Bearhawk Aircraft Bearhawk Tailwheels LLC Eric Newton's Builder Manuals Bearhawk Plans Bearhawk Store

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oops, my bad...sorry.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oops, my bad...sorry.

    Never mind 😐
    Last edited by whee; 05-05-2018, 01:50 PM.
    Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88" C203 McCauley prop.

  • #2
    Can we get Bobby Breeden to spend 10-15 hours in a Patrol, then fly it in the TX STOL Roundup, and find out what it really can do? LOL (Or if Bobby isn't available / doesn't want to do it, maybe get Wayne Massey some time in the Patrol ahead of the competition?)

    Wayne flew Marg G's Patrol in the TX STOL competition a couple of years ago, and did very well, despite not having any real practice time in the Patrol before the competition. But watching him on final approach, the Patrol did not appear to be able to fly quite as slowly as the highly modified CarbonCubs (with their aftermarket flaps and leading edge slats), and that's always going to impact the distance required. But against the stock SuperCubs, I think the Patrol goes every bit as well (and based on Wayne's results, maybe even better).
    Jim Parker
    Farmersville, TX (NE of Dallas)
    RANS S-6ES (E-LSA) with Rotax 912ULS (100 HP)

    Comment


    • #3
      I also am very interested to see what the community can come up with on the subject.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think it's the airfoil.

        If thrust is similar, and weight is similar, and drag is even less, yet cubs get off in less than 100 feet, and some can fly as slow as 35mph, then in my mind the only thing that makes sense is the airfoil. That would also describe why they are so slow.....

        Comment


        • #5
          Airplanes are full of compromises, the Patrol is WAY faster on the same HP, and as much as it's faster, it appears it's as much longer to take off when compared to a cub.

          Personally, I would give up an extra 100ft take off to get there 25kts faster, but if my goal was to do nothing but pack a moose out of 300 ft strips (or try to show off at the STOL comp) then I'd be looking at a cub clone.

          Comment


          • #6
            No one has built a special purpose Patrol that is super light, set up with a take off/climb prop, and flown by someone who is really good at this and practised for months. If that Patrol and pilot existed - then you could make an apples to apples comparison. Mark

            Comment


            • #7
              With all due respect, I'd say the initial question was mis-stated. If the goal is to compete with Carbon Cubs, then I'd venture to ask how STOL can the Bearhawk LSA be? Hang a souped up O-360, with a nice long climb prop on a LSA and I suspect you'd have a contender.
              The Patrol is a lot faster than Super Cubs because of a lot of little differences. The flush riveted, all aluminum wing is vastly cleaner than the SC's fabric covered wing. The Patrol has a single streamlined strut, vs 2 struts on the SC, which also sports round interplane struts. patrols have no exposed control cables or control bellcranks, as SC's do. SC's have that bungee pouch on each gear strut. Patrol's have pretty clean gear assemblies. Finally, Patrols are prettier planes! That helps, don't ya think?

              Bill

              Comment


              • #8
                So let's stop dick-measuring. If you REALLY want to be a super-STOL that can land and take off in river beds, then get a CC. Otherwise, don't get involved in what, after all, are pretty pointless competitions and accept that your aircraft is pretty damn good at what it does and compromises extremely well between STOL and cruise capabilities.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I think the STOL comp thing, while fun to watch and maybe compete in, is not real world important. I think fowler flaps would significantly lower landing speeds, but the leading edge cuff thing is useful only for STOL comps. Flying at 30 alpha looks cool, but you can't land safely in the bush because you can't see where you are going. I think it is meaningless except for bragging right at a comp.

                  Everything is a compromise. I think all 3 BH models are awesome compromises. Maybe someday I might see the need to land at 25 mph and mod the wing with fowler flaps.. But it will cost me 75 pounds of empty weight/useful load. What is more important? I am not sure.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Whee, I liked your original post! It was a great discussion starter.

                    Originally posted by schu View Post
                    Airplanes are full of compromises, the Patrol is WAY faster on the same HP, and as much as it's faster, it appears it's as much longer to take off when compared to a cub.
                    ​​
                    I read this quote a few days ago and keep thinking about it. To me the Key word schu used in this quote is APPEARS. It appears to schu that the Patrol is a compromise, and does not compare to a Cub.... The Patrol is not a compromised STOL design.

                    There are only 24 aircraft in the FAA's registry that use the name Patrol. Two years ago I think there were 13. The Appearance the viewer may not reflect the truth because is there just isn't much data to view/see on the Patrol yet.

