for their custom exhaust set-up... custom firewall and windshield too. The whole plane looks quite custom, probably scratch-built.
bearhawk%252Bweighing%252B327.jpg

That's weird. Same aircraft (based on the reg) in the two pictures, but different paint (yellows after different, the fin paint is different, the floats are missing the trim paint)... I wonder which was first...

[marcusofcotton]

Colors render differently based on different cameras, settings, etc. Looks like trim paint (decals?) were added later to floats and fuselage. The booth pic has additional vertical fins at outer ends of horizontal stabilizers - that may be what you're seeing as different fin paint. I recall they were found very desirable on this particular aircraft/installation.

[alaskabearhawk]

In general, amphib floats are the worst of both worlds. They make lousy wheeled planes and lousy float planes.

[Bdflies]

I can't claim 30 years and thousands of hours experience to disagree, but the couple hundred hours amphibian time I have, were among the easiest hard surface landings I ever knew. I always said it was like a BIG shopping cart with wings. That wide stance made for some greasers way beyond my skill level.
Tough crosswinds are a different story...

[Peter Girard]

wheel-skis for sale $5500.00 new

[alaskabearhawk]

All of my float flying has been on straight floats. The comment came from a chief pilot of a local air taxi operation here in Alaska that is a good friend of mine. He has decades of experience with pretty much anything that lands on water and he really doesn't think much of them.

[SteveF]

A few days ago, the Director of Maintenance at an Alaskan 135 charter I know told me he wouldn't wish amphibious floats on his worst enemy. Haha!
He said with all of the different types of metal in contact or close proximity to each other, corrosion and maintenance on them is a real pain in the buttocks. His aircraft operate on fresh, salt, and brackish water.
So, there's the maintenance perspective, I guess.
Pity, I was hoping they would solve the problem of owning a floatplane without having to live on a body of water. But it sounds like it has its own Pandora's jar. Everything is a compromise in one way or another I guess.

[Bdflies]

I COMPLETELY understand the criticism of amphibs in Alaska. Your planes earn their keep. Amphibs weigh more than straight floats, so they reduce useful load. That ain't good for a plane that earns its keep. Alaska has an infrastructure fully developed for float planes. There are fueling facilities and docking facilities and lots of beaches. I'd guess there are more float plane facilities than hard surface runways, with facilities. Amphibs have little wheels/tires that aren't well suited for off airport ops. The aforementioned salt/brackish/fresh water issues are real and cause serious maintenance problems. It's almost hard to imagine why one would operate an amphib, in Alaska.
I'm in South Louisiana. In the early '70's / early 80's, KLFT was home to more amphibs than any other airport - in the world. Why? There was lots of oil exploration and production in the inland waterways and bays. There were hundreds of oilfield locations that were an hour, by truck, then two hours by boat. Or, a 40 minute ride in a C-185 on amphibs. Personnel changes, parts runs and sales calls were all done by air, from one of many airports straight to the rig. There wasn't a service company, worth its salt, that didn't have a couple of amphibs. Our FBO operated half a dozen. There were and are very few places to fuel a plane on straight floats. Inland exploration has all but ended and the amphibs have mostly moved on. You still see one, occasionally, but mostly they're pleasure planes. Lots of water around here, but not too many places to fuel a plane on straight floats.
Cross countries are interesting too. If one does a lot of homework and plans carefully, I hear one can successfully fly XC on straight floats, in the lower 48. But your options are limited. Some states are kinda finicky, too. In the 90's, I landed an amphib in New Jersey. Needed gas. When I shut down, a conversation quickly ensued with the local airport bums. First thing I heard was "you're not from around here!". Well, I'm from Louisiana, so after a few words that woulda been an easy one... It was quickly explained that it was ILLEGAL to land a float plane on any waterway in New Jersey. Like I said: Finicky states...
For years I've said that my float flying was the most fun I ever had in airplanes. Any pilot who hasn't done it, should consider the SES rating. It's easy, it might be the cheapest rating one can get and the floats open up a world that land planes can't imagine. In Alaska, I wouldn't have amphibs either. Down here, straight floats would be a real pain...
On the other hand, I can't understand why anyone would fly a plane with the tail wheel under the nose.

Bill

[fairchild]

Somewhere on the web ---- I THINK I saw a plane that looked like a cessna 182 or a 177 (it wasnt a cessna but that general size and shape---)
and it was floating in the water and it had a monofloat type thing like a Grumman duck. engine was on the nose like a cessna single. Couldnt see if it
had an extension that came way forward of the prop........
Wonder if there would be a way to make a seperate tubing structure which would extend the fuseladge down to form a hull. Maybe a thermoplastic bottom.
(Millekin has a thermoplastic that can stop bullets that is being used for river jet boat hulls for rock protection)
Maybe have retractable tip floats which would form wing tips when retracted. Seems like it might be safer ( topheavy wise) than normal floats.
kind of like a seabee without the huge bubble windows. maybe this is another project for Bob ? :-)

T

[bearhawk2015]

delete.........

[mcarriere]

Just saw the older pictures of my amphib CF ZAC. This picture shows the major modification where we rebalanced the aircraft then moved the engine angle down 2 degrees and pointed it to the right 2 degrees. Then we built new cowls, took almost two years. This corrected the torque problem on take off and gave excellent cruise. Major improvement both performance and esthetics.