Looking for recommendations for a small to midsize airplane to build

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

AJcucinella

Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
23
Location
Las Vegas
so far, it seems the bearhawk would be a better choice however I can't seem to finda good source of information on the christavia mk4
 

cluttonfred

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
8,122
Location
Fort Walton Beach, Florida, USA
The Christavia is a plans-built design, plans are available from Aircraft Spruce but there is not much more info out there. There are quite a few of the tandem two-seat Christavias out there. Here are two articles from SPORT AVIATION, one on a Mk I and one on a Mk IV. It comes down to what you want--the Christavia would take longer to build and would have lower performance than a Bearhawk, but would also be substantially cheaper. Cheers, Matthew
 

Attachments

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
5,117
Location
Mojave, Ca
The Bearhawk is a neat airplane and might be exactly what you are looking for. Before heading that direction though, do an honest requirements review and find out for sure. As you found out from the first few posts, your up-front requirements are wide open and not very useful for selection. You should decide how you intend to use the airplane and pick the most appropriate candidate. You should be looking at things like range, speed, payload, runway length, fuel burn, cost and maintainability.

As an example, I need:

--2 place

--at least 400 pounds payload

--at least 190KTAS cruise at 11 GPH or less

--at least 700NM range in still air

--Safely operate from a 2500 ft, paved runway at full gross and 7,500 DA

--No greater than $100k initial acquisition cost

Note that the above requirements drive me to a fairly small group of candidates, but this is how I intend to use the aircraft. Any aircraft that meets these basic requirements will be further refined by secondary preferences. I would avoid twins, retracts, and turbine power, for example.

If you do a similar "honest" requirements assessment, more airplanes may shake out than what you get from this thread.
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,010
Location
USA.
A friend of mine built a MK-1 with a Cont-0-200. He lives at 7100' and at that DA is very under powered. Any larger engine and there are W&B problems. With the 0-200, he has 15lbs in the tail. It was designed for a Cont-A-65.

Bearhawk it is. :) Dan
 

Battson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2012
Messages
610
Location
New Zealand
A friend of mine built a MK-1 with a Cont-0-200. He lives at 7100' and at that DA is very under powered. Any larger engine and there are W&B problems. With the 0-200, he has 15lbs in the tail. It was designed for a Cont-A-65.

Bearhawk it is. :) Dan
To that end - A friend of mine lives in the New Mexico desert, DA frequently over 7500ft at airport, well over 12,000DA at cruising alt. He only uses about 600ft-700ft of runway to get airborne with a decent load on, the performance of the wing + power is very impressive; it has to be flown to be believed.

Also, there's not many planes which let you get away with a 38kt climbing turn at full power and 1/2 flaps, still doing 600ft/min at 12k DA, and solid as a rock - obviously controls are less effective, but they don't go "floppy" like a Cessna does, and even after the stall you can still fly with aileron if you forget your training... provided you've built a well balanced & trimmed aircraft.
 
Last edited:

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
9,010
Location
USA.
To that end - A friend of mine lives in the New Mexico desert, DA frequently over 7500ft at airport, well over 12,000DA at cruising alt. He only uses about 600ft-700ft of runway to get airborne with a decent load on, the performance of the wing + power is very impressive; it has to be flown to be believed.

Also, there's not many planes which let you get away with a 38kt climbing turn at full power and 1/2 flaps, still doing 600ft/min at 12k DA, and solid as a rock - obviously controls are less effective, but they don't go "floppy" like a Cessna does, and even after the stall you can still fly with aileron if you forget your training... provided you've built a well balanced & trimmed aircraft.
You have to be talking about a Bearhawk. I was flying with Bob in the prototype Bearhawk and was feeling it out. He said "Go ahead and stall it" So I started coming back on the power and airspeed and had the engine at idle and the airspeed was on 40 mph and it was solid, he said, let me show you something. He started coming back on the stick and gave it a little more rpm and had the airspeed on ZERO and then started turning in small circles. All with the airspeed on Zero. I know we had some airspeed but it sure looked like we were hanging over the same spot on the ground. After that he gave me the stick, and I started doing lazy 8's and chandelles. It is so honest, felt like I had been flying it for years. You will love your Bearhawk. Dan
 

AirSharkII

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
57
Location
Chico, CA

skier

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
1,079
Location
CT
Have you had any thoughts of the Kitfox? I've always liked the design. It's a bit lighter than the other aircraft mentioned here, but it may be worth considering

1688773.jpg

2055009.jpg
 
Top