Although I never had any experience with one, or flew one, I thought they were a great airplane.
They were a modern alternative to perhaps a Beaver or a 206. They hauled a good load on floats.

http://halls.ca/flying-expedition-aircraft-aircraft-bankrupt-receivership-closed-owners

Auction Liquidation:
https://www.hilcoind.com/sale-details?view=detailview&pid=d73c3bd5-0ff4-7764-307f-535a75617260

ZP

Sad story, they're built only 100 miles from me. The cabin design of those airplanes seemed phenomenal.

I might be bidding on few things from that auction, would be neat to have some aircraft building tools from that shop.

History repeats itself.

The original Found Bros. Aircraft Co. was bought out by investors (a bank) and they shifted focus to the development and production on the FBA 100 Centennial. The project was rushed through to meet Canada's Centennial (hence the name of the aircraft). They put the original 2c on the back burner. The Centennial development costs were huge and the plane was a flop (both from a marketing point of view and as a bush plane). The Centennial project broke the company.

Years later, Bud Found (one of the original Found Bros) restarted the company and resurrected the 2c as the Bush Hawk (this was the first time that Transport Canada re-issued a Type Certificated so a whole "re-certification" process had to be developed. Viking used that process when they put the Twin Otter back into production.) Anyway...

The same thing happened to the "new" Found Aircraft Canada. They developed the Bushhawk...a good, solid, marketable aircraft. But they could not leave well enough alone. They had tinkered bad enough with the original 2c design as it was. With Govt. funding, private investment by some new pilots and a profound lack of understanding of the market, the new investors (Bud Found was forced out by now) chose to develop new, unmarketable aircraft. The results were predictable...aircraft were built that were really not that much better than the original Bush Hawk. They cost huge money to develop and were simply not marketable. The only difference between the original Found Aircraft closure and this recent one is that the "new" Found Aircraft company made no effort to keep the purchase price of the aircraft to a minimum. Additionally their treatment of owners of the remaining original 2c aircraft was very, very poor. These operators should have been Found's biggest promoters. Instead several of them had to sue Found Aircraft to retrieve parts and whole aircraft that they lent to the company in an effort to help the development of the Bush Hawk....a sad situation really.

I'm saddened by the closing of Found Aircraft but they did not heed the lessons of the past. I could see this coming years ago. I'm surprised they held on as long as they did.

it's a shame that there were the wrong ppl running found aircraft... maybe one day it will work out

northernguy wrote:History repeats itself.

The original Found Bros. Aircraft Co. was bought out by investors (a bank) and they shifted focus to the development and production on the FBA 100 Centennial. The project was rushed through to meet Canada's Centennial (hence the name of the aircraft). They put the original 2c on the back burner. The Centennial development costs were huge and the plane was a flop (both from a marketing point of view and as a bush plane). The Centennial project broke the company.

Years later, Bud Found (one of the original Found Bros) restarted the company and resurrected the 2c as the Bush Hawk (this was the first time that Transport Canada re-issued a Type Certificated so a whole "re-certification" process had to be developed. Viking used that process when they put the Twin Otter back into production.) Anyway...

The same thing happened to the "new" Found Aircraft Canada. They developed the Bushhawk...a good, solid, marketable aircraft. But they could not leave well enough alone. They had tinkered bad enough with the original 2c design as it was. With Govt. funding, private investment by some new pilots and a profound lack of understanding of the market, the new investors (Bud Found was forced out by now) chose to develop new, unmarketable aircraft. The results were predictable...aircraft were built that were really not that much better than the original Bush Hawk. They cost huge money to develop and were simply not marketable. The only difference between the original Found Aircraft closure and this recent one is that the "new" Found Aircraft company made no effort to keep the purchase price of the aircraft to a minimum. Additionally their treatment of owners of the remaining original 2c aircraft was very, very poor. These operators should have been Found's biggest promoters. Instead several of them had to sue Found Aircraft to retrieve parts and whole aircraft that they lent to the company in an effort to help the development of the Bush Hawk....a sad situation really.

I'm saddened by the closing of Found Aircraft but they did not heed the lessons of the past. I could see this coming years ago. I'm surprised they held on as long as they did.

Excellent history brief. I was always curious about that company...I did not know much about them.

