Comparisons, Compromises, O-540 vs O-360

Source: 2018 Q3 Beartracks, Bob Triplett
Every aircraft is designed with many compromises. One has great speed or short field performance or great slow speed characteristics. I am not aware of any aircraft that has it all. When I find such a plane I will consider building that plane. Perhaps some of you know me or my plane (94RT).

I built 94RT from the kit. It has been displayed in the Bearhawk booth at Oshkosh for a couple of years. Let’s be clear, I do not work with Mark Goldberg and I have no relationship to the company. I enjoy the fellowship with the pilots who are interested in the design, with Bob Barrows, Mark Goldberg and the other regulars at the display. Besides it is a great place to get out of the sun.
This year the plane that Mark uses as a test bed to try new design features and as a demonstrator aircraft to give rides to potential customers due to a glitch was unable to make it to Oshkosh. It got as close as Hartford near Fondulac and was unable to be brought to the show. During the discussions it became apparent that another pilot was going to be required to fly the plane back to the Austin Texas area. In the course of our discussions I indicated that I might be interested in flying the plane back to Texas. After Mark considered my offer for a few days we agreed that I would fly it back.
I have a 180 hp Lycoming O-360A1D engine in my aircraft and have considered replacing that engine with the 250 hp Lycoming O-540 engine. I thought this would be a great time for me to fly behind the O-540 and compare my airplane and performance (O-360) to Marks plane.
I had never flown Mark’s plane so the first thing that I did was do a walk around to see what things I found different in his build than my own and what if any difference that might pose to me on a cross country flight. I had no one around to provide any tips or pointers and I did not want to bend Mark’s plane or add another check marked box on my insurance application.
My first observations were that there were no nav lights, no aux tanks and no landing lights. The plane has the new style B wing and the new style horizontal stab and obviously the 250 Lycoming engine. All of these features would impact my preflight planning.
Next I sat in the plane. I just sat in the plane and surveyed the differences in the layout. What was different from my panel? I closed my eyes and tried to reach for a control with my eyes shut to try to build a mental picture of things in my mind to make the plane more a part of my mental picture and make flying it a little easier. He had some unique differences in his layout. He has the throttle, prop, carb heat and mixture controls on the far left side of the panel near the opening. He likes to work those controls with his left hand and fly with his right. I have a lot of J3 cub time so after 3 landings I had no trouble adapting to this layout.
Another difference is his trim system. I have custom built my own design trim wheel with a 2:1 reduction. My trim wheel needs to travel twice as far as his to get the same effect. I had heard horror stories about the trim wheel being too sensitive and thought I have the tools to build the system and I could do it with a similar weight so I installed my own design. I can report that the factory trim system as provided is not a problem. I had no problems trimming the plane from the first flight to the final flight. I will say that since my system is a 2:1 reduction it requires considerably less force to move mine than the factory system. This difference might be accounted for by either the additional torque of my system or by the setup of the friction in Mark’s system. Knowing what I know now I would not spend the time and effort to install any type of reduction into the system. It is fine just as Bob designed it. Oh, one more thing. I took off with the trim out of adjustment in my own plane one time. Trust me you do not want to do this. The feedback in the stick is really heavy. As part of my preflight I always check the trim tab to see that it is a neutral position.
Another thing that I found different about the plane is that the panel is basic. There is nothing fancy about the panel. This is a matter of taste but if it were mine I would and have installed glass instead of steam gauges. Oh well I started with them and a basic panel, I guess I can survive. It is my opinion that Mark’s objectives are to provide a safe, simple, light design more toward all out performance. Also bear in mind that this aircraft has over a thousand hours flying as a demonstrator aircraft. Perhaps keeping the plane simple is the best choice as people will be getting in and out and cause a lot of wear and tear.
My First Flight
I decided that the first thing to do was to make 3 landings and 3 takeoffs before departing the area. I was not real familiar with the airport but we had just flown in and I had a chance to survey the area and the airport so I thought it best to check myself out in the plane at this airport before flying off somewhere to a strange airport.
As I came in with the power I could noticeably feel the power difference between my plane and this one. I came in very slow with the power and it responded favorably to me. I could feel when it was ready to fly and I was not at wide open throttle so as it began to fly I smoothly came to full power. The climb rate is phenomenal. At 200 feet on climb out I came back to 2400 rpm and reduced the manifold pressure somewhat. I climbed to pattern altitude and turned down wind. At the end of the runway on downwind I reduced power and set the plane up for landing. I had to use caution here because Mark’s plane is in miles per hour and my own is in knots. The first landing was not pretty but it was a nice landing. Remember there are a lot of differences in the two planes that I am balancing.
The second takeoff I now have more confidence in myself and the plane. I came smoothly with the throttle but carefully to wide open throttle. The plane jumped off the ground and we quickly climbed to pattern altitude. I flew a normal down wind and setup for landing as before. This time the plane began instructing me. I got a little low on final. As I added power the nose pitched up. Remember earlier when we discussed the trim and I indicated that the trim has a lot of power. As I fly my own plane I find that it is easier for me to bleed off altitude than to regain it. Also as you bleed off energy on flare it gives me some time to make a smooth flare and touch down. FLY a stable approach as much as you can. The engine has so much power that when you apply power in the landing configuration you will need to account for considerable changes in the stick feedback. After the third landing I felt that while not over confident this was going to be a fun trip and the plane was well within my skill level.
What did I learn here?
The plane is considerably heavier in empty weight than my own. The feedback in the stick is considerably heavier. It is not to the point of being annoying but you do feel the difference. Trim is even more important. Fly a stable approach as much as possible. Make your power adjustments as effective as needed but do it slowly. Be prepared to re-adjust the trim as needed. Remember those controls that are now on the left side. It requires that I take my hand off the throttle and put it on the stick, take my right hand off the stick and re-adjust the trim quickly and reverse the order. Sorry Mark I can live with it but it was not my choice. I understand his motivations. That is the beauty of the experimental plane. I can have it my way. The pane is considerably smoother. The six cylinder engine is noticeably smoother than the 4 cylinder. Mark has the new three blade trail blazer prop on this plane. He says that the prop has 20 percent more thrust. I don’t have a base line to compare the effectiveness of the prop. All I know is that the plane is a HOT ROD. It will well out perform my plane in climb out and speed.
Speaking of Speed
I flew most of the eight plus hour trip at 4500 feet. I set the engine up at 19 to 20 inches at 2400 rpm and saw fuel burns in the 13.9 to 14 gallons per hour with indicated airspeeds of about 135 miles per hour. Mark says that I could have leaned a little more aggressively, maybe able to get it down as low as 12 gallons per hour at this power setting, and perhaps a little less if I reduce the power to that of the 180 hp Lycoming. Yes I know that this does not tell us much as I did not calculate true airspeed. Remember those wings with only the standard tanks in them. I planned 2.5 hour legs which gave me a nice reserve at landing. Here is where I wished for the aux tanks. If you build with the 250 hp engine I would certainly install the aux tanks. At this speed the plane is quieter than my own. His controls are very nicely balanced and the plane is rigged almost perfectly. The engine is so much smoother than mine. It was pleasant to fly. I could trim it easily to level flight and fly it with two fingers. Yes it is tiring to fly in any aircraft for eight plus hours but I did not feel as much strain flying the Bearhawk for eight plus hours as I did riding on and making connections on the commercial plane for the return trip home.
Would I, knowing now what I know, trade my engine for the 250 hp engine? Probably not though I have not ruled it out. If I was flying on floats or spent a lot of time flying in the mountains it would make sense. The exhilaration is a real kick; I am in Wisconsin at 1107 ft. above sea level. My plane performs flawlessly at this altitude. Yes it would do better with the 250 hp engine. BUT remember that fuel flow. I burn 10 to 10.5 gallons per hour. One would also need to spend considerably more to purchase the engine and maintain the engine along with the feeding.
I love that hot rod airplane but airplanes are a compromise and I guess mine is a pretty good compromise after all. What you see here are mostly emotional evaluations and comparisons of my own plane and that of the factory demonstrator. Very little science here, hope you find something of value in this emotional review of a great plane. Thanks Mark for the opportunity to fly your great plane.
Epilogue
Well, it is September 27, 2018 and some time has passed since I flew the 250 Bearhawk and recorded my thoughts. Jared has just emailed me requesting some pictures of the plane to go with the article. I had just hung up the phone after talking with a party that had an O 540-B4B5 235 hp Lycoming for sale at a reasonable price. Yes, once you have flown behind 250 hp. the kick is hard to forget. That take off and climb performance is hard to resist. But I did not bite the bullet. I began to weigh the work ahead if I made such an investment and decided that if I really want that performance I would be just as far ahead to build a new B model plane with that engine in it. My panel is all electric and I just don’t like chopping into the systems to modify it to fit the needs of the 6 cylinder engine, new cowl, new engine mount, new exhaust system and a new induction system all need to be redone. I can do a better job knowing what I did on this plane. I keep telling myself that the plane performs flawlessly in the area where I live. I have two less cylinders to maintain. My engine has all new components in a freshly certified case with just 180 hours. Just look at the maintenance room that I have behind that engine. The fuel burn is less but I have to admit that I do see slower cruise speeds and somewhat less performance than the 250 hp engine. The 180 hp Bearhawk is a fine compromise. Either way you will not be disappointed that you chose to build the Bearhawk. All of the new features and the additional factory work make the plane easier to build and get professional results. Thirty minutes of work on a new plane would equal 2 hours of time that I invested in building this plane.

