Long wing Bearhawk

Battson

Battson

Moderator
I am thinking about the merits of extending the wings on the Bearhawk 4-place. I am keen to hear the thoughts of the group.

It seems like a very easy modification, which could have big advantages - think WingX extensions for a Cessna.

Even just an extra foot span in total, or better yet a foot more on each wing-tip, could make a measurable difference. On a Maule, which is a similar size and horsepower to the Bearhawk 4-place, less than a foot longer wingspan on the "long wing" Maule makes for faster cruise speeds, slower stall speeds - better performance at both ends, compared to the "Universal Wing" and "Short Wing" Maule variants.

The extension could be completed in two ways.
Either a longer fibreglass wing tip, which would require moulds to be made - but would then enable production of extended wing tips to bolt on to any aircraft.
Or adding an extra aluminium bay of narrow-width. It would perhaps be a few days work at most, but any parts made in the process could not easily be reused for other aircraft.

I can only think of one real downside - the g-load limit would be reduced a little I assume. However the highest g-load I have ever seen is less than 50% of the safe limit, so perhaps only 35% of the ultimate limit.

Anyone have an input on that idea?
 
How does the longer wing achieve performance increases on both ends? I understand the increased lift, but I would assume that would come with an increased drag penalty. I'm no engineer, so you may need to draw it in crayon for me.
 
This has been discussed before either here or in the old yahoo group...I can't remember. I also can't remember the issues.

I would like to build some Hoerner tips that add 1' of span to each wing. I've been contemplating how to accomplish this but decided to not think about it much till I finish the fuselage and bring the wings into the garage.
 
I had thought about Hoerner wingtips too, but the project I bought came with regular ones, so the Hoerner tips may wait. Cost and time are both big factors right now. There's little doubt in my mind that you should have your bird in the air before I finish mine, so if you go that route I can't wait to read how you like them.
 
LukeS said:
How does the longer wing achieve performance increases on both ends? I understand the increased lift, but I would assume that would come with an increased drag penalty. I'm no engineer, so you may need to draw it in crayon for me.
Click to expand...
That was my initial assumption in the first place too.

Right up until some people, who clearly remembered their classes in aerodynamics better than me, reminded me about some basic principles like aspect ratio and the effects of it. Like the fact a high aspect ratio wing produces less induced drag. I think that's because the angle of attack of the wing in cruise is more favourable. At relatively low airspeeds, there isn't much parasitic drag to speak of, so overall a longer wing reduces the drag of the aircraft.

They also pointed to the Maule and WingX Cessna's as examples. At which point I also remembered about aircraft like the Lancair Legacy which do the same. Hard to argue with real world numbers.
 
Last edited:
whee said:
I would like to build some Hoerner tips that add 1' of span to each wing. I've been contemplating how to accomplish this but decided to not think about it much till I finish the fuselage and bring the wings into the garage.
Click to expand...

That is precisely one of the two options I have been contemplating.

For my STOL and cross-country type flying, I can't see any disadvantages of a longer wing.

I know one of the main reasons pilots prefer a shorter (low aspect ratio) wing is aerobatics, because they are stronger and more manoeuvrable.
 
Battson said:
That was my initial assumption in the first place too.

Right up until some people, who clearly remembered their classes in aerodynamics better than me, reminded me about some basic principles like aspect ratio and the effects of it. Like the fact a high aspect ratio wing produces less induced drag. I think that's because the angle of attack of the wing in cruise is more favourable. At relatively low airspeeds, there isn't much parasitic drag to speak of, so overall a longer wing reduces the drag of the aircraft.

They also pointed to the Maule and WingX Cessna's as examples. At which point I also remembered about aircraft like the Lancair Legacy which do the same. Hard to argue with real world numbers.
Click to expand...

I suppose the key question would be whether the reduction in induced drag from the higher aspect ratio would outweigh the increase in parasite drag of the extra structure in the breeze. Has anyone asked Bob how he arrived at the wingspan? I'm doubtful that it's related to his hangar size, and I know that aerobatics was not one of his concerns when he drew it, being that he'd already been through his aerobatic phase.
 
The Bearhawk already has adverse yaw. That may play into this. Also, people that I know that have flown the C185 with the extended tips thik it's a waste of time and don't like them. YMMV.
 
alaskabearhawk said:
The Bearhawk already has adverse yaw. That may play into this. Also, people that I know that have flown the C185 with the extended tips thik it's a waste of time and don't like them. YMMV.
Click to expand...

