New Member in South Carolina

[tjgregg22]

New member to group considering Bearhawk LSA build.

I grew up with, rc, ultralights, and experimental aircraft but other interest, and responsibilities, gradually drew me away from flying over time. I always said that once I got my fill of the other hobbies and responsibilities sorted, flying would be the hobby that I would make my way back to. Well I'm at the point in life where I'm ready to get back into flying and my father and I have been considering a build project. We've been considering a few designs but haven't committed to one yet. I have a strong interest in the Bearhawk LSA but my dad is leaning towards the Zenith CH 750. I'm hoping there will be some Bearhawks at Triple Tree this year that we can look at and maybe win him over.

I've had a set of Bearhawk Four Place plans (Serial No: 407) for many years and have been, and will be, studying them until we decide on a project. In the mean time I will be trying to get him to visit the group and looking through the post because the information you guys have posted here is very inspiring and educational. With any luck we will be eating an elephant named Bearhawk soon!

[marcusofcotton]

Welcome tj! I suggest you both sit in both aircraft for awhile to look for discomfort points, I've eliminated many possibilities that way.

[sbmurphey]

Always good to have more GA activity in South Carolina. Where are you located? I am 20 minutes south of Florence working on a plans built LSA with some help from the factory along the way. I will look forward to meeting you at Triple Tree this year.

[tjgregg22]

I'm in Greenville. I've seen some of your post and pictures; nice work! See you at Triple Tree.

[JimParker256]

OK, I have to admit to some prejudice here, but the Bearhawk LSA and the Zenair CH-750 are very different airplanes, and building them would be vastly different experiences. The CH-750 is a quick-build, follow the assembly manual kit plane. As proven as OSH last year, pretty much anyone can build one, provided they follow directions. The Bearhawk LSA is a much more challenging project, even starting with the quick-build kit. But what you get at the end of the build project is a very different airplane.

The CH-750 is designed for STOL operations above everything else. It can take off and land in under 200 feet, all day long. My hangar-mate (who owns a CH-750) and I joke that his cross-wind technique is to land cross-ways on the runway (meaning landing perpendicular to the normal runway, so it becomes 100-ft long and 7000-ft wide). He did it once, with the tower's permission. He has also taken off, climbed to pattern altitude, and landed again on the 7000-ft runway, while never turning off the runway heading (no "circuit" of the pattern). There was about a 25-mph wind that day, right down the runway. It can be a FUN airplane to fly.

The Bearhawk LSA probably requires twice the distance to take off and land (200-400 feet is the claim, and 400-600 is a pretty reasonable number, based on its performance at the Texas STOL Roundup this spring. But let's get real -- how many places would you really be able to get into with a CH-750 that you would not be able to get into with the Bearhawk LSA? And if you're really operating into those kinds of unprepared strips and gravel bars, do you really want to do so with a nose wheel and with fairly rigid main gear (CH-750), or would you rather have the additional prop clearance of the tailwheel and oleo-suspended main gear of the Bearhawk LSA?

Then again, the same wing that allows the CH-750's excellent STOL performance creates huge amounts of drag at cruise speed. Yes, you CAN get it to 100 mph in cruise, but you'll be running wide open and burning a LOT of fuel to get that speed. The more natural cruise speed for the wing is around 80-85 mph. My buddy flight plans for 80 mph, and is rarely off by much... The Bearhawk LSA, on the other hand, is a legitimate 120 mph cruise airplane with a 100-hp engine. It doesn't sound like a lot of difference, but factor in a 20-mph headwind, and which would you rather be flying?

The CH-750 also has a LOT of unsupported aluminum panels in the fuselage and wings. In flight, these "oil-can" (a LOT) and make a frightful amount of noise. My friend flew his without his ANR headsets once, and said it nearly scared him to death. He had to force himself to stop looking back at the fuselage. Flying formation with him is a strange experience, because you can see all those panels literally flapping in the breeze. It's the cost of building an all-metal fuselage with easy-to-build flat sides, while keeping within the LSA weight requirements. I'm convinced it is structurally sound, but wow!

