Why companion instead of BH4

[jaredyates]

As I understand it, there is only one flying Companion, and only one Bearhawk 4-Place Model B with under 200hp. My answer would be I don't think we have enough data points, or at least I don't, to rigorously compare a light 360-powered 4-place and the Companion. I have plenty of 360-powered Bearhawk time but none in a 360-powered plane with model B mods. I have a few hours of Companion and Patrol time but no good testing with either, such as airspeed calibration and CG range validation. The things one typically does in a good Phase 1 program are very educational but I haven't had the opportunity to be educated on them yet for the Patrol or Companion. Once we have half a dozen of each airplane to compare, maybe we could have a more productive discussion about their differences.

In-the-weeds apples to apples comparisons about weight and handling are hard because there aren't any apples versions of each. Individual build preferences are too variable from one airframe to the next. There were some distinct handling nuances in the Companion that I got to fly, but it would be too early to say if those were airframe-specific or design-specific.

All planes designed by Bob that I've been able to fly are delightful, rugged machines. At this stage, select the cabin configuration you like the best, keep the engine choice in the recommended range, build as light as you can, and you'll have a good airplane that is 97% as good as any other Bearhawk. Whether it's a few percent better than the others, we'll have to see.

[500AGL]

I have zero model 4 time, but I have a reasonable amount of time in a Patrol and Model 5.

I see the Companion and Model 4 as being an odd comparison. One is designed as a two place aircraft (or 2+1/2+2, kids), and the other is designed as a 4 place with baggage aircraft. One designed with 260-320hp and one with 180-200hp.

Regarding a Companion, to me, the comparison is do you want a tandem (Patrol) or a Side by Side (Companion) two seater with room for a third, or bikes/camping/etc.

Again, to me, The Model 4 and the Model 5 are the true competitors. You really need an xx-540 in both, one is two feet longer (which helps in many respects), offers 4 or 6 seats, and maximum load carrying capacity. The other offers 4 seats, and less gross weight. For the small difference in kit cost, the model 5 is head and shoulders above the model 4.

Arguably the largest mistake home builders make is compromising on buying enough horsepower. There is no replacement for displacement, unless your airplane isn’t designed for the weight. Skip avionics, skip interior, skip paint, but don’t skip horsepower. A 2500 lb airframe doesn’t work with 180 hp.

pb

[jaredyates]

A 2500 lb airframe doesn’t work with 180 hp.

This is an interesting way to think of it. I disagree with the idea that a 4-Place with 180hp is inadequate, but that isn't quite the same as what you are saying. We had a very capable and useful airplane with the smaller engine, but we also didn't routinely load it to 2500 pounds. We ran out of space usually 200-300 pounds before we got there. So even though 2500 was the max gross, for our mission we seldom could get there. When I did carry 2500 pounds with ballast it still made it to 10,000 feet, but the last couple thousand took a little patience. It was still capable of climbing higher. I don't think it's a clear-cut decision to universally power a 4-Place with a 540, rather it is important to analyze the mission.

[Grum.man]

I have zero model 4 time, but I have a reasonable amount of time in a Patrol and Model 5.

I see the Companion and Model 4 as being an odd comparison. One is designed as a two place aircraft (or 2+1/2+2, kids), and the other is designed as a 4 place with baggage aircraft. One designed with 260-320hp and one with 180-200hp.

Regarding a Companion, to me, the comparison is do you want a tandem (Patrol) or a Side by Side (Companion) two seater with room for a third, or bikes/camping/etc.

Again, to me, The Model 4 and the Model 5 are the true competitors. You really need an xx-540 in both, one is two feet longer (which helps in many respects), offers 4 or 6 seats, and maximum load carrying capacity. The other offers 4 seats, and less gross weight. For the small difference in kit cost, the model 5 is head and shoulders above the model 4.

Arguably the largest mistake home builders make is compromising on buying enough horsepower. There is no replacement for displacement, unless your airplane isn’t designed for the weight. Skip avionics, skip interior, skip paint, but don’t skip horsepower. A 2500 lb airframe doesn’t work with 180 hp.

pb

They are literally the same airplane which is why I am asking. The only difference is that they removed the baggage door, moved the baggage bulkhead forward and adjusted the engine mount length. It literally says Bob didn't see a point in redesigning the airframe for the Companion. I keep hearing that a 180hp 2500lb airplane want work but the 172 has been doing just that for years! Sure you aren't going to be bush flying at high density altitudes at that weight but it should be totally fine for airport to airport work.

[jaredyates]

They are literally the same airplane

You sound pretty sure about all of this so I won't try too hard to change your mind, but while they are very similar, there are additional subtle differences as others have pointed out. The differences in handling will be correspondingly subtle, but I suppose it just depends on how closely one wants to look. Zoom out far enough and they are the same airplane, but zoom out far enough and a Skyhawk is the same kind of plane too.

[Bcone1381]

We must also understand that The Market Place demands a two seat side by side backcountry Utility aircraft (Rans S-21 Outbound, Vans RV-15) and the R&D to develop it was pretty much completed with the existing aircraft line-up.