I only personally know 1 guy with WingX on his C180 and he loves it. In the past there has been a ton of discussion about WingX on BCP and I can't remember a single person that wish they hadn't done it...but you know how internet forums are. The adverse yaw increase with the long wing Maule is noticeable and I image extending the wings on the BH would also increase the adverse yaw. The BH has plenty of rudder to counter it so to me that really isn't an issue.
 
When I first thought about tips a few months ago I was thinking I could build a set of crude Hoerner-ish tips out of aluminum pretty easily. Basically wrap sheet aluminum along the top of the wing overhanging however far I wanted. The bottom sheet would simply run at an angle from the bottom of the wing out to the overhanging sheet. Crude and too simplistic but should work as proof of concept.
 
I've got one of my hoerner tips laid up and fitted. I am using hinges to attach them, similar to how many of the RV guys are doing it. While they are far from complete, it hasn't been too bad for this first-time composite builder. I only made mine 10" wide, but making them 12" would be a simple mod. I started with a 4x8 sheet of 2" foam from home Depot. IMG_0944.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0944.JPG
    IMG_0944.JPG
    862.2 KB · Views: 0
There are dozens more guys on the BCP forum who would disagree about the extended tips being a waste of time, I don't think I've heard that sentiment before from anyone flying on floats or off-airport.
 
Did you use any references to develop the shape of the wing tip that would appropriate for someone doing it the first time? I've thought about this, but would need to educate myself more to create the best shape.
 
I followed the method outlined in Jeff's videos on youtube. http://youtu.be/RoOh-fgI8oU They literally shape themselves. The only hand shaping is the front curve, and it's fairly easy to eyeball nice fair curves. I have taken some pictures and plan to write up my experience when done. Just thought I'd mention here in this thread since you guys were talking about it. Yes it's more time consuming and expensive than buying the ready made tips, but I've really enjoyed playing with fiberglass and will hopefully have some stylin tips.
 
MSWAIN,
Wondering how TIG works on fiberglass? :D
Sorry. Saw the picture and couldn't resist. Looks good, thinking of doing the same thing.

Doug
 
Maules use the same antique USA35B airfoil as Cubs do. This airfoil has a pretty severe torsional moment. At Cub cruise speeds it's not a big deal, but at Maul speeds I'm betting the tail is working pretty hard, creating a lot of induced drag to keep the nose up. Increasing the wing area would decrease the lift coefficient needed in cruise, and decrease the pitching moment, there by reducing the load and drag on the tail.

The NACA 4412 on the Bearhawk doesn't have that much torsional moment in the first place, so the extended wings will probably cost you a couple knots of cruise speed. The comparison with aspect ratio only applies if the total wing area is the same. So you'd have to lengthen the wing, and shorten the cord to see a speed increase from the reduced aspect ratio. I could look up the applicable calculations if you're that curious.
 
This discussion has inspired me to accelerate my side project: An optimized set of wingtips for the (4 place) Bearhawk. I won't need them for a couple years, but right now I have access to the entire library of the Air Force Research Lab and the Air Force Institute of Technology which has enough references to keep me busy for a lifetime, including Dr. Hoerher's texts on aerodynamics and his original study on wingtips. So I'm going to start working on this now.

I am a big fan of extracting as much "free" performance out of this airplane as possible, i.e., performance gains without additional weight and complexity. Even if it's only on the order of 1-2%, it all adds up at the end. So my plan is to design, model, redesign, build, and ultimately flight test a new pair of tips, and hopefully generate enough data to quantify their overall contribution to the Bearhawk's performance, whether good or bad. I'll report back here when I'm done, but don't hold your breath cause it's gonna take time.

Also, I haven't seen the drag profile of the Bearhawk but typically parasite drag is the predominant force in cruise flight and it increases with wing area. There may be other factors at play in the Maule, WingX's, etc, but normally elongating a wing will cause slower speeds on both ends of the envelope.

Nic
BH 1217
 
Terrible, I thought tig was supposed to work on all material. That's what the salesman told me.
 
nichzimmerman said:
Also, I haven't seen the drag profile of the Bearhawk but typically parasite drag is the predominant force in cruise flight and it increases with wing area. There may be other factors at play in the Maule, WingX's, etc, but normally elongating a wing will cause slower speeds on both ends of the envelope.

Nic
BH 1217
Click to expand...

I think that's true for modern fast aircraft. At the 1930's speeds we fly, just like with a glider, I understand the parasitic drag is much less of a concern. I believe that is why longer wings make aircraft faster in our type of plane.

This image ROUGHLY illustrates the typical shape of each drag curve.
avd.gif
 
Last edited:
Thinking aloud, and seeking feedback:

Would it be sensible to fabricate some wing extensions which screw onto the wing like the current wing tips do (but I am not thinking bigger tips - I mean extensions - see picture below), and do some flight testing with a longer wing?

