FLY8MA's latest video, A solid commercial for Bearhawk.

Flying to Alaska with my own plane might be my sole reason for getting my medical/ppl over flying with only sport privileges. Let's hope Canada recognizes it before I finish my Bearhawk.
 
I've mentioned to him before that I'd like to hear more about the plane and his impressions of it but all he says is "it's coming", but he's been saying that since he got the thing...
 
Finally a little Bearhawk love. This is what we need to see more of !
Glad to see the Logo added to the cowl, good move Mark.
 
I think "Sponsored by Bearhawk Aircraft" should be digitally edited into the bottom right hand corner of the screen.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry. I saw this video a few days ago, and I literally stopped watching about 1/2 way through. Jon was provided this Bearhawk Patrol to promote it. The fact that he isn't is a real turn off for me.

I couldn’t agree more. From the beginning, I’ve been puzzled by his lack of effort to appropriately promote the airplane. Don’t get me wrong, any promotion is good but the videos are very focused on his flying and his adventures, not much on the airplane. I’ve flown a lot of different aircraft and I’m of the opinion that you simply cannot fly a Patrol and not be thoroughly impressed with it. For this gentleman to nonchalantly discuss the flying of Mark’s Patrol as if it’s just another super cub, strikes me as odd. I guarantee he loves the thing, why not stroke it? I can’t say enough about my Patrol, all with a huge grin on my face (thanks again Collin!). He could be mentioning these exceptional capabilities on every single video.

Just an opinion of course.
Mike
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry. I saw this video a few days ago, and I literally stopped watching about 1/2 way through. Jon was provided this Bearhawk Patrol to promote it. The fact that he isn't is a real turn off for me.

I wasn't aware of this...can you fill us in on the details...he didn't buy the plane?....
 
Sometimes a relatively small number of folks can be influential.
The FLY8MA email address from his website is cfi@fly8ma.com

There could really be something in the works too that we dont know about, I suppose. Mark G. must be pretty happy so far.

For now 8MA is showing the whole world an adventure the Bearhawk line can produce and it activates the imagination. I find it hard to believe that the end game is not to show off its cross country efficiency and speed against the host of inferior STOL aircraft available. When you can go further on a tank of gas into the bush, the area available explore and imagine goes up exponentially. An imagination that depends on a Patrol is powerful. That makes it an elite aircraft, rightfully so.
 
Last edited:
Also wasn’t aware that it’s not his, nor is it my business.

Either way, his videos are shot and edited pretty well. He gives away a ton of information on flight training for free. He’s a good ambassador to aviation and in many ways a first point of contact for many newcomers.
Glad he’s flying a Patrol and not a Cub, kitfox, or JustAC like most Youtubers seem to gravitate towards.
 
21 years wasn't enough for me, too much for my wife:<( That was the kind of flying I did in the summers, minus the stol contest, skiis in the winter.
 
Last edited:
I've never known Mark G to do anything foolish, and if he thinks its a good idea, who am I to say otherwise? After all, it's Mark's airplane! LOL

But I just love seeing some YouTube videos that are NOT about Kitfox / CarbonCub / SuperStol aircraft for a change. I thought the first couple of videos Fly8MA did featuring the Patrol were pretty great advertising.
 
I think its working fine...there is a large decal/sticker on both sides of the nose,,,saying "BEARHAWK PATROL"....the pilot is a celebrity of sorts....and a clean cut... positive ambassador for the industry...

the plane and pilot are stars of the show...i think both the Patrol and Fly8MA are a good fit....

and I dont think we should be talking about this in public...sometimes to create magic...you need to be subtle...and not in your face....I think its a good mix

i really enjoyed watching the video...its really ...really well made for a youtube vid...

remember the Rockford Filles..... and for the younger crowd...Fast and Furious...we all know what cars were used...its the cool actors working magic and thus legends are born....let the romance bloom....

I dont know crap about cars....but I do know the 1999 Nissan Skyline is one of the best stock factory cars ever made....cause i was educated by a movie...

so lets gently close the door on this and let the magic happen...cause what you could be witness to is the birth of a legend..

.....I say break out the cigars...
 
