While walking around Osh Kosh '10 I stopped by the Bearhawk booth. I was curious to poke around one after seeing a nice example at the BCP fly in at JC this summer. I love my Stinson but eventually I'd like something with a little more interior room and useful load. I've had my heart set on a 180 as the best solution (and still really like them), so I was only casually looking over the Bearhawk when the "good idea fairy" struck and I started seriously contemplating it as an alternative.

After talking with the sales rep for a while I got signed up for a demo flight and returned the next day to give it a try. Despite a brief runway closure for a Bonanza that managed to ground loop into the grass (would it be Osh Kosh without some degree of Nascar-esque carnage?) we managed a quick departure off of 18L. There were only two of us in the plane and we were light on fuel so the takeoff roll with the IO-540 was brief. The throttle pretty much hit the firewall and we lifted right off from a 3-pt attitude. Very nice climb performance - pretty comparable to my Stinson with the O-470, not surprising given the similar weights and hp.

We departed the field on the procedure and made our way over to the east side of the lake where we went through a brief but thorough exploration of the flight envelope. At 24/24 @ 3k' we were indicating 160mph, down at 21/23 we saw about 135-140. The Bearhawk uses the same airfoil as the Stinson minus the leading edge slats and turn performance revealed the common DNA. It felt great through all manner of turns, leading with just a smidge of rudder smartened up the roll rate and negated the hint of detectable adverse yaw. It was much more longitudinally stable than my Stinson and I was intrigued to note that they do not see a need for rudder trim. I would think with that amount of power rudder trim would be essential but I didn't miss it.

Stalls were pretty benign. Not a lot of buffet though there was a bit of a break with good control after. Rudder was the answer to keep the wings level in contrast to the Stinson where the slats keep the ailerons effective at high alpha. We trucked on back and sequenced into the herd diving for the various runways. We set up on a tight, steep, left base to 18L (same approach that bit Jack Roush in the ass). With 40deg flaps on tap it comes down like a brick, a nudge of a slip yielded a greater descent rate and the demo pilot planted it right where he wanted to and we were stopped with maybe a couple hundred feet. The oleos soaked up the intentionally firm landing and facilitated great control on the short roll out.

I was very impressed overall. Builders are seeing about 1100-1300 lbs useful load and the Maule-style door on the right side means you can load about anything you'd want to haul in a plane. The visibility was great with the low doors and large windows. I also really liked sticks as opposed to yolks.

So now the wheels are turning as I contemplate getting involved with building a kitplane. Their quick build kit delivers a prepped and ready to go fuselage and wings that are largely done - just drop in your fuel tanks, plumbing, and wiring and then button them up. There is a lot you need to buy that does not com with the kit but that also means that you can set up your build just the way you want it. The sales guy said most guys are going with the IO-540 but there is also a contingent that intends to use an O-470 (as I would). There is also huge appeal to me to forego a vacuum system in favor of a solid-state EFIS - experimental opens the door to a huge array of options there at lower cost to boot. And the kicker of course is that if you build it you can then legally do most of the work on it, to include conditional inspections - no more tether to certificated regulations and associated costs.

So the question I'm asking myself now is do I really have time (not to mention the ability) to build a plane? And is half of my garage sufficient to do the work? I'm sure this is a standard thought process for anyone contemplating going this route...

Hi Vick,

I was 1 of 2 Bearhawks (white/blue) at the BCP fly-in. Regarding building, I would say most anyone can do it given they have the desire; this was my first project. It took me 3.5 years and mine mostly went together in a two car garage; another friend built his in a single. Having the "shop" at home is a huge advantage because it makes it so much easier to work on the plane. None of the work is hard to learn, there is just a lot of it. The support networks are important; two of the best are located on yahoo groups. Other builders are also an invaluble resource.

From my experience I'd say the most important things you need to build are:

1. A strong desire to see it through as it will take several years,
2. Being able to work on it (even for only a short time) everyday. That way it becomes a habit (addiction) and will carry you through. It gets very hard to pick it up after laying off for a while,
3. Family support, and
4. Finances (realisitc cost estimate).

For me it was a very rewarding experience not only for myself, but also the family. The amount of knowledge gained and the friends made along the way were alone worth the effort.

Blackrock

I did a demo flight in the Bearhawk a couple years ago. I have the plans, CDs, manuals, and all that. Figured later in life I'll build one. We'll see how my expected mission turns out after I get to flying the Stinson for awhile and if the Bearhawk still fits.

I'm building a Bearhawk now. I got it last November and figure I have about a year left... it is a quick-build kit though. There is no way I would tackle the project if I had to fabricate and build every part. Should be an awesome airplane and will be great for airplane camping. By the way, I think most builders are using th O-540 not the IO simply because of the extra weight and complexity of running a return line back to the tanks. There are a handful that are doing the IO though so obviously it can and has been done. I opted for an O-540 A4A5 (250 hp) and am going with a 3-blade MT prop.