Bob points out how much room there is between the O-360 and the firewall.

Flying with the Cargo Door Open, Aerial Photography

Source: 2018 Q2 Beartracks, Mark Scott
I finally got a chance last fall to fly with the back doors off my Bearhawk. With such a large hole I was a little nervous about what it would be like, particularly if I got into nose left uncoordinated flight. I am happy to say everything went well.
I took everything out and secured the free back seatbelt. I needed to tape the aft cabin fabric down by the door edge to keep it from flapping around. The first flight was solo. I progressively increased speed and performed small to moderate rudder pulses checking for any adverse effects. I can feel aircraft drag increase with nose left yaw but that is about it. There are no unusual trim changes. I took it up to 90 KIAS which is fast enough for the photo work I plan to do. Maule flight manuals prohibit a front window opened with the back doors off. This is important. If a front window were open it would create a tunnel effect and lots of air flow through the cabin.
The photographer sits sideways in the back seat with his right arm over the back. He said it works really well since it enables him to stabilize the camera. The view from the back is superior to the front because the opening is so much larger and there is no wing strut in the way. He wears a riggers harness with two large steel lanyard rings. One lanyard is attached to the left vertical tubing and another to the cross tube in front of the left passenger window. Each lanyard has a quick single hand disconnect hook. On takeoff the photographer sits on the left passenger seat side with the seatbelt on and the lanyards disconnected from the plane. In flight he connects the lanyard hooks and disconnects the seatbelt. In preparation for landing the steps are reversed. The photo flight is briefed amongst all participants beforehand. We typically fly about 2500 ft AGL in the late afternoon or early evening for the best shots. The photo plane holds a very steady course and altitude. The subject plane does all the maneuvering. The photographer tells me what he wants the subject plane to do and I relay that to the other pilot. Overall it has worked very well. So if you are looking for something else fun to do in your Bearhawk give some doors off photography a try.

First flight of Jerry Cornwell’s Bearhawk LSA

Source: 2018 Q1 Beartracks, Mike Swain
Nestled among the tall live oak trees in north central Florida is a small unincorporated community called McAlpin. It is here, at the end of a taxiway in Little River airpark, that Bearhawk LSA #61 was born and recently made its first flight.