Last edited:
I think its working fine...there is a large decal/sticker on both sides of the nose,,,saying "BEARHAWK PATROL"....the pilot is a celebrity of sorts....and a clean cut... positive ambassador for the industry...

the plane and pilot are stars of the show...i think both the Patrol and Fly8MA are a good fit....

and I dont think we should be talking about this in public...sometimes to create magic...you need to be subtle...and not in your face....I think its a good mix

i really enjoyed watching the video...its really ...really well made for a youtube vid...

remember the Rockford Filles..... and for the younger crowd...Fast and Furious...we all know what cars were used...its the cool actors working magic and thus legends are born....let the romance bloom....

I dont know crap about cars....but I do know the 1999 Nissan Skyline is one of the best stock factory cars ever made....cause i was educated by a movie...

so lets gently close the door on this and let the magic happen...cause what you could be witness to is the birth of a legend..

.....I say break out the cigars...

I've been in the branding and promoting business professionally for most of my life. I can tell you that the way he is publishing and promoting these videos is not effective. As a YouTuber myself, I know how minimal the effort really is to blow something up. Especially with a subscriber base and viewership like Jon has. A quick phone call to John McBean at Kitfox will give you an idea the impact Trent Palmer has had on his business. And John did not give Trent his (older) Kitfox. Call Cubcrafters and ask them what Kevin Quinn, Jason Sneed, Cory Robin, Mark Patey... Have done for their business. Look at what Mark Pensenstadler has done for Zenith. Steveo1Kinevo for Bose, Foreflight and the TBM market for Daher. Steve Thorn (Flight Chops) is building a RV-14 partially sponsored by Van's, those kits are months, if not years on back order from his videos alone. Just Aircraft has Highlanders on back order because of Steve Henry...

Go read Jon's ABOUT section on his YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/FLY8MA/about. Does he mention Bearhawk? Nope... The Cessna 170 get's a shout out. But no Bearhawk... It's pathetic guys. Borderline rude in my opinion... If you're waiting for magic, I hope you're not holding your breath. My cigar is staying in the humidor.
 
Last edited:
I have never been in advertising or anything like it so I am no expert. I would say the C-170 has been mentioned and plugged several times more than the Bearhawk in his videos.

I think the obvious fix is for Mark loan me his 4 place for 6 months. I will never mention the C-170. LOL
 
And maybe it's me(and literally all the other pilots in our group in Alaska, because we laugh about those people all the time), but the most the guys you just mentioned come off as giant tools. And since I know something about bush flying, about as fake as you can get when you look at how the aircraft is loaded, gets to the location, fuel to get there, etc.
The only people impressed are the ones that have absolutely no idea what they're doing and what is happening.
There's a lot of them though, and they seem to have a lot of money.

A couple people asked why I'm not more or less doing exactly that with my bearhawk. My answer is I can't fathom the level of narcissism it would take to do so.

My favorite is the flying cowboys. Are they so out of touch with aviation to not know what that word means or just that dense? If someone called my flying cowboy, I'd have some serious introspection to do. Cowboys are literally the worst possible pilots. The one's you expect to be dead soon, or at the least be reading an NTSB report about.
Judging how often that groups seems to bend metal, perhaps it is fitting.
 
Last edited:
I've made no mention of flying abilities, expertise, discipline and flat out raw talent. Only what these videos do for the promotion of the product they represent. From the day I encountered the Bearhawk, I've been astonished at the lack of promotion and insignificant featuring it gets. Which is why I decided to promote and share the Bearhawk through YouTube. I really don't consider what I'm doing narcissistic.
 
Rob, I don't think what you do is either. But a bunch of the aviation youtube names you mentioned.... well. Ya.
Nothing you do is about you. It's about what you're doing. BIG difference. And I'm not saying they can't fly. Most cowboys have really good stick and rudder. They usually have hilariously poor ADM.

Someone that make really good aviation videos is Zane from BCP.
Patey's videos aren't about him either. I wish there was more "boring" engineering type talk, but I'm sure most his followers don't want that. I don't need to see another montage of stacking dimes and brushing epoxy, but that's what's sexy.

