Important: Let's Talk About Not Bending Bearhawks

[Nev]

Any skill level is the right skill level - provided it's combined with the right judgement.

...the most common cause of all Bearhawk mishaps, is the pilot’s choice to operate in conditions that exceed that pilot’s ability to control the airplane.

Respectfully gents, I would like to share a different point of view specifically regarding judgement and choice.

As we gain experience we learn where our limits are, and what conditions we can and can't operate in. But below certain experience levels we are very reliant on others to make this judgement for us, hence close supervision when learning to fly.

It's easy to infer from reading this forum that a Bearhawk is very safe.

However for a pilot with little or no tailwheel experience (regardless of total flying hours), the statistics paint a very different picture. For example most of these accidents occurred with an average wind strength of 6 knots or less (with minimal crosswind component), and many were on a grass runway. In other words, these pilots believed they were exercising very good judgement and choice.

For an experienced tailwheel pilot, a Bearhawk may be very safe - in much the same way that there are some very safe helicopters out there for experienced helicopter pilots. But the statistics are showing more and more that getting good quality tailwheel instruction and plenty of it might be the best thing we can do to reduce the accident rate.

[Battson]

Not sure I understand how that conclusion follows. Here's what I mean:

Good judgement must include weather, surface conditions, pilot experience, aircraft type / characteristics, currency, traffic levels, lighting / glare, stress and fatigue, whether or not an instructor or safety pilot is required, even whether the pilot is hungry or just 'not feeling it' today. Good judgement includes all factors, and it's ubiquitous.

My wife has very little tailwheel time and less than 100 hours. She exhibits great judgement about whether or not she will fly on any given day considering all factors. When she's not sure, she asks trusted advisors for advice (which may not include me!).

That is what I mean by "any skill level is the right skill level - provided it's combined with the right judgement".

[jaredyates]

This is interesting Nev. I wonder how we know the wind at the time of the event, seems like meteorological observations may not tell the whole story.
In the accounts that I have heard of other than Kevin's first three, wind has always been a factor. Do we know of any others specifically?
It would be interesting to get more rigorous about understanding the causes of each individual event.

[Nev]

Aviation Safety Network lists others. There's a link below. NTSB reports show the full met conditions where available.

[Nev]

Each NTSB report has a Met section with the wind speed and direction, the Airport section has runway surface etc. There's also experience level, time on type etc. Some of them contain eyewitness accounts. One thing they don't contain specifically is tail-wheel time (which would have been helpful), and they don't have recent events after mid 2022.

The meteorological observations probably don't tell the whole story, but the overall picture is one of most events occurring in conditions that would normally have been benign on a nose wheel aircraft. Several of them did occur in higher gusty winds and with significant time on type.

A list of published Bearhawk accidents is available at Aviation Safety Network.
Each report contains a link to the NTSB file.

I'll attach a screenshot below of the met section from one of the reports. This one listed crosswind as a factor.


B4922D00-EE03-4078-8910-131289AF2EE7.jpg

[John Bickham]

I'll just add my experience in my initial few hours of flight testing that was specific to my Bearhawk 4A. I was working pretty hard to maintain the center line on my first handful of landings. Feet were working pretty hard and sweat was beading. Felt like I was just along for the ride and a bit behind the airplane. Luckily, I posted a little video of my first landing. Thankfully, because of that video, I got a call from Mark G. He asked what was my landing gear width and that he thought it looked a little narrow in the video. The mistake I made was I thought that the landing gear should have a width of 72" at max load. Mine was closer to 70" light and 72" at gross. See the safety update!!!

I adjusted the gear to 72" typical load and everything smoothed out on landing rollouts. Almost effortless. I started to really enjoy the landings instead of dreading turning final. I owe Mark for that or I may have ended up a LODCOG statistic.

One other thing I had to do was force myself to ROUTINELY practice crosswind landings on every practice session. I'll pound out 4-5 stop and go's, then switch to the crosswind runway, if within my limits. Always spring loaded to go-around. Of course, there is a baby-step approach to this. If I don't practice them on big, wide GA runways, I can't expect to have half a chance of success on a two-track or narrow off airport runway. I am lucky to have a backcountry mentor that pushed me to "fight to maintain DC of the centerline within 2 ft. His logic is if you build that discipline to maintain strict DC always, you will recognize small deviations early and quickly. Sloppy is as sloppy does!