I mean extensions like this:
IMG_2729_zps3614bcee.jpg


Now - I realise that in the Cessna, they put in a small additional capstrip length at the wing tip to make the wing stronger, but after some research it appears they DON'T add any capstrip into the wing extension, or connect the spar web to the extension. The extension appears to only attach to the outer skin of the wing, with a short overlap. However, note the Bearhawk has no capstrip in the last bay(s) of the wing, which could be more tricky to add more.

I have seen a range of planes where the tips of the wings are attached only with screws - usually not that many screws either... Mostly they are still aerofoils but they taper off in the modern composite style, so looking from the outside I don't think this is a "stupid" idea. You would also be increasing the stresses with an extended tip, perhaps 40% as much as a bigger extension like this would?

Just jump in here if you think that's a fundamentally stupid idea! Otherwise, a few supplementary thoughts:

Ok - so what are the problems with this idea?

One concern would be whether any number of screws around the outer skin (through the end-rib's flange) would be sufficient to support the additional stresses applied to the wing by the extensions, and if so, how many screws do you need? Although would that really be a concern? Other aircraft use this design already, and even with only ~20 screws the wing tips are pretty well anchored in place. Of course you would want countersunk screw heads, not truss heads, or it would be ugly and draggy.

Then one would need to consider whether the additional stresses of drag and lift, transferred to the wing by the extension, could be supported in the long term by the semi-monocoque design of the existing wing (without cracking the existing skin through cyclic stress. I imagine the additional lifting forces and drag would be considerable. I wonder if they would overstress the outer part of the wing skin and rib flange, if enough screws were used to transfer the force evenly. Thoughts?

Afterthoughts:

You would want to include an inbuilt tip, so as to avoid the additional weight and complexity of attaching the existing wing tips to the extensions. The existing wing tips appear to focus on drag minimisation only, to my eye they really appear to do very little in terms of lift creation.

If the temporarily extended wings don't produce better performance, no foul - just replace the original wing tips and get on with life.
If the temporarily extended wings do perform better - great - if necessary, the screws could be replaced with rivets and the spars webs could be spliced together. Or, one could even leave the screwed-on extensions in place as they are, as a long term solution. That would be dependant on the extensions being very ridged, and the stresses being well distributed.
If you went to the trouble of extending the cap strips onto a stub spar, and adding permanent extensions to the wing - then you would doubtlessly be pretty annoyed if there were no good performance outcomes. It would NOT be hard to add stiffeners to extend and connect the capstrips into the new stub spar in the extension, but it would be very permanent.
 
Last edited:
Rough calculation using Hiscocks and Shrenk's approximation, on the normal wing, you're seeing about 323 lbs. at that first bay at 4.4g (4752 lbs). If you added two bays (28 inches), the resultant force at that original end bay goes up to a little over 700 lbs. at 4.4g. And the forces are additive each 19.5 inches inward by about 10% each time (+437, +470, +490, etc.). So I guess the thing to do is check each station and make sure it'll handle the load (I'm still learning the math behind that part). But my gut tells me you could pick a side of the spar, run a single cap strip top and bottom, and through your extensions and be good. Probably bolted through with a doubler. But that's my gut, not an engineer's opinion. But thinking again, that's going to be a bear without disassembling the wing on the end, what with the dividers, rib attach angles...

That's also the forward spar. Aft spar has capstrips that run all the way to the end. So that's a different kind if connection I haven't visualized.

So we're back to your original question: is there enough beef in the end rib to hold it all...
 
Last edited:
Very helpful food for thought - thanks.

I was always expecting a maximum tolerable G-force reduction would be required with such a mod, to avoid putting excessive bending stress on the wing (or are you talking about distributed load per chance?).
 
Jonathon one way fwd would be to build yourself a new set of wings and make all the changes integral rather than a tack on. Also that would give you a chance to use a riblett airfoil and move the ailerons outboard the extra bay and increase the flap length the same amount which is all increasing the effective CL over a longer length of the wing span wise. There was some good info in Pazmanny's design book on it i.e. calculating the effect of longer flaps span wise on slower landing speed. It would only be an incremental increase but it's all working in the right direction so to speak.
Once you had them completed and fitted you could sell the existing wings.
 
Last edited:
I came up with that with distributed load calcs, and then those loads become additive as you move inboard. But that also assumed a cantilevered wing, so the bending force may develop at a different rate with a strut-braced wing. But that far out, it may be negligible.
 
I like this plan. You should be able to knock it out this winter. Take some pictures for a Beartracks article please!
 
