akgreg wrote:

formandfunction wrote:No offense but a 185 is not all that fun.

Really? Every time I fly one, I end up with a tent and a grin that makes others uncomfortable.
Buy a 180hp 170 and take all that saved cash and go see the world.

Yep. He's flown my 185....VERY uncomfortable.

pilotryan wrote:A Cessna 180/185 that actually flew when purchased. Never again will I buy a barn find even if it went for a dollar.

Speaking of which.....
havent seen you post much in a while.
Is your 180 flyable yet, & are you flying it much?

Speed is not a concern, not in a real rush to get anywhere. Been looking very hard at a Bearhawk, seem to have a solid community of builders and information, there is even a few available. The Dream Tundra, and Moose are also interesting, but a lot like the Cyclone, there seems to never be any around to look at, let alone purchase.

The Dream people kinda went silent. I presume they’re still in business. Their kit is crazy expensive. At least $10-15K more than a Bearhawk kit. However, with it being a plug-and-play kit, having been computer engineered for speed and accuracy of assembly, one could certainly trade time for $$$, I expect. I saw it at OSH a number of years ago, about the same time I saw the Moose. It’s certainly a cool ride. But not family-of-five sized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I know it’s probably never gonna happen, and it’d be tough to keep under $150k, but an experimental 6 place taildragger with an R985 would be great. Parts are plentiful and it’s a proven powerplant, plus it would be great for a family of 5-6. I’ve never seen a Murphy Moose in person though, the pictures look cool and it might be a good fit, minus the 985.

Numerous Murphy Moose air frames have been fitted with the M-14 radial engine; it looks beautiful, the ultimate "poor man's Beaver"

Chris In Marshfield wrote:The Dream people kinda went silent. I presume they’re still in business. Their kit is crazy expensive. At least $10-15K more than a Bearhawk kit. However, with it being a plug-and-play kit, having been computer engineered for speed and accuracy of assembly, one could certainly trade time for $$$, I expect. I saw it at OSH a number of years ago, about the same time I saw the Moose. It’s certainly a cool ride. But not family-of-five sized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Yes it's more expensive, but it also includes everything. All covering, windows, hardware etc. I dmthink you have a bunch extra to buy with the bearhawk don't you?
But yes, Tundra has been very silent. I've tried to contact them a few times and been promised return calls for pricing. Those calls never happened...

Sent from my SM-G870W using Tapatalk

A1Skinner wrote:Yes it's more expensive, but it also includes everything. All covering, windows, hardware etc. I dmthink you have a bunch extra to buy with the bearhawk don't you?

Yes, there are more things to buy, for sure. Hardware like bolts, pulleys, cables, etc. still need to be purchased. Fabric covering, etc. It’s an airframe kit, mainly. They’re adding more to the kit as time goes by, but there are still a fair number of parts to acquire. Certainly not Vans complete [emoji16]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

RockHopper wrote:Cessna 180-185 -even a 182 will go 90% of the places the Skywagons will go. 205 is good too. Why reinvent the wheel? Well proven designs with good parts support. Sorry-Bush hawk is just a glorified homebuilt Pacer. Four people and cargo is going to be stuffed to the gills. Then there's the other issue of resale. Plain fact that you will be lucky to get just the price of the materials and parts on the resale of a homebuilt.

The bearhawk is a lot bigger than that. Mine has an extended baggage mod that puts the rear bulkhead 7 feet behind the front seats. The overall cabin length is more than a 185 (though when you get to the very rear, you really need to think about CG. The cabin width is 42" vs the 185's 40.25".

Looking at wing loading, the 180 has 174sf of wing with a 2800lb gross for a wing loading of 16.1sf/lb. The 185 @2950lbs is 19.3sf/lb. The bearhawk @2500 is 13.9sf/lb.

Looking at power loading, a stock 180 with a 230hp is 12.2lbs/hp, the 185 is 9.8lbs/hp, and a 260hp bearhawk is 9.6lbs/hp.

Also, consider that the bearhawk is utility category not just normal category. It's a very strong airframe.

Resale is a consideration, Cessna 180/185's that are in good shape are worth a lot, but then again, a nice/light bearhawk with all glass cockpit is worth a lot too, though I agree, resale is a con to the bearhawk.

Another consideration is experimental vs certified. If you have been to Osh, you know that experimental can be nicer than certified, and it can certainly be cheaper to maintain since you don't need cessna blessed stuff and you can make any part on it, but one thing you don't get with experimental is thousands of aircraft over 50 years of maintenance history which gives a lot of information about how they fail and how to prevent it. One thing you do get though, is the ability to build folding jump seats in a weekend without paying $2850.