What's the prognosis for current Bushhawk owners now?

Although they're not extremely rare, they're not common either...making spare parts difficult to come by.
Will the lack of parts and support kill the airplane?

ZPilot wrote:What's the prognosis for current Bushhawk owners now?

Although they're not extremely rare, they're not common either...making spare parts difficult to come by.
Will the lack of parts and support kill the airplane?

Considering the number of limited-production airplanes from other manufacturers that are still out there flying very successfully, I don't think it's going to disappear. For one thing, our Bush Hawk is simply built better than any other GA airplane I've ever flown, and we're taking good care of it (c:

Something else that occurs to me is, the maintenance manual drawings are fantastic for this airplane - all done in color on CAD. It would be very easy to machine new parts to new specs.

I agree...

Owners of the original 2c fleet are having little trouble keeping their birds going. I know a guy who was so proud of his 2c spares collection because of the "value" it had to him...until, after 30 years of flying 2 Founds, he realized he didn't really need the spares at all! Now he jokes that he could have bough a new Found for the price of storing "all that old junk I never used!"

The new planes were built just as well...maybe better in some regards. I don't think current owners are going to need much in the way of parts over the life span of the aircraft.

Float fittings are the only parts I know of that may be an issue...but that only applies to the 2c model...I would guess obtaining float fittings is not much of a problem for the Bush Hawk.

Northernguy did a good job summing up a sad history.

The outfit I worked for bought a new Bush Hawk a number of years ago, and I was one of the pilots asked to evaluate it. I found that it had some fairly ugly stall characteristics, and almost no stall precursor buffet. I didn't like it at all. The stalls were just plain nasty, and nothing I wanted to get into at low level.

The Found factory was contacted to see what could be done about rigging. The Found wing is a one piece wing.....you can't adjust the wing wash. A long boring story, but after about a year (yes, a brand new airplane sat on the ground for a year, waiting on Found to do something) our maintenance guys hired a DAR from eastern Canada with Found experience to come rig it and check it out. He rigged one flap down a fair bit to compensate for the rolloff in the stall....and pronounced it fixed.

I could still detect no hint of a stall buffet before it broke in the stall, but at least the stall was more symmetrical. I was flying the airplane on wheel skis with one of our check airmen later, and asked if I could do a stall series......he said sure. I started with basic stalls, and worked my way up. I finally announced that I was going to do a falling leaf stall. Check airman said if I wanted to do that, I could land and let him out first.....I asked why and he just shrugged. Mind you, this was not a shy pilot. The airplane had become a political football, with some folks in the outfit swearing by them, others swearing at them. The powers that be thought they were the greatest thing since sliced bread. At least some of the folks working them didn't agree, but were shouted down instantly if they mentioned anything. I was one of those.

The outfit wound up buying several of them.

Parts....if your Found is a working airplane, parts WILL be an issue. That has already been an issue. Hopefully, someone will pick up the TC and produce parts, but the factory was not very good about supporting the airplane.

On wheels and skis it is a good airplane in many ways. On floats, not so much. We flew a 185 side by side with the Found, with equal loads in both airplanes and both on Aerocet floats, and the 185 beat it out of the water every time. In fact, at one of our bush stations, where they'd always parked and operated a 185 out of a small lake empty, hopped it over to a river to load it, when they swapped the 185 for a Found, they had to start parking the Found in the river.....they scared themselves a couple times coming out of that lake....empty. And, a very experienced pilot flying it.

They are a robust airplane, and have a lot of nice features, no doubt. Load carrying and performance on floats is not one of those, however. Great ski plane, and a pretty good wheel plane, though. And, yes, we did fiddle with strut length on floats, etc, which helped, but....

Finally, while the big Lycoming engines are great engines, they suck gas at a prodigious rate, compared to a Continental. We put IO 550s in our 206s and they are sweet engines, and are easy to run LOP at ~13 gph, and about 16 gph ROP. The Found burns around 18 gph or a bit more ROP, and Lycoming says don't run them LOP. I know people who do, but....

That auction was the end of that airplane, I'd bet. It would be prohibitively expensive to try to re-create the airplane without all the pieces together.

And, as Found figured out, there is simply no market for this type airplane these days.

