Bearhawk Aircraft Bearhawk Tailwheels LLC Eric Newton's Builder Manuals Bearhawk Plans Bearhawk Store

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

4-place Landing Techniques

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 4-place Landing Techniques

    I’m curious about your landing techniques used in the Bearhawk. I recall frequently landing tail first in the pervious BH I flew and I find I’m doing the same in my BH. If I land a touch faster it’s not an issue but landing faster isn’t really want I want to be doing in my bush buggy.

    I’m sure the quick jab of throttle I use to arrest the decent going into the flair but I’m not sure how else to ease onto the ground.

    I’m 65mph and full flaps on short final.
    Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88” C203 McCauley prop.

  • #2
    Originally posted by whee View Post
    I’m curious about your landing techniques used in the Bearhawk. I recall frequently landing tail first in the pervious BH I flew and I find I’m doing the same in my BH. If I land a touch faster it’s not an issue but landing faster isn’t really want I want to be doing in my bush buggy.

    I’m sure the quick jab of throttle I use to arrest the decent going into the flair but I’m not sure how else to ease onto the ground.

    I’m 65mph and full flaps on short final.
    As I understand it, if you want minimum speed at touchdown but want to land on the mains, you need bigger tires. Otherwise, carry a little more energy, or abuse the tailwheel.

    Comment


    • #3
      Sounds like a perfect excuse to order big tires😁

      The tapered rod tail spring is handling the abuse really well; it’s a very worthy mod.
      Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88” C203 McCauley prop.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by whee View Post
        Stuff deleted....

        I’m 65mph and full flaps on short final.
        That's EXACTLY what i'm using in my Maule M5-235C. If my Bearhawk winds up being the same, it is going to be a relatively easy conversion :-)


        -------------------
        Mark

        Maule M5-235C C-GJFK
        4 Seat Bearhawk #1078 (Scratch building)
        RV-8 C-GURV (Sold)

        Comment


        • #5
          Ahhh - this thread I like!! Big tires, slow landings

          First things first, you said 65mph... you could be at least 15 KIAS slower on short finals - but only once you are practised and have VGs installed. Do not try this without VGs and lots of currency in the plane, you will probably stall. The heavier Bearhawk 4-place's I have flown with no VGs also seem to like 55 KIAS (65 mph) on final approach.

          Flying slow will really exacerbate the tail-first issue. I can still land on the tail first with the big tires, I need to be going about 34 KIAS. Big tires are not the whole story to fix this problem. Technique is everything.

          My technique is based on conventional wisdom and some experience, refer to STOL Tips on YouTube. It goes like this:
          1. Establish finals on a slow stabilised approach with stall warning working over the fence. Nose should be high, view of the airstrip around the side of the nose.
          2. There isn't a conventional round-out at 40 KIAS and below, just arrest the descent with a shot of power and flop onto the ground main wheels's first.
          3. To ensure the mains go down ahead of the tail, I check forward on the stick just after I give the squirt of power. This results in a controlled but deliberate landing, I want no dancing around at the mercy of the wind in the three point attitude. That is how accidents happen, when people relinquish control to the wind.
          4. Once I hit the ground, I push forward for a tail low wheel landing. This increases visibility and braking action.
          5. I brake immediately after I establish steady contact with the ground.
          6. Consider flaps. I dump flaps immediately to kill lift if I need full brakes or have a crosswind at play, but this will make the much tail heavier - so I leave them down if I want the tail to stay up.

          Comment


          • #6
            Great post. I do it very similar but I setup a stable approach at 60mph indicated bleed out a little on the transition over the fence and add power to arrest the descent. Vg’s Are a must as stated above including the horizontal Stab. I’m on 31’s Aswell. I suggest starting at much higher speeds and working your way down slower and slower. Weight is very important so take note of your fuel as you practice as there’s a very big difference in setup when full of fuel.

            Comment


            • Battson
              Battson commented
              Editing a comment
              The point about weight is well-made. I fully agree.
              The plane is a different animal when heavy, airspeed clearly need to be higher. I find about 7kts higher, but I don't use reference speeds.

          • #7
            I’m a 55mph approach kind of guy in my Maule MX-7-180A with full flaps. That crazy wing wanted to keep flying at 65mph. It’s a fine line, though. With 850s, three pointers without touching the tail first is a rarity. But I don’t bounce it anymore.

            I don’t remember which airfoil the Maule uses, though. I imagine it’s fairly close to the Bearhawk airfoil.
            ​Christopher Owens, EAA #808438
            Project "Expedition"
            Bearhawk 4-Place Scratch Built, Plans #991
            Bearhawk Patrol Scratch Built, Plans #P313
            Germantown, Wisconsin, USA

            Comment


            • Mark Goldberg
              Mark Goldberg commented
              Editing a comment
              I do not think the airfoils are similar Chris. From what Bob has said.

              Very interesting thread. Mark

          • #8
            Originally posted by Chris In Milwaukee View Post
            I’m a 55mph approach kind of guy in my Maule MX-7-180A with full flaps. That crazy wing wanted to keep flying at 65mph. It’s a fine line, though. With 850s, three pointers without touching the tail first is a rarity. But I don’t bounce it anymore.

            I don’t remember which airfoil the Maule uses, though. I imagine it’s fairly close to the Bearhawk airfoil.
            The Maule uses a modified USA-35B airfoil.
            USA_35B_-_All_Rag_Wing_Pipers.jpg
            The Model A uses a NACA 4412

            553ddf46067d7b4136f8e766.png

            The Model B has a Riblett 30-413.5 which I can't find a drawing of, but iirc it's based on the NACA 4412.