I think it's really hard to have a million+ following and be a person I would want to be within a mile of. The personality required to get there just isn't a good one.

I'm also intrigued by what Jon does or ends up doing considering the circumstances. But I can't fault him for not going full on toolbag to get views.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, I do brand myself somewhat as there should always be a "who" when developing a process or a series. I think of it as a "follow along with me" exercise. It's the psychological connection for the follower. From there, I try to build on facts and experiences.

I also REALLY like Zane's videos and wish there were more of them! He makes art!
 
Comparing this last video to the rest of his was an improvement for Bearhawk branding which was the point of this thread. Agreed, he needs to do better at highlighting the Patrol.. It's all about regular, steady content that imprints the brand on the potential customer.
 
Last edited:
Rob;

I am curious....with your background in promoting and branding, what is an ideal promotional plan? A person sees a Product. Then he must spend time and imagination on the product.....What activates a person to make a decision to spend time on a topic long enough to say "I want one" and then make a life changing time and financial commitment?

I am thinking maybe there should be one star of the show.....In the OP video, the star is bush flying with some STOL competition, but we all want the Patrol to be the star.

I don't youtube much but I like Patey. Enthusiasm, his imagination, his ability to create is what I think makes me desire to go back....I think "Maybe I could do that" helping me to imagine more than what I did before. A positive imagination is called hope. Contrast a Patey video with a video starts with a personal apology.....that is waisted screen time for me, and lowers my desire to stay with it.
 
There are 2 viewers in this scenario. #1 Is the long time subscriber who is intimately familiar with Jon and his channel(s)(He has two). &… #2 Is the causal passerby who knows nothing about Jon and wants to see some off airport ops.

Viewer #1 (me) has been watching Jon and Stephanie fly her 170 all over the place. We know all about their camper trailer and the 2 dogs. And Jon’s lackluster love for the tiny mutts. Then one day…. “Wait a minute…. What’s that?!?” Is Jon flying a different airplane?…. What is it?

Using an example that someone mentioned above...

One day James Garner (the Star) shows up in a black Camaro Z28. What happened to his gold Pontiac Firebird? The next episode…. Garner is driving the Camaro AGAIN…. Then again and again. Why? Will we ever know?

Wanting to or not, we develop compelling emotional reasons for returning and staying committed to something; anything. We will not dedicate ourselves to inconsistency and unknowns and will quickly lose interest.

In the world of advertising and marketing, branding and awarenesses from more than one source must occur before we become aware > attracted > interested. You know it’s a Bearhawk and I know it’s a Bearhawk. Does anyone else?

When one of the narcissists is flying in their machines, we eventually know what it is (usually 1/2 way through the 1st video) because we are continually told and reminded of it. And then he talks about his buddy flying the same machine. And then we are taken behind the scenes to talk more about his favorite machine. Maybe even a visit to the factory or an interview with a fellow pilot flying the same machine as him, comparing each others skills….

Viewer #2…. Sees airplanes. They may have heard of a Piper Cub. Possibly a Cessna 170. A Bearhawk? No. I met a guy last week that has been in GA for 40+ years. Never heard of a Bearhawk….

Want to know why everyone knows that Steveo1Kinevo flies a TBM 850? Because he starts every video saying, “Today, I will be flying the TBM 850 to Po Dunk, Kansas!”

Again, the effort to create this awareness is ridiculously simple.
 
Last edited:
Growing up and learning to fly in Alaska, I would totally echo what Zach is saying. I can't stand the flying cowboys. Heck, when someone asks me if I'm a bush pilot the answer is a firm "no" even though I've hit all of the strips you typically see on youtube, and have flown to the Bering sea. The only person I can enjoy is Mike Patey, because it's not about him, it's about engineering and science. I've participated in the youtube movie thing a little bit, but even then, the mini movie was about how much of a bunch of posers we are, and the solution: Brisket.
 
When looking at the branding thing there are a couple of ways to look at it:

1. Branding is about how cool or effective or competitive something is. It's like the ford vs dodge vs chevy thing. Constant comparisons and contrasts to boost support in a brand.

