Rob wrote:

blackrock wrote:...
Elko has too much snow now...

You know where to find a cure for that and I have no shortage of 300'-500' beaches, bars, and benches to warm up on

Get yours shoe'd up and bring 'ol Maverick on down with you

Hey Rob,

Thanks for the invite and for showing us around your playground. We thourghly enjoyed it and had a blast flying with you; I just wish we could have landed the places you did. Next time for sure, well at least some of them! the scenery was great as was the weather. All of that made it hard to return home!

She'll have new shoes in a few more weeks after the annual is finished and I can get up to Joseph. Still thinking 35's and Kevin will have 29's soon on his Citabria so thanks for helping out with that too. And with Cowdog and Maverick on 31's they should be up for the trip as well, if we can pry them off the ranch, that is.

We had a great return flight and flew for miles and miles over what must be Pattons training ground as there were tracked vehicle tracks and shell holes that appeared to have been there a while. Then more desert and finally Death Valley over areas I hadn't flown before. Lots of old mines,etc. Pretty cool stuff. And yes, I was,wishing for big tires then, too.

Same offer applies if you're through Elko some time. There are lots of neat places to try around here, but not much in the way of rivers and sand bars, I'm afraid.

A few more photos of Cowdogs and Mavericks Bearhawk. We were landing/taking off in 2 to 3 inches of wet snow so didn't get any worthwhile performance numbers with that much rolling resistance. Take off runs were about 10 seconds (normally about 7 seconds) and 330 to 360 feet so the soft snow really slowed us down. Braking was nil as the tires just skied across the snow - it was sort of fun sliding around the meadow!

I'm so jealous I can't stand it.

Zzz wrote:I'm so jealous I can't stand it.

Yup..... Me too

Zzz wrote:I'm so jealous I can't stand it.

I know what you mean. Andy and Russ shouldn't have all the fun. They need someone else to join them. If you start soon, you will be caught up to them before you know it .

That front-on view probably costs me some $4k hot sause in the near future.......
Damn you!

Battson wrote:That front-on view probably costs me some $4k hot sause in the near future.......
Damn you!

Welcome to the club!

Exodus
If you have to be talked into or convinced to buy bushwheels...then no, you don't need them or can't appreciate them. If you like to fly or better yet land in places we do, then you'd understand. That's why this is backcountrypilot; not flightlevelpilot. To each his own.

Now that you have the shoes on it and have the ground angle of attack of a proper bush plane, I would love to see some video of what the BH can do.

I know that everyone comments about the performance of the bearhawk, but they most of the time they are coming from 172s and the like, and compared to that, they are incredible, but how does the bearhawk compare to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTuDeKxjPck

Yea, I know, it's not a super cub, and won't do what a super cub will do, but I would love to see one flown with proper bush technique to see just how quickly it will get off. In that video you will see the cub guys spool it up, get a few feet on it, nail the flaps, and rotate hard, even to the point of banging the tail a little.

I would expect a bearhawk to be able to do what the 185s and 180s can do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S0w63cNKME

Each cone is 50 feet, so that red 185 is off in less than 100 feet and back on in less than 150.

I have yet to see a video of a bearhawk flown at it's limits like this, perhaps you guys can be the first to really demonstrate the stol capabilities.

<Full disclosure>
I was in Valdez in 2010 and the wind was calm, so I know for a fact that these airplanes can do this without a big headwind.

I live in Alaska, and have a bearhawk under construction, so I'll find out soon enough, but would like to see some video now, mostly to encourage me, and to provide some evidence of what I think the bearhawk can do beyond it's way more than a 182.
</Full disclosure>

Looking good boys... looking good!

akschu wrote: cub will do, but I would love to see one flown with proper bush technique to see just how quickly it will get off. In that video you will see the cub guys spool it up, get a few feet on it, nail the flaps, and rotate hard, even to the point of banging the tail a little.

If you bang the tail it usually means you rotated too soon, and costs you maybe 20ft more on what the takeoff could have been, the trick is knowing by feel exactly when to rotate.... without hitting the tail.

We'll have our Bearhawk 260hp at the STOL contest here in NZ this time next year... we shall see what they can do against all types, by the numbers. We wont have ABWs by that stage.
They should better a 185 by a long way, they have Maule breeding but on a diet. Based on this year's STOL results, stripped down Maules are only just behind Cubs in STOL performance. Miles ahead of a much larger 185.

We're still a few months from flying, but by the numbers they should eat Maules alive - BUT importantly I have never seen any conclusive video proving this.

I share your view - bring on the STOL VIDEO!

Zzz made a video with Maverick and Blackrock in Western Nevada. On You Tube it's "Bearhawks in the Dust." I'm not sure it's still here on BCP. I don't know if it made the cut on the video, but Blackrock's first takeoff on the dry lake was very short. (I paced the tracks but don't remember how short. Zzz or Maverick might recall.) It'll probably give you a taste, although it was before ABW. Blackrock took off at the Ranch in our Bear in a measured 300'. 5250' MSL, warm day, two aboard, 75% fuel and no wind. The best we did with the 31s was about 360', though that was with two or three inches of wet snow. We'll have to wait for more snow to melt to hone our technique with the Bushwheels and get better numbers.