I first met Jerry Cornwell, AKA “Stinger,” at Sun N Fun in 2014. He was there with his friend Bill Stratton and they had just begun to build 2 LSAs in Jerry’s hangar. So how exactly did Stinger decide to start building his 4th airplane project?
It turns out that Bill had been to Oshkosh and seen Bob Barrows and the LSA the year before. He came back from Oshkosh and told Stinger he had found their next airplane project. The selling point for Bill was “I fit.” At 6’4” tall, Bill was excited to not only find an LSA, but an LSA he comfortably fit inside. Plans #60 & #61 were in the mail.
After a road trip to Aircraft Spruce in Atlanta, Bill and Stinger were headed home with a trailer full of 4130 tubing. The Oxy-Acetylene welding began that fall. For a variety of reasons, Bill’s progress fell behind but Stinger continued to average about 8 hours daily 5 days a week. Somewhere about 4 years after receiving the plans, Stinger’s LSA flew on February 25, 2018.
I spoke to Stinger the day of his flight and asked him how it was. “OK” he said. How in the world can it just be “OK” I wondered? To understand this, you have to get a little history, so I did just that. It turns out that Stinger got the bug for flying in the back seat of an F-4 Phantom back in the early 70’s. He was a crew chief maintaining the #5 USAF Thunderbird and routinely got to ride in the back. I was starting to see how a guy who got his start flying at -3 to +8 G’s might only muster an “OK” after the culmination of 4 years worth of work.
A couple of years after his stint with the Thunderbirds was over, Stinger missed the joy flying brought and set out to take flying lessons in Homestead, FL. Not long after he began flight training, he purchased a Cessna 150 to build time. It wasn’t long after learning to fly, Stinger designed his own aircraft, or ultralight as he called it. His creation was powered by a 2 cylinder Kawasaki engine, which according to him, was far superior than any other offerings from other manufacturers at the time.
Years later Stinger would build a Boredom Fighter, but as is Stinger’s style, he did it his way. In lieu of a wood fuselage he opted to build a metal tube version. The fighter still sits in his hangar today.
The 3rd airplane Stinger built, and predecessor to his Bearhawk LSA build, was the Vans RV-8. This helps further explain the “OK” description of his first LSA flight. The RV-8 and the Bearhawk LSA are worlds apart in scope.
His experience with the Vans build also bears explanation to one of his primary criticisms of the LSA build, lack of detailed build instruction. There isn’t much in the way of step by step instructions and much of it seems to have been adapted from the 4 place and/or Patrol. He feels that a more comprehensive set of plans and build manual would help increase the completion rate of the Bearhawk community, which would have benefits to all.
Stinger’s LSA is powered by a Continental O-200 that he put together himself. His empty weight came out to 910 pounds, “on the heavier side” by his own words. Some of that weight is due to a few changes he made to the plans. He added a baggage door behind the rear seat and his plane has full controls and brakes in the rear seat. Part of the mission for this high wing “low and slow” plane as he calls it, is to serve as a trainer for his grandson, thus the need for full rear seat controls.
The first flight went smooth. The only complaint was a slightly heavy right wing which was subsequently corrected using the washer trick under the aileron hinge. The noise level is quite high, and Stinger plans to extend his custom EMT pipes a bit further back in hopes of making the sound more tenable.
Stinger’s LSA is about as scratch built as you can get, although he concedes he purchased the strut attach fittings and a few bearings. I think his airplane is a beautiful example of what you can do with a lot of determination and hard work.
How exactly did he get the nickname “Stinger”? It turns out the RV-8 is silver, yellow and black. His wife thought it looked like a hornet. So there ya go, Stinger – aka Jerry Cornwell and the story of Bearhawk LSA plans #61.