The other part is energy - the slower the landing speed, the smaller the dust cloud and distance covered when you do ground loop!
Every landing at the last 500 feet on final - final checklist item = Sit up, head up for best over the nose visibility. Happy feet, don't let the ground loop monster get you!

fly safe

[arborite]

I’ve been flying for a long time (GA only, not a pro pilot) in tricycle gear planes, about 1500 hours so far. got the bug to do tailwheel a few years ago and bought a J3, then got a J5. All bungee suspension. total tailwheel time so far about 150 hrs. it’s been quite an experience. some lessons learned regarding LODCOG:

- spending time initially just taxiing was very helpful for me, especially in the J3 where you sit in back. getting the feel of steering with the tail was really important in developing the overall feel of the plane in the flare. the plane really swings around a lot laterally on even gentle turns. i still try to practice/improve my taxiing skills now.

- grass is definitely your friend to minimize directional control errors but it’s also bumpy. landing at anything much above stall speed can send you back in the air on a bump, especially with the bungee suspension. had to learn to keep flying the plane until it’s basically stopped. we have a local grass strip that’s bumpy in the warm weather and really bumpy in the winter when those heaves freeze. i stick to blacktop in the winter.

- after stopping, when taxing back to the hangar on a windy day, you’re still flying. i had the upwind wing lift the wheel off the ground more than once when i wasn’t paying enough attention.

- one of my mentors gave me a tip about wheel landings vs three point. he said decide what it’s going to be on the downwind and stick with it. not sure that’s right but early on when i changed my mind mid landing, it wasn’t pretty. never bent anything, though. i try to make the conscious decision early

- just when I think I’ve got the hang of it and can string together 3 or 4 nice landings, it all comes apart again in a heartbeat, and i’m bouncing landings again. don’t think i will ever get to the point that every landing will be without drama. i suppose that’s good in that i don’t worry about becoming complacent.

- in our area, a lot of small tailwheel planes fly in the evening before sunset or very early morning when it’s calm. i do that occasionally and it’s great. vastly easier to make nice landings. but i do most of my flying during the day when it’s often bumpy or at least has some wind challenges. i have access to a nearby private airport with two long paved runways arranged in a big X. really useful for practicing crosswind landings.

- in my low powered, lightweight, huge flapless wing cubs, the concept of energy management is not just a thought exercise, it’s a critical part of flying the plane safely. my worst landings are when i don’t manage energy in the flare properly, and that energy goes away fast in a very light plane. i still am struggling on proper addition of power as needed. even a very small blip of the throttle can change things a lot.

- REALLY looking forward to proper damped struts on the LSA. but then I won’t have an excuse anymore…..

[Bissetg]

The Aviation Safety Network Stats are certainly very interesting, given that the number of Bearhawks flying increases year on year but the accident rate has with a few notable exceptions been about two a year, it would appear that we are actually improving our performance.

It would be interesting to know what the stats for other aircraft of similar categories are and how they have trended over the last 20 years. Eg compare Bearhawk accidents per 10,000 hrs flown with Maules or Huskies for instance.

I have no clue how to get that data and do the comparison but it would be interesting.

As I’ve said many times, my sense is that the Bearhawk is not the problem, the problem is us. The aim of this exercise is to come up with some protocols that mitigate the risk that is inherent with tail draggers and Bearhawks as much as possible.

Given that the recurring causes seem to lie with incorrect or insufficient control inputs, (read not flying it til it’s stopped) too late go around decisions, or poor decision making perhaps we should be looking for some input for a Bearhawk flight guide of things to do and not do based on both sound tail dragger practice and Bearhawk specific things?

Again my sense is that given the handling characteristics of the Bearhawk it should be as good or better than other types. The difference is that most guys who buy a Maule or a Husky I imagine get a good checkout, whereas an enthusiastic Bearhawk builder is often test pilot and student all at once.

It would be nice to think we could get the insurance underwriters to recognise a statistically better risk profile if we can achieve it.

[OhioLSA]

Recently two new threads have been introduced which cover some of the same territory: this one, and the one announcing the "New Forum Channel for Mishaps" thread in the Bearhawk General Discussion area. I applaud these efforts and find the discussions interesting and informative. There's so much overlap between the two it would be nice if they weren't in two different places.

