Tailwheel weight of bearhawk 4 place

[African Bear]

Hi All,
Just wondering if anyone can give me an indicator weight on the tailwheel in the ground attitude of a bearhawk 4 place.
I'm thinking of putting a stinger hydraulic tailwheel on to try and ease the shock loading on the airframe when on moderately rough strips.
I realise each plane is going to be different, but an indicator would help.
I'm far from my plane, otherwise I would weigh it.
Thanks in advance
Andrew

[TrueAirSpeed]

I have an early A model and when it was weighed the tailwheel weight was 117 pounds.

[Ray Strickland]

100 lbs on mine

[African Bear]

TrueAirSpeed thank you very much for your reply. I'll let you know when I get to weigh my model A.

[Nev]

94lbs on mine Andrew.

[Ray Strickland]

100 lbs on mine

[whee]

You talking at 3 point attitude; loaded or unloaded? This is reaching way back, I may have posted it here somewhere, I weighed the tail a 0360 BH I was flying and a friend weighed the tail of his O540 BH. TW weight was like 95lbs on the O540 plane and 125ish on the 360 plane. I weighed the tail when I had the O360 plane loaded for a trip and it was slightly over 400lbs.

BHs have heavy tails and the equipment back there takes a beating. I’ve blown tw tires, bent tw spring, sheared the steering horn off the rudder and broken the fork off the tw. Make sure whatever you buy is up to the task.

[Battson]

I second what Jon said above, and I would add - all tailwheels and aft fuselage structures take a beating. Add in rough terrain and you've got a recipe for breaking things.

If you are on moderately rough strips, the answer is taxiing slower, landing with the tail just off the ground and keeping it there, turning around slowly - or by hand - and generally babying the back of the aircraft.

While it's tempting to think a fancy tailwheel will solve all these issues, experience is showing is (practical results are in) that it doesn't fully remove the need to "baby the tail". For instance, some systems add suspension in one axis, but make the assembly stiffer in another axis, which increases the chances of cracking or bending something. Invariably the tail is heavy. I have yet to see a system which fully solves the problems associated with tailwheel stresses on rough surfaces.

I would rather be occasionally repairing a lightly damaged tailwheel, than repairing the fuselage tubes which a stiffer tailwheel bent or cracked, or worse yet flying a plane with a very light tail and worrying about standing it on the nose all the time. At least with the Bearhawk, you can brake hard and still have good pitch control.

[Utah-Jay]

Leaf springs in the tailwheel have always bothered me for the reasons Battson listed above. At least the stinger has the potential for 360° movement

[Battson]

Yes that was always my thinking too. I don't think there's a clear winner, but the stinger certainly has some advantages. Interestingly I have seen both designs cause considerable damage to the back of the aircraft, albeit through different modes of failure. The disadvantage of the stinger is the length, there's a lot more leverage on the fuselage, whereas the leaf spring is much shorter.

[African Bear]

Thanks for all the comments.
Does anyone have first hand experience of a hydraulic stinger tailwheel?
I also agree with Battson, that it's better repairing light external damage than more structural material

[Nev]

I was also considering installing a hydraulic type tail wheel on my BH a while ago, but I've since changed my mind. I've grown to quite like the stinger that came with my 4B. As Battson mentions above, all designs have their issues and when off airport it's important to be aware of this. There's a thread HERE discussing damage to the aft fuselage, and I don't think the T3 design would prevent this type of damage. From the damage discussed in that thread, we became aware that it was the torsional forces occurring during a tight turn on rough ground that were the issue, as the forces were being transmitted up into the fuselage. A hydraulic stinger may not sufficiently change this, and it may not give much advantage under normal loads.

One difference with the BH stinger design is that it's permanently welded to the aft fuselage, so if damage does occur, then the type of damage may be different to the standard tail wheel spring that is attached by bolts.

The standard stinger seems to work well in most situations. It flex's continuously when taxiing, and soaks up the touchdowns well.

[jim.mclaughlin924]

I previously posted a pic of my Titanium stinger of my design. I am happy to report that it has survived some abuse in Idaho with heavy loads and has suffered no damage. It is significantly softer than the steel counterpart.

[Utah-Jay]

I previously posted a pic of my Titanium stinger of my design. I am happy to report that it has survived some abuse in Idaho with heavy loads and has suffered no damage. It is significantly softer than the steel counterpart.

Hmm, cost?

Same dimensions as the factory stinger?

[marcusofcotton]

I previously posted a pic of my Titanium stinger of my design. I am happy to report that it has survived some abuse in Idaho with heavy loads and has suffered no damage. It is significantly softer than the steel counterpart.

https://bearhawkforums.com/forum/tools-technics-and-best-practices/22111-patrol-tailwheel-spring

Very nice Jim, are you willing to share particulars?

[jim.mclaughlin924]

Sure. It is based on the main gear that I used to sell for the Rans S-7. Has a flat taper top and bottom so the stress is constant for the machined length. CNC machined for 6alv4 alloy. Happy to provide any info you want.

[marcusofcotton]

Temper and heat treating? Thanks Jim!