Battson is right on. The Bearhawk's published performance isn't exaggerated. Blackrock has 600 hours on his Bear and a lot of backcountry ops experience. You might find some of his posts here interesting.

I envy akschu. Being in Alaska with a Bearhawk in hand would be a dream. NZ may be second. I look forward to seeing how Battson does at the NZ STOL contest. Maybe someone with that skill set will take a Bear to Valdez.

I would bet a good STOL takeoff* would put one in the air in under 120ft, lightly loaded.... with maybe a little wind.

*[kick the flaps to get the tail up as the plane rolls off the mark, reduce flaps rolling tail low, tail stays really low, drag it off the ground with a burst of flap, accelerate in ground effect cleaning the flaps away]

If a 185 does it in 100ft, then the Bearhawk should do less than 100 in the same conditions with a skilled pilot. That I want to see!!

Working on technique, but with a fire breathing O-540 we have some help. At our D.A. On a good day we will never be as short as Valdez. But as soon as we get some solid numbers you will know. Those ABW's make frozen cow flops feel like??? .....OK it was smooth, wonderful and I'll never go back.

That 185 isn't stock by any stretch, and you can be sure that dude knows what he is doing.

My bearhawk won't be as light as a true bush rig since I'm building for long range cruising and missionary work, so I have a more complex panel, constant speed, fuel injection, and the bigger engine. For the rest of the airplane I'm building as light as I can, cutting weight everywhere I can think of.

Here is my current weight loss list:

Using copper clad aluminum wire for the starter cable (few lbs lighter than straight copper)
Led lighting with lighter gauge wire since it doesn't draw as much current.
Light seats.
Removable interior (I'm going to use kydex panels and weld tabs on the airframe so that they can be removed for inspection or to ditch the weight if I'm out playing, though need to check the legality of this)
Removable seats.
Lithium battery.
Andair boost pump (less than 1lb)
Brake line routing. I'm using hard lines in the gear legs, minimal hose (reservoirs mounted on the master cylinders, with left brake master on the pilot side, and right brake master on passenger, with crossed hoses)
Minimized fuel line routing (from under the door frame, to the fuel selector (under pilot seat), to boost pump (under pilot seat), to the firewall.
One trim turnbuckle
Led interior lights.
Aluminum floors (with bead rolling for strength)
Light starter
Light weight governor (PCU 5000)
Moving the elt father aft (need to anyway because I have the only extended baggage bearhawk that I know of) and mounting the battery on the firewall for shorter starter cables.
Light weight fuel panel (no breakers)
Small tabs to tie wires to (I HATE adel clamps)

Things I'm thinking about (or wish list):
Cutting the trailing edge off the gear legs
Titanium tail wheel spring
Sky dynamics cold air system.

I guess the idea is to have a fully equipped airplane with nice features that is very comfortable for long range work, but try to use other weight loss ideas to keep the thing down into reasonable weights.

I posted this to the bearhawk list a few years ago:

Very light 540 bearhawk with no electric: 1340lbs
Very light 540 bearhawk with electric: 1450lbs
Average 540 bearhawk with decent panel and options: 1550lbs
Heavy 540 bearhawk with lots of avionics and options: 1650lbs

I really want to have the lots of avionics, smart options, and keep it down to 1550. We will see.

Thoughts on my setup?

schu

Oh, here are a few pictures of the bearhawk goodness:

http://schu.net/gallery/main.php?g2_vie ... 5254916ca3

http://schu.net/gallery/main.php?g2_vie ... 5254916ca3

http://schu.net/gallery/main.php?g2_vie ... 5254916ca3

Haha - my first thought - our planes sound alike!

We've made the same weight sacrifices in terms of fuel injected engine configuration and fuel delivery (but without tip tanks), CS prop, etc. We also share almost all of the same weight saving ideas. If I can get the empty weight in under 1450lbs I will be happy. But that might require a lighter prop.

I'm not having any lights, and just a few of the lightest electronics I could afford. It's the extra weight of fuel injection & it's accouterments that worries me.

Very interested to see you've changed the V-truss at the aft bulkhead, to extend the baggage I presume. Is your flap cable one station back now?
I just covered my extended baggage last night (PVC-derivative wear-proof fabric liner, 5052 AL so no painting). The weight of the whole compartment is less than 9lbs, compared to say a Cessna extended baggage ~17lbs, and this compartment is almost 5ft long. Still, it all adds up.

I stayed with copper cables but went down a size. Bob said he was fine with 4AWG on Proto2 for the -540 with LS starter, the Skytech people wanted 0AWG.
The Lithium battery is a BIG weight saving, but you want to keep them cool as the 787 aptly demonstrated... I put mine under the seat like Bob, but even there you need 6ft of cable - heavy.
I also used electric trim which saves you a few lbs.