2. Showing off the product in an environment where people are having fun, and others wanting to be them.

From perspective #1, I couldn't care less. The bearhawk is just like any other airplane, it has compromises, and in the case of experimental, even compromises in the build. What do others expect Jon to do? Tell the viewers about how short the bearhawk lands? It very obviously doesn't land as short as the experimental cubs. Contrast that with how much more load it can take or how much faster it is? Talk about spring gear vs shock struts? Lycoming vs rotax? Perhaps he can show the difference in fit and finish between the carbon cub and the bearhawk, then contrast that with cost and performance? To what end? What would that solve?

From perspective #2, the bearhawk is as capable of gravel bar hopping as any other light bush plane configured to Alaska standards. When I saw the video I missed Alaska a lot and I'm looking forward to doing all of those things in my bearhawk. I saw a good well rounded setup, but more importantly I saw people having fun, I saw Jon enjoying the airplane, I saw the things you can do in it. I think that's more important, and truthfully it's what the other youtubers are doing. People aren't looking at Trent because he is talking about how his airplane is better or worse than some other airplane they simply want to be him on his adventures... (well, not me, the narcissism bothers me, a kitfox is way too small, and high DA flying is lame compared to AK).

By far the most impressive thing I saw in that video was Andy doing all of that stuff in a pacer with his wife next to him. That's skill.
 
That little pacer was doing it with the best of em from the looks of it. I really considered a pacer/colt pa22 clone scratch build before looking at the lsa. Who knows, might also be in my future.
 
I've lived in Alaska a long time and not too far from Seldovia...never heard of the guy until Mark G. told me about it. It takes time to put videos together and I think he did a great job. I didn't make it through the video however because: 1. I live here and 2. I would rather watch paint dry than a STOL competition. The main thing for me is getting together with friends and just enjoy the moment. I have flown over beaches and small strips. You will see PA18s that are tricked out to the max, worth $150K and more, just to park next to a shabby 108-2 with 8:50s. I have always said that the majority of pilots don't have the skill to fly their aircraft to their full potential.
 
I just watched that video, or at least some of it. So the Patrol outperforms a 170. Well, actually, a 170, with a 175 wing STC, Roberston STOL STC, 180 hp STC, Prop STC, 180 gear STC. Did I miss anything?

I am not sure you can call that a 170 anymore, other than the FAA still says 170 on the registration. So a bone stock Patrol outperforms probably one of the most heavily tricked out and expensive 170's in the world.
 
Yup. Very few 170s are that tricked out. An O-300 170B with a stock wing would have had a very poor showing.

As far as what you can carry it was a 2 seat vs 4 seat so not really apples and apples.

Also you can build a Patrol for what the mods to the 170 cost.
 
Last edited:
I like how honest Jon is, and I appreciate him trying to educate. Way better than the what's up cowboys.
 
Btw, Zane is working on his latest project as we speak.

One other thing most people miss... the last video, Fools Errand, he wrote and composed all of the music for it.

I also want to mention that movie making is totally different than random youtube content. So much thought goes into telling a story. The main characters aren't the posers that probably had one too many beers, the characters are Sherbert and the brisket. Also, you need lots of interesting B-roll to make it all work. The shots of Willow airport happened a year later on a day that had roughly the same sky, and the taxi scene was shot with a gimbal mounted camera pointed out the side of my 170 after I removed a door.
 
The quality of the last video was great. Very professionally done. So much so, I trust the opinion at the end. The opinion at the end is that one person prefers the Patrol because it is more fun to fly, the other likes the "170", and it performs almost as well as the Patrol, and carries a lot more stuff (it doesn't).

To the uneducated, a quick search on 170's shows quite a few for sale for 30-50K. No Patrols for sale, and they sell for a much higher price. That makes me want to go out and buy a 170.

The summary comparison should have been "A 60 year old 170 with >$100k in upgrades, vs the Patrol". Instead it was a 170 vs a Patrol.

I should have just bought a 170 I guess.
 
I watched Jon’s last Alaska video today. I thought it was pretty good, his best so far, and the Patrol shows quite well in it.

