Why companion instead of BH4

[Grum.man]

I’ve browsed the specs and read the forums yet I still can’t figure out why build the Companion over the BH4. Given the same engine it seems they perform identical. The 4 is only 25-50 lbs heavier depending on if you have the back seat installed. What aspect am I overlooking? Why not build the 4 place and have a “companion” when only flying two up but have the option to add passengers? I like the performance of the Patrol but prefer side by side. I rarely need four seats but if everything else is equal why not have the extra seats?

[Utah-Jay]

I will take a shot at this.
#1) I wrongly assumed that by this point in time MOSAIC would be the rule of the land and my two seat “200hp” Companion would fit into Light Sport Rules
#2) I think your assumption of the “same engine” might be incorrect, I think most higher DA guys/gals are choosing a 540 not a 360. If you get a BH4 loaded and fly in the mountains, a 180hp 4 Place might very well be underpowered.
#3) I live just under 6000’ elevation and see 8,500+ DA’s all summer, so light and powerful were keys to my choice.
#4) The Companion has a 1000# useful load (depending on how you build it) and a 250# cargo area, both are more than enough for me
#5) No way my wife would sit in the back seat of a tandem plane, and to be honest I like the more social aspect of side by side seating. I have a buddy with a 4 place cub and he says he loves the fact that his wife is sitting next to him and not behind him.

Bottom line, everyone has different missions and needs, make a pros and cons list and figure out what is best for you

[Grum.man]

Obviously someone who needs a 540 4 isn’t going to be interested in a Companion. But why would someone interested in a 360 companion not just build the 4? Maybe there is a point on the potential for rule changes that would distinguish the two but if all you are talking about is a 25ish lb weight difference like the site says I’d just assume have the extra seats and cargo door. It should be just as good as a companion as a 2 seater and an acceptable 3-4 seater for normal duty.

[Pbruce]

Perhaps everything else might not be in fact “equal” after all. My understanding of the design brief of the Companion was: replicate the handling and performance of the Patrol in a side-by-side. While this is a very subjective parameter, its also a defining characteristic, if in fact the goal was achieved.

Disclaimer: I haven’t flown a Bearhawk, but I can verify that to me, the promised handling, performance and vis attributes of the Patrol limited my my choice to only that model of the BH line. Had the Companion kit been available at that time I bought, I would have seriously considered it, but ONLY if I felt the handling was “supercub-like” enough.

If I had been sitting on an angle-valve I0-360 at the time, that might also have been a strong motivator, but since the 4-place can accept this engine too, it’s not that relevant to the comparison between the Companion and 4-place. My own opinion is that the handling differences between different planes are huge and often cannot be described with “numbers”.

[Grum.man]

I’ve read that about the handling but I guess that’s something you have to experience? I don’t find a super Cub to handle well so that isn’t a desirable trait to me. They aren’t aerobatic planes so whether it handles like a Cessna or handles like a Cub doesn’t mean much to me. With the same hp and weight they all seem to have the same specifications. They have the same wing area and span so I assume the patrol has a skinnier wing that may be better at altitude but where does that leave the companion to the 4?

[AKKen07]

You know I have wondered the same thing. The 4 place and Companion and patrol all have basically the same wing. Like the Patrol the Companion seems to fit the market for a heavy duty 2 place but with SxS seating. Like a 170 (in practice) but more capable by the numbers. But, Without the cargo door and with reduced capacity with the same setup as a 4 place you’d see better performance and lower insurance costs too. With as many people that have built 360 powered 4 places I see the companion improving on some similar missions. Frankly, anytime you only need two seats. The Bearhawk is a more rugged design than any other 2 seat side by side kit that I’m aware of (Murphy might have a good competitor in all aluminum but I haven’t looked into it) and those factors seem to tickle some people’s fancy. I admit that I was skeptical when they came out but a lot of people like the idea. I think it’s a subtle thing, and it sounds like a 4 place might suit you better. If you want to put a 540 in your plane I still think the 4 or 5 are better options, although a 2 seater with a 540 would be pretty rad.

