GW 2700 vs 2750

[AK2ID]

I'm seeing some 4 place BH listed at 2700# and some at 2750# wheres the 50# coming from, and the website lists it as only 2700# with floats?

[Archer39J]

You can list your GW as anything you want really, it's up to you as a builder. First I've seen of 2750lbs, I don't know if the extra 50lbs is arbitrary or not, maybe extra baggage? The Bearhawk 4-Place is approved for 2700lbs landing on floats by Bob as I understand, but some builders set their maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) at 2700lbs and specify the maximum landing weight as 2500lbs on normal gear. This what I plan to do at least.

[Battson]

2,500 lbs is the maximum landing weight approved by Bob, for the Bearhawk 4 place land-plane.

If you land at a heavier weight than 2,500 lbs, there is a risk of bottoming out the suspension and bending the steel tube structure.

The 2,700 lbs is only a take-off weight, and you need to burn 200 lbs of fuel to land - which is not an insignificant amount of fuel. Or throw some gear out the window, whichever you prefer. If you were forced down by weather before you could burn the fuel, then the landing would be a delicate affair.

The plane feel heavy at 2,500 lbs, and at 2700 it's decidedly weighed down. You can feel the weight when you taxi. In my machine some doors need an extra push to shut securely (fuselage is flexing under the weight). The plane can take it, but my point is going over 2,700 lbs is not something to be taken lightly. No pun intended.

[whee]

My guess is that the 2750 comes from Maules which have a 2500lb gross that can get bumped to 2750 when on floats. Since the planes look so similar they must be capable of the same weights...right?

[AK2ID]

Hahaha thanks for the info guys.

[schu]

Speaking of Maules..

This builder put a yoke in his Bearhawk:

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1333685_Bearhawk+250+HP.html

I wonder why....

[Bdflies]

Yeah, with all due respect, that's a lot of trouble to move in the wrong direction!

Bill

[AK2ID]

Ya, but that is a beautiful looking bird!

[AK2ID]

Speaking of Maules..

This builder put a yoke in his Bearhawk:

https://www.barnstormers.com/classified_1333685_Bearhawk+250+HP.html

I wonder why....

You guys not a fan of the yoke?

[Mark Moyle]

And has a rudder trim tab!

[lsa140]

2,500 lbs is the maximum landing weight approved by Bob, for the Bearhawk 4 place land-plane.

If you land at a heavier weight than 2,500 lbs, there is a risk of bottoming out the suspension and bending the steel tube structure.

The 2,700 lbs is only a take-off weight, and you need to burn 200 lbs of fuel to land - which is not an insignificant amount of fuel. Or throw some gear out the window, whichever you prefer. If you were forced down by weather before you could burn the fuel, then the landing would be a delicate affair.

The plane feel heavy at 2,500 lbs, and at 2700 it's decidedly weighed down. You can feel the weight when you taxi. In my machine some doors need an extra push to shut securely (fuselage is flexing under the weight). The plane can take it, but my point is going over 2,700 lbs is not something to be taken lightly. No pun intended.

What kind of an impact does it take at 2,500lbs to bottom the die springs?

[Mark Goldberg]

Bob would know or you would have to research the specs on the EH200-800 springs. MG

[lsa140]

Thanks Mark. I'm just wondering what real world conditions (at gross) would cause the springs to bottom. Does it take a very hard drop?

[Bdflies]

You guys not a fan of the yoke?

Well, the discussion of sticks vs yokes is similar to discussing Fords vs Chevy's or Blondes and Brunettes. If you talk long enough, somebody's feelings are bound to get hurt. Personally, I think a stick is easier and more intuitive to fly. No matter what move you want to make, it's a single displacement of the control, vs a turn and push or pull. But that's a subjective opinion. In a small plane, yokes take up valuable panel real estate. The mechanism behind the panel that converts rotation to aileron movement and fore/aft to elevator movements is complex and adds weight, not to mention the area behind the panel that's not available for other "stuff".
One could easily argue that entry and egress are easier without the stick in the way. I suppose if one had never been exposed to flying a stick and had only flown a wheel, the comfort level might lead that individual to forego the stick, in favor of weight and complication. For more than 30 years, my wife has claimed that she'd learn to fly if our plane had a steering wheel. So, I can see that the familiarity of the steering wheel brings a degree of 'comfort' to some folks. And some might observe a sound reason that I've never owned a plane with a wheel... We all have our reasons.

Bill

[rodsmith]

Well, the discussion of sticks vs yokes is similar to discussing Fords vs Chevy's or Blondes and Brunettes. If you talk long enough, somebody's feelings are bound to get hurt. Personally, I think a stick is easier and more intuitive to fly. No matter what move you want to make, it's a single displacement of the control, vs a turn and push or pull. But that's a subjective opinion. In a small plane, yokes take up valuable panel real estate. The mechanism behind the panel that converts rotation to aileron movement and fore/aft to elevator movements is complex and adds weight, not to mention the area behind the panel that's not available for other "stuff".
One could easily argue that entry and egress are easier without the stick in the way. I suppose if one had never been exposed to flying a stick and had only flown a wheel, the comfort level might lead that individual to forego the stick, in favor of weight and complication. For more than 30 years, my wife has claimed that she'd learn to fly if our plane had a steering wheel. So, I can see that the familiarity of the steering wheel brings a degree of 'comfort' to some folks. And some might observe a sound reason that I've never owned a plane with a wheel... We all have our reasons.

Bill

Very well said. My first 100 hrs was in Cessnas. When I got tailwheel training in a Citabria, I thought this is the way planes should be, stick instead of yoke and little wheel in the back. I always wished my Maule had sticks instead of yokes. So at least in my case it wasn't what I was first exposed to that set my preference.

[svyolo]

Sticks are lighter. You get used to both very quickly. I have flown right hand, left hand, stick, yoke. A dozen hours in, it was natural. I have never quite recovered from FBW or glass cockpits. I am not sure I ever will. PFD and ND are so natural, and provide so much SA, 10 hours in, you will never want to go back. And now they are cheap and light.

[Battson]

watermark.jpg?modified=1516560780.jpgwatermark.jpg?modified=1516561216.jpg

Speaking of Maules..

This builder put a yoke in his Bearhawk:

https://www.barnstormers.com/classif...wk+250+HP.html

I wonder why....

Can we stop and reflect on how nicely built that plane is!

Only 70 hours on the thing too...

Looks like seaplane doors.

Yokes! Yoke might not suit everyone, but still he's done a nice job of it.

Panel shape is very custom.

Also the rudder trim, that is something different. Lots of talk about that, interesting to see it done.

Looks like his baggage area stops one station too soon... almost zero baggage room if I have seen that correctly...??

His main elevator trim tabs are ENORMOUS. That thing will be super-sensitive to pitch trim.

Matching green tinted windows and screen. Some attention to details there.

I can't tell what it is, but there is something custom going on with the cargo area door / exterior panel.

I am putting these photos here for future generations of builders, Barnstormers will delete them in no time.

watermark.jpg?modified=1516560380.jpgwatermark.jpg?modified=1516560577.jpg

[Daniel]

Do we know how much it was listed for? Seems like a high end build.

[Chris In Milwaukee]

Wonder if it doesn't have the cargo door option (came later as sheets 16A, 16B). It used to be an add-on to the plans. Looks/feels like a Stinson cargo door.