MTV

Ya...I did much of the initial test flying (including stalls) while we were certifying the plane...way outside the envelope stuff at that...and while the stall admittedly feels really bad, the flight characteristics were well, well within certification standards. So were the spin characteristics for that matter.

That doesn't make stalls in a Found "feel" right though There are 3 options for stall warning pertaining to certification. 1) the aircraft must indicate to the pilot through aerodynamic means, the approaching stall (the buffet that we are used to) through all flight regimes. 2) the aircraft must, through the use of either a visual or audio (or both) indication, clearly recognized by the pilot, indicate the approach to a stall through all flight regimes (there are specific speeds related to stall speed that relate to this) or 3) a combination of both methods. It was decided that the penalty was too high to meet the aerodynamic warning criteria (lots of weight and a "dirty" wing that you not want to have to put wing covers on). So the only option was the audio/visual option. Some consideration was given to an AOA indicator as well...maybe not a bad thing to have.

The NACA 2800 airfoil on the Found is a fairly "clean" wing and aerodynamic indication of a stall is inherently minimal. Stall strips were added on the original Founds to assist with aerodynamic indication of the approaching stall (done before current standards pertaining to stall warning came about).

The wing also likes it's speed...hence the longer take-off run on floats. This is made worse by the decision to use electric flaps. With a basic technic using manual flaps (with straight, not Fowler flaps) I could routinely reduce the time on water by at least 20%. A manual Fowler flap system was never tested due to pressure for "easy flaps...like in a 206"). I had hoped that the use of a Fowler flap, instead of the original straight flap would compensate for the increase in take off distance resulting from the use of electric flaps but it didn't. Manual Fowler Flaps would have been great...

It's easy to want to compare the Found (regardless of model) to the 185. Both are great planes but each fills a slightly different niche. I have hauled an entire D8 clutch assembly in a Found (legally), and while it took a bit longer to get off the water, was a wee bit slower, the clutch was not going to fit in the 185, period. So the Found saved us chartering a Beaver....Found or 185? It's not really a fair comparison. One of each parked at the dock would do the trick though

True enough. Those big doors are certainly nice. And, you can't buy a new 185 these days either.

That said, the U-206 F I was flying at the time had a 200 pound greater useful load than the Found, it cruised at least ten knots faster on floats, burned 4 to 5 gallons of gas per hour less than the Found, and had a big cargo door. Granted, the 206 only has that cargo door on one side, but.

And, depending on where you're operating, useful load and fuel burn can be essential to getting the job done. If that D-8 clutch needs to go out 200 miles, having big doors may or may not help.

Thanks for the clarification on the stall.

MTV

The Bush Hawk is a great plane. It is much better adapted to commercial work than a 185. As mentioned above the 185 does not have the space to haul bulk as the bush hawk. The 185 goes about 5-10 kts faster. As for getting off the water quickly its all about technique. It climbs great with a load. All this is for naught because most pilots will never know enough about them to compare and they are now relegated to being an odd duck of a plane out there.

As for parts, we have enough spare parts to last a lifetime. Everything firewall forward is built by Lycoming and Hartzel. Aerocet makes all float strut fittings and attachments. The irony is Found built these that will outlast their company for decades.

As for the stall characteristics, they don't break hard. I have had FAA examiners mention it was quite docile (on floats). There is a fish and wildlife that flies one at times near me and his has the fancy wing VG and swept up wing tip fairings and no ventral. He said the stall characteristics in that plane was sudden and not very docile. Might be the difference with VG?

northernguy wrote:Found or 185? It's not really a fair comparison. One of each parked at the dock would do the trick though

Okay, so it's not a dock... But we thought the same thing, John!

mtv wrote:Finally, while the big Lycoming engines are great engines, they suck gas at a prodigious rate, compared to a Continental. We put IO 550s in our 206s and they are sweet engines, and are easy to run LOP at ~13 gph, and about 16 gph ROP. The Found burns around 18 gph or a bit more ROP, and Lycoming says don't run them LOP. I know people who do, but....

I would like to gently disagree with that. Yes Lyc are set to run rich at a given power setting, but that is what the red knob is for.

