4-Place Information

[rv8bldr]

Interesting. I get my insurance through EAA up here in Canada. I have my RV-8 insured for a hull value of $75K, $2M liability, etc, and it comes to about $1,700/year. Now, that is one passenger seat; maybe the additional seats drive the liability portion up?

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk

[EricP]

EricP makes some good points but I just want to say I think the BH will do everything Zac is asking except the speed. My BH will have 5 seats, 52 gallons of fuel, ~1300lbs useful load and about a 125mph cruise on 10gph. By building my own rear seating I've made it so I can seat 5 people in reasonable comfort, my 5'3" wife can sit in my mocked up 5th seat and be comfortable, but there is no room for baggage in the plane. I'll be building a belly pod capable of holding a couple hundred pounds of cargo. Because of the landing gear struts the pod can't be placed as far forward as would be ideal so CG is my main concern.

Like EricP said, operating like this is right on the edge of the BHs capability but I think it can do it. If I didn't mind buying and selling airplanes I would have gone a different route and built a BH later in life but I HATE buying and selling stuff. I wanted a forever airplane that would get the job done now and not be bigger than I want when the kids are gone. For me the BH fits the bill.

You are braver than me to put your 5'3" wife back there! My wife is also 5'3" but she sure wouldn't let me put her in the baggage hold! Mine plans on riding right up front with me!

I am not sure what kind of weight and balance issues you get into with adults in the far back of the fuselage in the baggage area. My main concern for the OP is that he is pushing either the weight and balance or the range with what he is asking for. Certainly the Bearhawk CAN have 5 seats (many have done it) and it CAN go about 160 cruise with the big engine (maybe even more so with the new wing) and it can go 5 hrs. But can it go 160 with 5 hrs of fuel and 5 people? I think the OP has to be very aware of the trade offs. If you want to go 5 hrs. with good fuel reserves you may not be able to do so with 160+ mph. And you may not get the range you want if you carry 5 pax (or perhaps 4).

I am trying to stay WAY within the capabilities of my Bearhawk and even with the 50 gal of fuel (about 5 hrs worth for our 200 hp engine) I don't plan on more than 3 hrs worth of flying before landing. In fact I hope to keep it closer to 2.5 hrs. I just like to get out and stretch my legs a bit! At any rate we should have no issue in getting 4 people on board and flying 3+ hrs. with good fuel reserves at about 125 mph (I hope!). The reality is most of the time the grass field performance will be much more important to me than the 4 place capability but I love having both! For me the Bearhawk is a really fun grass field taildragger that is great for just playing with but also is able to be a 4 place "tourer".

As long as the OP is aware of the trade offs and can accept them I think the Bearhawk is a great airplane.

[Zac Weidner]

Thank you all for the information and advice. I've been reading some other threads on my other questions and they have been pretty much answered so far. I'd like to hear more on what I can expect for max cruise figures (at altitudes of 7-10,000 ft), however.
I'm very aware of the trade-offs you speak of because almost every airplane is that way. Especially our twin Comanche with 120 gallon fuel capacity and 6 seats. It's hard to ever use the 5th seat and never 6.
I was just wanting to get a feel for how everyone likes their 4 place and hope to learn more as I browse other threads. I do think at this point that we are favoring the idea of building one rather than fixing up our twinco.
I think the bearhawk, from what I understand, is about the equivalent of a C180, except we can get a modern panel and great engine for the price of most C180's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark Goldberg]

In comparing a BH to a C180 - with a BH you get a brand new airplane with a steel tube structure for a fuselage. With a C180 - you get a 30-60 year old airplane that has most likely been balled up and repaired MANY times. Lots of times the repairs will not be in the log book. Many repairs are in places you can never inspect. New is good. The benefits of experimental versus certified are very compelling also. Mark

[Battson]

540 engine gives 125 KTAS at least, 130 KTAS with small tires

[jaredyates]

I was just wanting to get a feel for how everyone likes their 4 place and hope to learn more as I browse other threads.

Zac, this is an easier question to answer, at least for me. I like ours very much! I can load up my whole family and go somewhere in about half the time it takes to drive, but yet I can also take someone for a local 15-30 minute ride without breaking the bank. Our Bearhawk has been very useful as a tool of good will. I have given free rides to over 60 people including around 20 young eagles, including at least a dozen people who have never been in any kind of airplane before. We have taken it to Oshkosh twice, and on half a dozen camping trips. In all cases, we loaded it with as much cargo as we could fit, and after carefully weighing each piece and calculating the W&B, we were still well within limits. For example, our 2016 Oshkosh load was 200 pounds short of MGTOW. That's based on 400 pounds in the front, 200 pounds of kids and carseats in the back seat, lots of luggage in the footwells of the short kids, and a baggage compartment that was just about floor to ceiling.