Schu presented a wonderful summary (in the "New Forum Channel for Mishaps" thread) of his tailwheel training experience that I wish could be seen by everyone discussing the same topic in this thread. His post really scored with me because I used to approach teaching those skills in the same way. Even though I only instructed in nosewheel aircraft, I found that students were initially daunted by sorting out the roles of the controls with respect to the three axes, especially during the landing process. It's no wonder students have a difficult time learning to land when they are confronted simultaneously with the problems of sideways drift, and alignment with the runway, while also trying to manage the vertical flight path of the airplane. Being able to isolate the individual motions is key to eventually learning to control the aircraft with the proper combination of control inputs.

I don't have a lot of experience compared to many of you (1600 hours total time, 840 dual given, and 165 tailwheel) but I sometimes feel like counting that dual given as dual received -- the process of teaching really ingrained the lessons that I had only begun to understand as a newly-minted private pilot all those many years ago.

But to the point: many of those Loss of Directional Control On the Ground types of incidents could probably be prevented with proper training, including both quality and quantity of training, along with enhanced decision making (as Jared suggested,) recency of experience ("flying a lot" as Schu suggested) AND continuing to pay attention - I believe it was Battson who listed "inattention" as a contributing factor. This latter item is, I imagine, what accounts for experienced pilots running into trouble. Complacency is a hazard that comes, ironically, with experience; the student is hypersensitive; the old hand is in danger of becoming too comfortable.

[way_up_north]

I’ve been off the forum recently not keeping up.. so my comment/topic may have been covered somewhere else on the forum..sorry if this has been already discussed

What about offering a nose wheel mod for the Bearhawk….

[alaskabearhawk]

Extensive discussion about that subject back in 2018: https://bearhawkforums.com/forum/bea...wheel-question

[m.mooney]

This is a good discussion, thanks to all who have contributed. 16000 hours, 2000 tailwheel, 450 Bearhawk. Insuring the Bearhawk is almost becoming cost prohibitive, based on this poor record that we’ve established. In the majority of cases the causal factor lies between our ears. Headwork. Mechanical failure is a definite threat and will always be a factor in aircraft accidents. It is far surpassed by pilot error, with the root cause of most scenarios being poor decision making. A ground loop resultant from gusty crosswinds from a relatively inexperienced tailwheel pilot is categorized as a lack of skill and/or proficiency. I’d say it’s from inappropriate risk management from that individual. Bottom line, poor decision making, why was that pilot in that situation? I suspect that just about all of us fly our Bearhawks for pleasure, it’s our hobby, our passion. Why do we subject ourselves to conditions that are beyond our capabilities? Isn’t this supposed to be fun?

The discussions in this post regarding getting appropriate instruction cannot be overstated. After spending years on the build of your dream machine, it’s smart to commit large dollars and time to becoming proficient. The majority of builders don’t fly much while building, not good. Acknowledge it and do something about it. Consider having a more experienced pilot do your phase 1 or at least the early stages of it. If you’ve got 1000 hours over a lifetime of flying and have just spent 5-10 years building your Bearhawk, with little flying while building, I’m sorry to say but you are not an experienced pilot and are in desperate need of instruction.

Risk Management. Why do we wait until mid afternoon on a summer day to exercise our airplanes? Sad story, my neighbor ground looped his BT13 then spent 5 years getting it back in the air. He wisely enlisted the help of an experienced round engine instructor and flew with him until he got “signed off” again. They flew at 2-4 in the afternoon, only. When I asked about that choice, he said it was merely for convenience, they’re both older (70s) and start their day late. For months he struggled with the airplane and was close to being “signed off” when he crashed on a go around, killing himself and severely injuring his instructor. It was an ugly crash which could’ve killed many people on the ground. In the paper, the widow mentioned that he had been flying since high school, all of his life. He died with 200 total hours, not 2000, two hundred. He had no business flying that airplane, out of our airport (2700x40’), EVER, let alone with gusty afternoon winds. I was well aware of this and did some subtle hinting to him. I should have looked him in the eye and told him that even with my experience I would never fly a BT13 out of our airport, the runway is 40’ wide. Maybe he would have listened? I have to live with my lack of action, I was absolutely convinced that he was eventually going to crash that airplane. He did, this haunts me and I miss my friend. As a result of this lesson in life, I now express my opinions when I see certain things that are obviously not smart. This is completely against my nature, I do not view myself as immune, the “ace of the base,” or highly skilled. Instead, I acknowledge that I’m a high time pilot that is particularly vulnerable to making an inappropriate decision and bending metal. Acknowledge who you are and accept your limitations, you’ll have far more fun.