Both engines are so similar in design... There's no reason why one should need more fuel than the other, to deliver the same output. The stoichiometric ratio is the governing rule, and it's a thermodynamic thing which doesn't vary from engine to engine.

Provided either engine has balanced injectors and runs smoothly LOP... the Lycoming -540 will happily chug along at any fuel/air mix the TCM will, and some places a TCM won't in my experience, depending what speed / range balance you want to strike.

To put fuel flow rates on the table is too specific, though. That depends on power setting, rpm, and the pilot's choice of mixture setting - which should vary with everything from CHT to ambient conditions. So it's hard to compare one plane to another, in order to compare the engine.

Battson wrote:

mtv wrote:Finally, while the big Lycoming engines are great engines, they suck gas at a prodigious rate, compared to a Continental. We put IO 550s in our 206s and they are sweet engines, and are easy to run LOP at ~13 gph, and about 16 gph ROP. The Found burns around 18 gph or a bit more ROP, and Lycoming says don't run them LOP. I know people who do, but....

I would like to gently disagree with that. Yes Lyc are set to run rich at a given power setting, but that is what the red knob is for.

Both engines are so similar in design... There's no reason why one should need more fuel than the other, to deliver the same output. The stoichiometric ratio is the governing rule, and it's a thermodynamic thing which doesn't vary from engine to engine.

Provided either engine has balanced injectors and runs smoothly LOP... the Lycoming -540 will happily chug along at any fuel/air mix the TCM will, and some places a TCM won't in my experience, depending what speed / range balance you want to strike.

To put fuel flow rates on the table is too specific, though. That depends on power setting, rpm, and the pilot's choice of mixture setting - which should vary with everything from CHT to ambient conditions. So it's hard to compare one plane to another, in order to compare the engine.

Indeed, except that Lycoming specifically prohibits (or at least says do not) running their engines LOP. And, if you read Lycoming's logic there, it may give you pause about running LOP.

The other point is that I could run the 206 or the 185 at a LOT less percent of rated power than the Found, and go faster. If you were talking about different engine/prop in the same airframe, there is some legitimacy to what you're saying.

The Found is a DRAGGY beast on floats, and takes a good bit of power to move it. I ran a Found in formation with a 185, both on Aerocet floats, both with same load. Found was running 18 gph (running ROP), 185 was running about 12, with power setting very low. Pushed power up to 24 x 24 on the 185 and it walked away from the Found.

MTV

mtv wrote:
Indeed, except that Lycoming specifically prohibits (or at least says do not) running their engines LOP. And, if you read Lycoming's logic there, it may give you pause about running LOP.

The other point is that I could run the 206 or the 185 at a LOT less percent of rated power than the Found, and go faster. If you were talking about different engine/prop in the same airframe, there is some legitimacy to what you're saying.

The Found is a DRAGGY beast on floats, and takes a good bit of power to move it. I ran a Found in formation with a 185, both on Aerocet floats, both with same load. Found was running 18 gph (running ROP), 185 was running about 12, with power setting very low. Pushed power up to 24 x 24 on the 185 and it walked away from the Found.

MTV

Yes, I'm not talking about the Found specifically, I have no experience there. I don't think there is even one in the country...

Having read and listened to about all I can find on the subject.... The speculation among the industry commentators is that Lycoming realised some "technically challenged person" running their engines LOP incorrectly could easily damage the engine [as with any other engine], and that could lead to a lawsuit.
The speculation is they decided it was easier just to exclude it from their O&M manual completely, rather than dipping their bare toes into the litigious bathwater. So I believe that is why they specifically prohibit leaning past peak, and any leaning above 75% power, it keeps the technically challenged out of trouble. Sounds plausible at least?

I am pretty sure the GAMi test bed has shown Lycoming engines are equally well suited to being run LOP.
Shoot, I've already saved enough $$,$$$ to pay for 3 cylinder replacements by running mine LOP. At this rate, I don't know why anyone would do anything else

Battson wrote:

mtv wrote:
Indeed, except that Lycoming specifically prohibits (or at least says do not) running their engines LOP. And, if you read Lycoming's logic there, it may give you pause about running LOP.

The other point is that I could run the 206 or the 185 at a LOT less percent of rated power than the Found, and go faster. If you were talking about different engine/prop in the same airframe, there is some legitimacy to what you're saying.