I do however, find myself wishing that the BH line would be showcased a little bit more directly, overtly, LOUDLY. Without social media, I would not have bought my kit, and if that coverage had been better, I would have bought sooner and with greater confidence. When my kit arrived I was absolutely thrilled at the quality. It’s remarkable how much Mark at Avipro and Mike at Bearhawk Canada under-promised and over-delivered. I wish people knew how good these kits really are. I hear a similar buzz from those who have finished building: Flies even better than expected!

I share in this BH community’s wish to see these extraordinary planes featured, unashamedly compared, and proudly promoted. It’s good for Bob and Mark who brought us these designs and kits, it’s good for us, since we depend on them for support and it’s good for grass-roots aviation.

I’m really hoping that others from the BH community will step forward and fill the content void which obviously exists. Personally, I can’t wait to get my plane done and then venture out beyond where the Kitfoxes and Carbon Cubs won’t follow because they can’t. I don’t know much about video and I’m kind of ugly on camera, but since we are showcasing adventure (not sex) maybe with some effort, maybe even I could produce something entertaining?

I find Rob Caldwell’s videos absolutely riveting and I feel in my bones that there must be a hundred stories out there which are just as compelling: The guy who bought a set of plans and some tube and a few weeks later has a fuselage, the couple who built two patrols, people like Rob who build a show-quality bush plane. There is a hunger for BH content. There must be a hundred “wanna-be’s” for every builder, and some of them will join us if we fill their need to see and learn along with us.

My point is that maybe we need to do more ourselves to meet what seems to be an obvious need.
 
$14,000 Trailblazer prop. Twin Garmin G5’s (better, lighter, no vacuum)

I think Mark’s patrol has one too, but that is one tricked-out 170
 
I wasn’t going to comment as I didn’t have something to contribute. But here’s my viewpoint as someone that has been in a niche market for 25 years.

Enthusiasm sells by default. Someone having fun also sells because others want to have that much fun too. This is where The Patey’s and Trent Palmer excel. They convey fun; easily and often.

I never considered myself a salesperson, I simply share a love, a passion, and my excitement for something. If the person I’m talking to get’s excited then they will do their own purchasing.

To convey excitement, I don’t use terms like “pretty good”. I say things like Awesome, Cool, Sweet, and Bad-Ass! And I laugh and smile, because I can’t help myself. I love aviation.

I have no interest in watching another interview and test flight. Let’s go fly!!
 
Last edited:
Well gang, I guess I will chime in and take responsibility. I convinced Mark to give Jon the Patrol after meeting him in Alaska. I too was craving more video content and figured the Patrol was Better in Jons hands than sitting in Marks Hangar collecting dust. Jon didn't come asking for it guys and certainly isn't a paid promoter. Yes, we all wish and maybe expected something different than we are seeing but its sure better than nothing. Jon works extremely hard at his craft and I'm thankful guys like him are out there tirelessly promoting aviation so we can all sit here complaining while watching you tube.
 
I've been a subscriber of his since well before he flew the four place, much less got the Patrol. I like his videos, I'd just like to see more of what his latest video was, a comparison between the Patrol and other popular aircraft.
 
I think that it is 20 HP and better propeller efficiency but your point is taken. Comparing airplanes of different weights, power and configuration flown by different pilots isn't really going to tell you that much. Still we all like to see how it turns out and the exposure is good for the Bearhawk community.
 
I think that it is 20 HP and better propeller efficiency but your point is taken. Comparing airplanes of different weights, power and configuration flown by different pilots isn't really going to tell you that much. Still we all like to see how it turns out and the exposure is good for the Bearhawk community.

I figured the patrol was 200hp. Regardless the cub probably makes 130hp on takeoff due to the fixed pitch prop. The patrol makes all 180. And THEN theres prop efficiency.
Using a fixed pitch prop is like going up pikes peak stuck in 6th gear. It's an insane disadvantage.
 
I liked the comparison summary on this video a LOT better than the 170 comparo. He made a point to note the differences in engine, prop, and pilot on performance differences.

The last one still has me wanting to buy a 170. I just can't seem to find one with a 180 hp, Trailblazer prop, STOL kit, upgraded gear, and glass cockpit for 35K.

The quality of his videos really is great. They are getting really good at videoing with the drones, and videoing from 1 aircraft while keeping the other in the field of view.
 