First Flight of Patrol N1618W

Source: 2018 Q1 Beartracks, Rollie Vandorn

I have wanted to build an airplane since I started flying in the late 1980’s. Over the past 25 years I have rebuilt motorcycles and a couple Jeeps and have always worked on my own cars so I consider myself mechanically inclined enough to take on just about any project as long as I have access to books and internet to help me along. That’s not to say that there weren’t moments during this past four years of building that I questioned my decision to build a plane. There were several times that I said to myself “what made you think you could build an airplane?” That’s usually a good point to call it a day and go do something else for a few hours.
What led me to the Patrol was years of reading Kitplanes magazine, and especially the issue that lists all the kits currently on the market. I would compare things like speed, useful load, build time and cost. For years I thought I wanted a 4-Place and I had been following the 4-Place Bearhawk for a few years. Finally in 2011 I was in a position to be able to buy a kit and I came very close to ordering the 4-Place kit. But I chickened out in favor of flying right now and bought a Piper Pacer. I quickly started adding every STC I could get for short field performance and as I got hooked on landing off airport in unimproved fields I realized that a tandem seat plane makes it much easier to see exactly what you are getting into in tight places, plus I realized that as much as I wanted to be taking trips with my wife and two dogs all the time, most of the time it was just me and my dog, Rex. Now I had a better defined mission: two seats, tandem, strong for off-airport ops, powerful for short field performance, good useful load for those times that we do all load up and go, and decent cruise speed. As we all know there is one plane on the market that meets all those requirements better than most.
In the fall of 2013 I flew my Pacer down to Bob Barrows’ place and checked out his Patrol. He took me for a ride and by the time we leveled off at about 1000 feet I was sold. It climbed like crazy and leveled off at a little over 140mph. Then we flew around a bit and I found the visibility great even from the back seat, the handling was great, it was everything I was looking for and exceeded the specs advertised on the BH website. I went home, few days and called Mark and ordered my kit.
The kit showed up right around Christmas 2013. For a little while I wasn’t sure where to start. I was scared to start drilling holes in things at first and spent a lot of time just holding parts up against the fuselage and figuring out what went where. Finally I started putting things together and some progress could be seen.
My biggest challenges were mostly the things that I modified. One thing I deviated from the plans on is the belly. I had helped with the annual on a ACA Scout a year or two earlier and loved how you could remove the entire belly of the plane. That was something that I figured would pay for itself the first time I needed access to something in the back of the tail or under the floor. I welded tabs on the longerons and fabricated sheet metal panels to attach with nutplates. This also gave me a nice place to mount the transponder and ADS-B antennae. I used .025 2025. I don’t think it added much weight since I was going to use heavy fabric on the belly anyway and you don’t need as much paint/primer on metal. It has already been a very handy mod as its easy to drop a single panel to access something and much quicker than removing a floor panel and easier that trying to reach into the tail from the baggage area.
For avionics I went to Oshkosh to compare all the latest stuff a couple years ago. I selected a shop that a friend had used for his RV-8 panel and went with all Garmin. The panel in the Patrol isn’t very big so I could have one 10 inch screen or two 7 inch screens. I was setting it up for IFR so I needed 2 screens, and they had to be the small ones. They are useable but it would be great to have the bigger screens. So with the two 7” G3X’s and the GTN625 WAAS GPS and the associated switches and breakers, mixture and prop controls, the panel was full. Everything else had to be remote mounted and figuring out where to put it all caused me hours of setting things in different positions. I think I made three different radio racks before I had one that I liked. In the end, the radio rack is mounted to the floor between my feet, just forward of the fuel selector. I wanted to mount everything under the dash but couldn’t figure out how to get it up in there solidly and securely and have enough access to it in the future. I have since seen some pretty slick installations and wonder if I could have done better. It would be nice to have the floor open between my feet, but honestly I was planning to put something there for storage anyway. On the end of the radio rack facing aft, toward the pilot, I put a sheet metal cover to hide everything and built in a map case and mounted a cup holder on it.
For wheels and brakes I went with Matco. They are very helpful if you call them up, especially since, at least for me, their website can be difficult to find exactly what you are looking for. They said their RV-10 wheels/brakes were the best fit for the Patrol and they seem to be good, although I guess they need broken in or seated as they can’t hold the airplane yet above about 1800 rpm. Or maybe I just need to bleed them once more. I went with the Matco parking brake too and with the Grove master cylinders that Bearhawk Aircraft sells. For now I’m running Desser 8.50-600’s. They seem pretty good and are much cheaper than Bushwheels. I kept my 31” Bushwheels off my Pacer when I sold it and will run them when I get to the serious off airport stuff, but really the 8.50s will go just about anywhere.
Engine choice is a big one for all of us and I was torn between getting a new one from Titan, or rebuilding one. My mechanic suggested that I get a timed out engine from Wentworth and rebuild it under his supervision. That could count toward my A&P certificate that I am slowly working toward. That sounded reasonable so I called Wentworth and they sent me a timed out engine. What they had for IO-360’s were all out of Piper Arrows. Turns out that is not the best choice for the Patrol. Due to the retractable gear on the Arrow the IO-360B1E has the fuel injection servo mounted to the aft of the oil pan so that required me to fab an air intake system that brings the air in and turns it 180 degrees to enter from the rear and there isn’t much room between the fuel servo and the firewall. Altogether, I would guess that I have easily over 100 hours in the intake system between building, rebuilding, redesigning and rebuilding again. In the end I have a ram air intake going to a box I made with a K&N fliter then on to the engine. I made it all out of fiberglass and aft of the filter I have and alternate air I made by cutting a little under ½ the radius of the tube for about 2 inches and having another tube over that which slides on the tube to open or close the alternate air intake. I haven’t tested it in flight yet, but expect to see a slight manifold pressure drop when I switch to alt air due to the loss of ram air plus the fact that it will be sucking warm air from the inside of the cowl. I built the engine with new Lycoming cylinders from Lycon and had them port and polish them, plus I went with their NFS 10:1 pistons. It has the roller cam and I had all the internal components overhauled at Aircraft Specialties and had them balance everything that they could. With that and dual P-mags and the Trailblazer prop, it is a smooth running and strong engine. Should be around 205-210 HP.
I covered the plane with the used Stewarts System for everything. Their glue is easy to work with and the lack of solvents makes it even easier. Their primer, Ecofil, is easy to work with too. When it comes to the paint though, if you use a gun other than the DeVilblis Finish Line they recommend, you are going to have problems. I bought the right gun halfway through my paint job and oh what a difference. So my paint job isn’t show quality but I wasn’t going for that anyway. For me if its too nice, I’ll never want to take a chance at scratching it and I built it to be a bush plane. Of course I’m not going to try to hurt my plane in any way, but landing off airport, sometimes things happen and if I get a hole punched in fabric with a mediocre paint job it will hurt that much less than if it was gorgeous to start with.
It came in at 1269 pounds, a bit heavy, but I did build the engine to compensate for that. The empty cg is about 1.5 inch from forward limit and I haven’t found a way on paper to reach the aft limit. I set 2100lb for my max weight.
The first flight was a pure adrenaline rush. It was only a twenty minute flight and I had a few issues to address afterward. The two big ones were the tail rigging and the fact that I had swapped the two tubes on the GAP 26 pitot, AOA and pitot were reversed so I had no airspeed indication in flight. As for the tail, I don’t know how I had rigged it so badly. I’d used a level but I hadn’t eyeballed it from the front of the plane. My mechanic saw it right away. The Right stab leading edge was significantly higher that the left stab. I adjusted the struts under the stabs to even them out and adjusted the wires a little and it flew so much better. I was having to keep pressure to the right on the stick and now I don’t. It takes a bit of left rudder in cruise to keep it in trim. I think there may be a little more camber in the vertical fin than necessary, but on my last flight I found that if I slow down about 10 knots, its pretty neutral on the rudder.
I only have about 5 hours on my plane so far. My observations so far are that it’s a great design. Mine doesn’t fly as good as Mark’s yet, but I’ll have that sorted out soon, and with the high compression and electronic ignition, she isn’t very thirsty. I’ve been running it hard for break in and I’m pretty happy with my fuel consumption so far.
The big thing I learned building is not to hesitate to ask for help. I spent way to much time trying to figure some things out on my own (I didn’t discover the forum until over a year into my build) The forum is a great resource. I try not to bother Mark too much because I know he is a busy man, but he is also a super nice guy and is one of the most knowledgeable people out there about the Bearhawks. If he can’t answer a question, he can certainly point you in the right direction. I enjoyed building and I know I will enjoy flying my Patrol even more. I can’t wait to meet more of the people I’ve been communicating with on the forum for the past few years.

