July 2025 Engineering Notice: No Design Oversight of Kits from Bob Going Forward

[jaredyates]

I am sorry to have to inform you all that Virgil Irwin, who bought the kit business from Mark Goldberg at the first part of last year, is causing me a problem. Virgil and I have, for the last year, been trying to set up a business contract. I wanted one close to the one I had with Mark, but he will not come close.

Virgil and I are not working together. The kit is no longer under my control, from an engineering or quality standpoint. I have asked him not to use my trademark name, Bearhawk, which I invented and have used continuously since 1995 for my design.

Virgil is using my reputation for his benefit without my permission.

Each Bearhawk builder - scratch or kit - should have an official set of plans with a serial number logged into our system. This will ensure that the plane is built to the Bearhawk design.

If you have any concerns about this notice, call me at 540-473-3661 or 540-798-8600.

Bob Barrows

[Chewie]

Notice received via email, thank you for distributing Jared.

[Nev]

The trademark bit isn't quite correct :

IMG_2502.jpg

[jaredyates]

This is a key point of the disagreement it seems.

[Nev]

That's interesting. It says it was not renewed in 2003.

[Sir Newton]

This means nothing, Bob can very simply contest BeakHawk Aircrafts registering of his historical trademark, Virgle would lose the registration. That is fairly simple action. Infact Bob could stop the importation of kits from Mexico ! The exact same way the US keeps counterfeit products out of the US market.

[Bissetg]

I’d like to acknowledge and thank Bob and R and B Aircraft for the great work and contribution to the Bearhawk design etc.

For me a Bearhawk was only made possible by the great kits that Mark Goldberg produced and Virgil is continuing to produce and improving on.

Best wishes to all involved and I look forward to watching the Bearhawk Aircraft continue to evolve, prosper and outshine the competition.

[SpruceForest]

Not going to weigh in on the trademark kerfuffle or any belly-bumping in progress re: financial side of what was a private sale of a company and a private consulting agreement with a third party.

Re: design oversight - not sure if this is really a big deal in terms of kits (plans-builders retain Bob's support if I read the tea leaves). Competent engineering support is available, and I doubt the kit maker will execute changes without supporting analysis if they want to stay in business/avoid legal peril. If I was the buyer/new kit maker, I would have already hired talent and a) performed complete electronic documentation of all of the designs manufactured, and b) performed an independent analysis on airframe (stress, fatigue, as-drawn/as-built/as-assembled), aero (performance; optimization opportunities), and materials done on every platform they make as a matter of due diligence. That plus the baseline plan config provides a point of departure to move the design and the delivered kits forward.

Is there room for improvement? Heck yeah - just as there is on any design in the EAB space. Do I want to see the designer-of-record and the kit maker go at it hammer and tongs? Heck no. But I would love to see a plans and kit option on the tandem designs for stuff like Super Cub style overhead flaps, added ventral fin area, etc. While I understand the whole 'thou shalt not violate the plans' stuff, those of us with the engineering background and expertise on the implementation side will likely keep optimizing the design, and I would hope the kit factory will proceed with efforts to a) make the kit easier to assemble, b) enhance performance, and c) provide a wider range of options re: stuff like flap system config, etc.

Hope the fellas work this out in the near future. Bob is a great guy and I understand exactly where he is coming from re: his designs. Gonna guess the new owner is just as proprietary re: providing the best kit possible.

[whee]

Agree on a lot of that. With your background you know the big task and massive expense it would be to develop cad drawings and perform an accurate analysis of the design. I can’t image any new manufacture would be able to afford that right out of the gate.

[SpruceForest]

I believe that the redo on the kit manuals would be materially improved with electronic documentation in the near term. I've made some progress on my own efforts, but I agree that the job is time consuming for someone not doing it on a daily basis. That said, everything from Bill of Materials to mods analysis gets way simpler with a digital model of the aircraft, so it's more about whether an enterprise can afford NOT to do it.