            Comment


            • #9
              I’ve been planning to add VGs but want to get familiar with the naked wing so I can tell what the difference is.

              I remember being told the tail runs out of authority in a very slow landing but I’m not finding that to be the case with the profiled tail. I’ll probly try VGs on just the wing then add them to the tail so I can see what the difference is.

              Battson, your technique is really interesting and obviously works. I can’t imagine what the decent rate must be at that low of an airspeed and I’m not sure I’ll ever be good enough to try it. It sounds a lot like a method a guy on BCP used to talk about years ago.

              I’ve got a long ways to go before I’m familiar enough with the plane to make any real changes but hopefully this conversation will help me and others dial in our landings faster.

              Scratch Built 4-place Bearhawk. Continental IO-360, 88” C203 McCauley prop.

              Comment


              • #10
                Whee;
                I couldn't agree more with trying one thing at a time to tell the difference. I think it has a name, "scientific method".

                I have never flown a bush plane, but I learned long ago to land one way, and you can't help but get good at it if you do. A BH has a big weight range, more than most.15 gallons of gas, and you, you will have to fly 7-10 knots slower than you would if you were at 2500 lbs. You should actually be flying AOA, but most pilots weren't taught that. Bigger planes also don't, they fly airspeed, but they have tables, either electronic, or paper, that vary the speed based on weight. At the end of the day, they are flying AOA, but most don't know it.

                Your BH weighs about 1400 lbs. Max landing is 2500. You and 15 gallons of gas is probably 1700. So you have an 800 lbs weight range. Just come up with 4 speeds. You can calculate it. 1700 is 50 (or whatever). 2500 lbs would be 61. Nobody can fly a half a knot accuracy unless it is glass smooth and your instruments are that good. And you as well. If you fly 50 IAS at 1700 lbs, just add 3 knots per 200 lb increase in weight. Close enough.

                In a former life we had a rule of thumb like this to back up the AOA that we were actually flying. The AOA failed occasionally so we needed a backup.

                Comment


                • #11
                  Originally posted by whee View Post
                  I’ve been planning to add VGs but want to get familiar with the naked wing so I can tell what the difference is.

                  I remember being told the tail runs out of authority in a very slow landing but I’m not finding that to be the case with the profiled tail. I’ll probly try VGs on just the wing then add them to the tail so I can see what the difference is.

                  Battson, your technique is really interesting and obviously works. I can’t imagine what the decent rate must be at that low of an airspeed and I’m not sure I’ll ever be good enough to try it. It sounds a lot like a method a guy on BCP used to talk about years ago.

                  I’ve got a long ways to go before I’m familiar enough with the plane to make any real changes but hopefully this conversation will help me and others dial in our landings faster.
                  Bad news sorry - at these low speeds you will still run out of authority with the profiled tail. This is common to most aircraft, including Cessna.
                  This is where the shot of power comes in, you get an instant of full authority while the engine revs up. A carbon prop helps a lot because the engine response is vastly improved.
                  I am told that gap seals or VGs under the tail make a huge difference. I am trying to find a solution which works for me, I would love cub style foam gap seals. I tried the pits gap seals but sadly they were unsafe on the Bearhawk. Right now the shot of power remains my favourite solution.

                  My descent rate is fairly typical of any approach. At the risk of preaching to the choir, descent rate is controlled with power, nose attitude for airspeed, whether I descent fast or slow I maintain the same airspeed and a stabilised approach.

                  Comment


                  • svyolo
                    svyolo commented
                    Editing a comment
                    I saw some pretty slick gap seals on a couple of Carbon Cubs. It looked like it was profiled on both sides for a perfect fit between the elevator and the stab. I should have asked if they were custom made, or if they just got lucky and found something that fit perfect.

                  • Battson
                    Battson commented
                    Editing a comment
                    They have a smaller gap than the Bearhawk. They are a commercial off the shelf item.

                • #12
                  VG’s on the underside of the ( A-Model) horizontal stab drastically changed its landing capabilities. There a very small investment and the elevator authority you gain at very low approach speeds Will impress you

                  Comment


                  • #13
                    Here are some Back Country stall tips, I tested what they use with a normal C172, it makes a huge difference in approach speeds, and much shorter landing roll, amazing how you are able to hid the same mark every landing. This is the the way my flight instructor taught me, He learned to fly on Tiger moth. no brakes. but we all learn bad habits along the way. this helped me to be focused on the right technique.
                    https://youtu.be/CrPJac80W9Y
                    https://youtu.be/J4NnmbbSizQ

                    Comment


                    • #14
                      [QUOTE=zkelley2;n47079]


                      The Model A uses a NACA 4412

                      553ddf46067d7b4136f8e766.png

                      Actually the A model uses a NACA 4412 modified with leading edge droop. You can see the difference if overlying Drawing 7 and an unmodified 4412. This probably makes a somewhat softer stall and maybe a knot or two slower stall than the straight 4412. Apparently there are different mathematical ways to add the leading edge droop. According to Harry Ribblett, Bob did it the correct way. If you believe Harry Ribbletts work, the performance gain of the B model over the A is mainly due to the thicker airfoil.

                      Comment


                      • #15
                        Originally posted by Isilverone View Post
                        VG’s on the underside of the ( A-Model) horizontal stab drastically changed its landing capabilities. There a very small investment and the elevator authority you gain at very low approach speeds Will impress you
                        Just to be clear, this is with the flat horizontal stab, not profiled?

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X