The Found is a DRAGGY beast on floats, and takes a good bit of power to move it. I ran a Found in formation with a 185, both on Aerocet floats, both with same load. Found was running 18 gph (running ROP), 185 was running about 12, with power setting very low. Pushed power up to 24 x 24 on the 185 and it walked away from the Found.

MTV

Yes, I'm not talking about the Found specifically, I have no experience there. I don't think there is even one in the country...

Having read and listened to about all I can find on the subject.... The speculation among the industry commentators is that Lycoming realised some "technically challenged person" running their engines LOP incorrectly could easily damage the engine [as with any other engine], and that could lead to a lawsuit.
The speculation is they decided it was easier just to exclude it from their O&M manual completely, rather than dipping their bare toes into the litigious bathwater. So I believe that is why they specifically prohibit leaning past peak, and any leaning above 75% power, it keeps the technically challenged out of trouble. Sounds plausible at least?

I am pretty sure the GAMi test bed has shown Lycoming engines are equally well suited to being run LOP.
Shoot, I've already saved enough $$,$$$ to pay for 3 cylinder replacements by running mine LOP. At this rate, I don't know why anyone would do anything else

Well, you're pretty close to the mark, methinks. Want an example? Right now, Champion Aerospace is being sued, claiming that their spark plugs caused detonation.....in an engine that was being run LOP....

I don't know the particulars of the suit, but presumably there was a loss of an airplane, and perhaps worse involved. It's hardly worth litigating over a cylinder.

Bear in mind that detonation can be catastrophic....doesn't just ruin a cylinder, it can and often does destroy the engine.

And, detonation CAN be induced with improper use of that red knob. While the GAMI guys have a great training program, there's no requirement for anyone to attend the training, or even that they read the instructions, before running their engine LOP.

So, please reference the current thread on the pilot who landed his Comanche gear up after an electrical failure during which his ass was saved by his I Pad......Think that guy could get an engine into detonation by leaning improperly?

I've run engines LOP quite a lot. It's not rocket science, but in fact, you do have to pay attention to what you're doing.....and it is possible, notwithstanding the GAMI claims, to get an engine into detonation by leaning.

I'm not necessarily defending Lycoming's stand on LOP ops. I think you're probably spot on as to why.

My philosophy with running someone else's engines has always been that I follow the manufacturer's instructions. That was the case with the Founds I flew.

Oh, and by the way, Continental prohibits leaning of many of their engines at more than 75 % power as well. Yes, you can damage an engine with the red knob. And, the knob who's sitting at the controls....

MTV

mtv wrote:
The other point is that I could run the 206 or the 185 at a LOT less percent of rated power than the Found, and go faster. If you were talking about different engine/prop in the same airframe, there is some legitimacy to what you're saying.

The Found is a DRAGGY beast on floats, and takes a good bit of power to move it. I ran a Found in formation with a 185, both on Aerocet floats, both with same load. Found was running 18 gph (running ROP), 185 was running about 12, with power setting very low. Pushed power up to 24 x 24 on the 185 and it walked away from the Found.

MTV

The 185 and 206 are faster than the Found. Each aircraft has its advantages and disadvantages. I set a fuel flow of 16.5 to 17 gph for the 540. I have gone to TBO without having to change a cylinder, twice. The Lyc has a 2000 hour TBO up to 2200 with trend monitoring. The Continental goes to 2700. That is a big economical difference when an operator receives 500 an hour. Those 300 hours more than pays for an overhaul and the fuel burn difference.

A 185 owned by Alaska Fish and Game was hauling out a camp. It took two loads (bulked out) that would have fit in one Found. When that happens the fuel saved and slight increased speed are nullified. A Fish and wildlife officer had a Found that was provided by the Federal Aircraft services. I compared the Weight and Balance numbers against the ones we operate. It was 200 pounds heavier!

I have a complete set of Bush hawk float rigging for mounting aerocet 3500L floats, three tail fins included as well as a lifting frame/sling.

They need to go to someone who can use them.

907-299-8206

I got to ride right seat in one from McCall to the Flying B and back with a load of groceries. My biggest concern was the proximity of that damned carry-through spar so close to my head. The owner could not stop extolling the qualities of the plane.