                    I believe (Key word believe) that Bob Borrows designed the Patrol for outstanding back country, off airport, low speed performance operations. I would add to Bill's list of improvements that the Patrol has same wing area as a Cub, a larger flap, contoured tail feathers, efficient cowl, modern Riblett airfoil, and Trailblazer Prop. The outcome of of this is a faster STOL aircraft...very fast...maybe the Fastest STOL aircraft. But I think its common error to mistake a fast airplane as one that is a compromised design.
                    Brooks Cone
                    Southeast Michigan
                    Patrol #303, Kit build

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bcone1381 View Post
                      But I think its common error to mistake a fast airplane as one that is a compromised design.
                      Brooks, fully agree. JimParker256 once said: "Mark G and I were discussing this once, and we decided there needed to be an "all around" competition, where the takeoff/landing distances were 1/2 the score, and cross-country cruise performance was the other 1/2. The Bearhawks would do really well in THAT competition!"

                      But I think Jon's original question had nothing to do with all around performance. As I read it (before he deleted the original text... awww), he's saying to forget about compromising and making everyone happy, and optimize the snot out of it for stol. The CCs and superstols are basically franken-supercubs and kitfoxes in my mind, which aren't even the best starting points compared to the Patrol. If the Patrol were stripped of all it's all-around glory and made to do just one thing (land and take off), what would it look like? Jon - is this off the mark?
                      Last edited by Chewie; 05-06-2018, 08:57 AM.
                      Mark
                      Scratch building Patrol #275
                      Hood River, OR

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I used the word APPEARS very deliberately because we don't really know how well the patrol works compared to a super cub on the same day with the same pilot because as far as I know that test hasn't happened.

                        Here is what we do know....

                        1. The super cub and the patrol are both very well performing aircaft in STOL ops.
                        2. The super cub sets the benchmark for STOL ops.
                        3. The super cub is very dirty and slow.
                        4. In valdez stock super cubs are taking off in 60-80 feet, and landing in 80-100.
                        5. In valdez experimentals (which is where the patrol would compete) are landing shorter than they are long.
                        6. The patrol is a good bit cleaner/faster than the cub.
                        7. The texas stol comp lists cubs/clones as 1st, 2nd, 3rd place.

                        When I add all of that up, I hypothesize that that very high lift, dirty nature of a cub will put it 30% shorter take off and landing than a patrol, at the cost of 30% slower cruise. What is this in real world numbers? 60ft vs 78ft. And 100MPH vs 130MPH.

                        I posted that airplanes are full of compromises because you can't have super slow and super fast in the same airplane. The bearhawk does it very very well, but not so well that it STOL's better than a cub according to what I've seen.

                        I personally think the patrol is the better airplane. It's roomier, faster, stronger, handles better, and can be built super light. I'd personally rather have a patrol than a cub, but that doesn't mean I think it will beat a cub in the thing that a cub does exceptionally well.

                        Also, I don't think a stol specific patrol will make the difference. If you built a fixed pitch carbon fiber prop, 180HP, 1000lb patrol and lined it up to the equivalent cub of the same weigh, HP, and prop, that cub is going to be off the ground in 50ft.

                        Anyway, I think I'll pass on the next round of STOL comments because they are pretty pointless. Who cares if the cub does one thing a little better, the patrol is a very nice airplane, so everyone get back to their shop and get back to building!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The art of compromise is the beauty of all design, not just airplanes. If my memory serves me, Vans "total performance" claim was that top speed should be at least 4X stall speed. All the BH models equal or exceed that. Few light aircraft meet that standard.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Did some stuff on a Knik river bar in an O-200 powered Taylorcraft F19 on old 30" Airstreaks yesterday morning that I have yet to see anyone do in a Bearhawk Patrol. I think it would probably work a lot better than the Tcraft if someone would actually go out and do that stuff in a Bearhawk Patrol. But our flying Patrol count is low by comparison and even fewer are the people who build them to do actual short work other than chasing chalk lines on buffed grass airstrips. The Super Cub fleet is massive, and thus we get some great talent in the way of pilots bubbling to the top who can really make them sing.

                            Unless you're truly playing a game of inches, either one will probably work fine for your version of "STOL" and your pilot skill will always be the limiting factor. Why not go faster? Have more room?

                            I'll tell ya where the Cubs have it made, is the aftermarket. Shitloads of bolt-on parts and improvements exist for the Cub universe. If you want it improved on the Bearhawk, you're building it yourself. But that is the fun of it!

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X