Add onto all of that the ability to incorporate new technology, make or procure our own parts, no need for an annual, etc. If I had to call up Cessna to order some $500 inferior gadget and then hire someone at $80 per hour to install and document it, I would not be an airplane owner. We have no 337s or STCs, and no aged structure. Of course the down side of that is that we also sometimes have to figure out how to do something, but that is part of the fun too.

I look at the fleet of airplanes that I know about and apply the following filters: homebuilt, 4-seat, 100 knots plus, 10 GPH or less, low stall speed, carries as much as we can fit, fun to fly, high wing, doesn't look goofy (zenith/sonex).
That generates a pretty short list.

[Zac Weidner]

I've been researching on and off (mostly on) ever since Oshkosh, and I'm not much more decisive than before. Insurance cost is a big turn off for a high performance tailwheel like the Bearhawk or C180. I was quoted 7,800 by Avemco!! A more "reasonable" 4,500 by EAA's insurance company. This is with 3 IFR commercial pilots and no time in type.

I'm still considering : BH, overhaul our PA30 or trade for refurbished one, 260C Comanche, C180 or 182, and maybe a 337, although I don't know if the maintenance is affordable on a 337. A 206 would be perfect but they're worth way too much for us.

I love the flexibility of an experimental, and I'm definitely up to the task of building one. I loved restoring our Tri-Pacer and a Bearhawk would be even better because there's none of the bad stuff like stripping old paint, sandblasting, repairing things, or trying to get alterations approved via 337 field approvals. I love the idea of being able to change whatever we want without having to have two pounds of paperwork for every 1 pound of alteration. I'm also dating an aeronautical engineer, so that may just come in handy on a project like this.

[Battson]

You don't need to pay that much for insurance.

My underwriter is Starr https://www.starrcompanies.com/, which I access through a local insurance broker - they aren't an aviation specialist.

My insurance was $2,500 for the flight testing and first year, and has dropped down to $1,500 over the last two years; $1,500 - no mistake.
I just renewed it today. That is for $115,000 hull value insured (1.55%), and $1.2 million 3rd party liability, plus fees. All those numbers are in US currency.

They only care about your total time and time on type. Other ratings and ATPL licence level don't seem to matter.
To access the lowest rates that I currently enjoy, I need a minimum 25 hours on type, plus no claims bonus, no relevant convictions / lawsuits brought against me, plus AOPA membership which attracts a 5% discount. I think our machine being indoors, secure and alarmed might also factor in too.

[Zac Weidner]

Those numbers are a whole lot more enticing! Do you think the difference is because of having 3 pilots vs. 1 pilot, or just the company? I'll be getting in touch with that company for a quote, no doubt. Thank you for chiming in there.

I have a general design question about the BH; what type of ailerons does it have? Do they create enough "differential drag" to make mostly coordinated turns without rudder input? I've really noticed the difference between the Tri-Pacer with Frise Ailerons and the Comanche with differential ailerons and I enjoy the handling difference quite a bit. It also does really well on a 2-axis autopilot because of this, and I'm not sure the Tri-Pacer would do so. So the other question is, what do most of you put in for an autopilot? 2 or 3-axis?

Thanks

Zac

[Battson]

We have three named pilots, so that can't be the difference. One is an IA with PPL, I'm a PPL, the other is ATPL.

The Bearhawk has frise ailerons. Much like every other taildragger I've flown, you need to use you feet in BH. At the risk of this sounding like a jab, some airline pilots with lazy feet might prefer a Cessna...
You learn how to fly properly Using rudder to turn isn't a bad thing, the rudder is there to be used just like every other control. Just my 2c; of course YMMV.

Most guys are using a two-axis autopilot, so far as I can tell.

[jaredyates]

My first year insurance was around $3000 and it has dropped to around $2500. The first year was 50 tailwheel, several thousand total, and ATP. The second year was with 100 in type and 150 tailwheel. The third year was about the same premium with a little more time. The next year will be up for renewal in November and by then I'll have over 200 in type and 250 tailwheel, so maybe I'll see a little more reduction. For folks with hull values in line with what we are talking about, most folks that I've talked to in the US are spending on the order of 2000-3000. As I'm sure you are aware, Battson is in New Zealand, so that may be a factor as to why his is less. We do use a specialty underwriter so that I can be covered while providing dual transition training, but they charge me an extra premium for each pilot in that case. At each renewal we've shopped both with and without the dual option and it is about the same base premium.