The Bearhawk LSA looks and feels more like a real airplane. The steel tube fuselage is far more crashworthy than the aluminum structure of the CH-750. It's also a more robust design, with a maximum design gross weight of 1500 lbs (versus 1440 lbs for the CH-750). The useful loads in LSA mode give a slight nod to the Bearhawk (570 lbs for the BH vs. 545 lbs for the CH-750). But if you certify both planes at their max design GW (outside the LSA-legal gross weight limit of 1320 lbs), the BH would have a much larger advantage (750 lbs vs. 665 for the CH-750).

The CH-750 is a side-by-side cabin. The BH LSA is tandem. Some people have strong preferences for one versus the other. I'll admit that I vastly prefer the extra room of the tandem design, as well as the better 'over-the-side' view. You (or your father, or one of your "significant others") may have a strong preference for one versus the other.

Finally (and I will admit to some subjective bias here, but I think most people will agree with me), I find the CH-750 is an incredibly ugly airplane, while the Bearhawk LSA just looks "right" with it's classic lines. Again, your mileage may vary, but my friend who owns the CH-750 constantly apologizes for how the airplane looks, and always explains the STOL reasons for all the strange design choices... But one need look no further than the Just Aircraft Highlander / Super-STOL to find a design that has even more STOL performance than the CH-750, without having been beaten with an "ugly stick"... If I were hell-bent on building a STOL-only airplane (cruise performance be damned), I'd look hard at the Just Aircraft line before making a decision to go ith the CH-750. But for myself, I'd give up a couple hundred feet of additional runway for 1.5 times the cruise speed, more room, more comfort, more safety, and a lot more airplane. In other words, I'd choose the Bearhawk LSA. (My actual choice was the Bearhawk Patrol (which takes all the advantages I talked about above, and amplifies them even further) because I don't need to operate in the LSA category, and prefer even more speed, even shorter takeoff and landing distances, and a LOT more weight-hauling capability.

Good luck with your decision!

[Mark Goldberg]

Concerning the gross weights/useful loads - I bet the 750 gross weight is with standard category strength. The Bearhawk LSA 1500 lb gross is with utility category strength. That works out to be a 17% safety margin for the structure if I remember correctly. Mark

[Chewie]

In light of recent 3rd class medical reform, won't there be more and more pilots moving away from light sport?
Great post Jim. I agree the 750 is U-G-L-Y ugly.
Mark

Sent from my XT1031 using Tapatalk

[Mark Goldberg]

This remains to be seen. For some LSA's - you are correct for sure. For the BH LSA - who knows. The BH LSA can replace all those Aeronca's, Taylorcrafts and all those older planes in the 75HP - 100 HP range with a brand new great flying bird. Mark

[JimParker256]

There is a huge benefit still to Sport Pilot operations: you don't have to pass a Class 3 medical, as long as you hold a valid state-issued driver's license, and have never been denied an FAA medical. For someone who knows they would need a special issuance medical, and doesn't want to go through the hoopla, Sport Pilot still has some attraction. And if you're a Sport Pilot, you need an LSA-compliant airplane.

Imagine someone who became clinically depressed after his frst wife passed away. Imagine that he spent years getting psychiatric treatment for this very minor depression problem, and has been stable with his current drug regimen for almost 20 years. But then imagine that the drug is on the FAA "deny issuance" list... He could apply for a 3rd class medical, be denied, and lose his ability to fly even as a Sport Pilot while he pursues a "special issuance" from the FAA. But these psychiatric issues are relatively new science for the FAA, and the wheels move slowly, so he might wait six months to a year for them to decide what kind of further evaluation is required, then go through 6-12 months of evaluation, and only then (maybe) be issued a Class 3 Special Issuance medical. After maybe 2 years of being grounded, he finally is able to resume his day VFR flying in his BugSmasher 120...

Or he can just continue to fly with Sport Pilot privileges, which meets his flying mission anyway, and avoid all the Special Issuance hassle of being grounded for two years and spending a fortune proving to the FAA what he already knows - he's safe to fly day VFR... THAT guy is only going to remain interested in LSA-type aircraft...

[jaredyates]

The FAA process is going to still take a while to work out, but after that period, one could set up the Bearhawk LSA with a 1500 pound max gross and still fly it with a self-certified medical, as I understand it. We'll try and have our 4-place at SC00 this year if I can get the time off of work, but you are always welcome to come visit in Hickory NC. I say that, but the schedule is looking pretty locked up until the end of August, so by the time we'd be able to get together we might as well do it there.

