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

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Canadian Rules six seater bearhawk

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

  • Canadian Rules six seater bearhawk

    Hey guys, I was wondering whats the rules in Canada like to register my Bearhawk build as a 5 or 6 seater instead of 4.

    Has anyone pushed the nose out a little farther to give better CG to this idea

    Thank you from Michael in Toronto




  • #2
    Hey Michael

    I was just about to respond saying that you can't have more than 4 people in a homebuilt in Canada when I thought I had better confirm that. Imagine my surprise when I found this about the exemption to CARS 549.01:

    The purpose of this exemption is to permit persons who apply for a special certificate of airworthiness in the amateur-built classification:
    • to contract for professional assistance in the construction or assembly of parts of the aircraft, provided the work is subject to the builder’s overall control;
    • to import, register and operate in Canada foreign-built amateur-aircraft, subject to a Transport Canada inspection of the aircraft; and
    • to not have to comply with the maximum permissible take-off mass (weight) and the maximum number of passenger seats requirements.
    When I built my RV-8 15 years ago, the MD-RA guy was adamant that I had to set my MTOW to Van's specified value. I also had read around that time that the new "CompAir" kits from teh US with 6 seats couldn't be built with more than 4 seats in Canada.

    I guess I'm behind the times.... qu'elle surprise :-)

    If you put a big 540, especially an injected one, and a CS prop, I don't think you will need to move the engine out further, the airplane will be pretty nose heavy as it is. Also, the more you push that nose out, the more directionally unstable the airplane becomes. You can do a search on these forums on this as I remember this discussion coming up in the last year or so.

    Cheers (from outside of Ottawa)
    -------------------
    Mark

    Maule M5-235C C-GJFK
    Bearhawk 4A #1078 (Scratch building - C-GPFG reserved)
    RV-8 C-GURV (Sold)

    Comment


    • #3
      I can't help with the Canada question but it looks like rv8bldr too care of that.

      I think it would be unwise to extend the engine out past where recommended. While this would help with balancing the plane when flying with 5 or 6 passengers it would make it not fun to fly when lighter. IMO, the O540 is nose heavy as it is and you'd only be making it worse; perhaps even to the point it would be difficult to land well when light.

      I built my BH with a third row bench and I selected an engine that is ~50lbs lighter than the 540. Based on my estimated W&B, which was extrapolated from a sampling of BHs weight data, I'll be within CG range with my family of 5 on board as long as the girls don't grow to FAA adult size.
      Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88" C203 McCauley prop.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by rv8bldr View Post
        Hey Michael

        I was just about to respond saying that you can't have more than 4 people in a homebuilt in Canada when I thought I had better confirm that. Imagine my surprise when I found this about the exemption to CARS 549.01:

        The purpose of this exemption is to permit persons who apply for a special certificate of airworthiness in the amateur-built classification:
        • to contract for professional assistance in the construction or assembly of parts of the aircraft, provided the work is subject to the builder’s overall control;
        • to import, register and operate in Canada foreign-built amateur-aircraft, subject to a Transport Canada inspection of the aircraft; and
        • to not have to comply with the maximum permissible take-off mass (weight) and the maximum number of passenger seats requirements.
        When I built my RV-8 15 years ago, the MD-RA guy was adamant that I had to set my MTOW to Van's specified value. I also had read around that time that the new "CompAir" kits from teh US with 6 seats couldn't be built with more than 4 seats in Canada.

        I guess I'm behind the times.... qu'elle surprise :-)

        If you put a big 540, especially an injected one, and a CS prop, I don't think you will need to move the engine out further, the airplane will be pretty nose heavy as it is. Also, the more you push that nose out, the more directionally unstable the airplane becomes. You can do a search on these forums on this as I remember this discussion coming up in the last year or so.

        Cheers (from outside of Ottawa)
        Thanks for getting back to me so quick...

        I just got a reply back from MDRA on this...but I dont speak parliamentary lawyer talk...maybe you guys can translate...does this mean I can pop the champagne? dancing in the streets....lol


        The exemption to section 549.01 of the CAR's and Chapter 549 of the airworthiness manual removes the limits applicable to gross weight and number of seats allowable for an amateur built aircraft.

        That same Exemption provides what is required per seat in an amateur built. ie: acceptable seat belt and shoulder restraint harness are required per seat and safety harnesses must be secured to a structural member of the aircraft.



        Excited in Toronto
        Michael
        Last edited by way_up_north; 12-03-2018, 11:09 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by whee View Post
          I can't help with the Canada question but it looks like rv8bldr too care of that.

          I think it would be unwise to extend the engine out past where recommended. While this would help with balancing the plane when flying with 5 or 6 passengers it would make it not fun to fly when lighter. IMO, the O540 is nose heavy as it is and you'd only be making it worse; perhaps even to the point it would be difficult to land well when light.

          I built my BH with a third row bench and I selected an engine that is ~50lbs lighter than the 540. Based on my estimated W&B, which was extrapolated from a sampling of BHs weight data, I'll be within CG range with my family of 5 on board as long as the girls don't grow to FAA adult size.
          Ive been following your progress on here this past year, you look like the right guy to ask...the shoulder width in the front seat is 42 inches across according to the factory numbers, what do you estimate the width is in the 2nd row and 3 row....

          Do you have your seats on adjustable tracks? I was thinking when carrying a 3rd row you could really push the 2nd and 3rd row as far forward as possible to help the CG..your thoughts on packing them in economy class...

          Comment


          • #6
            Pop champagne? Sure :-) Dancing in the streets? Not in this weather....

