DeltaRomeo wrote:I have a question for Bearhawk builders: With as many similarities that the Bearhawk airframe shares with Maule, how many parts might be interchangeable? Such as the oleo struts; who makes them for Bearhawk?

Zero

akaviator wrote:

Battson wrote:Not long until delivery of that QB kit now......

Right? I'm getting pretty excited. I show my wife your backcountry videos on the big screen to get her as excited as I am. Well, maybe not quite as excited as I am....

Haha - I am glad you're enjoying the build-up and the videos!

I will never forget the evening my QB kit arrived from the freighter. A Friday night. I unpacked it, went to bed about midnight, couldn't sleep more than two hours, then I got up again and started work at 3am. It was pretty darn exciting.

My wife helped a lot with the build too. Jobs like hand-squeezing rivets, metalwork with hand tools, the fabric covering and stitching, the carpets and interior, plus a second pair of hands whenever I needed one. She actually logged up about 100 hours which was pretty cool.

DeltaRomeo wrote:I have a question for Bearhawk builders: With as many similarities that the Bearhawk airframe shares with Maule, how many parts might be interchangeable? Such as the oleo struts; who makes them for Bearhawk?

Can't answer the "similarities with a Maule" question, but as for the oleo struts... You can make them yourself (from the plans), or purchase the parts from AviPro (the folks who make the Bearhawk kits) and assemble them. Of course, these would not be legal on a Maule.

My curiosity stems from knowing that when sourcing parts for any given project, planners consider that which is already engineered and in production, thereby eliminating "reinventing the wheel". The oleo struts and the cargo door are very similar in appearance to the Maule. Just wondered if Barrows allowed for some use of existing parts availability and if so from what sources (obviously adhering to the EAB 51% rules limitations). With the advent of quick build kits, there seems to be considerable room for alternate part sources and still be within the 51% rules.

DeltaRomeo wrote:My curiosity stems from knowing that when sourcing parts for any given project, planners consider that which is already engineered and in production, thereby eliminating "reinventing the wheel". The oleo struts and the cargo door are very similar in appearance to the Maule. Just wondered if Barrows allowed for some use of existing parts availability and if so from what sources (obviously adhering to the EAB 51% rules limitations). With the advent of quick build kits, there seems to be considerable room for alternate part sources and still be within the 51% rules.

The plane was a scratch build kit for quite some time before the QB kits came around.

It shares the windshield with a Cessna 170 thou it's been modified. The Oleo struts are unique, and have been beefed up on the Bravo model now. The door was something that builders wanted so Mr. Barrows designed one in, I think any double door in a tube airframe is going to have a similar shape. The cabin is a lot bigger than a Maule, wider and taller. The wing is larger, the Bravo wing is 20 sq. ft. larger than an M7 (approx. 185 sq. ft. vs 165 sq. ft.). Single vs dual wing struts. Maule does use some standard AN type stuff so potentially there's some similar hardware on both planes.

Due to things outside of my control I regretfully had to cancel the order on my QB kit.

There should be somebody on this forum that will jump at the chance to have one of the first Bravo kits available.

I'm really sad to read that. Hope the best for you getting through your situation.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Are you permanently shut down? Or just delayed?

There's lots of stuff you can do to work toward the build without actually having the kit in hand.

I may end up moving to and don't want to start something I can't finish without moving, plus a lot of career stuff going on right now.