The load distribution is quite different in a strut braced wing, at least in some areas. Apparently it may not effect the outboard sections - but I am not an expert. At least at a macroscopic level, the analysis is quite easy.
070311_0046_Afailsafefa10.png

In that regard, lengthening the wing only adds a small force to all the inboard sections, relative to their maximum design load. That is what leads to the small reduction in maximum G-force, assuming you want to maintain the original safety factors.
 
Last edited:
Guys I tried to write a comment today and saved it in the wrong place. I will try and get some numbers for you on the W8 work my dad did with the Riblett airfoil. Dad is in New Zealand at the Hastings fly in with John Corby his mare of Corby Starlet fame. From memory the Riblett airfoil to approximate similar characteristics to the modified 4309 section on the W8 was a GA35 (or 37) Ax12 with the x I am not sure of the value and the 12 may have been a 13. The upshot was several knots more speed at cruise and substantial improved slow speed. Peter
 
When I was looking a wingtip designs I thought I read somewhere that the Hoerner tip added 4-6" of effective wing length which is why I wanted to use that style. My thinking was to eventually make a fiberglass tip that extended the airfoil 12" then transitioned into the Hoerner tip. That would increase the effective span by 2.5-3 feet. The WingX increases the Cessna span by something like 4' and on some airplanes requires a aluminum and stainless steel reinforcing straps added to the main spar in the lift strut area. Someone should perform the calculations on the BH wing to determine if similar reinforcement would be required; that way I can add them before I close up my wings:cool:
 
Jon, if you are serious about making some longer Hoerner tips like that, please consider me as a potential "customer" for your work on the moulds.
If you made some moulds, I would certainly be prepared to pay you a premium to lay up a second set of fibreglass tips.

As I said before, I would go ahead and do it myself, except for NZ is so very far away from 95% of the Bearhawk world - the effort of making the moulds seems to be a waste of time, as they wouldn't be able to be shared with the community. I don't think its worth making moulds just for one plane. Plus I have never made a set of moulds before on that scale, I bet they would be expensive, and you would want to recoup some cost by selling a few extra sets of tips to others.

I am sure such a product (extended fibreglass Hoerner wing tips) would be a great seller. In fact - maybe that's a market Mark G. or Bob B. should consider tapping into? :)
 
My dad is set on making our own tips so I'd say the probability is pretty high that they will also add some span. I'll have a bunch of studying to do to figure out the right shape.

It shouldn't be too difficult to make the molds. Back in the early days my dad used to make molds for kayaks. As long as we get the design right I'm sure he can make them.
 
I found the following information about the Isham Piper PA28 wingtips interesting. Their Hoerner tips add 2' 2.5" of span but don't decrease ground roll or stall speed.

comparisson%20chart.jpg


ISHAM%20KIT.jpg
 
​I would say there could be certification / POH related reasons why they don't claim higher performance.
 
I just recalled reading that it can be cheaper to STC changes to an aircraft if you limit the scope of the change, particularly when it comes to safety related things like stall speed in the POH. I could believe that, anything which reduces the scope of work to get an STC is worth doing. But I am just recalling distant memories here.

Clearly the wing produces more lift and less drag if climb and cruise are better. Wing loading is lower. I can't imagine why the stall would stay unchanged? The physics seem unlikely, that's all.
 
Last edited:
True on the STC "simplification" (as if!)...

I have an aftermarket turbo-normalizer on my Rockwell Commander 114. It maintains 100% engine power up to 18,000' and will easily climb to 24,000' (FAA limits to this level unless you go with pressure O2 masks, pressurized magnetos, and some other stuff). In the "addendum" to the POH, the STC just shows "performance is equal or better than standard aircraft" for all the data up to the point where the POH leaves off This for the entire performance section... But in practice, I get about 1000 fpm climb all the way to 15,000' and above, which is WAY better that the "book" performance. And there's an addendum for power settings above 18,000 feet that shows the plane is MUCH faster all of a sudden. THAT part of the certification process required literally dozens of instrumented test flights to get approval, and when they were done, the FAA pointed out that they hadn't tested it with the autopilot on during those tests. Rather than repeating all the tests, the STC simply added the prohibition against using the autopilot above 18,000 feet... Everything was "cost driven" by the certification process. I heard it cost them over $100,000 to do the test flight portion -- this almost 20 years ago!

Ditto for the Grumman Cheetah STC to convert the 150 HP O-320 to high-compression. Lycoming rates that engine at 160 HP, but the STC drops the RPM redline to 2650 (from 2700). When I asked why, I was told that manufacturers are allowed a 5% variance (+ or -) to their HP ratings. At 2650 rpm, the O-320 HC nominally makes 157.5 HP. That is exactly 5% over the original 150 HP. By limiting the STC to this RPM, the STC applicant did not have to do ANY flight testing with the "new engine"...

