I have been in the market for a 4 place after selling the Maule. I just saw this nice looking red/silver Bearhawk go up on Barnstormers. Anyone have any info on it. I am a little skeptical about an experimental so I thought I would ask since I know there are many on this forum who fly them.

Any other finished Bearhawk owners that may soon have one for sale?

Feel free to PM me with any information, anything would be appreciated. Many thanks

https://www.barnstormers.com/Experimental,%20Bearhawk%20Classifieds.htm

Texmaule:

Have a friend here in NM who previously owned a Maule and now owns a Bearhawk and, in general, I think he likes the Bearhawk a lot more than the Maule. Both were taildraggers. Both are good birds, but he has really been impressed with the performance of the Bearhawk.

I will email him and try to get him to respond directly to you.

Good luck with the decision.

Regards, L

That one is, indeed, one of the finest Bearhawks in the fleet, as the headline states. It's very well appointed. With those appointments also comes weight, however. It's also one of the heaviest Bearhawks in the fleet. But it's a stellar rig.

Here's a video of it:



And a few others:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY9LDI ... WHchY9s1Ug

Heaviest by how much extra? That airplane sure does look NICE!

Definitely very nice. The video shows that it is rigged nice in level flight. You might just ask the weight but with the load he packed into the plane for the trip it does not look like it suffers performance wise.

Texmaule wrote:...I just saw this nice looking red/silver Bearhawk go up on Barnstormers. Anyone have any info on it. I am a little skeptical about an experimental so I thought I would ask since I know there are many on this forum who fly them. ...

One thing to consider about any homebuilt is just that-- it's a homebuilt.
Quality of build or precision of dimensions may or may not be there.
There's a Bearhawk based near me that's been balled up three times--
twice by experienced pilots, and once by the owner/builder when he ran out of people willing to fly it for him.
You couldn't pay me enough money to fly that thing.

And this is nothing against Bearhawks in general-
it's (like I said) about homebuilts and the builders.
There's a ton of well-built ones out there,
but there's some real POS's too.

I am the friend from NM referred to in the other post. I own a Bearhawk 4-place (N1685). It looks like the one you are interested in was built by my friend Georg H. in NM. If so I know the plane pretty well, having flown and camped with him. I have owned several airplanes including a Maule M4. I really like the Bearhawk. It has better overall performance than the Maule. Honest numbers are 140 mph cruise at 2350 rpm (55% power) and 7.4 gph. It will cruise at 75 mph at 4.5 gph. I have the O-360 Lycoming, angle valve, low compression pistons and a constant speed prop. My empty weight is 1320 pounds. The airplane hauls a lot with great doors for easy access.

The few things I don't like are flaps are very difficult to reach and there is no parking brake and no in-flight adjustable rudder trim tab. Also, my cabin heater is not great. Other than that it is a fabulous airplane.

I hope this helps.

Chet
Albuquerque, NM

That plane is the BH built by Georg. There is a couple threads on the BH forum about it. It certainly does look like a fine example but it is a fatty (1718 empty weight). Most well equipped BHs come in around 1550 and no frills versions can be under 1300. The designer approves of a max gross of 2700lbs and a max landing weight of 2500lbs.

My syndicate partner did about 5 hours flying PIC in that plane, with kind help from Georg (the builder). We used it for time on type before test flying our own.

Anyone questioning the safety and quality of this plane doesn't know what they are talking about.
It's built on a factory kit, so the structure is absolutely sound. They are one of the finest kits you'll see anywhere, in terms of craftsmanship and welding. The quality of this builder's work is better built than most factory aircraft, award winning in fact. There is a comprehensive build log detailing every conceivable detail. You will NOT find a finer experimental bush plane for sale this year.
Remember this is a brand new aeroplane. It's only a handful of years old. There are no nasty surprises lurking. The engine was purchased brand new, it has a very new prop. Avionics enough to interest an Airbus pilot.

It's a heavy Bearhawk. Probably the heaviest, over 1700lbs. Most average right around 1500lbs. Some can be 1400 if built light without making huge sacrifices. Being experimental, you could easily make it much lighter.

The plane does have damage history from one isolated event. During a precision landing it fell short of the runway threshold and one wheel caught a raised embankment, tearing one gear leg off the fuselage. It came to rest rather gently on smooth ground. The gear leg and wingtip were repaired to the same exceptionally high standard that the plane was built to. Brand new prop installed. It was a composite MT prop, so the engine suffers no damage.

You can spend $140k on a SuperSTOL on Barnstormers right now, and get a whole lot less aeroplane. This Bearhawk is a bargain at that price. The avionics alone probably cost half that much! Nevermind the kitset, engine, prop, workmanship... you could never build it for that price. Forget about it.

Experimental is a Godsend, not something to be leery about. There are more Cessna's out there with hidden demons, than there are poorly built experimental planes. The freedom and cost savings which experimental attracts are a huge advantage. It's aviation the way it should be.