Yes, but then you need to STOL kit, PPONK upgrades, glass cockpit.
I prefer to just build my own.
 
No, you don't need any of those things. A set of bushwheels on a stock 180 and you have a very capable bush plane.

It's the parts price that will kill you.
 
Last edited:
My impression is the cruise numbers for Marks new Patrol were a bit slow in the video. His old Patrol on my demo flight at OSH was 130 mph TAS at 23 squared. That I think is 65% power, or about 10 gph lean of peak. His new Patrol does not have gear leg fairings, and flew 126 mph at 11 gallons per hour....but that was ground speed. I thought at the same fuel flow the Patrol would out run a super cub by more than a couple knots. My impression is a lot of Patrols do 140 mph TAS. Maybe he was not Lean of Peak. Maybe the round gear is draggy, worth investigation I think.
 
He was also on 26" Goodyears, and the VG's he installed a few months ago cost him 4 mph according to that video.
 
For 10gph I get about 113kts on 31s with VGs and no gear leg fairings at 500msl. When I fly around with my buddy in his cub I'm usually in the 5-6gph range to match his speed, which is about 75-80kts. Usually something like 14" 2100rpm.
 
The four place cessnas are good airplanes. The 170 is a very good airplane, when it's not underpowered with the factory engine. From a performance perspective I would be totally happy with a 180HP C170 or a C180, but airplanes are a lot more than performance. While the inside of my 170 is plenty big enough for what I want to do with it, I'm also forced to load everything through the front doors which isn't awesome. Another issue is the old cessna parts. I paid $200 for a flap hinge that was nothing more than extruded hinge material because of the part number stamped on it. Then there is the cessna spring gear. If you don't absolutely nail the wheel landings, they throw you right back into the air.
 
As a Patrol builder I'm always glad to see anything on youtube casting a positive light on anything Bearhawk. Fly8MA's videos are well done and edited in a professional manner but many of them I don't last the duration as my ADHD kicks in and I move on. Same with all the STOL drag chest thumping flying cowboy stuff. Any video that has more than 30 seconds of selfie stick and no view out the windshield or a camera mounted in the cockpit pointed at the pilot I get bored real fast. After you've seen an airplane like a Just Hilander jump into the air in a specialized competition format once then the rest is rinse / repeat. I'm pretty sure the pilots that have chosen any Bearhawk model are interested in the complete utility of the design and how it will do what they want. I love them all and have owned a C-180 and a PA18-95. Anything for utility category flying will always be compared to the Super Cub and we all know that. My project is sitting on 8.50's with an O-320 fixed pitch mounted. As an old guy I'm sure it will provide me with plenty of good flying utility. I'm retired but my past life as a cargo pilot allowed me many trips through Anchorage and kept my big tire fever up. Ooops....I'm rambling. In closing I applaud anybody that has a knack for making quality youtube videos. I know I couldn't.
 
As a Patrol builder I'm always glad to see anything on youtube casting a positive light on anything Bearhawk. Fly8MA's videos are well done and edited in a professional manner but many of them I don't last the duration as my ADHD kicks in and I move on. Same with all the STOL drag chest thumping flying cowboy stuff. Any video that has more than 30 seconds of selfie stick and no view out the windshield or a camera mounted in the cockpit pointed at the pilot I get bored real fast. After you've seen an airplane like a Just Hilander jump into the air in a specialized competition format once then the rest is rinse / repeat. I'm pretty sure the pilots that have chosen any Bearhawk model are interested in the complete utility of the design and how it will do what they want. I love them all and have owned a C-180 and a PA18-95. Anything for utility category flying will always be compared to the Super Cub and we all know that. My project is sitting on 8.50's with an O-320 fixed pitch mounted. As an old guy I'm sure it will provide me with plenty of good flying utility. I'm retired but my past life as a cargo pilot allowed me many trips through Anchorage and kept my big tire fever up. Ooops....I'm rambling. In closing I applaud anybody that has a knack for making quality youtube videos. I know I couldn't.