It is not hard to build but the Bearhawk manual leaves a lot to be desired (in my opinion it is basically worthless)... if this was my first project it would be a little intimidating (first was a Kitfox and they have excellent manuals) but most people know a handful of experienced builders to get them through the head scratching.

Darinh wrote:...the Bearhawk manual leaves a lot to be desired (in my opinion it is basically worthless)... if this was my first project it would be a little intimidating

Well that's not what I was hoping to hear. This would be my first build and while I don't imagine I could build anything without some experienced help it would be nice if it at least had a decent manual to keep you going through the easy stretches.

If you mean the manual for the quick build, ya it leaves a lot out. Eric Newton's manuals for scratch building are very detailed and nice. I'd use it for quickbuilding too.

My dad and i scratch built a bearhawk using a Landrover v8 (230+hp). We finished in 2003 and the plane now has over 800 trouble free hours on it. There were no kits when we started but they are definately the way to go. It is really hard to tell people what this plane will do when it comes to playing in the back country. But to give you some idea, if you take all the stuff you can pack in a super cub and a husky at the same time, put 800miles of fuel on board and 2x250lb small people on board you can still go where the other two go but get there faster. When loaded medium it is off the ground when the throlle hits the dash and loaded light we have seen less than 100' to wheels up in calm air. I believe they are not even actually promoted as a back country airplane but more as a general purpose plane, yet they are one of the most capable back country planes going.
KenW
- real planes are water cooled and have reduction drives(hehe)

Vick wrote:Damn, I checked out the Bearhawk while at Osh but walked right by the Tundra - sorry that I did, looks like a sweet plane!

I hope this is allowed. I dragged this over from your comment on my Oshkosh 2010 post. I flew both the Bearhawk and Tundra at Airventure "06. The 0 540 makes the Bearhawk the rocket launch that it is. It is less about the wing than the Tundra and more about the engine. The Bearhawk pilot that day refused to demo the two wheel crosswind landing for me, instead wanted to argue the necessity of anything but a three point. Perhaps that was more about his own limitations. I needed that two wheel feature to maintain visibility landing on narrow gravel roads. The Tundra has an 8 foot wide gear that is unmatched in the cross wind. The Bearhawk is faster, 160 vs 145 for the Tundra. The Tundra is listed as 2550 gross, 1350 empty and takeoff as 400' but the company pilot demos four adults of 220 plus, taking off in 200' and landing in the same distance with only 200 hp and a constant speed prop. It is the wing that allows this. So it will do this on a four cylinder engine. 0 540 engine is allowed in the Tundra but there will be some weight penalty for it. The wing is a modified Harry Riblett airfoil. The Tundra is all aluminum and solid rivets. All kits come with float attachments. The kit is complete with no customer fabrication required. Because of that, the kit price is higher than the Bearhawk. Solid rivets will require a partner to help buck them. In the two I saw in 2006 there was no comparison between the quality of the work and the finesse of the engineering in the two quick build kits. The CNC punched skins make future repair work as easy as changing one Ford rim to the next, they are identical components and parts are computer replicated.

The Tundra nearly does not stall. With the stick in your lap it will not break, instead it will float down with aileron elevator and rudder control. The elevator is 10' 7" across, the rudder is large and the big tail gives control at the low end of its speed. It does not give up in the stall. The full flap stall speed of 30 mph should not be mistaken for engine out touchdown speed. The full flap position increases sink rate and even though you are not stalled it will take a touch of power to flare so I consider full flaps a stol landing operation with use of power. Instead, of 40 degrees I use 25 and a slip to accomplish the same angle and on straightening out, flare with the remaining momentum. 15 degrees sets up the approach attitude for a two wheel landing, 25 degrees will set the plane up for a 3 point touchdown attitude but push the nose over and touch the throttle before touching down and you have a two point. Its easy to switch from one to the other. Every place I have been at least one person comes up and tells me what a great looking Bearhawk I have.[img]In%20front%20of%20hangar[/img]

175 magnum wrote:It is really hard to tell people what this plane will do when it comes to playing in the back country. But to give you some idea, if you take all the stuff you can pack in a super cub and a husky at the same time, put 800miles of fuel on board and 2x250lb small people on board you can still go where the other two go but get there faster. When loaded medium it is off the ground when the throlle hits the dash and loaded light we have seen less than 100' to wheels up in calm air. I believe they are not even actually promoted as a back country airplane but more as a general purpose plane, yet they are one of the most capable back country planes going.

I'm surprised how they market the Bearhawk - their angle is more toward utility than backcountry access, seems like they could broaden their market by playing up the cub-type capabilities with the benefit of a huge useful load and interior space. There are all varieties of Super Cub derivitives in the experimental realm that are all geared toward remote access - the Bearhawk strikes me as basically a 4 seat version. Tandem seating is great if it's just you and your gear, but if you want to take someone along for a week of camping you'd have to be highly selective in picking your gear. With the right tires I doubt there are many places a Super Cub could go that a Bearhawk couldn't.

