BEARHAWK THOUGHTS

Discussion in 'Hangar Flying' started by Alan Waters, Feb 20, 2011.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Feb 20, 2011 #1

    Alan Waters

    Alan Waters

    Alan Waters

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Conover N.C.
    Tell me what you think. I think there is no perfect airplane, but, the Bearhawk is as close as it comes. Bearhawk #1150 Builder Site#
     
  2. Feb 20, 2011 #2

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Northern Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Could not possibly agree with you more ;)
     
  3. Feb 21, 2011 #3

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,465
    Likes Received:
    991
    Location:
    Corona CA
    From what I've seen of it I like it a lot, but it's a big project as a scratch-built. Lots and lots of parts and tons of welding, but all very well thought out.
     
  4. Feb 21, 2011 #4

    DarylP

    DarylP

    DarylP

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CO
    I love the Patrol, but if I would ever get one I would have to learn to weld I guess. Still, a very nice plane.
     
  5. Mar 13, 2011 #5

    Full Throttle

    Full Throttle

    Full Throttle

    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N. Indiana
    "You measure the size of the accomplishment by th obstacles you had to overcome to reach your goals" Nyuk nyuk nyuk.
    I'm in the early stages of a Bearhawk build.
     
  6. Mar 13, 2011 #6

    JMillar

    JMillar

    JMillar

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    233
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Antigonish, NS, Canada
    I'm really more into light / sleek / fast, but the Bearhawk seems to be the go-to plane for utility. I'd love to build one, if I could also have a fast glass 2 seater.

    What I'd like to see someone do, kinda crazy, put a turboprop engine into a Bearhawk. Imagine the climb rate.
     
  7. Mar 14, 2011 #7

    orion

    orion

    orion

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    5,800
    Likes Received:
    135
    Location:
    Western Washington
    Yea, especially after the wings tear off. Of course at that point the climb rate becomes somewhat negative.
     
  8. Mar 14, 2011 #8

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Northern Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Given the hypothetical, with this amount of power, when the wings come off, if WOT was maintained, would the plane be drug in a straight line like a rocket, or careen wildly out of control (with WOT)?
    Thanks,
    Gary
     
  9. Mar 14, 2011 #9

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,539
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    The wing is destabilizing, so without it would be more stable. Unfortunately your center of lift will be so far aft that straight down (or straight up) is the only stable flight direction...
     
  10. Mar 14, 2011 #10

    orion

    orion

    orion

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    5,800
    Likes Received:
    135
    Location:
    Western Washington
    The words "lawn dart" come to mind.
     
  11. Mar 14, 2011 #11

    Jan Carlsson

    Jan Carlsson

    Jan Carlsson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Sweden
  12. Mar 14, 2011 #12

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,539
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Yeah. Then the wings won't break, but the bank will make you broke.
    (Fuel bill)
     
  13. Mar 14, 2011 #13

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Northern Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Right after the "straight up" part ("Geez, NOW I wish we'd have topped off the tanks before we left".). Simple flight plan though.
     
  14. Mar 14, 2011 #14

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Northern Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
    7.5 HP, 22 minutes per gallon. Does it follow that 75 HP would use a GALLON EVERY 2.2 MINUTES ???!!!
     
  15. Mar 14, 2011 #15

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,539
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    I know the 100 lbs turbojets use about a kg a minute. Their derivatives produce around that horsepower, so that'd be 2.7 minutes a gallon. Efficiency isn't their selling point...
     
  16. Mar 14, 2011 #16

    Jan Carlsson

    Jan Carlsson

    Jan Carlsson

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,860
    Likes Received:
    387
    Location:
    Sweden
    But if the wing stay on we can control the banking with aileron, and Bill take care of fuel :)
     
  17. Mar 14, 2011 #17

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Northern Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Very good (word play).

    That Bill must be a nice guy. :gig:
     
  18. Mar 14, 2011 #18

    autoreply

    autoreply

    autoreply

    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    2,539
    Location:
    Rotterdam, Netherlands
    Ok, so let's completely derail this topic.

    Why is the Bearhawk superior to the Zenith 801 in terms of flying? I know the Zenith is much better time-wise and the Bearhawk $-wise, but their numbers seem pretty close. Any distinctive differences?
     
  19. Mar 14, 2011 #19

    orion

    orion

    orion

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    5,800
    Likes Received:
    135
    Location:
    Western Washington
    Personal comment - the 801 is just simply ugly and has a limited amount of payload volume (rear seats are against the aft bulkhead). It can use a range of engines although it does not seem to have as much flexibility as the Bearhawk.

    The Bearhawk combines classic lines and functionality with sort of a more modern nose - the mix has great aesthetics. The Bearhawk is quite a bit faster and has sufficient flexibility for a relatively wide range of engines.
     
  20. Mar 15, 2011 #20

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Voyeurger

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Northern Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.
    Well, I WAS going to say that the Bearhawk is just prettier, but (ORION beat me to it) I don't want to start that with JMan. So (ORION beat me to it), Useful load, cruise speed, range, and "aesthetics" is what I will claim are superior to the 801. Plus, we get a humongous (very large) cargo door (Again, ORION'S mention of utility).

    Zenith 801 Useful Load 1050 Cruise 106 Cost $50K + (EDIT: With identical FWF kits, the BH and Zenith come in at about the same price, the savings come in scratch building the BH which is not an option with the Zenith)

    Amateur Built Aircraft
    Useful Load
    Cruise @65%, mph
    Quick-Build Cost
    Comments
    Bearhawk 250
    1100
    155
    $29,750
    Utility, not Normal Cat.
    Bearhawk 180
    1300
    140
    $29,750
    Utility, not Normal Cat.
    Tundra/Dream-200 hp
    1100
    128
    $48,000
    Not available as of Sept ‘05
    Tundra/Dream-235
    950
    135 est
    $48,000
    Not Available as of Sept ‘05
    Bush Caddy, 180 hp
    1,200
    115
    $45,000

    Murphy Super Rebel
    1800
    130
    $54,000
    Lycoming 250
    Murphy Moose
    1700
    130
    $54,000
    Same kit as S-Rebel
    GlasStar 2 + 2, 160 hp
    1000
    155
    $51,535
    Not true four-place
    Certified Aircraft




    Cessna 180F
    1080
    150 mph
    $75,000 plus
    At Normal, not Util. Cat.
    Cessna 182
    1000
    155 mph
    $70-$90,000

    Cessna 172M
    870
    130 mph
    $45-$70,000

    Cherokee 235
    1,450
    150 mph
    $50-$75,000

    Maul MX-7
    900
    145 mph
    $60-$75K
    Not at gross weight
     

Share This Page

arrow_white