Taking a poll on builder interest in a larger Bearhawk....

[way_up_north]

After watching the Bob Barrows video that Mark put out it got me to thinking.

Bob really cares about the people who will be using his creations, he wants to fly the heck out of a prototype before he expects anyone else to sit in it. He wants to craft the aircraft himself so he is intimate with every part, so when someone calls he can answer questions with experience because he has touched every part himself from birth to flight.

I`m not going to pretend to know what Bob is thinking... but from his past treatment of his projects....he might not want to start a large aircraft project that could take many years.... that he might not finish at this stage of his design career...this might be part of the reason he is looking at the ultralight market as it is a smaller project he could see through from start to finish.

(I`m not up on the legality of if you have to have a prototype or wing load testing to offer plans...etc...please correct me if what I suggest below is not legally possible)


On the other hand....


I think Chris In Milwaukee is onto something with his "Project Expedition" below copied from Chris build thread....

The aircraft is essentially 15% larger than the original Bearhawk 4-place in every dimension, and adapts the Patrol (2-place) Riblett GA30-413.5 airfoil to the 4-place airframe (per Bob's recommendation).

Mission: Utility Plane

• Taildragger
• 3500 pounds targeted gross weight
• Metal Wing (38 feet in span, 210 ft^2 area)
• Rag and Tube Fuselage
• 4-6 places capable (but mainly 4 plus "stuff")
• Wide body and comfortable (48 inches in the front seats)
• Rigged for 8.5+ tires, skis, floats
• 260-300+hp engine

It would be the next step up in the fleet...but Bob might not be interested in taking on a prototype build of this size at this stage....

so my suggestion is this, that Bob design and make plans for an Expedition size aircraft. But we scratch builders do the sweat equity and except the risk of buying plans to a plane with no prototype. we work out the bugs and hickups....with a few planes flying and major issues worked out Mark could then start kit production.

There is no 6 passenger capable (4 place with cargo) scratch buildable experimental aircraft that I know of, it could fill a demand. the Bearhawk is such a great design that could lend itself to this.

So Bob could move on with the projects that interest him like the electric ultralight but could also develop another model with not that much personal investment.

Since builders on this site are most likely to be the repeat offenders of building multiple Bearhawks, and also have a financial opinion. I think a poll should be taken, if the forum software allows it and get a pulse of what the customer base is thinking....many questions could be asked....

I`ll kick it off with this....
I would buy plans and build a 6 place Bearhawk(no prototype) if it was available...

[jaredyates]

It sure would be cool to have a plane like that!

[whee]

Such an airplane would be a great option and likely would have been the plane I chose to build. I looked closely at the Murphy Moose and the Super Cyclone but for various reasons chose the BH. A BH with a foot more floor space, making ample room for a 3rd row, more ceiling heigh at the rear of the cabin, and a wider CG envelope would have been perfect for me.

I have certain concerns about a even larger airplane; not as fun to fly, not as good for off-airport play, and high cost of operation, so I’d want to see/fly such a plane before I made the decision to build one.

[Mark Goldberg]

Not a bad suggestion at all. But Bob is still in rehab learning to walk again. So it might be a little while before he could dig in to something like what you are suggesting. Mark

[zkelley2]

Depending on how important flying off airport is to you, 3500lbs with only 300HP is a bit on the low side. That's a 185 with an up-gross kit weight, but they don't perform all that well unless they also have the IO-550, which while rated for 300HP is a good bit more due to the difference in rating when it was designed.

The moose is a 3500lb bird and even with the 360 or 400hp radial on it, takes a good bit of runway. Not the best unless you're idea of back country is prepared airports that aren't paved. In which case, a 206 is ideal.

[Chris In Milwaukee]

Mine is most certainly an unknown quantity. It’s going to be big, and it’s going to be heavy. As noted, it may be underpowered at 300hp, I won’t really know until I get to that point. Hopefully it surprises me. It’s a loooooong term project, for sure, since there will be some destructive tests along the way, so at any time I may find it’s a bad idea and scrap the project. And I’m not getting any younger, either!

I kinda went down this path to scratch the itch of a Howard DGA without the 1943 airframe. It should be interesting. Some days I wake up saying to myself, “Self, just call Mark and buy a kit”

[tailwind]

I love the performance of the Howard at least from my limited reading about the plane. I love its speed, I love the room and my friend who owns one, lands into all of the airports I take my 180 Bearhawk into and he does it loaded with 4 people. But the additional weight makes ground handling more challenging. He burns a lot more fuel and the radial engine requires a lot more maintenance than a flat engine.

[rodsmith]

Several years back Budd Davidson and a couple builders worked out a M14P powered Bearhawk modification. I think the fuselage was 10" longer, a little wider and the wing was modified but I don't remember the details. One guy started building one,had the fuselage and engine but then sold the project and that was the last I heard about it. I was really interested at the time, would have started down that path if I hadn't already built my fuselage.

[AZBearhawk272]

Well those Two guys still exist, one of the 2 planes
Is getting mighty close to the airport journey.
Slowest, heaviest, longest, widest, Bearhawk ish looking thing.

[Helidesigner]

Like many of you I have 260 hp installed. It is great fun. We are spoiled. However, I think a little more payload would be nice. The B model has more wing area and span, enough for more gross weight. I think a 1.5 ft tail extension giving 6 more inches of rear seat leg room and 1 ft more baggage length would be good. The tail area is a little small so the aft fuselage extension would offer improved directional stability. Combine that with structural tweaks for gross weights of 2700 lb on wheels and 2900 lb on floats and you have a great machine. The CG would need to be checked and a firewall move forward might be needed. The engineering required for these mods is relatively easy.

[rodsmith]

Other than a better, thicker airfoil, the original and B wings are identical size.

[Mark Goldberg]

Not really Rod. The Patrol & Model B wings have a longer wing span by 3 or 4 inches. Doing the math with the wing chord means an increase of 3 or 4 sq ft of wing area on the wings. Maybe 184 sq ft instead of 180 sq ft.

The other main difference is the flaps. They come all the way to the fuselage like on the Patrol. Makes them a little over 9"2" in length when the original BH's flaps are 8 ft long. Mark

[Flynbrian]

I would be interested in this someday. Make it a good all around airplane with a decent cruise speed and a lot of people will be interested. Look at the C180/185 market.

[zkelley2]

And built for putting 300-350HP up front. Like a well performing 185 with the IO550.
It'd be a dog with only 260.

[Trefftzs]

I would jump on this bandwagon instead of the standard 4 place Bearhawk if it is available when I pull the trigger in a few years.

Aaron

[spiffymafied]

Yes, yes, and yes! I would love to build something that could carry my 5 person family into some Backcountry camping.

[Russellmn]

Sounds kinda like a Beaver, which I would absolutely be down for!