[Utah-Jay]

There are lots of Husky A-1C’s at my local airport, most are 200hp, one is a 180hp. The guy with the 180 Husky wishes he had the extra 20ph. I live at high altitude, ForeFlight said the DA was a bit over 8,100’ today for our 5,637 elevation airport (KHCR). It is not even summer yet, so just imagine. While a 180hp 4 Place or even Companion may be ok in the lowlands, it is not a competent tool in the mountains. As 500AGL stated, “there is no replacement for displacement”. My 200hp Companion will likely weigh 1200# +/- 25 is my best guess. When not IF you have more power you can pull it back, but IF you are in a 180hp plane with half useful loaded and the DA is 8,500+ you are unlikely to out climb much of anything. Load that same 4 Place to max gross and the climb will be anemic in the high DA’s.

If you are gonna camp in the mountains then you will likely be loaded up, getting in is not a problem, but you’re gonna be on a slow climb deep in the canyon for a long time in a 180hp plane weighing 2200+#

4 Place is a 540 plane
Companion is a 360 variant plane, I opted for the angle valve 200hp version with a few additions that may get it at or above 210hp with a very capable prop suited to backcountry conditions.

If you are going airport to airport east of Denver, then sure go for the 180hp 4 Place.

[Battson]

You sound pretty sure about all of this so I won't try too hard to change your mind, but while they are very similar, there are additional subtle differences as others have pointed out. The differences in handling will be correspondingly subtle, but I suppose it just depends on how closely one wants to look. Zoom out far enough and they are the same airplane, but zoom out far enough and a Skyhawk is the same kind of plane too.

I do understand where Grum.man is coming from. Aerodynamically the Bravo and Companion would be very hard to tell apart, unless I missed something?
Weight and balance of the empty aircraft on the ramp could be very similar too.

Of course on a marketing flyer they could be pitched as two different aircraft, but will they really fly that much differently?

Did someone say the engine mount for the Companion is shorter than the Bravo engine mount for a O-360? I don't think I heard that one before.

[Grum.man]

According to the website the engine is 6” closer to the firewall since the baggage bulkhead is moved up to just behind where the rear seat would be mounted.

[Nev]

Yep it does say that on the website Jon.

[jaredyates]

The nose is quite a bit shorter, and between that and the shorter cabin, the mass distribution in pitch is closer to the center. The shorter nose also impacts Yaw as Nev said above. The airfoil is the same Riblett but the spars and structure are different, as I understand it.

[Grum.man]

Maybe they should come out with a model that splits the difference between the two called the Threesome!

[Bissetg]

Hmmm. Having a light 4B Lyc factory overhauled powered IO 360 200hp that seems to go anywhere the 540 4s go albeit a little slower and climbing a little less spectacularly (although more spectacularly than most other aircraft) I agree that the additional versatility of the 4 over the companion is compelling. I can land shorter than the 540s with the same load as I’m lighter, they seem to takeoff a little shorter whereas I use about the same amount of takeoff roll as landing roll.

My Qualifier on that is that I operate at low DAs most of the time, I rarely fly over 9000 ft. For the guys at high DAs bigger donks make sense.

My aircraft weighed 1331lb at birth giving a power to weight ratio of 9.5lbs/hp for my typical mission. If I’d done a companion that was likely to be 9lbs/hp and if I had gone the 540 it would be about 8.5lbs but at a significantly higher cost.

If I was to start with a blank sheet of paper I’d do a 4B with either a Lycoming IO360 (what I have now) or an IO 390 or another Lycoming 4 cyl derivative.

I don’t see the 4B and 5 in the same space because I see the 4 B as a true backcountry aircraft that would suit most C180 owners at a fraction of the cost. The 5 is more a C185 equivalent and a whole different level of financial hurt for in my case, recreation.

This doesn’t mean I don’t agree with what others have said, just that for my mission, where I’m based that’s the way I see it.

[kestrel]

Maybe they should come out with a model that splits the difference between the two called the Threesome!

I already did that. ...but my "Threesome" has a 540 and I can still put the 4th seat in when I want to. We have a family of three and like to carry stuff.

[kestrel]

It is interesting to see how each of us projects our own experiences and requirements when characterizing each of the Bearhawk models. I was temped to inventory mine, but I'm not sure it is worth every Bearhawk enthusiast each detailing their nuanced view.

Grum.man, try to be clear with yourself about what your requirements are so that you can make the choice that is right for you.

[Mark Goldberg]

Today I mentioned to Bob this discussion about the Companion versus the Model B four place. He had recently flown the one Companion finished and flying, and thought it to be the best flying Bearhawk of any kind he had ever flown. He really liked it largely because of the CG situation and the light weight. The pilot seat CG is in the sweet spot according to Bob. He also thinks that the 150+ lbs lighter weight (compared to the 4 place) makes for a nice flying plane.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just repeating Bob's comments. Mark

[Battson]

I can land shorter than the 540s with the same load as I’m lighter

Challenge accepted