Tweet
Best one yet, he just posted a comparison with the SuperCub
-
https://www.youtube.com/user/fastfox23
Patrol plans #398 -
Yes today’s video with the SuperCub showed the obvious advantages.Comment
-
Really showcases what 40, and in reality because of the constant speed prop, about 80 extra horsepower can do.Comment
-
I think that it is 20 HP and better propeller efficiency but your point is taken. Comparing airplanes of different weights, power and configuration flown by different pilots isn't really going to tell you that much. Still we all like to see how it turns out and the exposure is good for the Bearhawk community.Comment
-
I figured the patrol was 200hp. Regardless the cub probably makes 130hp on takeoff due to the fixed pitch prop. The patrol makes all 180. And THEN theres prop efficiency.Originally posted by gregc View Post
Using a fixed pitch prop is like going up pikes peak stuck in 6th gear. It's an insane disadvantage.Comment
-
I liked the comparison summary on this video a LOT better than the 170 comparo. He made a point to note the differences in engine, prop, and pilot on performance differences.
The last one still has me wanting to buy a 170. I just can't seem to find one with a 180 hp, Trailblazer prop, STOL kit, upgraded gear, and glass cockpit for 35K.
The quality of his videos really is great. They are getting really good at videoing with the drones, and videoing from 1 aircraft while keeping the other in the field of view.Comment
-
Yes, but then you need to STOL kit, PPONK upgrades, glass cockpit.
I prefer to just build my own. -
The four place cessnas are good airplanes. The 170 is a very good airplane, when it's not underpowered with the factory engine. From a performance perspective I would be totally happy with a 180HP C170 or a C180, but airplanes are a lot more than performance. While the inside of my 170 is plenty big enough for what I want to do with it, I'm also forced to load everything through the front doors which isn't awesome. Another issue is the old cessna parts. I paid $200 for a flap hinge that was nothing more than extruded hinge material because of the part number stamped on it. Then there is the cessna spring gear. If you don't absolutely nail the wheel landings, they throw you right back into the air.
-
-
My impression is the cruise numbers for Marks new Patrol were a bit slow in the video. His old Patrol on my demo flight at OSH was 130 mph TAS at 23 squared. That I think is 65% power, or about 10 gph lean of peak. His new Patrol does not have gear leg fairings, and flew 126 mph at 11 gallons per hour....but that was ground speed. I thought at the same fuel flow the Patrol would out run a super cub by more than a couple knots. My impression is a lot of Patrols do 140 mph TAS. Maybe he was not Lean of Peak. Maybe the round gear is draggy, worth investigation I think.Brooks Cone
Southeast Michigan
Patrol #303, Kit buildComment
-
As a Patrol builder I'm always glad to see anything on youtube casting a positive light on anything Bearhawk. Fly8MA's videos are well done and edited in a professional manner but many of them I don't last the duration as my ADHD kicks in and I move on. Same with all the STOL drag chest thumping flying cowboy stuff. Any video that has more than 30 seconds of selfie stick and no view out the windshield or a camera mounted in the cockpit pointed at the pilot I get bored real fast. After you've seen an airplane like a Just Hilander jump into the air in a specialized competition format once then the rest is rinse / repeat. I'm pretty sure the pilots that have chosen any Bearhawk model are interested in the complete utility of the design and how it will do what they want. I love them all and have owned a C-180 and a PA18-95. Anything for utility category flying will always be compared to the Super Cub and we all know that. My project is sitting on 8.50's with an O-320 fixed pitch mounted. As an old guy I'm sure it will provide me with plenty of good flying utility. I'm retired but my past life as a cargo pilot allowed me many trips through Anchorage and kept my big tire fever up. Ooops....I'm rambling. In closing I applaud anybody that has a knack for making quality youtube videos. I know I couldn't.Comment
-
A modified 170. It will be interesting what it sells for.