[Grum.man]

How is the performance better on the companion than the BH? I’ve seen people have removable seats in their BH so that leaves the cargo door as the only weight adder which is 25 lbs according to the site. That’s what, about 4 gallons of gas? I got to be honest, I don’t think I’d notice the extra 25 pounds.

I do have a 550 that would be perfect for the 5 but that’s a lot of airplane to just put around in.

[AKKen07]

Shoot I dunno, without seats if it’s really only 25 pounds between door frame, door, skin, rear windows, wiring for back seat headsets, extra floor board, seat belts, longer flap cables, possible air plumbing, and the weight of additional responsibility… :P etc… maybe it would be too close to call. I’d bet the difference is greater though.

[kestrel]

Weight and possibly insurance cost.

I suspect that real apples to apples weight difference is more like 100 lbs. I think that the first (and only?) Companion to fly was under 1200 lbs? 100 lbs make noticeable difference in performance and handling. If light weight performance is your priority, build a Companion. If you want more utility, build a light 4 place. For 99% of operations you won't notice the weight difference and will be able to carry 4 people or have a LOT more baggage space.

Note: A light 4 place will be limited by CG when loading and won't perform like a 540 place if heavy at high density altitude. ...just saying that you might not get all the 4 place benefits you hear about.

[AKKen07]

100 pounds makes more sense to me, that would certainly make a difference on a 2 seat mission.

[Grum.man]

Maybe it is more, I’m just going off what the website says. Responsibility is the same whether you carry two people in a 4 place plane or 2 people in a 2 seater. Cables are the same since. You are still going to have the floors for cargo. There is structure on the companion where the door is on the 4.

[Mark Goldberg]

Mr Grum.man - if you see the comparison the way you describe it - build a 4 place. There are a number of builders who only want two seats. And understand the cargo area of the Companion is likely larger and with more weight carrying capacity than any other two place. The access to the cargo area is also quite good on a Companion - without the big cargo doors.

A couple of pilots who have flown the Companion (and also the 4 place) have commented that the Companion does fly a little more like the Patrol - a little lighter on the controls than the 4 place and well balanced.

Your thoughts on just taking out the rear seat of a four place is certainly valid. But it would be a pretty boring world if everyone had the same thoughts and opinions. Mark

[Grum.man]

I didn't mean to sound like I was expecting everyone to think like me. I was just curious if there was some difference between the two that wasn't documented.

[svyolo]

I think like you.

[David Swartzendruber]

No one has mentioned to Mr Grum.man that the wing loft is the same between the Companion and the 4-place meaning it's the same shape. The same ribs are used for both. The 4-place just has a stronger spar and thicker skins to accommodate a higher gross weight. From what I've been able to observe, it appears that the only things that would contribute to the two airplanes flying differently is that the Companion is a lighter airplane and the lightly loaded CG location may be different between the two.

Mark, are there any other factors that would make a difference in flying qualities?

[m.mooney]

Personally, I’d have to agree with the light 4 place over a companion. Provided that there isn’t some dramatic difference in flying qualities, a larger cargo area with a huge door and the option to carry a third or fourth (individual jump seats) the 4 place makes sense to me. Like said by many, do whichever you prefer.

[Grum.man]

I did some digging through the completion threads and found an older BH4 build with a fixed pitch and 180 hp 360 and compared it to the recently completed Companion 360. Obviously there are differences in builds, and scale weights but those two were about 140 lbs apart. The 4 had a metal prop, the Companion a composite. I'd guess a 4 place with passenger accommodations removed would probably be in the 75-100 lb weight difference like some others have mentioned. I suppose that makes sense when you factor in the added length of all the fwf components and extra weight of the baggage area. As more Companions get completed hopefully some numbers will start to surface for comparison.

[Nev]

The Companion will have a tighter CG envelope, and theoretically improved elevator authority over a 540 powered 4-place at forward CG and low speeds, and less sensitive pitch control at full aft CG.

The MTOW is also significantly lighter, so power to weight ratio is higher, although not quite in the same realm as an IO540 4-place, but should still be very respectable.

Having the engine located closer to the firewall, in addition to tightening up the CG envelope, will also increase yaw stability. There's been much discussion over the years regarding rudder sensitivity, so a small decrease in the sensitivity while still retaining the positive handling traits may be well received.