What do you guys think of the Bearhawk? Looks like it might just be an awesome bush plane - about the same profile as the 180 but with better STOL capabilities and cargo space. I have seen pictures of the side door and it is HUGE.

I looked at one that was still under construction but almost complete (90% done, 90% left to go!), and my impression was that it was about like a Maule with stick controls. Except that you had to build it yourself. This one had a 540 Lyc on the nose, but they've also been build with 360's.
FWIW I think I'd save myself about 5 years build time & a lot of hassle and just buy a Maule & go flying.

Eric

Interesting responses - I just discovered the Maule line of aircraft and made a post about them before reading about them in this thread.

The Maule seems like a quite capable aircraft. I'm surprised I haven't seen or heard about them before.

You've been hanging with the wrong crowd. Welcome to the enlightened side of the street.
Actually, all planes are great, I lean towards those with the little wheel in the correct location. For my money, my M-4 offers the largest operating envelope for the lowest operating and maintenance costs. I can put Chelle and the kids with full fuel and actually go somewhere. Like Lands Inn where it's a little rough and takes some thought on a warm day. I would never put down someone else's plane but I would, after 350 hours with this thing, make the same decision. If your in the NW, let me know, I'm always up for giving someone a ride!

Every time I work on a Maule I keep looking for that sticker that says Experimental, Amatuer built aircraft.

I don't know if this thread is dead or not, but here's my two bits.
I spent seven months last year recovering my MX-7. It's a really tough job, I can't imagine what building must be like.
Maule's are everything you guys have said here, but they certainly are not built by fussy German craftsmen to exacting specifications. I don't doubt the integrity of the structure, but fit and finish is hardly a priority. The truth is, that fit doesn't matter to the air, and the planes are amazing performers.
I was able to sit in and look over a Bearhawk at Copper state a couple years ago. It is narrow, I had a Pacer at the time and it seemed about the same width. The Bearhawk had bucket seats though, which makes a big difference. (Unless both front seaters have the same length legs.) Anyway, the cargo area is large, but not significantly bigger than my Maule with the back seat removed. I did not see it fly, but the wings had no visible special features (ie..slats, drooped LE, etc.) that would lead me to believe it would be a better STOL plane than the Maule. I could be talked into believing it is lighter than a Maule, and maybe that would give it a slight advantage. I walked away thinking it looked like a homebulit Maule, which I think, is a compliment.
Jeff

I recently flew a bearhawk with a 0-540. guite an awesome airplane. No offense to the maules but if it were not for spending five years building, I would take it any day over the maule. i fly a 360 powered Maule now and its a good airplane but not as compared to the Bearhawk. Just my opinion from flying both. it is a great shortfield STOL machine. any plenty of room inside. It is quite a bit bigger than my clipper which is what is based on.
49Clipper

Have you flown a 540-powered Maule? I'm guessing it would stack up pretty good against that Bearhawk. After all, there's no substitute for horsepower, and yours only has 180 versus the bearhawk's 235 or so. How does cabin size, handling, etc compare to your Maule?

Eric

Hi Eric,
I have not flown the 0-540 Maule. My comparison to the BearHawk is mainly by the flying characteristics. Given comparable engines, I suspect the Bearhawk will give a little more performance due to the lighter weight. The big engine maule is heavier. I like the roll rate, pitch sensitivity of the Bearhawk better. It looked to me that the Bearhawk was every bit as big or bigger than the maule. Same cargo door available also. I fly Boeings maule and it is somewhat heavy with all the extra radios and antennas. Its useful load with the 180 is about 900# and the 180 Bearhawk is about 1300#, but with a minimal panel. So, it is hard to compare without having identical aircraft side by side.
Jim

zero.one.victor wrote:Have you flown a 540-powered Maule? I'm guessing it would stack up pretty good against that Bearhawk. After all, there's no substitute for horsepower, and yours only has 180 versus the bearhawk's 235 or so. How does cabin size, handling, etc compare to your Maule?

Eric

I think Bud Davidson is involved with the Bearhawk, does anybody know him? It would be fun to have he and a Bearhawk at a flyin sometime. Birds of a feather you know.

The old timers around my hangar say that they think the Bearhawk is closer to a Stinson 108-3 with the 220 Franklin. I don't have any experience with either plane, but have been following the Bearhawk with great interest.

I suspect it would be a heckuva lot harder to find a nice Stinson than a Maule... what do you guys think of this comparison? I get the appeal of homebuilts, but appreciate the "buy and go fly" school of thought. (I did a multi-year restoration on my PA-22, which sort of combines the worst aspects of both...)

I'm new to the forum, but love the chatter. I'm a total greenhorn, but I've had my milkstool into Johnson Creek, Indian Creek, Sulphur Creek, and the Best Place on Earth, Big Creek, under the tutelage of the afore-mentioned old timers.

speedbump wrote:I think Bud Davidson is involved with the Bearhawk, does anybody know him? It would be fun to have he and a Bearhawk at a flyin sometime. Birds of a feather you know.

Before buying a M5-235 16 months ago, I spoke with Bud Davisson about the Bearhawk. After the conversation comparing the Maule and the Bearhawk, he said if you dont want to build buy a Maule. He thought the Bearhawk was a little better though. Ford and Chev issues.