Using uncertified light fabric in the cabin is a good one, especially for the headliner. I just finished mine and it comes out really tidy but the weight is next to nothing. I used small bits of heavy fabric in the high-traffic areas.

I also have observer doors right now which are heavier, but I want to change to lightly-built float plane doors asap. That split lower door ........
I also have the big skylight, which (by the way) is unmissable IMHO. Heaps of extra headroom and a really open spacious feeling.

I figure if I were to strip out the rear floorboards, carpets, rear bulkhead, extended baggage, spare seats, door sills, and doors & windows.... I could maybe get the ramp weight down below 1400lbs empty for those "time to go play" days. That would be enough for me.

I should respond in kind - sorry I don't have recent photos online:
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa221/jonobattson/Bearhawk/20130121_165817_zps8885d8b0.jpg

http://s202.beta.photobucket.com/user/jonobattson/media/Bearhawk/20130210_191056_zps0dc2273a.jpg.html

http://s202.beta.photobucket.com/user/jonobattson/media/Bearhawk/20130220_184951_zps11b43193.jpg.html

http://s202.beta.photobucket.com/user/jonobattson/media/Bearhawk/20121127_230722.jpg.html

Our empty weight is 1420 with the Barrows O-540, before the ABWs. Blackrock is at 1510. I don't think there is a measurable difference in performance in the airplanes. The big thing is pilot technique. In any event, the Bear will carry a helluva load, so in an era of lightweight avionics and equipment I wouldn't hesitate to add everything you need. The trick is choosing between what you need and what you want. Our airplane is pretty sparse, while Blackrock has nice well designed panel that I envy, but in fact we get along pretty well with the minimalist approach in our kind of flying.

Can you post a picture or a description of what's in your panel Cowdog?
I am really interested to hear the weight difference you mention there. I've talked to Mike about setup (he's been really helpful too!) but I would be very interested to know more about your setup as well!
Thanks for your help with my other questions

P.s. Bob made our engine as well, boy did he try to talk me down from the FI....

I thought about fabric interior, but it always seems to look like crap after a few years. The kydex stuff is lighter than aluminum, but you need thicker stuff in order to keep it from oil canning. I'm thinking about mounting some angle aluminum stiffeners on the back of the .028 thin stuff. Probably just .016 2024 sheet cut in 1" strips then formed on a brake since that will add a lot of stiffness without much weight.

Anyway, yes the flap cables go one more station aft, and I need to add a pulley to the elevator cable to make sure the angle of the dangle is correct where it connects to the elevator bellcrank. Overall, it's not any lighter than what you did, but it does add a bit of space for coats, boots, and light sleeping bags, though that isn't why I did it, I put that in so that I could sleep in the airplane.

I plan on mounting some rings so that I can hang a hammock. That will be nice if I have an overnight trip somewhere.

As for the starter, it's pretty easy to figure out the voltage drop:

http://www.calculator.net/voltage-drop-calculator.html

If you figure that the starter is drawing 150amps and you are using 4awg cable, then 6 feet of cable will drop 3.75% which is a bit but doable. The same wire in a 3 foot length is 1.8%. If the battery is in back and you have 10 feet, then it's over 6% which is a lot of voltage drop. I wouldn't trust that in cold AK weather.

I'll be using a 14v battery (lifepo4 batteries stay at 14+ volts at rest instead of 12.3ish) with Super-4 CCA fatwire at around 3feet. At 150amps, the voltage drop is only .1volt so I'll have almost all 14v at the starter, and the weight of the wire is less than 6oz.

For my landing lights, I figure I'll have 40 feet of wire (I want the lights towards the outside for wig-wag), but because my lights only need 9v and draw 3amps, I am pretty sure I can get away with 18AWG wire which is a bit lighter than 16awg. I need to order some and hook it up to my lights and let it run for a few hours and see what the temp rise is.

What I'm not going to be doing is putting conduit in the wing or routing my fuel system all over. I don't think people realize how much weight that adds.

Every 32 1/2 oz is a lb. No?

schu

Cowdog wrote:Our empty weight is 1420 with the Barrows O-540, before the ABWs. Blackrock is at 1510. I don't think there is a measurable difference in performance in the airplanes. The big thing is pilot technique. In any event, the Bear will carry a helluva load, so in an era of lightweight avionics and equipment I wouldn't hesitate to add everything you need. The trick is choosing between what you need and what you want. Our airplane is pretty sparse, while Blackrock has nice well designed panel that I envy, but in fact we get along pretty well with the minimalist approach in our kind of flying.

Sorry if this sounds rude, it's not meant to be, but there are some seriously talented pilots up here in AK, and I would bet that they can tell the difference since these guys fly their airplanes to the edge of the flight envelope frequently.

That said, I'm not one of them, I just want a light airplane so that I can aspire to be one.