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

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lycoming engine O-320 in a 4-place Bearhawk

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

  • #31
    Good to know on the 540.. I really hate published weights as they are really just a guideline as there is so many variables with models etc.. Best to discuss with people who have actually put them on a scale. My IO-470 with all accessories, baffles etc came in at 465lbs without the exhaust. Not that anyone was asking but Its nice to have info like this on the forum

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by zkelley2 View Post

      No all the Bush planes land shorter than they take off. I can't think of a single airplane that this isn't the case. Provided the pilot is capable. Taking off is a lot easier than spot landing.

      The reverse on turbines is not factored when considering landing distance. So that isnt a factor.
      So I got really curious. I've never considered myself more than a well practiced weekend warrior and certainly not fit to stand too close to the STOL pilots who do this stuff for real. But I didn’t think I was too far off.. I figure the guys who demonstrate the aircraft capabilities are pretty good. So I checked:

      Aircraft: Takeoff: Landing

      Husky A1-C-180. 200. 350

      Maule M7-235B. 600. 900

      Maule M7-260. 600. 900

      Maule M9-260. 720. 900

      Maule MX7-180. 700. 900

      Carbon Cub LSA. 60. 110

      Carbon Cub FX-3. 90. 155

      Carbon Cub X Cub. 170. 170

      PA18-150. 200. 350

      Notes: Aviat doesn’t list landing and takeoff distances for the A1-C-200. All the Maule specs are performance over the proverbial 50' obstacle.


      I'd say my observations are pretty much in line with the demo pilots. Those guys must need to work on landings too.

      Bill

      Comment


      • #33
        The best thing I ever learned about landing short, was to pretend every landing is on an extremely short runway, even if you are on a 10,000 foot runway. Do it the same every single time. Fairly quickly, your landings will be very consistent, and very short. It becomes easy and natural. Pucker factor on an very short runway goes away.

        Comment


        • Chewie
          Chewie commented
          Editing a comment
          I like that theory. Then start doing that with the engine at idle and you'll be in really good shape.

      • #34
        I have seen what looked good deals on lightly used Continental 470-520's in the past year. I was pretty tempted, but I don't trust my ability to buy a good used engine.

        Comment


        • #35
          I've been one of the ground "runners" at the New Holstein Supercub get together in recent years. July 2018 results showed of 17 competitors, only three landed shorter than they took off. FWIW.

          And it is true that there is plenty of room for this pilot to improve - it's coming along. Actually when I first got the Avid, I could land shorter than take off, but the plane has been improving too! It doesn't help the BH to get completed sooner though...

          Comment


          • #36
            Between a 320 and a 360. Assume 30 lbs difference. That is about 1.5% difference in weight in the loaded weight of the aircraft. But a 13% difference in power.

            But the 13% is deceiving. Lets say it takes 60 hp to barely keep a 4 place airborne at a given weight. That means a 320 has 100 hp of excess to climb/cruise/takeoff. A 360 has 120 hp excess power. 20% more. So you get 20% more climb performance, for a 1.5% reduction in useful load.

            If you built a 4 place super light and simple, no electrics, two lawn chairs for seats. You might get close to 1000 lbs empty weight. An 0-320 powered version of that would perform quite well.

            Comment


            • #37
              Originally posted by svyolo View Post
              I have seen what looked good deals on lightly used Continental 470-520's in the past year. I was pretty tempted, but I don't trust my ability to buy a good used engine.
              Unless you favor Continentals I would stick with a Lycoming. A 540 will be much easier to install and there are plenty of builders that have gone before you to ask questions to. That won't be the case with a Continental.
              Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88" C203 McCauley prop.

              Comment


              • #38
                I got my Bob 540 delivered a few months ago.

                Comment

                Working...
                X