For me, I will have exactly what I want (electric trim, glass cockpit, extended baggage, light seats), in a lightweight, strong, and powerful airplane that doesn't have cessna parts prices. I'm willing to spend the time to build it, but I also understand there are significant cons.

Anyway, yes, the bearhawk has it's cons, and the 185 is a great airplane, but saying that it's just another pacer is pretty ignorant.

Bearhawk.

The wing area on a Skywagon can be increased to over 190 square feet with Wing-X extensions and a Sportsman STOL kit. Wing-X adds 12.4 square feet of wing area, and a Sportsman STOL kit adds over 4 square feet. Also the gross weights vary depending on the year. Cessna 180 gross weight is 2550, 2650, or 2800 depending on the year. Adding Wing-X extensions increases the gross weight to 2950. The Kenmore gross weight increase on a 180G or later has a 3190 gross weight. Cessna 185 gross weight is 3200, 3300, or 3350 depending on the year. Wing-X bumps it to 3525, flint tip tanks bumps it to 3600.

A1Skinner wrote:Yes it's more expensive, but it also includes everything. All covering, windows, hardware etc. I dmthink you have a bunch extra to buy with the bearhawk don't you?
But yes, Tundra has been very silent. I've tried to contact them a few times and been promised return calls for pricing. Those calls never happened...

At this point I am glad I didn't get charged for stuff the factory thought I should have. I consider it an advantage to spec your own components.

I would, however, pay extra for a better build manual.

CenterHillAg wrote:I know it’s probably never gonna happen, and it’d be tough to keep under $150k, but an experimental 6 place taildragger with an R985 would be great. Parts are plentiful and it’s a proven powerplant, plus it would be great for a family of 5-6. I’ve never seen a Murphy Moose in person though, the pictures look cool and it might be a good fit, minus the 985.

Like a Broussard you mean?
http://www.aircraft-repairllc.com/broussard/

A 185 as spec'ed out above would be a serious, fire-breathing creature but only in my wildest dreams could I expect to own such a beast. I'll have to be happy with the snack bracket I live in and play with !!!

robw56 wrote:The wing area on a Skywagon can be increased to over 190 square feet with Wing-X extensions and a Sportsman STOL kit. Wing-X adds 12.4 square feet of wing area, and a Sportsman STOL kit adds over 4 square feet. Also the gross weights vary depending on the year. Cessna 180 gross weight is 2550, 2650, or 2800 depending on the year. Adding Wing-X extensions increases the gross weight to 2950. The Kenmore gross weight increase on a 180G or later has a 3190 gross weight. Cessna 185 gross weight is 3200, 3300, or 3350 depending on the year. Wing-X bumps it to 3525, flint tip tanks bumps it to 3600.

That's a lot of weight. Thanks for correcting my numbers.

That's certainly nice that you can add another 20sf of wing and another 175-200lbs of gross, but 10K to have it done. Ouch.

That puts the 185 around 1700lbs useful and the 180 at 1100lbs depending on what the airplane actually weighs.

My dad had a Broussard, fun airplane, I flew it a lot, in fact, its for sale right now. I would love to have it, Its a good one, hangar too small. They pack a load and go nowhere real fast like a Beaver but super cool airplane! They don't get off as well as a Beaver but they do surprisingly good. There isn't a bad seat in the airplane, big windows for everyone.

Kurt

Battson wrote:Bearhawk.

I see some BH's with 250hp 540's and some with 260hp 540's. What am I missing?

akschu wrote:The bearhawk is a lot bigger than that. Mine has an extended baggage mod that puts the rear bulkhead 7 feet behind the front seats.

Did you custom make the extension, or did you purchase a kit?

AK2ID wrote:

Battson wrote:Bearhawk.

I see some BH's with 250hp 540's and some with 260hp 540's. What am I missing?

It's all in the 540 build and the designated max RPM. The IO-540 that I have is 8.5:1 compression ratio, rated at 250hp at 2575 RPM per the subdesignation. Spin that up to 2700 RPM and I think that's where you get the 260hp.

There are many variants of the 540, each with a little something different, probably determined at the time of design for some certified application like the Piper Apache or Cherokee Six. In the experimental world you can tune up whatever you like as long as it's compatible.

My crankshaft is from a variant of the 540 that comes in the R-44.

pilotryan wrote:A Cessna 180/185 that actually flew when purchased. Never again will I buy a barn find even if it went for a dollar.

Ryan, it warms my heart to read your post. My plane was flyable when I bought it but it still nearly broke my spirit after I bought all the bells and whistles and dealt with their installation. Your project was WAY more significant than mine and I thought I was a sissy for not putting up with the hardship as well as you did.

Your 185 project was amazing, I'm glad you did it because I really enjoyed the ride. I'm also glad I didn't do it;-)