2017 Texas STOL Roundup

Source: 2017 Q4 Beartracks, Jared Yates

This year the Texas STOL Roundup moved to the little town of Hondo Texas, just outside San Antonio. Mark Goldberg set up a booth to advertise the Bearhawk kits, and allowed me to borrow his 4-Place Bearhawk for the STOL competition. The turnout this year was greatly reduced due to unfortunate weather conditions, and probably in part due to the change in venue. The organizers divide the competition into five different classes based on the aircraft type, including LSA, Bush, Light Touring, Heavy Touring, and Super Heavy Touring. Those classes are further divided between Experimental and Type Certificated, for a total of 10 classes.

The Bush class was the best represented, with some of the competitors lined up in the photo above.
The 4-Place Bearhawk falls in the Heavy Touring class, and this year there where not any other Heavy Touring Experimental airplanes competing.

Now I can say my flying is “in a class of its own.” Unfortunately this means that this year the Bearhawk didn’t “win”, because the organizers don’t consider it a win if only one airplane flies in the class. But it was a fun time to compete, and being used to my own 185 HP blue Bearhawk, it was quite a treat to fly Mark’s beastly 540-powered machine with its Trailblazer prop and Model B wings and tail.

Each day began with a safety briefing, as shown above. I had no hopes of blending in as a local, being that I did not have a proper Texas hat.
There were two days of flying contests. On the first day, scoring was based on distance from the start line to where the airplane lifted off (takeoffs) and where it came to a stop (landings). This scoring method incentivized heavy braking, and unfortunately on the first day, one of the little guys ended up on his nose. The Bearhawk has the advantage of relatively forward main landing gear wheels, allowing for more aggressive braking than usual.
The second day was based on landing over an obstacle, which was simulated with two large inflatable pylons.
So how did it go? Each event includes two takeoffs and two landings. The four takeoffs measured 243.6, 324.3, 249, and 205.8 feet. In the traditional landings one measured 483.9 and the other was a DQ (landed short). The obstacle landings measured 893.7 and 957. This is based on a pilot with half a dozen landings in the airframe, so a more experienced operator could have certainly done better. I was flying in the same heat with the TC airplanes, and this year it seems the guys to beat were Paul Brown in his C-180 and John Sessions in his Helio Courier. In the first event, those two scored better than me in both of their patterns, with the other 5 competitors scoring worse. In the obstacle event combined score, Paul and John each had one landing that was better than my best, but the scores were much closer. We saw pilots employ several different strategies for maximizing performance. All of my takeoffs were based on two notches of flaps, and the landings with four notches of flaps. Partly because of the beastly horsepower and partly because it wasn’t my airplane, the takeoffs were made with neutral elevator, lifting off from nearly a three-point attitude. Some pilots get fancy with lifting the tail before brake release, or popping the flaps once reaching flying speed, but with the left-hand throttle, these techniques seemed more likely to get me in the bushes than into the winner’s circle. And besides, what’s the point in taking extra risk when there’s not a direct competitor? Mark’s airplane has so much static thrust that it was ready to fly before I would have had time to do much fancy pilot stuff anyway. My landings were from stabilized descents, as opposed to the “fly low, then chop and plop” technique, which was also popular. To truly be competitive, it would have been best to practice much more, including tests of various techniques and configurations.
The primary fun of the event was sitting around talking with the Bearhawk folks who came around, including Patrol builders Bob Maddox, Jim Parker, and Craig Hatch.

4-Place builder Phil Vaneau stopped by, along with several interested prospects. Mark’s friends Mike and Peggy Reeser brought Mark’s LSA to the show, and they were delightful to visit with. STOL Celebrity Bob Breeden stopped by to talk about Bob’s designs, especially the Riblett airfoil.

We went for a short flight in Mark’s airplane and he seemed impressed especially with the low-speed and stall characteristics.
Airframes Alaska had a booth set up with some of their wares.

Bob Maddox brought his Patrol, which was one of the earlier scratch-build Patrols completed. Below are photos of Bob’s airplane, including details of how he incorporated seats from a Mooney, and how he relocated the baggage door higher in the fuselage for better ergonomics.
The back seat does not span across the fuselage like on most Patrols, but it does slide forward and recline back far enough to facilitate passenger sleeping.

The higher door:

High Altitude Summer Flying in Three Sigma

Source: 2017 Q4 Beartracks, Russ Erb
In June 2017, I took a trip from Rosamond CA (L00) with the intention of riding the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad in Chama NM. The nearest acceptable public use airport was in Pagosa Springs CO (KPSO), about a one hour rental car drive away.
One of the big planning factors for this trip was that the weather would be the typical summer pattern: reasonably okay in the morning, getting hot and windy as the day went on. I could address the heat somewhat by taking my B-Kool ice air conditioner, but the only mitigation for the winds was to haul my a** out of bed early in the morning.
Because I would be flying at pressure altitudes between 9,500 feet and 11,500 feet, it was time to drag the ol’ oxygen bottle out, which had not seen use since 2013. Yes, the FAA says you don’t need to use supplemental oxygen below 12,500 feet, but that rule is actually more based on operational requirements for DC-3s than any extensive tests of physiological data. I have determined through informal tests that using oxygen at these lower altitudes has a significant effect on reducing fatigue during long flights.
The smaller problem was that the bottle only had 500 psi of oxygen in it (2000 psi is full). The bigger problem was that I bought the bottle in 2009. Because it is an aluminum bottle, the law stipulates that it must have a hydrostatic pressure test every 5 years, which was due in 2014. Since I hadn’t needed the bottle, I hadn’t gotten the test done. My wife insisted that I would take it with me, so I got the bottle down to a local business that specializes in fire extinguishers. They were able to do the “hydro test” but they don’t refill the bottle. After the test, I took the bottle to another shop at a local airport to get it re-filled.
I also took my wife’s pulse oximeter along on the flight to monitor my breathing. She’s into biology and it was her Valentine’s Day present in 2011. It’s still her favorite Valentine’s Day present ever.
The night before departure, I loaded the airplane as much as I could and completed the preflight inspection. On Monday 26 June, I hauled myself out of bed at 0500 and was rolling down the runway by 0630. I climbed to my cruising altitude of 9,500 feet, and was surprised to find out that I had a 51 knot tailwind! Not quite the 70 knot tailwind I remember in 1999 going to Sun n’ Fun, but welcome nonetheless. That should help make this day shorter. Of course, I was also hoping that the winds would die down by Wednesday when I was coming back!