Just to be sure, utility category refers to G loading. It used to be 23.3, but since they re-wrote part 23 I don't know where it ended up. Here's the text -

23.3 Airplane categories.

(a) The normal category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for nonacrobatic operation. Nonacrobatic operation includes:

(1) Any maneuver incident to normal flying;

(2) Stalls (except whip stalls); and

(3) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not more than 60 degrees.

(b) The utility category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for limited acrobatic operation. Airplanes certificated in the utility category may be used in any of the operations covered under paragraph (a) of this section and in limited acrobatic operations. Limited acrobatic operation includes:

(1) Spins (if approved for the particular type of airplane); and

(2) Lazy eights, chandelles, and steep turns, or similar maneuvers, in which the angle of bank is more than 60 degrees but not more than 90 degrees.

(c) The acrobatic category is limited to airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of nine or less, a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, and intended for use without restrictions, other than those shown to be necessary as a result of required flight tests.

(d) The commuter category is limited to multiengine airplanes that have a seating configuration, excluding pilot seats, of 19 or less, and a maximum certificated takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or less. The commuter category operation is limited to any maneuver incident to normal flying, stalls (except whip stalls), and steep turns, in which the angle of bank is not more than 60 degrees.

(e) Except for commuter category, airplanes may be type certificated in more than one category if the requirements of each requested category are met.

I see this all the time on here, and it seems like no one knows what it means. The bearhawk is utility category in that regard, but no other bush airplane is(maybe the Cessna 170/180/185 have it listed at a lighter gross weight). Why the bearhawk has that kind of G loading I've never figured out. I don't think people are doing non 1G aerobatics in it nor do non 1G aerobatics seem to be anywhere near the design goal.

In an engineering sense, that means it's empty weight is heavier than it should be for the mission. It's like when the 777X wing failed the stress test at 2.5G * 1.5 at only 1.49. Yes, that's a failure, but so is if it went to 1.6, because that means it's carrying around a bunch of extra weight that could be used for payload and is serving no purpose than more safety margin should someone be wildly reckless with the aircraft.

Utility category is for light acro. Not carrying lots of weight, or just generally being useful. Utility category means it can go to 4.4G without over stressing the airframe instead of the standard category 3.8G. And -1.76, -1.52 respectively. Then there's the maneuvers listed, which generally limits the CG envelope more than normal. I would be terrified of spinning a bearhawk anywhere near the factory aft CG limit. So in that sense, it's not utility category without a CG limit. Just like a Cessna. Which brings up another point. For an experimental, you have to go flight test all those maneuvers or they are prohibited.(It's right on your airworthiness cert.)

Normally when you see a utility category it's built in to a standard category aircraft. The 172 is a great example of this. The standard category gross is 2300lbs, but in utility it is 2000. (The math works perfect for this to. 2000*4.4/3.8=2315. The stress is the same on the aircraft and in the bearhawk you could do the same save TO/landing weight limits 2500*4.4/3.8=2894lbs.) The aft CG limit is 6.8 inches further forward than it is in standard category at 40.5 instead of 47.3. And rear seat pax and baggage are prohibited, though the cg limit kind of takes care of that anyways.

The cub not only does not have a utility category, but in the sense I think people think of that word - carrying things(which is wrong), it also can't carry much unless you fly it wildly overweight like a lot of people do.
 
Last edited:
Bob designs for utility category strength at full gross weight because he thinks it adds a safety margin for amateur builders. And I believe it is correct that no one else does this as standard category gross weight gives specs that look better. And I am sure that Bob's planes carry some extra weight to achieve this. But not much as Bob manages to design strong and light. If you looked at a bare Cub fuselage next to a Patrol fuselage you would see the tubing count is MUCH higher on a Cub. Bob achieves more strength with less tubes. Mark
 
My point is everyone keeps using utility in the common sense of the word. The aircraft is capable of being more useful, carrying more, truck like. When the exact opposite is true. There is weight that could be removed if it was built to 3.8G loading... or the gross weight were higher to achieve the same thing.

Judging by the empty weights of most bearhawks I'm pretty sure I'm in a lonely group of people who care about my useful load so much to care theres an extra 20-50lbs? In weight built into the airframe to support a load it will never see.
 
