Hi Mark, lots of things here. First, it's great to hear that you are getting some hours in your plane, and we'd always love to hear more! I will share some opinions but I would definitely recommend you have a chat with Bob as well. He is extremely knowledgeable about all of this, and also the practical ways to address it. I'll add a lot of words but the short version is you might be able to solve all of this with a little weight in the baggage area.
On running out of Elevator:
First, here's how Bob directed me to test the BH5 for its forward CG limit back when we were testing the prototype. The first flights were a little ballasted, then we would incrementally remove ballast, a little at a time. Each time, I would fly a few landings and see if I had enough elevator authority to get it slow in the flare. When we reached a point where that was no longer the case, that was the forward CG limit. If you were to apply that method, if you aren't able to slow down as you wish on final, it is fair to say that you are forward of the practical limit. Does it improve, or, to what degree does it improve, as you move the CG aft a little? The plane will fly totally differently at the aft limit in many ways, especially elevator authority in the flare, stick force, and pitch stability.
Second, when you say the slowest you can trim is a little above 60 knots, what is keeping you from being able to trim slower? Are you out of chain links or something? If your trim cable tension or friction are insufficient, the trim tab can change its commanded position, so that is something to ensure isn't happening as well, but you probably would have already noticed that. I was out of phase 1 before I noticed this problem, which is why I bring it up.
Third, let's talk about elevator throw/travel. There may have been some differences over the years. My plans set is from about 20 years ago (that sounds older than I expected it to) and it depicts 30 degrees up and 20 down. Do you see the same on your plans, and have you measured your actual travel in a way that leads you to believe that you are getting the full 30 up? Do you have good methodology here? You'll reach a point where more travel won't get you more result, something easily validated in setting up RC models for extreme maneuvers. But it may be worth a chat with Bob to see if he is still recommending 30 and not 35 degrees with the profiled tail. The airfoil shape might allow more deflection before the airflow separates, but again ask Bob about this.
On pitch being heavy:
I wish I had Maule time to compare notes, but I don't. I do have a little RV time and definitely the RV is going to be lighter in all axes. But the Bearhawk shouldn't feel like a truck. Unless you eliminate the servo action of the trim tab, as some have done. Assuming that isn't the case here, the same slim chance of uncommanded trim tab movement could be reducing the servo action. You would be able to see if this is happening by looking at your trim wheel in flight and seeing it move when you make stick inputs.
CG is King
The biggest single factor that is going to drive pitch feel is the CG. If you are flying at your forward limit, you should feel a totally different airplane than at the aft limit. When I am at the forward limit, I can roll to 45 degrees of bank and pull the stick as hard as I want, and I can't exceed 2g. If I'm at the aft limit, I can "bap" the stick in level flight and the plane will strongly pitch up at 2g until I chicken out and intervene.
At a forward CG, the amount of trim displacement required between 60 knots and cruise will be substantial, maybe a 3/4 of a turn of the wheel. At an aft cg, that will be reduced. Theoretically you can get the cg so far aft that you won't really need any trim changes at all as speed changes.
On setting the tail incidence:
We can only really optimize the airplane for a single CG, airspeed, and power setting. When you are flying in your most usual configuration, look back at the tail. Is the elevator in trail with the horizontal stab? Or is it displaced? If it is displaced, adjust the incidence to make it in trail. Once that is done, if you fly at a more aft CG, you can look back and see that your elevator is deflected stick-forward relative to the horizontal stab. If you fly at a more forward cg, you can look back and see a stick-aft displacement. Generally, my understanding is that the baseline incidence setting for a profiled tail was to be 2 degrees, vs 4 degrees for a flat tail. But again this depends on how you want to rig the airplane, because you can only make it perfect for a single set of conditions and everything else is a compromise.
Setting of the tail angle should not impact pitch stick force at all. Setting of the tail angle could impact your low speed pitch authority slightly, in the sense that if you had too nose-low of an angle set, it would require more up-elevator displacement to yield the same number of pounds of tail down force. Naturally this "total pounds of tail down force" is what really matters. Some of those pounds come from the horizontal stab (assuming the incidence isn't zero) and the rest comes from the elevator. Pre-loading some of that into the horizontal stab would ease the airflow transition at the hinge line, but would be terribly inefficient in cruise because you'd be plowing more of a wedge through the sky.
Vortex Generators:
If the loss of pitch authority is due to airflow separation at the elevator hinge line (which it likely is), VGs on the underside of the stabilizer can mitigate that. They can help the air turn the sharp corner and stay attached.
Moving the CG aft reduces the total demand on the HS/Elevator system. In other words, you need less total pounds of tail down force to achieve the same pitch change effect. Many owners of very nose-heavy planes find that they are more delightful for solo ops with a little weight in the tail. This applies to big-engine Bearhawks, C182s, etc. Airplanes are all about compromise, and configuring to optimize for a single mission often costs us optimization for another mission.