A 51 knot tailwind at 123 KTAS leads to a ground speed of 170 knots!


The tailwind would continue, but was down to about 25 knots at Kingman AZ, and then to mostly crosswind at Pagosa Springs.
Surface winds at Kingman (KIGM) were about 20 knots as promised, but were at least aligned with one run-way. Landing was not a problem, but taxiing and refu-eling were more challenging with all of that wind.
I stopped in Kingman not because the fuel was the cheapest in the general area, but because it is in a good location and at a reasonably high elevation to minimize descending and climbing. (Laughlin/Bullhead Intl (KIFP) is close by, but at 2742 feet lower ele-vation and generally higher fuel prices, it was a non-starter.) Additionally, a big benefit of Kingman was that I had been there multiple times before and knew my way around the airport.
I knew that by eating breakfast early, at some point during the second leg of the flight my stomach clock would be expecting lunch. Because of the rush to get to the destination before the heat and winds got out of hand, I had chosen not to stop to eat lunch on the ground. Instead I employed a technique from my days in C-130s back in the early 1990s—bagels. I would propose that the humble bagel is about the perfect cockpit food. Personally I prefer the cinnamon and raisin variety. The bagel is very dense, so by eating just one I usually feel like I have eaten a whole meal. The bagel is not crumbly, so it doesn’t make a mess in the cockpit. The bagel doesn’t require special handling, such as refrigeration. Finally, the bagel is moist enough that it can be eaten without supplementary water or drink, which is good both for logistics and for physiological range.
Departing Kingman, I first climbed to 9,500 feet, which would be okay for ground clearance, but only 800 feet above pattern altitude at the destination. After a brief period, I started to notice more bumps at 9,500 feet, so I slowly climbed to 11,500 feet in hopes of smoother air. Rather than do a maximum rate climb (I had more than enough time), I just left the airplane in the cruise configuration and pulled the nose up slightly to lose a few knots. Additionally, like any good glider pilot, I allowed the rising air that was causing the turbulence to help me climb as well.
On reaching 11,500 feet, I saw yet another benefit of the big engine that another homebuilder talked me into all those years ago. Thanks to the high altitude, the true airspeed is the same, but the indicated air-speed is less, and the cruise drag is less. With a little bit of a tailwind and a fuel flow of nominally 9.1 gallons per hour, I was getting a specific range (mileage) of up to 15 nautical miles per gallon at 122 knots true airspeed.
The leg from Kingman to Pagosa Springs was about as long as I dare try in my Bearhawk. At 355 nm, with a planning fuel flow of 11.0 gph (a reasonable number at low altitudes), the leg should take 3.3 hours and leave me with 16.1 gallons remaining (about 1.5 hours). With the favorable winds and low fuel flows at altitude, this leg took 3.1 hours and 22.4 gallons remaining.

11,500 feet MSL and 13,910 feet density altitude



Engine settings and diagnostics at 11,500 feet MSL and 13,910 feet density altitude


Flying into high altitude airports can be a mind-bending experience. Cruising at 11,500 feet seems like it should be really high, but when the pattern altitude is 8,663 feet, that descent is only 2,837 feet. That’s less descent than I do flying from Mountain Valley (L94) or Tehachapi (KTSP) to Rosamond.

Parked at KPSO


I arrived at 12:18, and as you can see in the picture the clouds were already starting to form. The afternoon rains are a real thing in Colorado summer afternoons, though it didn’t actually rain this day.
The rental car service was prompt and right to the airplane. It may sound obvious, but the best way I have found to deal with rental cars is to call the FBO first. I have known some FBOs that actually act as the rental car agent. If not, ask them if there are any agencies that they regularly work with. In this case, Enterprise brought the car to the airport, and allowed me to just leave it at the air-port when I was done.

Here is just one picture to show why I flew to Colorado/New Mexico.


The forecast for Wednesday was the same—getting hot and windy as the day progressed. Once again, I was up at 0500 local to beat feet out of there. I was concerned about being able to make it all the way from Pagosa Springs to Kingman if there were high headwinds. Thus, I formed a plan to divert into Valle (40G), south of Grand Canyon and about 50 minutes short of Kingman, if it looked like I was going to arrive at Kingman with less than 10 gallons remaining.
After rapidly gathering up my stuff, eating a bagel, and loading the airplane, I was off about 07:05. With the big engine and relatively lightly loaded, takeoff and climb performance were not an issue. Again, climbing to 10,500 feet sounds like it should take a long time, but since it was less than 3000 feet up it didn’t take long at all.
In actuality, the winds were only 15 to 25 knots headwind, and the projected fuel remaining at Kingman wandered around 16 to 18 gallons remaining.

The price you pay for tailwinds outbound—25 knots headwind. Ground Speed is a little lower at 97 knots.