BWO full disclosure, my aero degree dates from the 1980s, so started when we still did inked drawings in Fundamentals of Engineering and finished early enough to do my senior design project analysis on GriD and Mitsubishi laptops with Lotus123 and my 1st Gen desktop Mac using Fortran 77 w/80x extensions for the crunchy stuff. As a principal engineer in a DC-based RDTE think tank, going back to learn Fusion 360 was as much a vanity project as it was brushing up on 30 year out of date AutoCAD skills from early in that career path. Could never justify it for actual work, but so applicable on aircraft and other projects supported by 3D printers, CO2 laser cutters, etc. Just figuring out tubing angles in F360 versus manual methods removed a fair degree of angst when welding things up. Also makes jigging and other tool design much easier, and just that alone may justify the cost. Keep in mind these are not the sort of full drawing package we do for commercial or military aircraft. Don't really need full process specs, etc, but more on the level of moving Bob's stuff to CAD and adding some of the details he's helpfully left out to keep things interesting.

[jaredyates]

The key takeaway that I see from Bob's message is to make clear that there is a separation between his engineering work and kits going forward. Both sides feel like they have the right to the trademark, but I'm not a lawyer. I would encourage folks who have concerns to talk to the parties directly. Virgil has a side which is not yet shared here, and he is also busy at Oshkosh. Let's keep our discussions in line with our usual forum rules please.

[SpruceForest]

I think I would need a lot more info on the specifics of both contracts before I made a decision on where any fault might lie. In the meantime, I hope Bob and Vergil have the good sense to sit down without their lawyers present and work things out over a bottle of something well over the age of consent and a decent cigar.

[Sir Newton]

Robert Barrows "Virgil is using my reputation for his benefit without my permission"
Virgil should be removed as a Moderator of this group of BOB's ! customers . .

[Battson]

These kinds of comments are not helpful, let's keep discussion cordial.

[jaredyates]

As of now I have not received any requests or pressure from Virgil (or anyone else) to suppress or censor any communication on the forum that is compliant with the rules. I can tell you that I am highly motivated to ensure that we have a civilized place to communicate openly and honestly about Bearhawks, to protect the archive that we have created, and to ensure that we can all operate our airplanes safely and reliably for many years to come. For the foreseeable future I expect this to include Bob's customers, Virgil's customers, and customers of both.

[davzLSA]

hi hope everyone has a great day

[500AGL]

I believe there are some misconceptions and a misleading statement in the original post but neither are my place to comment on.

If Bobs statement bothers you it may be of value to reach out to Mark Goldberg personally to get an outside opinion on what this is all about.

[gregc]

I don´t understand how there can be any misconception or misleading statements in the original post as it is simply a copy of an Engineering Change Notice. These are generated by Bob/R&B Aircraft. I think Jared posts them here to ensure a wider dissemination of the information. As a practical consideration, I would like to know if future Change Notices will come from R&B, BearhawkAircraft or not at all. I don´t believe Mark can answer that question.

[jaredyates]

Greg, my understanding is that Bob will continue to release notices related to the designs as they become necessary. I believe Virgil has plans for a robust reporting system as well but we'll have to hear from him the particulars. The notice is posted exactly as Bob distributed it, but unless we hear from Virgil, we have only heard one side of the story.

[Battson]

Naturally this is a regrettable situation which generates lots of questions, the "falling-out" between the two cooperating companies.

The timing of the R&B Aircraft LLC notice is regrettable, given Airventure is currently running. Bearhawk Aircraft LLC will need time to respond. I am sure they are anxious to provide a structured summary of how this change impacts their customers, and R&B Aircraft LLC may choose to do the same. People in our community may be a customer of one or both of these companies.

I think posing considered questions helps them consider what their customers need to know.

A clarification may help:

1. R&B Aircraft LLC designs the Bearhawk line of aircraft (among other aircraft), sells aircraft plans, provides safety notices about the designs (per plans only), manufacturers engines, and provides engineering services to other companies.
2. Bearhawk Aircraft LLC manufacturers and sells kits (and parts) for the Bearhawk line, provides builder support, provides safety notices about the kit and parts they make, and procures engineering support from other companies.

Crucially, the Bearhawk Aircraft LLC designs may vary from the R&B Aircraft LLC plans for the Bearhawk.

I believe this forum is strongly associated with both the above companies, but is technically not part of either company, and Jared would be the best person to comment. My comments are not official.

I think the big open question right now, is about Bearhawk Aircraft's rights to continue to use the R&B Aircraft design, or a modification / derivation of it. I trust that's covered in an agreement which survives the falling-out between these companies, but again we'll need this to be confirmed.