Bearhawk questions

Capt.Crash'n'Burn

Capt.Crash'n'Burn

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
1,097
Location
Lompton,CA
Display Name
Display name:
Capt.Crash'n'Burn
After looking at several designs with STOL potential, I'm fairly impressed with the performance of the Barrows Beahawk. I have a couple of questions about it though.

According to wikipedia, there's about a dozen designs out ther with similar specs. Does anyone know what other designs are close to the Bearhawk, mission and performance wise??

Does it look possible to fit an M14P to this airframe? I've already seen a Bearhawk with an LS1 SBC in it on youtube, but that set-up doesn't have the awesome rumpity rump of a radial. I imagine the Rotec R3200 would be an easier fit, but at 150hp, the performance would be a bit underwhelming.
 
You can put an M14 in a Murphy Moose. It's a STOL bushplane as well - looks like a little DeHavilland Beaver.
 
Give Bob Barrows a call. He's very friendly and answers questions honestly and thoughtfully. You can reach him @ 540-473-3661 . Not sure when he'll be back from Oshkosh, so you might wait until later in the week or even next week.

I also recommend reading and searching through the two Bearhawk builders Yahoo groups.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bearhawk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bearhawkqbkit

Mike
(Building a Bearhawk)
 
KRyan said:
You can put an M14 in a Murphy Moose. It's a STOL bushplane as well - looks like a little DeHavilland Beaver.
Click to expand...

The Moose has a gross weight 1,000lbs heavier than the Bearhawk, it's not quite a competitor, it's quite a bit bigger.
 
mbundy said:
Give Bob Barrows a call. He's very friendly and answers questions honestly and thoughtfully. You can reach him @ 540-473-3661 . Not sure when he'll be back from Oshkosh, so you might wait until later in the week or even next week.

I also recommend reading and searching through the two Bearhawk builders Yahoo groups.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bearhawk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bearhawkqbkit

Mike
(Building a Bearhawk)
Click to expand...

Are you up in Paso Robles by any chance??
 
Mike, nice to see a fellow Bearhawk builder. I'm scratch building a plans-built Bearhawk Patrol. It's intentionally slow build... :)
 
TangoWhiskey said:
Mike, nice to see a fellow Bearhawk builder. I'm scratch building a plans-built Bearhawk Patrol. It's intentionally slow build... :)
Click to expand...

Really? I didn't know you were building.

What happened to the two guys in Oshkosh who were live-streaming their Bearhawk scratch build every week?
 
Hmmm. I went looking for their YouTube archives a month or two ago and they hadn't done any updates. I thought something bad had happened.

(I usually can't watch live, but it's fun to catch up on when I have a few hours to kill. Neat to watch raw aluminum turn into stuff that looks like airplane parts.)
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
Is there a snowball's chance in hell I'll get my question answered? :dunno:
Click to expand...

Sure, call Bob! But, I dug through the archives and pulled this snippit for you:

"There are some mods to the airframe of the 'Hawk to pull the radial engine thing off and I haven't completely worked out all the details, but it's an easier conversion than it looks. Bob has already looked at it, so probably has some good input on it. Also, if I remember correctly, I moved the tail back 10" for more tail volume and CG balance. I'm not sure. I'd have to measure it.

budd davisson"​

dsthawk.jpg


There's quite a bit more discussion but it's far too much to post here...PM me and I will email it...
 
The Bearhawk is a great airplane with an O-540 and built to the design. The M-14 is a great engine but a lot heavier than the Lycoming and would not work real well on that airframe. They are nice flying airplanes and great performers as Barrows designed it so why change a good thing. More horsepower does not always mean more performance. Add the weight of the engine and fuel burn 18gph vs. 12gph means you have to have bigger fuel capacity and that means less useful loan and on and on and on. Auto conversions are the same deal. They are always heavier because the most of the manufacturers give you dry weight of the engine but don't mention radiators, plumbing and anti freeze (8lbs gal). Build it to Barrows design and you will have a really nice airplane that you will be happy with. Don
 
yakdriver said:
The Bearhawk is a great airplane with an O-540 and built to the design. The M-14 is a great engine but a lot heavier than the Lycoming and would not work real well on that airframe. They are nice flying airplanes and great performers as Barrows designed it so why change a good thing. More horsepower does not always mean more performance. Add the weight of the engine and fuel burn 18gph vs. 12gph means you have to have bigger fuel capacity and that means less useful loan and on and on and on. Auto conversions are the same deal. They are always heavier because the most of the manufacturers give you dry weight of the engine but don't mention radiators, plumbing and anti freeze (8lbs gal). Build it to Barrows design and you will have a really nice airplane that you will be happy with. Don
Click to expand...