[JimParker256]

Re: Building a Bearhawk LSA with 1500 lb GW and flying with a self-certified medical: Per the letter of the new law (and subject to how the FAA implements it) that works ONLY if you held a valid Class 3 or higher within the last 10 years, AND don't have any of the disqualifying medical issues. There is a specific disqualification for psychological (and certain cardio-vascular) issues that preclude self-certification. Not everything we'd hoped for, but far better than nothing at all!

Sport Pilot rules, on the other hand, require only a valid driver's license and that you know of nothing that would make it unsafe to fly. Much different rules.

[JimParker256]

Talked with our local DAR, and he confirmed: Increasing the GW after the EAB is certified requires going back into Phase I test flight for at least 5 hours. He also said this SHOULD be spelled out in black-and-white in the Operating Limitations issued to your airplane. It might not be the case if you got your airworthiness certificate a long time ago - before the "clarifications" were sent to all the DARs on how the FAA wanted those limitations to be worded.

[whee]

Welcome tj. Pretty good group of guys around here thoigh obviously biased towards the BH designed.

I think the reason the Ch750 is so good at STOL is because it is so ugly the earth repels it. Actually, it is quite a performer and even though I don't care for the looks I bet it is fun to fly and easy to build.

The BH seems to be a great airplane by the specs and all reports are that it flys great. I have my doubts about it being a true 120mph airplane but I'm sure it does scoot along fast enough to do some traveling.

Whichever plane you choose enjoy the experience of building with your dad.

[Mark Goldberg]

Mr. Whee - care to place a little bet on whether my LSA is a true 120 MPH cruise plane? I could use some extra expense money for OSH. Mark

[whee]

Haha, no thanks Mark. I certainly didn't intend to pick a fight. My doubt comes from the kit planes article from a couple years ago. It said 117mph at 2600 rpm with Bob's C85. 2600rpm is pushing a C85 pretty hard, even for Bob's version which is more akin to a O200. I don't doubt that your LSA will fly 120mph but will it do it at a typical O200 cruise rpm? According to the kit planes article numbers it won't. Still, it appears to be a fantastic airplane and if everything goes according to plan I'll have an LSA to park along side my BH.

[Wayne Massey]

Whee - A Bob 0-200 isn't typical. But then neither is the Bob designed LSA. What is typical 0-200 cruise RPM? The 0-200 Owners Manual recommended cruising RPM is 2500 RPM with a rated RPM at sea level of 2750. Max RPM on a Bob 0-200 is 3300. I would certainly never run it that hard but 2700 RPM for the cruise is well within limits. I flew Marks LSA from Texas to OSH this year. I cruised at a consistent power setting of 2575-2600 RPM. For the 1,090 statute mile flight the true air speed was a consistent honest 120 mph at those power settings. I probably could have squeezed a little more out of it but didn't feel a need to.

[tjgregg22]

Interesting responses and good points. I'm sold on the BH because of a lot of the points mentioned here; roomy, higher gross, faster cruise, decent short field performance, etc. The 750 would be quicker to build and may have better STOL numbers but I'm in SC and not a lot of sand bars / backcountry to drop in on around here, and he 900 ft strip at my parents place will probably be the shortest strip we'd be operating off of. We both like the quicker build of the 750 but when the build is over we are going to want the best plane for our mission (local flights around the patch, short cross country, getting the kids exposure) and; with the faster cruise, higher gross, and steel tube fuselage; its looking like that's going to be the BH.

[DemoDollCate]

....without having been beaten with an "ugly stick"...

Man, I love browsing around the www and finding little gems like this. All while learning about the virtues of these various STOL a/c.

[SC Patrol 253]

I'm also in Greenville. If you go the route of the LSA, I have some rear spar cap material I can sell you for a deal. Like most builders, I ended up with extra.

Todd R.

[tjgregg22]

I might be interested in the spar cap material if you still have it when I get ready to start sourcing material but I'm sure there are some others on here that might be interested and ready before me.

How far along are you on your project?

[tjgregg22]

Well, BH LSA it is (Actually made my mind up a whill back). I picked up a set of plans on Tuesday and I'm looking forward to getting started. I'll be starting with the wings.