Thanks to everyone for the responses, they are very much appreciated. I know I am stating the obvious but an airplane is a substantial investment and the more information I can obtain the better. Thanks again.

Having been around the bearhawk community a bit, knowing what I know about them, I would say buying a used bearhawk is just like buying any other used airplane, there are significant pros/cons.

Bearhawk pros:
If you don't like it, change it. If you want a longer flap handle, build one and install it. If you want a different battery, swap it. If you want to run 39" hand molded tires, gopher it. Well, except since you didn't build it, you would have to find an A&P that would agree to doing such stuff and signing off on it.
It's a good flying airplane. The airfoil is very similar to a Sedan, it works well.
The cabin is much roomier than any Maule I've been in, but I haven't been in a newer one.
You get nice glass cockpit.
It's new. There isn't any hidden corrosion, or decade old repairs that weren't done right.
That one has balanced injectors and can run lean of peak for very good fuel economy.
Sporty handling.

Bearhawk cons:
Parts aren't mass produced, and therefore are fitted. You might find stuff like one one part slightly longer than another, or the door from another bearhawk doesn't fit on this one. (But, you could just make another part from the plans, and fit it to your airplane.)
The gear is aligned by heating it up and bending it, which is the same as most fabric airplanes, but needs to be right otherwise they are a handful. Also, the shocks aren't that strong, so you can't be an idiot landing it, like any tailwheel.
They don't have fowler flaps, just barn-door flaps that pivot straight down.
They aren't quite as clean as a 180, and therefore can be slower. The tail has flying wires, lift struts, and trim push-rods all out in the wind. Add in the gear, and it's just not as clean as a spring gear Cessna that has none of that stuff on the tail.
I don't like how that one has the fuel lines up to the dash for the fuel selector valve. Lots of fittings/weight/and a high point in the fuel system.
Cost. A nice bearhawk is going to be expensive, a not-so-nice bearhawk, isn't something you want.
It's experimental. So we don't know exactly how they fail. 50 year old certified airplanes have well documented and understood failure modes. Bearhawks can be pretty one off. That one might have a fuel system mode of failure that none of the others have due to where the fuel value is mounted. What might be a problem on one may not be a problem on another, though the kit minimizes this to some degree.

Personally, for that much money, and if I couldn't be the repairman, I would be looking at a super cherry Cessna 180. They don't make them anymore, and if you have a good one, it should hold it's value for a while. Bolting up floats/skis is more expensive, but trivial as the engineering is done and sound.

All of that said, I am working on my bearhawk.... I am convinced I can fix the things I don't like (mostly) and that having a NEW airplane, with an AMAZING panel, that I can maintain myself is worth it to me.

I must make one important correction to the above post.

ANYONE can maintain their experimental aircraft. Not just the builder.

The condition inspection (experimental version of an annual) is the part that can only be signed off by the builder (if he/she has a repairman cert for that aircraft, which most do) or an A&P.

Texmaule:

Now that I see the pictures, I know the plane and builder and would like to echo earlier comments. The guy that built that plane is an incredible craftsmen and the build was exceptional.

Guarantee that you won't be anything but happy with the quality of that plane and its performance!!

Good Luck!! L

Thank you for the information. The wife is not wanting to go tandem and I am moving from the Maule so I am looking at the Bearhawk as well as 180/185. I won't start a discussion on which is best, I just don't have any experience with the Bearhawk/Experimental. Thanks

Take a road trip to Austin and go for a ride with Mark Goldberg in his BH.

Whee, Yes I spent some time at the Texas Stol Roundup looking over Mark's Bearhawk, but didn't have an opportunity to go up. I was planning on getting in touch with him again to see if he would be available to discuss,

akschu wrote:Parts aren't mass produced, and therefore are fitted. You might find stuff like one one part slightly longer than another, or the door from another bearhawk doesn't fit on this one. (But, you could just make another part from the plans, and fit it to your airplane.)

Generally true, but if this was built using the quick-build kit, the factory can sell you replacement parts that are made in the same tooling as the original parts. Therefore, they should fit pretty much the same as the originals...

JP256 wrote:

akschu wrote:Parts aren't mass produced, and therefore are fitted. You might find stuff like one one part slightly longer than another, or the door from another bearhawk doesn't fit on this one. (But, you could just make another part from the plans, and fit it to your airplane.)

Generally true, but if this was built using the quick-build kit, the factory can sell you replacement parts that are made in the same tooling as the original parts. Therefore, they should fit pretty much the same as the originals...

This is true. I stacked our plane and had to replace a number of factory parts. The new parts fit well.

The factory parts are welded or manufactured using seriously heavy jigs, so that helps ensure consistency.

Former and likely soon to be again Maule owner and if I had the time or patience to build a BH is what I would be flying.

TxAgfisher wrote:Former and likely soon to be again Maule owner and if I had the time or patience to build a BH is what I would be flying.

Just curious, what drove you back to the Maule? I think I remember you saying that operating costs drove you away initially.

By the way, had I not owned my plane when yours came to the market I’d have bought it in a heartbeat.