Hmmm... They are NOT always heavier......

A 0-540 with a constant speed prop will weigh in at 485 lbs , complete and ready to hang on a plane.. And that is for 260 HP..... My liquid cooled V-8 is 437 lbs complete, and has another 100 Hp.....

With that said, 99% of the people should go with a air cooled motor though.:redface:
 
N801BH said:
Hmmm... They are NOT always heavier......

A 0-540 with a constant speed prop will weigh in at 485 lbs , complete and ready to hang on a plane.. And that is for 260 HP..... My liquid cooled V-8 is 437 lbs complete, and has another 100 Hp.....

With that said, 99% of the people should go with a air cooled motor though.:redface:
Click to expand...

Is that with radiator and plumbing full of coolant. Also using a competent engine builder you can expect 2000hrs of trouble free engine life. There are some good auto engine conversions but even the best have some compromises and require careful operation and and higher maintanance. BTW I have been building and restoring airplanes for over thirty years and have installed and run some auto conversions. Don
 
mbundy said:
Sure, call Bob! But, I dug through the archives and pulled this snippit for you:
"There are some mods to the airframe of the 'Hawk to pull the radial engine thing off and I haven't completely worked out all the details, but it's an easier conversion than it looks. Bob has already looked at it, so probably has some good input on it. Also, if I remember correctly, I moved the tail back 10" for more tail volume and CG balance. I'm not sure. I'd have to measure it.

budd davisson"
​
dsthawk.jpg


There's quite a bit more discussion but it's far too much to post here...PM me and I will email it...
Click to expand...

Thanks for that post!!!

Although it looks entirely possible to put an M14P in the bearhawk, it does cut down on the useful load. If there was a way to increase the gross take off by about 400lbs, it might be worth it.
 
yakdriver said:
The Bearhawk is a great airplane with an O-540 and built to the design. The M-14 is a great engine but a lot heavier than the Lycoming and would not work real well on that airframe. They are nice flying airplanes and great performers as Barrows designed it so why change a good thing. More horsepower does not always mean more performance. Add the weight of the engine and fuel burn 18gph vs. 12gph means you have to have bigger fuel capacity and that means less useful loan and on and on and on. Auto conversions are the same deal. They are always heavier because the most of the manufacturers give you dry weight of the engine but don't mention radiators, plumbing and anti freeze (8lbs gal). Build it to Barrows design and you will have a really nice airplane that you will be happy with. Don
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got that impression reading mbundy's post.

It looks like the Bearhawk would be ideal with a Superior Airparts O-408 making 230hp. Plenty of power and just a little over 300lbs IIRC.
 
BTW, pertaining to my other question, what other homebuilts are similar to a Bearhawk, I could only find 3 on EAA's website.

Levitation 4
Murphy Super Rebel and
Zenith CH801

Are there any others out there??
 
There's the Wag Aero Sportsman 2+2 (PA 14 replica). There are a couple of Bearhawks that come through here a couple times a month. I really like everything about them and I still might build one for myself. I have to finish a RV 7 for a guy and I might have a Carbon Cub EX to build next so it might be over a year before I can get to it. Bearhawk has a hell of a sale price in quick build kits right now. Don
 
yakdriver said:
Is that with radiator and plumbing full of coolant. Also using a competent engine builder you can expect 2000hrs of trouble free engine life. There are some good auto engine conversions but even the best have some compromises and require careful operation and and higher maintanance. BTW I have been building and restoring airplanes for over thirty years and have installed and run some auto conversions. Don
Click to expand...

Yes sir.......

That weight includes the coolant, composite three blade, inflight adjustable prop and ALL components needed to fly a plane through the air. Keep in mind my radiator is slightly behind the firewall so I get to subtract a little weight... Like maybe 4 lbs.....:yesnod:..

Once again, I am saying an AUTO ENGINE CONVERSION is not for everyone, in fact it takes oversized testicles to pull it off, but someone needs to push the envelope or all of us would still be driving Model T's instead of some pretty advanced computer controlled internal combustion vehicles.....:yesnod:;) IMHO.

Ps... congrats on you having experience with auto engine conversions. You have been there , done that...... That puts you ahead of 99.9996% of all the other pilots in the world. :yesnod:
 
Capt.Crash'n'Burn said:
Yeah, I got that impression reading mbundy's post.

It looks like the Bearhawk would be ideal with a Superior Airparts O-408 making 230hp. Plenty of power and just a little over 300lbs IIRC.
Click to expand...