Last edited:
Something to consider... usually, only a few parts are critically stressed. So, the change in maximum g loading between the (former*) utility and normal category standards likely only propagates to a few critically stressed parts - most will be at a far larger factor of safety. Usually, that's somewhere in the wing, such as the spar cap strips and wing attach points. Things in the fuselage tend to be sized to crash loads and landing loads - stuff behind the pilot is sized to 9-18g axially for crash loads, depending on if it's a CAR3 or Part 23 airplane. I would be very surprised if designing to utility category structural standards would add more than a dozen pounds to the Bearhawk design, but I'll admit I'm spitballing here.

I suspect the main reason you don't see many bush planes that are certified to utility standards has little to do with the marginal increase in structural weight. Under the old Part 23 (prior to August 2017), utility category airplanes had to recover from 3-turn spins. Normal category airplanes need only to recover form 1-turn spins (and are placarded against intentional spinning). Aerobatic aircraft must recover from 6-turn spins. Most airplanes aren't in a fully-developed spin by 1-turn, but may be by 3-turns, hence, it's harder to design and certify. Spin test matrices can get into 100s of conditions, and if you don't pass one, it kills the whole program (you may have thought you designed for it, but at some wonky aft-CG, power-on, lightweight left-turn accelerated condition it may not pass the criteria). Hence, that bush plane may meet utility structural strength requirements, but they may not have been able to pass (or did not want to try to pass) all the 3-turn spins in the certification program.

[*Under the Part 23 rewrite, the only category is now Normal. There is no more utility category, and if you wish to certify for spins, you have to use aerobatic standards (6g, recovery after 6-turns) for whatever configurations you request. Certification is to "levels," shorthand for "risk level," and the levels are 1-4. The levels are not weight-based, but instead based solely on the maximum number of passenger seats. So, under the new Part 23, you could design a Level 1 airplane that is 19,000 pounds as long as it has one or zero passenger seats (note that it may have one or more crewmembers, which don't count towards the "Level"). There are a number of new changes - such as the elimination of the 1-turn spin requirement, since the majority of LOC accidents occur at altitudes below spin recovery altitude. Instead, single-engine aircraft not certified for aerobatics, "must not have a tendency to inadvertently depart controlled flight." ASTM Committee F44 is one of the main sources for means of compliance to the new Part 23 rules, which follows from the FAA's confidence in the ASTM standards (ASTM Committee F37 maintains the means of compliance for LSA).]
 
My 2 cents worth on "Utility Category" versus "utility"... I think when you see the word "utility", you are thinking about the FAA definition of "Utility Category." But others might just be using the more common English definition of "utility" – as in a synonym for "useful or beneficial."

I suspect when pilots use the term "utility" without adding the word "category" following it – even in an aviation forum – they probably are not referring to the "Utility Category" meaning. At least, that's my take...
 
When building low production stuff like light aircraft or kits out of metal you are stuck with using stock sized aluminum and steel. Composites make it somewhat easier to tailer each piece for the load for most of the length of the piece. On a metal plane, one place is critical on a piece, then you are carrying extra structure down the tube or sheet to the end.

Commercial and military aircraft have the financial room to custom make each piece so the structure is more optimized.

The closest certified aircraft to a BH 4 place is a Maule, including using both O-360 and 540 engines (plus some Conti's and Franklins). Current Maule's seem to weight 100-300 lbs more than a BH when using the same engine.

I kind of think Bob probably only had to upsize 10-30% of tubing/sheet to push the BH to the utility category. The model 5 has a gross weight of 3000 lbs and the empty weight didn't go up that much. I think I remember hearing "30 lbs" of steel. I don't remember hearing a number for the aluminum in the wing.
 
That was my intent when I wrote the word utility in my post. I did later in the post write utility category but I had no intent of creating a storm of engineering explanations and FAR definitions.
My comment was aimed more towards the Bearhawk being more useful like a long bed pick up is compared to a short bed. Probably a good thing I don't post much. Maybe I will post some pictures of my project. From a pilots point of view I recommended keeping your Bearhawk within CG and go fly.
 
I think you just created an interesting discussion that I enjoyed reading.
 
Back
Top