Making your Bearhawk too light - the best way to ruin a good airplane!

[stinger]

To each his own, When I bought the plans for my Bearhawk LSA my friend and myself reviewed the W/B as per numbers given. We both determined the aircraft would be tail heavy plus I wanted a additional baggage area and door,so I built my engine mount 1.5 inches longer then the plans stated. I can sense NO decrease in yaw or stability. In general the plane flies great. I wanted my fwd C/G to be on the limit and it is. P/S scratch built. Stinger

[whee]

Hehe, a nose would BH would likely make Bob shutter in shame. But it would move weight forward.

If I were going to do something crazy like extend the engine mount or add a nose wheel I’d go with adding a nose locker. My current plane could benefit from one and there is almost room for one as is. I plan to mount a tool box on the engine side of my firewall. Based on the little we know about the BH5 there could be room for a pretty good sized nose locker.

[way_up_north]

you could extend the engine mount below the engine...and put a wheel on it....

subject is taboo here...but a nose wheel would move weight around.....putting the heavy tail wheel on the nose...

granted not great for landing on the beach...or sandbar...

piper-tri-pacer-airplane-hanger-antique-aircraft-rests-its-airport-142550346.jpg

[whee]

Rebuild engine mount longer seems to be a logical option to move weight out where you need it. Welding up a new mount and building longer cowling would seem to to be easier than moving several other things in the airplane.

Extending the engine mount will cause a decrease in yaw stability. Maybe not an issue or maybe trading one issue for another.

[zkelley2]

Yup. I wish I had scales the whole time I was building to see what was going to happen. I would have had an extended engine mount made.
The good news is doing the math on floats, there's so much weight at a medium arm, you just can't get it to go out the aft limit anymore. On wheels, it's big issue. One I'm struggling with and has really limited the utility of my airplane. Well that and I refuse to fly it at a CG that would never meet certification requirements.

[Bearhawk535]

Rebuild engine mount longer seems to be a logical option to move weight out where you need it. Welding up a new mount and building longer cowling would seem to to be easier than moving several other things in the airplane.

[Gr8apmech]

Great read. This has helped me see some things I’ve not yet considered. Thanks all.

[kestrel]

That is your experience. Not everyone's.

[zkelley2]

Heavy alternator, lightweight starter. I hate adding weight for no reason. I think with the floats this will become a non-issue and then some point in the future I'll go 3 blade composite.

But I cannot state enough that you need as heavy of a nose as possible to actually be able to put a lot in the baggage area... if you plan to use all the useful load the bearhawk has.

[svyolo]

Heavy starter and alternator, instead of the light weight options?

[zkelley2]

Hmm, I wouldn’t have expected that. You fill the tailwheel with lead?

No, I think it's my lightweight 2 blade carbon prop. Like I said, another 20lbs on the nose would be a good thing.

[whee]

Empty is 11.3"

Hmm, I wouldn’t have expected that. You fill the tailwheel with lead?

[zkelley2]

Zach, Where did your empty CG end up?

Empty is 11.3"

[whee]

Zach, Where did your empty CG end up?

[Gerd Mannsperger]

Hi Jim your comment above just proofs the point

Careful planing and execution makes for a good flying aircraft.

If in doubt less is better your engine choice clearly is outside the reasonable range for the aircraft.

Sometimes what we think we need is not realistic or good for us been there done that too.