Mark
Scratch building Patrol #275
Hood River, ORComment
-
Just to be sure, utility category refers to G loading. It used to be 23.3, but since they re-wrote part 23 I don't know where it ended up. Here's the text -Originally posted by Patrol28 View Post
I see this all the time on here, and it seems like no one knows what it means. The bearhawk is utility category in that regard, but no other bush airplane is(maybe the Cessna 170/180/185 have it listed at a lighter gross weight). Why the bearhawk has that kind of G loading I've never figured out. I don't think people are doing non 1G aerobatics in it nor do non 1G aerobatics seem to be anywhere near the design goal.23.3 Airplane categories.
(a) The normal category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for nonacrobatic operation. Nonacrobatic operation includes:
(1) Any maneuver incident to normal flying;
(2) Stalls (except whip stalls); and
(3) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not more than 60 degrees.
(b) The utility category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for limited acrobatic operation. Airplanes certificated in the utility category may be used in any of the operations covered under paragraph (a) of this section and in limited acrobatic operations. Limited acrobatic operation includes:
(1) Spins (if approved for the particular type of airplane); and
(2) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, or similar maneuvers, in which the angle of bank is more than 60 degrees but not more than 90 degrees.
(c) The acrobatic category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for use without restrictions, other than those shown to be necessary as a result of required flight tests.
(d) The commuter category is limited to multiengine airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 19 or less, and a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or less. The commuter category operation is limited to any maneuver incident to normal flying, stalls (except whip stalls), and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not more than 60 degrees.
(e) Except for commuter category, airplanes may be type certificated in more than one category if the requirements of each requested category are met.
In an engineering sense, that means it's empty weight is heavier than it should be for the mission. It's like when the 777X wing failed the stress test at 2.5G * 1.5 at only 1.49. Yes, that's a failure, but so is if it went to 1.6, because that means it's carrying around a bunch of extra weight that could be used for payload and is serving no purpose than more safety margin should someone be wildly reckless with the aircraft.
Utility category is for light acro. Not carrying lots of weight, or just generally being useful. Utility category means it can go to 4.4G without over stressing the airframe instead of the standard category 3.8G. And -1.76, -1.52 respectively. Then there's the maneuvers listed, which generally limits the CG envelope more than normal. I would be terrified of spinning a bearhawk anywhere near the factory aft CG limit. So in that sense, it's not utility category without a CG limit. Just like a Cessna. Which brings up another point. For an experimental, you have to go flight test all those maneuvers or they are prohibited.(It's right on your airworthiness cert.)
Normally when you see a utility category it's built in to a standard category aircraft. The 172 is a great example of this. The standard category gross is 2300lbs, but in utility it is 2000. (The math works perfect for this to. 2000*4.4/3.8=2315. The stress is the same on the aircraft and in the bearhawk you could do the same save TO/landing weight limits 2500*4.4/3.8=2894lbs.) The aft CG limit is 6.8 inches further forward than it is in standard category at 40.5 instead of 47.3. And rear seat pax and baggage are prohibited, though the cg limit kind of takes care of that anyways.
The cub not only does not have a utility category, but in the sense I think people think of that word - carrying things(which is wrong), it also can't carry much unless you fly it wildly overweight like a lot of people do.Last edited by zkelley2; 08-15-2020, 04:10 AM.Comment
-
Bob designs for utility category strength at full gross weight because he thinks it adds a safety margin for amateur builders. And I believe it is correct that no one else does this as standard category gross weight gives specs that look better. And I am sure that Bob's planes carry some extra weight to achieve this. But not much as Bob manages to design strong and light. If you looked at a bare Cub fuselage next to a Patrol fuselage you would see the tubing count is MUCH higher on a Cub. Bob achieves more strength with less tubes. MarkComment
-
My point is everyone keeps using utility in the common sense of the word. The aircraft is capable of being more useful, carrying more, truck like. When the exact opposite is true. There is weight that could be removed if it was built to 3.8G loading... or the gross weight were higher to achieve the same thing.
