Hello,

I'm looking for someone with experience in a Bearhawk 4-place as well as several other tailwheel aircraft that could comment on it's ground handling, relative to other common tailwheel planes.

It's probably not necessary but I feel the need to justify my question. I'm a low time private pilot with all of my time in a c172. I live a split residence with once place in town 300 miles away from a second place at a ranch with no landing strip. My mission is to gain the skills and the aircraft to make this frequent commute with my family. Building a Bearhawk seems to be the most appealing option to me.

My fear is there seems to be quite a few ground loop stories about Bearhawks for no more of them than there are flying. Are they a little more of a handful on the ground than other tailwheel aircraft? I'm mostly trying to get a feel for how much training I'd need and possibly recommendations of common tailwheel trainers to train in before I could start flying one.

Thanks!

I only have a handful of hours in the Bearhawk, but my initial and lasting impression is it's very docile on the ground and in the air. Perhaps on par with a Cub (but obviously feels heavier). Maybe better/easier than a Maule, which I think is quite forgiving. Don't need to be as sharp as a 180/185. More planted and solid than a Slepcev Storch. Nicer than an Auster. Far more relaxing than a 195. And sooo much better on the ground than my 150 taildragger

I think you would have to be quite sloppy or complacent before it bit you. A good choice for a low time pilot with the desire to learn it and fly it right

There's no replacement for hours of practice in tailwheel aircraft, especially before you fly your pride of craftsmanship.

I think there must be a mismatch in tailwheel experience among some builders whose dreams of aircraft building find them having to test fly. I've also heard it's a docile machine as taildraggers go.

Get some tailwheel lessons in a Piper Pacer and everything else will feel docile by comparison.

I don't think there's any 'common tailwheel trainer' out there that's significantly easier to fly than a Bearhawk..

I can't comment on the insurance aspects, but if you're a reasonably competent airplane driver coming off a 172, figure maybe 5 hours dual to be safe(ish) followed by a lifetime of learning and practice to remain competent. Only way to learn is get out there and do it

But then again, I'll happily jump in any taildragger and take it for a hoon

You'll love it

Thanks for the advice and info, guys!

Zzz wrote:...Get some tailwheel lessons in a Piper Pacer and everything else will feel docile by comparison.

I have some time in a Pacer that was owned by a series of different friends,
and it tracked & flew straight as a string.
You just had to be on top of it--
which is true of any airplane, ep taildraggers.
IMHO "squirrelly pacers" are just like "squirrelly C150TDs" --
there's probably something wrong with the gear geometry.

Recognizing my very limited exposure to other aircraft (only types I have any measurable time in is the Luscombe 8 and the Bearhawk) the BH handles fine on the ground. It is quite tail heavy so once you let the tail start to swing there is very little chance you'll stop it. Also because of its tail heaviness you'll want to ignore the "don't touch the brakes" crowd and use a good bit of differential braking. Basically I use differential braking unless I'm going fast enough that the tail is flying without me forcing it up. Basically, the BH isn't spring loaded waiting to bit you but it isn't very forgiving of poor piloting.

A well known airplane pirep author once said that the Luscombe 8 was the best trainer available for the 4-place Bearhawk aside from another 4-place BH. I can't say if that is true or not since those just happen to be the two airplane I have experience in.

I have a whopping 2 hrs in a C180 which is what I flew to get proficient after nearly 5 years of no flying while building my BH. The C180 took zero effort during ground handling and was challenging for me in the air due to its heavy truck-like feel in the air. The BH takes some effort to manage on the ground but is much lighter/sportier in the air.

For me, I think they are a good tail-dragger to learn in. I more or less taught myself to fly it, as a test pilot.
I have had my lazy moments. I can honestly say they don't have any traps or tricks; they are not waiting to bite you.

Purely in the spirit of providing honest feedback:
You can get away with a lot in a Bearhawk, even if you look inside the cockpit a lot during the second half of the roll-out, it should just keep on going straight on it's own. I don't endorse this, but being human I have been distracted etc and realised afterwards that I took a risk. But the plane isn't wanting to run away on you. In fact, you would have to actively screw things up to loop it during landing.

I have never heard "a lot of stories about ground looping [Bearhawks]". Happy to be corrected.

Finally, the necessary caution:
Like all tail-draggers, provided you are paying 100% attention until the plane is stopped, there is no way of getting in trouble. If you fly lazy, you are going to have an accident if you keep going for long enough.

Thanks again for letting me fly your Bearhawk John! What a great machine and I'm still extremely impressed with your build quality and speed of the build

Somewhat relevant story: A couple months ago I went flying for a day. The weather was predicted to get windy in the afternoon and into the evening; something like 24kts was the prediction. Around here it is always windy so I didn’t give it much thought. Upon returning to my home airport the winds were reported in the high 20s gusting to 40kts but reasonably close to inline with a runway. The landing was sporty but uneventful. While taxing to parking the wind was mostly a direct crosswind with a slight quartering tail component. Full rudder and a lot of brake was enough to taxi during the lulls but when a gust came I basically had to stop. Then I had a brake system failure on the downwind brake pilot side master cylinder resulting in an immediate weather vane of the airplane and narrowly missing some taxiway lights. I ended up taxing in with my right foot on the copilot left pedal and my left foot on the pilot side right pedal. It was slow going, so slow that the tower asked if I was doing okay. Also coulda been the few slow motion ground loops that raised the controllers concern.

Anyways, the BH is a capable fairly well mannered airplane. Any issue with ground handling is either pilot or builder induced.

onefitty wrote:Thanks again for letting me fly your Bearhawk John! What a great machine and I'm still extremely impressed with your build quality and speed of the build

No problem Mat, I really appreciate all the help from Avcraft Engineering with certifying, maintaining, and repairing it!! Still going strong

Battson wrote:….Like all tail-draggers, provided you are paying 100% attention until the plane is stopped, there is no way of getting in trouble. If you fly lazy, you are going to have an accident if you keep going for long enough.

I disagree with the "no way of getting in trouble".
There's always a way-- even for the more careful attentive person.

Secondly, the airplane is only as good as the builder or maintainer.
I'll bet Battson's airplane is awesome, but not all of them are.
A guy near me built one, he seemed to be having issues getting the MLG wheels aligned properly.
I tried talking to him about it but it was obvious he didn't want to hear what I was saying.
Apparently he doesn't like getting advice from anyone--
as a result, most of the people who know what they're doing don't want anything to do with him.
He has had 2 or 3 people who maybe don't really know what they're doing test fly his airplane--
and there's been 2 or 3 mishaps.
I think he finally ran out of people who'd fly it, so he flew it himself--
that flight ended up with the airplane upside down.

I don't mean this as a black mark against Bearhawks, or any other homebuilt--
it could just as easily have been a Cessna or Superub.

onefitty wrote:I can't comment on the insurance aspects, but if you're a reasonably competent airplane driver coming off a 172, figure maybe 5 hours dual to be safe(ish) followed by a lifetime of learning and practice to remain competent. Only way to learn is get out there and do it

My insurance minimums to transition to a Maule were 15 hours and 30 take offs and landings. IMO hours don't matter. If you can fly a plane you can fly a plane. But 30 minimum TO/L seemed to be a good minimum for me. And I still wasn't ready for anything interesting at that point.