New 4 place builder QB

[svyolo]

Hello from Guam;
I am about to order a QB 4 place kit. I used to be an airplane geek (RC models) when I was a kid. I always wanted to design and build my own airplane. Life got in the way and I spent the next 30 years flying airplanes for a living instead of building them. Finally, I am going to start building them.

I will start with a QB kit and knock it out quickly, and then probably scratch build another over many years.

Nice to meet you all.

John

[schu]

Welcome!

Do you know which engine you want to use? Are you going to to an A model or B model? Is that even an option anymore? Long range tanks? What part of the country are you in?

schu

[svyolo]

B model. Limited options. No extra anything. Stock Lyc, but haven't decided 4 or 6 cylinder. Very stock build, day VFR only.

I have been working overseas for 10 years. I will probably build it somewhere near DEN or IAH

[Mark Goldberg]

Hi John. Get in touch. I am happy to help you get started on your Model B Bearhawk. You are going to love it. My email is N95MF@hotmail.com. Mark Goldberg. Bearhawk Aircraft

[schu]

Depends on what you want. Lots of people build light 4cyl bearhawks and are super happy. They do well, and according to Bob takeoff and land in about the same distance. Certainly able to haul a lot of payload around.

If you want to go fast, or want serious float performance, or want to be able to take off much faster than land, then a 540 works well, but at 100-150lbs heavier and significantly more cost.

Remember, that if you throttle a 540 back to the same speeds a 360 would go, then you have the same fuel burn. So it's not like the 360 is tremendously more economical, as long as you have self control.

If you want to do any real bush flying with short strips, or floats, or skis, or high altitude, then most agree that the 540 is the better setup.

I have a IO-540 C4B5 for mine, but I'm also wanting to do EDO 2870s at some point, and I want to load large game and camp and operate out of 800 feet, then fly in mountains.

[JimParker256]

Remember, that if you throttle a 540 back to the same speeds a 360 would go, then you have the same fuel burn. So it's not like the 360 is tremendously more economical, as long as you have self control.

LOL "Let's fly slower..." (said NO pilot - EVER)

Sorry, couldn't resist. But there is a grain of truth in there... Most of us realize we could save a lot of fuel, and arrive only a little bit later if we flew everywhere at "Carson airspeed" (basically, about 1/3 above max glide airspeed, which extends the range while also maintaining a "reasonable" airspeed). But few of us ever fly at 45% power, or even less. We pretty much fly everywehere at 75%, 65%, or (if we're really being frugal) 55% power.

By the way, my Citabria 7ECA has a "best glide" airspeed of 60 mph. So 1/3 faster would be 80 mph, at which speed I'm burning about 3.4 GPH, for a "no reserve" range of about 900 miles with 39 gallon tanks. Of course, that's almost 11.5 hours in the cockpit, which is about 9 hours longer that seat comfort would dictate. Making use of the Patrol's endurance and range is one of the reasons I'm spending a lot of time (and money) on the seat cushion. The Commander I used to own was perfectly comfortable for an 8-10 hour flight day. I'd like my Patrol to be the same... My goal isn't so much to fly 10-hour legs, but to avoid ever having to refuel at an airport charging ridiculous fuel prices, even if I do have to make interim stops for "human factors" purposes.

[Bcone1381]

B model. Limited options. No extra anything. Stock Lyc, but haven't decided 4 or 6 cylinder. Very stock build, day VFR only.

I have been working overseas for 10 years. I will probably build it somewhere near DEN or IAH

Your engine choice may easily be defined, if your mission is flying out of Denver or includes mountains west of the Mississippi irrespective of where you choose to live.

[tailwind]

If you decide on an o 360 I would recommend the heavier hartzel prop. This will move the cg forward. I have the o 360 and an mt prop. I recently climbed to 13500. At that altitude I had a climb rate of about 300 ft per min. The combination performs flawlessly here in Wisconsin. Excellent short field performance at this altitude. Unless you will be operating from high altitude airports, operating on floats or you feel the need for speed a 180 lyc might work well for you.

[whee]

Even at high altitudes the O360 performs well. I flew one out of a 7000MSL airport weekly for a summer and it did just fine. But if your going to be flying around heavy then I'd suggest a bigger engine.

[svyolo]

To me the Bearhawk is a 120 mph plane that can be shoved through the air a bit faster with more power, at negative, and inefficient angle of attack. Most of time mine will have big tires or floats, so going 110 - 120 is all it is going to do anyway. The only reason for more power (for me) is TO and altitude performance. It probably flies great at 14k at 110 indicated, 140+ true.