On the way out, I kept a record of which frequencies I talked to ATC on for flight following and the rough locations where frequency changes were made. Sure enough, on the way back I just proceeded back up the frequency list. It was much nicer being able to anticipate the frequency I would be given rather than just being surprised by it.
While flying back I noticed a seemingly weird response of the aircraft while flying on autopilot. I’m a big fan of having an autopilot for workload reduction, especially if I am the only qualified pilot on board. Normally it works really well, but every now and then the nose would start pitching up, airspeed would drop, the ball would go way out to the right, and the airplane would bank about 10 to 15 degrees to the right. It did this several times before I realized what was going on. The airplane would fly into sink (glider pilot talk for descending air). The autopilot would respond to the loss of altitude by pulling the nose up to climb, which caused the loss of airspeed. With the nose pitched up, the flow through the propeller caused increased P-factor, which tried to swing the nose to the left. Trying to maintain a ground track, the autopilot would bank to the right, resulting in the ball moving way to the right. The solution was simply to disconnect the autopilot, ride out the sink, and when the lift brought me back up to altitude, re-engage the autopilot.
I finally reached Kingman in 3.7 hours, one of my longest flights in the Bearhawk, with 16.8 gallons remaining. Once again, the winds were about 20 knots down a runway.
Another non-eventful leg put me back at Rosamond at about 1215 local, but as I feared, the winds were sort of down the runway at about 24 knots. After fighting the winds down to the runway, with about seven wheel touches before they both remained on the ground, I re-confirmed why I don’t fly in winds like that just for fun!

Collin Campbell’s Third Bearhawk

Source: 2017 Q3 Beartracks
Collin Campbell Completes his Bearhawk LSA!
It’s big news any time someone builds an airplane, especially a Bearhawk. Collin has made even bigger news, as the first customer to have completed the Bearhawk 4-Place, Bearhawk Patrol, and Bearhawk LSA!


Collin Writes:
Well, they tell me I am the first “customer” to build all three of Bob’s designs. Now I know Mark Goldberg has built all three but I suppose he is not a “customer”. Oh, well. I wasn’t trying to make that happen but I guess that’s the way things have worked out. So, I thought I would share a little of my “Bearhawk Journey” with you.
It all started when I read Budd Davisson’s article in the Oct. ’95 issue of Sport Aviation. I thought, “…now that’s an interesting airplane…” Read the article, and retired the magazine to my stack of aviation stuff. At that time I had just finished an RV-6A and was flying it. The RV’s are great airplanes, but it just didn’t feel like a fit for my 1300’ grass strip. So I sold it and bought a Cessna 170B with a 180hp/constant speed conversion. That was a good airplane for my strip. I messed around with a couple of Aeronca 7-AC Champs (completely rebuilding one of them) and then I sold the C-170 and bought a Maule (MX7-160). It was at that time that I realized that the Maule sort of reminded me of that plane Budd Davisson did an article on in Sport Aviation, so I dug through my magazine stack and found it. So it was at that time that I really got the “Bearhawk Bug”. My plans arrived in January of 1999, and I got to work cutting and banging out ribs. 2680 hrs later, I made the first flight of N370CC on April 16, 2005 and flew it to Oshkosh in 2008.

It was powered by a Superior XP-360 with a 80” Hartzell prop. Empty weight was 1321 lbs, with CG of 11.34”
The 4-place Bearhawk is such a great airplane, and I sure enjoyed every minute of flying it! But I got the building bug again and ordered plans for the Patrol. I finished it early in 2014 and made the first flight on June 24, 2014. I am really enjoying the Patrol! It is powered by a Superior XP-360 that I built up myself. I am using a Sensenich 76 X 58 prop and that works really well for me. My Patrol has an empty weight of 1178 lbs. with a CG of 10.4”
I thought after building 2 scratch build aircraft, that I would not build another plane. Scratch building really does take a lot of effort, time and commitment…just saying. But I was tempted, and went ahead and ordered plans for the LSA. I finally decided that I would consider buying an kit from Bearhawk Aircraft as another 6 to 8 yrs of scratch building didn’t seem like what I wanted to do. (getting older and grandkids have had a big influence on my decision).
My LSA kit arrived in Jan. of 2016. I was quite impressed with the quality of the kits. You know, the welding all seemed to be as good as mine! Really, the kit is a great way to go, saves hours, and hours. When scratch building, I haven’t forgotten all the time spent ordering materials and all the shipping charges. I almost feel like I should own stock in UPS it seems, it all adds up!
My LSA is powered by an 0-200A Continental with a Catto 74 X 40 prop. I did a complete overhaul on the engine including new Millenium cylinders, rebuilt mags, carb, B&C lightweight starter and alternator. Using an FM engine mounted oil filter, but no oil cooler- yet- will see how it goes! The whole project took me a little over 900 hrs, including the engine rebuild. I have an empty weight of 856 lbs with CG @ 11.8”. I used Poly Fiber for the covering process, paint is #143 Cub Yellow. I made the first flight on Aug. 26, 2017 and everything went fine with the exception of having to use a lot of trim to keep the nose up. (I think that I may need to adjust the horizontal stabilizer a bit to correct this).
Well, that has been almost 19 yrs of Bearhawk building! I will say I have really enjoyed every minute of it! I am looking forward to enjoying the LSA as long as my health permits it. If you are ever in SW Missouri and near a little town called Bolivar, look me up and we can talk about Bearhawks! ~Collin

2017 Q2 First Flights

Congratulations to Ed Meyer on the first flight of his Bearhawk Patrol! About P283, Ed says:
First flight 5/18/2017 of Patrol N101EP, 1/2 hour of phase 1 completed. Flew great, no trim issues. Even a nice smooth first landing. CHTs high at first but settled down after a few minutes but with low power setting.
The O-360 has the full dual EFII system handling ignition and injection, with two ECUs and left and right ignitions. Ed is running two EarthX batteries and a Catto 80X52 fixed pitch prop. On the right side of the panel there is an EFII programmer and oxygen sensor readout. He’s still sorting out a few details and hopes to have more to report about the EFII system soon.


