5 seats?

[jdb1930]

Has anyone tried putting 5 seats in the bearhawk? Turning the back seat around and facing the back and a jump seat facing forward at the front of the baggage area? Then just carry less baggage/ as long as still in CG ofcourse.

[Chris In Milwaukee]

Welcome to the group! A common question that comes up a couple times a year or so. Here are a couple of threads on the subject:

https://bearhawkforums.com/forum/bearhawk-general-discussion-news/1410-six-seat-bh-working-out

https://bearhawkforums.com/forum/new-members-introduce-yourself/24551-4-place-information

[whee]

You'll probably find the info you seek in those other threads. I made my own second and third rows to make room for my 3 kids. It is a significant compromise to add a 3rd row but I think it will work out for me. The only unknown at this point is if my CG is going to work out.

I can't find the picture I took of my kids in the seats. This is the best I have at the moment. I actually have leg room to seat 6 adults for a short flight.

[Chris In Milwaukee]

It is likely, I suspect, that from a W/B standpoint, you’ll be able to make this work out better with a larger motor. The O-470 and O-540 put a fair amount of extra poundage out front that you can use to counter any additional weight out back within the gross weight limits.

I know that in my 180hp Maule, a similarly-sized airplane, I run out of aft CG before I run out of capacity. And the 235hp+ Maules typically run out of capacity before they run out of aft CG. Perhaps those flying big-engined Bearhawks can tell more about their experiences here.

[svyolo]

I found a link that says that Transport Canada does not allow registering an aircraft with a CG out of limits, and that is different than in the US. Several RV-10 builders built their aircraft out of CG (forward of FW limit) and carry ballast (bags of lead shot) in the baggage. When they fly full, the ballast comes out. This allows them to carry more load.

I am putting a 540 in mine, and everything up front near or on the firewall. I will take it as far forward as I can get it, and carry camping/survival gear in the baggage when flying solo. I sill see how it comes out. Hopefully near or forward of the forward limit. I will be using Oratex fabric on the fuselage and tail to take weight out of the tail.

I am assuming the 5th seat will be for a kid. It can be built lighter than the rest obviously.

[jdb1930]

Yes that is exactly what I was looking for thank you

[marcusofcotton]

Just use an inflight FWF position CG adjuster. ;o)

[JimParker256]

The other thing to consider is the insurance impact of adding a 5th (or 6th) seat. The insurance company is going to go by the number of seats in the operating limits to govern their risk profile, and that contributes to your liability rates. From what I've read on other forums, insurance is definitely more expensive for a 5- seater than it would be for a 4-seater. (And it's worse yet for a 6-seat plane.) If you really need those seats, go for it. But if your need for that 5th seat is a very rare thing, or you're just thinking that "someday I might use them", I would consider renting a 182 for those rare occasions, and built it as a 4-seater.

Insurance considerations aside, if I needed a 5th seat, I would consider reversing the 2nd row of seats, so that they face aft. That would move the "CG" of that row further forward, so that when carrying the 3rd and 4th people, your CG would be less aft than it would be with the "normal" seat placement, allowing more baggage without exceeding the aft CG limits. (A36 Bonanzas use this same approach quite effectively. It would also make entry/exit easier with the "big door" on the 4-place Bearhawk.) Reversing the 2nd row also allows you to mount the 5th seat (forward facing) a bit further forward, because with 2 people facing 1 person, the 5th person's legs go between the other two. That approach would also leave more room behind the 3rd row for baggage.

On the other hand, if you reverse the 2nd row of seats, you might need to re-think the design of those seats, since the "crash load" would be considerably different. (The seat belts and shoulder harnesses would not be as involved in restraining forward motion, so the seat structure would have to be somewhat stronger. I would definitely talk with Bob Barrows to see what he thinks.

[whee]

‘Club’ seating is something I thought about and even mocked up. Because if the seat back angle required for comfort (for both the front and middle seats) there was no CG benefit and the leg room was still cramped.

Everyone’s needs are different and we build our planes accordingly. Most of my flights will be me and my 3 kids, frequently my wife will join us. 5 seats is a must. When I was Maule shopping the insurance broker I was dealing with didn’t care if it was a 4 or 5 seat model. I haven’t asked about a 5 seat BH.

[nichzimmerman]

If the rear seat attach points are welded in a rectangular pattern, the AviPro rear seat can be installed either forward or read facing. But I agree with Whee; it doesn't buy you leg room for the third row. I actually think there's more room in the forward configuration, but I'll leave that up to the 4 kids who will be stuffed back there.

​​ren't big (yet) but I'm also aiming at a forward CG and extending the baggage compartment back one station so we can fit a weekend's supply of gear.
​​​​

[Battson]

‘Club’ seating is something I thought about and even mocked up. Because if the seat back angle required for comfort (for both the front and middle seats) there was no CG benefit and the leg room was still cramped.

When I ran the measurements for the stock rear seat, club seating was fairly advantageous for CG.

[Mark Goldberg]

I remember hearing that the CG of the rear seat passengers moves forward 9" with the seat facing aft. MG

[whee]

When I ran the measurements for the stock rear seat, club seating was fairly advantageous for CG.

I could see that being the case for the factory bench seat but it isn’t the case for the seat configuration I have. My middle row seat adjust far enough forward that you would want to enter through the front doors but still offer enough leg room for average adults. If I face them backwards I have to move them aft from this position.

Maybe someday I’ll share a detailed post about my seating, the configurations and how I plan to use it.

[jdb1930]

There was a note on one of the articles I read about the BH that the rear bench seat can be faced backward to move the cg forward. I am sure it will but will have to wait and see the mockup when the time comes to see if facing them forward with a 3rd row is feasible for leg room or not. I will definitely have a 3rd row but I am no decided on whether it will be a single jump seat yet or a small 2 place bench. I will have 5 on all trips with the occasional 6th.

[bergy]

When playing around with my Patrol's weight/balance number while designing my engine mount, I found that engine placement can help a lot in making your aircraft useful for hauling lots of baggage. The online program I wrote (http://poplar.us/BWB.html) will let you add additional seats if you wish and play with the numbers. The secret to using this program is to first find the CG of your naked fuselage (without an engine) first. If you have w/b numbers for your 4-place Bearhawk similar to those Bob provides for Patrol builders, you can just subtract the weight/position number of your engine from your current calculations, then add the engine back into the system at any desired position (requiring a new mount) along with your added seat(s).

You can choose to not use the default back seat loading by setting the passenger weight to zero, then add two addition back seats at any other desired position.

[muleyman78]

If anyone is wanting that third row seat I know True Airspeed has one on his shelf he would probably part with.