            I note in your response to Whee asking about adjustable seats. The front seats are adjustable. The back seats are not either in the plans or the QB kit. It will take some serious thinking and modification skills to make the back (middle?) seats adjustable. It certainly not something I would tackle....

            Back where you would need to put the third seat, I would guesstimate that it is about 32" wide taking into account that your shoulder could extend into the door space. I would have to check tonight when I get home to be sure. The bottom fuselage dimension at the back end of the cabin is only 29" and the top is 27 1/2".
            -------------------
            Mark

            Maule M5-235C C-GJFK
            Bearhawk 4A #1078 (Scratch building - C-GPFG reserved)
            RV-8 C-GURV (Sold)

            Comment


            • #7
              I bet your overwhelmed at the speed of my build this year

              I'll measure the approximate widths at the second and third rows when I'm at the airport later today. I don't have the seats in but I can get pretty close. Worth noteing that I did not install fabric interior to maximize my interior space. Every mm counts in economy class.

              My second and third row are on L-track for the reason you mention. With the second row slid forward with sufficient but minimal leg room for myself I have sufficient but minimal leg room for myself in the 3rd row. Head space is the issue for the 3rd row.



              Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88" C203 McCauley prop.

              Comment


              • #8
                image_5515.jpg
                Originally posted by rv8bldr View Post
                Pop champagne? Sure :-) Dancing in the streets? Not in this weather....

                I note in your response to Whee asking about adjustable seats. The front seats are adjustable. The back seats are not either in the plans or the QB kit. It will take some serious thinking and modification skills to make the back (middle?) seats adjustable. It certainly not something I would tackle....

                Back where you would need to put the third seat, I would guesstimate that it is about 32" wide taking into account that your shoulder could extend into the door space. I would have to check tonight when I get home to be sure. The bottom fuselage dimension at the back end of the cabin is only 29" and the top is 27 1/2".
                I was looking over build pictures online and the plans, It looks like you could put another anchor position. take a few minutes but seems possible to move the seat to a far forward(economy class) position. I`m no where near laying out the tubes ....but its food for thought.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by whee View Post
                  I bet your overwhelmed at the speed of my build this year

                  I'll measure the approximate widths at the second and third rows when I'm at the airport later today. I don't have the seats in but I can get pretty close. Worth noteing that I did not install fabric interior to maximize my interior space. Every mm counts in economy class.

                  My second and third row are on L-track for the reason you mention. With the second row slid forward with sufficient but minimal leg room for myself I have sufficient but minimal leg room for myself in the 3rd row. Head space is the issue for the 3rd row.



                  Thanks for the pictures, ...you really are making the dream come true for larger families.....

                  The wife is in on this project as long as the kiddies and pooch can come.

                  I guess procedures and a checklist could be made up for safe operation(not comfortable operation) with 4+ passengers. I was thinking front seats as far forward as possible.second row pushed forward....as you describe...etc...

                  I think you also mentioned a belly pod in your posts, if such a thing could be worked out for the bear hawk, it could really help to keep the CG near optimal and add much needed storage when you are carrying 4+ passengers.
                  Last edited by way_up_north; 12-03-2018, 12:33 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I didn’t think about widening the fuselage. That’s getting into structural changes and I didn’t want to go there.
                    Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88" C203 McCauley prop.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by whee View Post
                      I didn’t think about widening the fuselage. That’s getting into structural changes and I didn’t want to go there.
                      I deleted that line as you were reading it....lol.... Too much to consider...

                      4+ passengers adds a new dimension to this aircraft. Ill be following your progress

                      installing the track is a great idea, do you have a link to a supplier?
                      Last edited by way_up_north; 12-03-2018, 12:41 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wonder where the CG would be if the second row seat faced aft with the third seat moved forward about 12”

                        Whee.... I’ll probably follow your lead on the seat tracks...and will add “C” channel formed with a leaf brake from oh three two on the under side of the floor sheeting to reinforce the track. Heavier tabs and nut plates where the track passes over tubing under the floor.
                        Last edited by Mark Moyle; 12-03-2018, 12:51 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mark Moyle View Post
                          Wonder where the CG would be if the second row seat faced aft with the third seat moved forward about 12”
                          I looked at club seating and found there is little benefit. It might be even worse. The seats are reclined so they reasonably comfortable to sit in. Front seats are the same. So if you turn the 2nd row around the seat backs interfere with each other unless you slide the second row aft thus eliminating the potential benefit. Making the seat back straighter would make them miserable to sit in and you’d be riding backwards. You still couldn’t slide the 3rd row forward at all because you actually need more leg room because now there are more legs trying to occupy the same space.
                          Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88" C203 McCauley prop.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Good idea on the track reinforcement Mark. I don’t think it is necessary but won’t hurt.

                            I can’t remember where I sourced the L-track. It was from the same manufacturer Boeing uses but wasn’t their certified track. I conversed with the manufacture and determined what I bought was more than adequate.
                            Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88" C203 McCauley prop.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by way_up_north View Post

                              I think you also mentioned a belly pod in your posts, if such a thing could be worked out for the bear hawk, it could really help to keep the CG near optimal and add much needed storage when you are carrying 4+ passengers.
                              Because of the landing gear configuration a belly pod will be of minimal benefit CG wise. I'm still going to install one because I need the room and it will have some CG benefit over something like extended baggage but I'll still have to watch my loading very very carefully. I think hard points on the wings and cargo pods mounted to them may be a better solution. There is a local guy that builds such pods for smaller LSA type planes.
                              Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88" C203 McCauley prop.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X