There is no substitute for training and proficiency. Get appropriately trained then fly your butt off, in good conditions! When proficient in calm winds, slowly introduce more wind. Fly your butt off!! In my opinion, this cannot be overstated. Don’t take on that dream cross country trip to your perfect destination until you can manage the realities of flying a long distance into different weather conditions. My summer cross countries have me airborne before the sun and on the ground early. If it’s forecasted to be “sporty”, I’m not going. The ground loop is an ever present threat, even on the nicest of days. Be prepared, make good decisions. Headwork.

Bottom line, we need to acknowledge that the decision making process has proven time and again that it is our biggest threat. Look yourself in the mirror and analyze the level of risk that you just accepted with your aeronautical decisions. Be conservative, I suspect that this alone can eliminate the majority of these events.

Mike

[kestrel]

Nose-draggers can go almost all the same places as taildraggers. However, very few are designed to do so. The Zenith, Maule and Cub Crafters are an examples of those that are. Most off-field nose-draggers are flown by careful proficient pilots who are following a taildragger who checked it out first. The margins are just lower, esp, when it comes to prop clearance and how the front end bounces.

I've been to Utah, Idaho, Montana and Alaska (through Canada). Every place I landed probably could have been landed by well equipped, well flown C-182 except for prop clearance on vegetation. There were a few strips where I would be worried about how soft the surface was and if an 8.50 nose wheel (is that how big they get?) would have dug in. ...but I say that a C-182 could probably land them after having done so with my taildragger and taking a look from the ground. I went into these strips without the benefit of someone else to look first. I'm not impressed with most demonstrations of what a nose-dragger can do because they almost always didn't land first.

On second thought, I do know one spot that really needed big tires because of the size of the rocks that made up the "gravel bar".

I think a Bearhawk nose-dragger could be done like the Maule or Cub Crafters. It wouldn't be a trivial design effort. Consider the Maule instead? The practical path to a nose-dragger Bearhawk is for Bob and Mark to decide that it is a good business choice. At the moment, they are selling more taildragger kits than they can make.

I am here as a fan of taildraggers and Bearhawks. So, my reply comes from that position. Others will disagree with me as demonstrated by the fact that most pilots don't fly taildraggers. ...but, IMHO, just about any pilot can learn to fly taildraggers. However, the training and practice can't be to minimum standards. As others have said, practice, practice, practice, practice .... and practice some more. Take baby steps on the conditions you fly in. Practice on grass and make the landings perfect. Then pavement won't be an issue. If you are sloppy on the grass and are "good enough", pavement is likely to bite you. Repetition will provide opportunities for what should have been a trivial landing to push your limits. Those are the events that expand your skills without exceeding them. A "tailwheel endorsement" is just the beginning, not the end.

The Bearhawk is not a difficult airplane. When I picked up our Bearhawk in FL and flew it to NH, I had mostly just my J-3 time and some recent RV-4 time. I had never flown a "big", 4 place, 6 cylinder taildragger. I did one landing with the seller and flew it home solo.

I have 1,400+ hrs total, 900+ taildragger, 600+ in an original 4 place Bearhawk. I soloed in a J-3 on my 16th birthday long before TW endorsements were required. I don't have a lot of hours, but learned young and have been in it most of my life. I had about 15+ years of not a lot of flying due to school and playing with cars.

My wife got her TW endorsement as a student. She transitioned to flying our RV-4 almost as soon as she passed her check ride. She has (I think?) 400+ hrs total time. Probably 300+ TW. Most of the TW time is RV-4 and our Bearhawk.

[svyolo]

I tried to find a historical perspective for BH ground loop accidents.I am deep in 5 figures of flight time, but only 2 unlogged ultralight TW time. So in this sense I am a rank amateur best I can offer is the BF-109, which was the most produced aircraft in human history. They never fixed the ground loop problem, even with highly experienced pilots. It never went away. Even multi hundred ace pilots, they always complained about it.

The BH accidents due to ground looping seems pretty high. Maybe that is who wants a BH? Including me. I tend to think the problem with BH's isn't the airplane, but the pilots attracted to it. That would include me. And Nev, Brooks, and Jared. How many 10k hour Bush pilots build a BH? A few.

So maybe this is a great thread. Lets stop ground looping BH's. The few fuel system problems seem a lot easier to fix.