Judging by the empty weights of most bearhawks I'm pretty sure I'm in a lonely group of people who care about my useful load so much to care theres an extra 20-50lbs? In weight built into the airframe to support a load it will never see.Last edited by zkelley2; 08-15-2020, 08:23 AM.Comment
-
Something to consider... usually, only a few parts are critically stressed. So, the change in maximum g loading between the (former*) utility and normal category standards likely only propagates to a few critically stressed parts - most will be at a far larger factor of safety. Usually, that's somewhere in the wing, such as the spar cap strips and wing attach points. Things in the fuselage tend to be sized to crash loads and landing loads - stuff behind the pilot is sized to 9-18g axially for crash loads, depending on if it's a CAR3 or Part 23 airplane. I would be very surprised if designing to utility category structural standards would add more than a dozen pounds to the Bearhawk design, but I'll admit I'm spitballing here.
I suspect the main reason you don't see many bush planes that are certified to utility standards has little to do with the marginal increase in structural weight. Under the old Part 23 (prior to August 2017), utility category airplanes had to recover from 3-turn spins. Normal category airplanes need only to recover form 1-turn spins (and are placarded against intentional spinning). Aerobatic aircraft must recover from 6-turn spins. Most airplanes aren't in a fully-developed spin by 1-turn, but may be by 3-turns, hence, it's harder to design and certify. Spin test matrices can get into 100s of conditions, and if you don't pass one, it kills the whole program (you may have thought you designed for it, but at some wonky aft-CG, power-on, lightweight left-turn accelerated condition it may not pass the criteria). Hence, that bush plane may meet utility structural strength requirements, but they may not have been able to pass (or did not want to try to pass) all the 3-turn spins in the certification program.
[*Under the Part 23 rewrite, the only category is now Normal. There is no more utility category, and if you wish to certify for spins, you have to use aerobatic standards (6g, recovery after 6-turns) for whatever configurations you request. Certification is to "levels," shorthand for "risk level," and the levels are 1-4. The levels are not weight-based, but instead based solely on the maximum number of passenger seats. So, under the new Part 23, you could design a Level 1 airplane that is 19,000 pounds as long as it has one or zero passenger seats (note that it may have one or more crewmembers, which don't count towards the "Level"). There are a number of new changes - such as the elimination of the 1-turn spin requirement, since the majority of LOC accidents occur at altitudes below spin recovery altitude. Instead, single-engine aircraft not certified for aerobatics, "must not have a tendency to inadvertently depart controlled flight." ASTM Committee F44 is one of the main sources for means of compliance to the new Part 23 rules, which follows from the FAA's confidence in the ASTM standards (ASTM Committee F37 maintains the means of compliance for LSA).] -
My 2 cents worth on "Utility Category" versus "utility"... I think when you see the word "utility", you are thinking about the FAA definition of "Utility Category." But others might just be using the more common English definition of "utility" – as in a synonym for "useful or beneficial."
I suspect when pilots use the term "utility" without adding the word "category" following it – even in an aviation forum – they probably are not referring to the "Utility Category" meaning. At least, that's my take...
-
-
When building low production stuff like light aircraft or kits out of metal you are stuck with using stock sized aluminum and steel. Composites make it somewhat easier to tailer each piece for the load for most of the length of the piece. On a metal plane, one place is critical on a piece, then you are carrying extra structure down the tube or sheet to the end.
Commercial and military aircraft have the financial room to custom make each piece so the structure is more optimized.
The closest certified aircraft to a BH 4 place is a Maule, including using both O-360 and 540 engines (plus some Conti's and Franklins). Current Maule's seem to weight 100-300 lbs more than a BH when using the same engine.
I kind of think Bob probably only had to upsize 10-30% of tubing/sheet to push the BH to the utility category. The model 5 has a gross weight of 3000 lbs and the empty weight didn't go up that much. I think I remember hearing "30 lbs" of steel. I don't remember hearing a number for the aluminum in the wing.Comment
-
That was my intent when I wrote the word utility in my post. I did later in the post write utility category but I had no intent of creating a storm of engineering explanations and FAR definitions.
My comment was aimed more towards the Bearhawk being more useful like a long bed pick up is compared to a short bed. Probably a good thing I don't post much. Maybe I will post some pictures of my project. From a pilots point of view I recommended keeping your Bearhawk within CG and go fly.Comment
-
Makes me wonder, what numbers are you all seeing with your patrols?
Jon's latest vid.
Comment
Comment