I would bet that the "equal or better" option was selected when certifying the Hoerner wingtips as well.
 
Wow, you have a Commander? Drooool. It's one of my favorite GA airplanes. I've never been in one, but I remember reading an article in P&P a number of years ago that a guy restored a 112 to beautiful condition. They certainly have managed to keep their value over the years, too.
 
Not meaning to hijack the thread, but yeah, the Commander is very cool. Largest cabin interior among all 4-place GA aircraft (by far!), two doors for easy entry/exit, built like a tank, and trailing-link landing gear that turns every landing into a squeaker... And the ramp-appeal is second to none, though some V-tail Bonanza owners will argue that point.

I'm selling it (contract pending) to fund the Patrol build, because the Patrol better suits my post-retirement flight mission statement. I'm having a lot of fun building, and can't wait to start flying it. My demo flight at OSH was absolutely amazing! Bob designed an awesome airplane, and Mark puts out a great kit.
 
Last edited:
Did you fibreglass straight over the foam plugs?
Or did you use those plugs to produce female moulds, which you then fibreglassed inside?

Having answered that, are you happy with the way they turned out?
 
I just glassed the foam plug. After some time with fairing compound and a sander, I am very happy with the result. I will be making the cutouts for the lights and forming lenses as a next step. I plan to have LED landing lights and Whelen Strobe/Position lights houses under a formed plexiglass lens.
 
Thanks very much for the reply, I hoped you would say that! Did you gel coat the fibreglass, or did you use an alternative compound? I am looking for a spray on coating which I can sand off afterwards.

What sort of foam did you choose?
 
By the by, I spoke to Bob about lengthening the Bearhawk wing. He was not keen on the idea, which is not surprising.

He cited a number of factors which would need to be considered regarding the strength of the spars and a few other factors. He didn't think there was any "fat" in the design, any room to increase the design loads without reducing safety factor below the stated limits. He thought the wing would need extra cap strip material at the strut attach point, if I recall correctly.

He notes the Patrol wing, which is longer, has a deeper profile and this considerably increases the 4th moment of area - which means the wing would be stiffer and stronger if the spars were exactly the same on both models. Of course that's not the case in reality, both wings are probably about the same strength.
 
Battson, Didn't Bob reluctantly agree that 15" extensions probably wouldn't hurt anything? I thought you were perusing the idea of 15" long Hoerner tips.
 
whee said:
Battson, Didn't Bob reluctantly agree that 15" extensions probably wouldn't hurt anything? I thought you were perusing the idea of 15" long Hoerner tips.
Click to expand...

He agreed to a 15" full-chord lift generating wingtip, which he said was the longest he could approve at full chord. He said a Wittman W10 style wingtip would be acceptable with a longer span, because of their much shorter average chord length.

He wasn't prepared to approve any extension of the wing structure itself.
 
Has anyone done a tailwind style wing tip on a Bearhawk. The wing tip makes a lot of difference in the performance of a tailwind.
 
tailwind said:
Has anyone done a tailwind style wing tip on a Bearhawk. The wing tip makes a lot of difference in the performance of a tailwind.
Click to expand...

Mark told me that Bob originally intended to use a Tailwind style wingtip on the Bearhawk, but it never happened for some reason.
 
Last edited:
I may have shared this before...someday I hope to factually discover the advantages of different wing tip desings...using a different and peculiar way. I plan to get the aircraft rigged so that it flies straight, then install one of the subjects to be test on one of the wing tips. Then flown in cruise flight, the wing tip with the lower drag will induce a measurable yaw force. We can test a Standard tip, Hoerner tip, Tailwind Tip, Round/Square, then the Mooney "Cut off" tip...which is best? Do they really make a difference? No question if the power was set differently that day, or if the atmosphere's vitals were measured accurately to determine density altitude. We get simple, raw, side by side comparisons, kind of like a drag race with one wing tip compared against the other.

I also sense the tailwind tip may be least draggy....kind of ugly/boxey/trapazoidie, but it looks like it minimizes tip losses to me.
 
Sorry to resurrect an old thread but I have a burning question. If Bob approved a 15" full-chord lift generating wingtip, how long of a hoerner tip does that equate to?
 
I built my Hoerner wingtips as prescribed by Harry Riblett. The Hoerner tip itself should be as wide as the distance between the leading edge and the main spar. I believe that is 13 1/4 inches for all Bearhawk models except the LSA.
 
I believe that rule applies just to the tapered section, am I right? Did you allow additional length for an extension of the aerofoil profile?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top