Meanwhile in South Africa, Wayne Giles has flown his new Bearhawk LSA. Wayne reports: We flew the LSA today for the first flight 30 min. all systems working well temps and pressures all good.
Flies great, did a couple of touch and goes. We have not done stalls yet to check what approach speeds we should be indicating for the approach, so speed is erring on the high side for safety. Floats forever.
Will start flight testing next week . I’m away from tomorrow for a couple of days on a hunting trip. A little excursion for the Patrol.


Jon Middleton has flown his new Bearhawk LSA in Overgaard, AZ on 6/24/2017.
Flew 7JM today for the first time. Aircraft flew well, density altitude 8500. Climb was 500 fpm. CHT s were high so did not stay up long also had some radio issues. Otherwise good flight.

Installing 3000 series Floats

Source: 2016 Q3 Beartracks, Heath Sneller
This summer I mounted straight floats on my airplane. I’ll share my experience in mounting them and maybe cover a few items that haven’t been covered before in previous writings.
A couple summers ago I found a good deal on a nice set of used straight 3000 series floats. They are “Easy Lift Floats” which were made in Canada for experimental airplanes, I believe the company no longer exists but they were in really good shape and had a flat top so a deal was struck.
I had never mounted floats or owned a float plane before so I knew I needed some guidance and called up Curt Malecha who has been flying his Bearhawk for several years on floats. Armed with a camera, tape measure, note book, and level I went and looked at his airplane. Curt was great and let me crawl all over his airplane and answered all my questions.
wp_20160613_009
To start the installation I ordered the aluminum to make the fittings that go from the float struts to the airplane from onlinemetals.com. I then used a table saw with a carbide tipped blade to make the fittings and drilled the bolt holes using a drill press. Next I lifted my airplane using a strap around the engine mount and put a lift under the tail wheel and removed the main landing gear. Then it was time to slide the floats underneath and start bolting the struts on. To get them in the right position I put a chalk line on the floor running from the nose to the tail that was centered in the middle of the airplane. Then I centered the floats left to right on this line. Now was the most critical part of the installation, getting the step of the floats in the right position. To do this I dropped a plumb bob from the center of the airplane CG envelope which I had marked with tape on the bottom of each wing and aligned it with the CG of floats which I had already marked on the floats. After lining this up I slid the floats forward one inch and set the wing angle of attack to 4 degrees and started cutting and drilling the struts to fit from the airplane to the floats. Note: to find the CG of the floats I installed the spreader bars and water rudders and then rolled the floats on a couple pieces of pipe until I found the balance point and then marked where this point was on the floats. The next thing to do was to install the boarding steps which I put where I thought they would work well and are bolted to the float struts.
wp_20160614_001
Now it was time to remove the tail wheel and install a fin on the tail. Curt told me he tried flying without one and wouldn’t do it again, this was all the information I needed so I copied what he did. This included bolting a ¼” x 1” x 30 “ piece of aluminum with Adel clamps to the tail hold grab handles and then bolting the front of the fin to this and the rear of the fin to the tail spring clamp mount. I was unsure about the size of the fin I needed so I used approximately the same size and shape as Curt’s and made one out of ½” marine plywood then primed and painted it to match the airplane. The reason for using wood is that it is easy to change the size and shape and once you get this figured out you can make a permanent lighter one out of tubing and fabric. After this it was time to make and rig the water rudder cables which was fairly straight forward and easy to do.
The final step was the weight and balance. After draining all of the useable fuel and placing some borrowed scales under the floats I was anxious to see what it was. Well it turned out pretty good, my new empty weight is 1,636lbs and the new CG is 11.4”. My CG stayed exactly the same as it is on wheels and I have a useful load on floats of 1,064lbs. (Note that the Max Gross weight can increase to 2700 pounds on floats)
Now came the real test, flying it. It flies just like it did before and handles just fine in the water, I did not have to make any changes to the rigging or to the added fin. It did slow down around 10 mph though. I did not have my float plane rating before this project and was able to do my training and take my check ride in the airplane which was kind of neat. As far as taking off I have found that setting the flaps to 3 notches provides the shortest takeoffs. I tried takeoffs with no flaps and adding flaps after you get on the step and none of which were as short as just setting and leaving in 3 notches from the beginning. I talked to Curt to see what he uses and he too uses this technique. One thing I have found out flying on floats with a Lycoming 0-540 is the CHT’s run 20-30 degrees warmer. I do have some things that I could change with my engine baffles to try and bring them down a little. The big question, how short does it take off? Well short enough, with my family of 4 and almost full tanks on a 85 degree day and little or no wind I can get it off in 15-18 seconds. I live on a small lake that’s around 3,000ft from shore to shore and with the whole family it’s not even remotely an issue. One item that I was unsure about was my prop. It’s a fixed pitch Catto 3 blade that I’ve used on wheels for several years and I thought I would try flying on floats with it before trying something different, so far it has given decent performance and I’m just going to keep using it for both wheels and floats.
This year my goal was to do the initial installation, test it out, and give my family some rides which I did. Next year the goal is to start taking some fishing trips up north. Following Curt Malecha’s advice and techniques I was able to build a float plane that worked right away and one that will provide good performance for years to come.

wp_20160712_001

wp_20160728_007

wp_20160728_010

Wil Graff’s First Flight Report

Source: 2001 Beartracks
Another Bearhawk is in the air! Wil Graft’s #365 flew on July 6th. Below is a photo and a brief description of the process.

#365 is flying. FAA inspection and first flight was on July 6th. With the O-470 and a constant speed prop, it climbs like a rocket. I have to fly off another 22 hrs., plan on flying to OSHKOSH. There are gear and strut fairings to finish. I’m still on cloud nine. Lots of questions and not much time to answer. I’ll list a few of the specs this time and try to cover more next time. I used a C/182 O-470-R engine and mount (not from my 182, it was sold and now in AK). The mount was cut down to fit and reinforced at the main tube clusters. The engine is under 500 lbs. Wt of ship 1392 with battery 15 in. aft of baggage bulkhead. No electric hookup or starter yet. Exhaust system made by Aircraft Exhaust in Jumping Branch, WV. Here’s one photo. Wil.