[500AGL]

I’m going to post this as I sit babysitting the cnc router turning billet aluminum into chip waste.
Its rather hard to not think of other things while it does all the heavy work.

A long time friend, pilot and multiple carbon cub owner shot me a text the other day about getting close to finishing up his Patrol and asked for any things to watch out for on the first flight(s). Knowing his history and skills I was a little surprised he asked, but gave it some thought and just started spewing flight characteristics out that may or may help him.

It’s just a spewage of raw thoughts I sent him in text, but perhaps it will help someone else as well. Recently I’ve seen a number of tail draggers with wings bent up from a ground loop, and it’s never pretty.

**************
Good morning captain

[Looks like we are about 2-3 weeks from test flying the patrol. I was in yours a couple times but I’m
Pretty fuzzy on the details
Can you send me some pointers on first flights? Mainly what not to do. I remember it flew pretty well
Thanks for your advice]


I’d be happy to fly it and compare notes but do you have anything specifically that you want to nail down ?
As Tom says, the controls all work the same.

Technical Inspection is high in my list of firsts to do. There have been a lot of ground loops early in builder flights of all tail draggers.

Triple check axle / gear alignment
Meaning make sure both axles are 100% in agreement with the toe-in angle as specified by Bob/Bearhawk.

After verifying measurements 10’ in front, I’d roll the plane forward and backward 50 times to make sure the gear doesn’t walk out (spread) or close up (compress).
And then ensure it’s tracking straight with the fuselage.
Fastest way to get askew is to have a gear going a different direction than your head.

Personal advice is put it on big tires and grass to give yourself some slide and give. Small tires on asphalt can bite.

Rudder is sensitive as compared to a cub. And light. I’m so used to it I don’t think about it but they tell me pilots over control the rudder.

Roll and pitch are pretty normal.

Tail is heavy as you’ve noticed moving it around the ground. Don’t worry about getting it off the ground - the thing flys off a near three point just as nice as having the tail in the air.

Visibility (on the ground) will be less than your carbon cub on the ground. Put a second cushion on the seat for a few rounds maybe.

If you are going to watch the instruments then look for 30 before pulling back on the stick. If you don’t watch the instruments it’s a 3 to 4 count from full throttle.

I would look at the tach to ensure full rpm on takeoff. 2750? We had a guy take off in a 206 the other day at 2300 instead of 2750. Sucking pond water but made it back to the runway.

Takeoff flaps is anything from zero to second notch. One notch is nice but flaps add drag fast.

If you do a progressive approach like I do, you can start a notch of flaps at 55. First notch or two on base, when you get into 3 notches or even 4 you need to be close to threshold speed of say 45 if you’re light. 50 on the whole approach isn’t bad if the ASI is calibrated.
Expect to mush out of the sky under 40.

Stalls up at 3000 at full flaps will be without any airspeed showing due to high AOA.

Usually it starts simply mushing downward without any break. (Power off)

Power on stall will be more of a break but like with your CC you’re pointing at the moon

Back to landing…. I would land with 3 notches of flaps and look for a near-3-point wheel landing.
3 notches allow the speed to bleed off more slowly so you can roll it on. 4 notches is nearly always a “plunk” landing unless your running some power.

Don’t get behind the power curve on any high AOA descent to landing until you get a lot of time in the Patrol.
In a cub, you can do that all the way to the bottom and then pull a little more stick and the cub wing will “catch” the ground effect and soften the impact nicely.
In a Patrol you will have good control all the way down the elevator shaft but there will be no stick left at the flare, and you will abuse the earth, the plane, and your body. Ask me how I know.

The only way to catch a behind the curve approach is with power. And sadly there is so much thrust available from that engine and prop that you will add too much, and you’ll be instantly climbing back out again.

Just fly a nice smooth approach with 3 notches at 55, power back over the threshold and it will settle in sub 40 nicely.

You may find pitch sensitive as compared to your cub.
Take your time and be smooth.

Back to first takeoff, taxi around and make sure tailwheel steering is perfect, and everything is tracking.

Heavy tail, if that wheel loses a spring, chain or cable you’re not going to save it from coming around.

I’ll stop pontificating and go back to work now.
Ps did you do a fuel flow test in climb attitude?

And typical CG will be just inside the forward limit. 11.5-12.5 ish if I recall. Weight in the back doesn’t hurt.