So the question I'm asking myself now is do I really have time (not to mention the ability) to build a plane? And is half of my garage sufficient to do the work?

Sounds like you need a partner- maybe somebody with some tools, a little space, and little enough sense to actually embark on such an endeavor. When you movin' back east?

RDUStinson wrote:

So the question I'm asking myself now is do I really have time (not to mention the ability) to build a plane? And is half of my garage sufficient to do the work?

Sounds like you need a partner- maybe somebody with some tools, a little space, and little enough sense to actually embark on such an endeavor. When you movin' back east?

Don't you already have one (airplane) construction project in the works? My friends' wives all groan when I call with great ideas, I doubt I'd be welcome in your house anymore if I roped you into this.

If you mean the manual for the quick build, ya it leaves a lot out. Eric Newton's manuals for scratch building are very detailed and nice. I'd use it for quickbuilding too.

Tadpole is correct. I should have mentioned Eric's manuals as they are great and so is his website. There are a couple other CD's available that have a lot of good information also.

I doubt I'd be welcome in your house anymore if I roped you into this.

Won't matter- we'll be in the garage.

RDUStinson wrote:

I doubt I'd be welcome in your house anymore if I roped you into this.

Won't matter- we'll be in the garage.

Well played sir

Vick anyone with basic tool knowledge can build a plane. As Blackrock stated above it is probably more about your ability to stick with it than anything else. The key to completion is persistence. It's amazing what going out to the garage to drill one hole or clean up will lead to. An hour here, two hours there and after a while you really have an airplane. Family consideration is also very important, the wife can get very jealous of the new focus in your life so a nice balance or an understanding woman is necessary. I'm a couple of weeks away from first flight and I have to say it is the most rewarding thing I have ever done. The sense of accomplishment is huge. I also found it to be very therapeutic and it allows you to use your brain in a manner you may not be accustomed to. You end up with exactly the plane you want and you know it like the back of your hand. Even though I didn't build a Bearhawk, I followed Eric Newton's website because much of the information is relevant regardless. I have gone through all the Bearhawk manuals and thought they were pretty good (the ones from Avipro). If you haven't found Eric's website go here: http://www.mybearhawk.com/index.html

175 magnum wrote:My dad and i scratch built a bearhawk using a Landrover v8 (230+hp). We finished in 2003 and the plane now has over 800 trouble free hours on it. There were no kits when we started but they are definately the way to go. It is really hard to tell people what this plane will do when it comes to playing in the back country. But to give you some idea, if you take all the stuff you can pack in a super cub and a husky at the same time, put 800miles of fuel on board and 2x250lb small people on board you can still go where the other two go but get there faster. When loaded medium it is off the ground when the throlle hits the dash and loaded light we have seen less than 100' to wheels up in calm air. I believe they are not even actually promoted as a back country airplane but more as a general purpose plane, yet they are one of the most capable back country planes going.
KenW
- real planes are water cooled and have reduction drives(hehe)

Hi Ken

What reduction drive did you use for your engine, and how much did the engine package weigh in at?

Brad

Hi Brad
We designed our own belt drive system and it weighs 59lbs. The whole firewal forward system includeing motor mount/composite prop/ full of water and oil is 540lbs and cg is 20" off the firewall. The plane now has 1200hrs and just keep puttin gas in.
Ken

What composite prop did you use? Would you use the same prop again if you had a choice? I am considering using the Chev LS1.

Cheers
Brad

We used the 3 blade IVO Magnum Paddle Prop cut to 80" with the inflight adjustable/constant speed kit. We got rid of the teflon spacers and aluminuim contact rings and made our own brass rings for the back of the spinner in order to change the prop setting, works great. The prop has been great but it is more of a seaplane prop that a high speed cruise prop so it depends on the mission. The blades are rated for 125hp per blade. My current project is a cessna 175 and i am installing an LS3 and i will probably install the MT electric in this project, but i am not sure yet. Vari Prop also has a nice package and Whirlwind makes the blades for them.
On your redrive look for a ratio of 2:1 thru 2.3:1 this will alow you to get the motor to rated rpm and not take the prop through the sound barrier. If you go to a 1.6:1 ratio which is very common you will not get the rated horsepower out of the motor unless you put a really small prop on the plane. STOL also has one of the IVO Magnum Paddles on his 801 with the ford motor.
Ken

rocktaupo wrote:What composite prop did you use? Would you use the same prop again if you had a choice? I am considering using the Chev LS1.

Cheers
Brad

Hey Brad! You made it to BCP, good deal.
Did you ever get to the bottom of the cap-strip issue?
We're just doing our colour paint, won't be long now. I'll drop into Taupo this winter, and if you're keen you can have a go?

Cheers,
Jonathan