That's almost what I'm doing....Except mine is an Aero Sport Power IO-409 :)
(230 hp and 100 lbs lighter than a 540)

Mike
 
N801BH said:
Yes sir.......

That weight includes the coolant, composite three blade, inflight adjustable prop and ALL components needed to fly a plane through the air. Keep in mind my radiator is slightly behind the firewall so I get to subtract a little weight... Like maybe 4 lbs.....:yesnod:..

Once again, I am saying an AUTO ENGINE CONVERSION is not for everyone, in fact it takes oversized testicles to pull it off, but someone needs to push the envelope or all of us would still be driving Model T's instead of some pretty advanced computer controlled internal combustion vehicles.....:yesnod:;) IMHO.

Ps... congrats on you having experience with auto engine conversions. You have been there , done that...... That puts you ahead of 99.9996% of all the other pilots in the world. :yesnod:
Click to expand...

I just spent the weekend with Peter and I forgot his last name that has the SeaBee with the LS6 Corvette engine on it. Very successful installation but took a TON of work. It was the 2011 Osh grand champion. What engine are you using and what airplane is it in? Don
 
yakdriver said:
I just spent the weekend with Peter and I forgot his last name that has the SeaBee with the LS6 Corvette engine on it. Very successful installation but took a TON of work. It was the 2011 Osh grand champion. What engine are you using and what airplane is it in? Don
Click to expand...

That Sea Bee is a work of art..:yesnod: And a auto engine conversion is a TON of work to pull off successfully.:redface:...

my website . www.haaspowerair.com has info

this short video has the sound of my V-8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOF6eT6FRmY

This 25 minute video explains how I did it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCNnEgRkdXc&context=C3e091d3ADOEgsToPDskKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu
 
N801BH said:
Once again, I am saying an AUTO ENGINE CONVERSION is not for everyone, in fact it takes oversized testicles to pull it off, but someone needs to push the envelope or all of us would still be driving Model T's instead of some pretty advanced computer controlled internal combustion vehicles.....:yesnod:;) IMHO.
Click to expand...

Yes, but i don't think the future is in liquid cooled v-8s, I've been thinking for a while that big inch stroker engines are the way to go. I am pretty impressed with that belt drive you got though. That COULD be something in the future, once it can prove its reliability. It has everything else going for it. It's very lightweight, absorbs vibration and takes the least ammount of HP to turn.

Imagine if you hooked up that belt drive to a TIO-540 stroked out to 613. If you figure the same HP for the GTIO-541, you get 480 to 500hp. You could have a combination that puts out close to 500hp in a package that weighs a little over 600. If you could make it to a TBO of 1400 or so, that would be teh shizznit!!
 
mbundy said:
That's almost what I'm doing....Except mine is an Aero Sport Power IO-409 :)
(230 hp and 100 lbs lighter than a 540)

Mike
Click to expand...

I thought that they only made a 375. I can't find a reference for a 409 anywhere.
 
Bump

Looking at the Bearhawk kit, there's a lot of things that the kit doesn't come with.

Any Idea on how much all those extras cost?

Has anyone here built a Bearhawk and know exactly what it costs to build one??
 
The extras can nickel and dime you to death. Just the shipping costs for stuff is expensive. To do a Bearhawk with a new engine, prop and glass panel would run $80-100,000. If you are good at scrounging 50-80,000 with mid time engine and steam gauges. Aircraft Spruce has free shipping on orders over $500 so I always tried to wait and get above that when I ordered. Don
 
Since the (incomplete) kit is $40K, I'm guestimating it would take another $10K just to complete the airframe, minus engine and gages.
 
I might very well have been inder the influence of cheap crack cocaine while hanging out with Mayor Rob Ford when I thought of this, but here goes.

I was thinking of a way to get a few more knots of cruise speed out of a Bearhawk when this thought occured to me. What if you modified your fuselage to accept the wing off of a C210? Or, since the C210 has a gross weight of 4,000 and the Bearhawk has a gross of 2,500, build a wing that is externally identical to a C210 wing but lighter? They're almost the same in surface area but the C210 has a slightly longer span. How do you think stall speed will be affected? Should I upgrade to higher quality crack?
 
I don't know about that idea. A strutless wing requires a good precision and impeccable materials when assembling the spar. Does not take much to get it twisted in undesirable way. I don't know of any popular low-wing without the wing box prebuilt at the factory. Obviously this does not apply to a pre-existing wing, but then you pay the weight penalty of a high-speed all-aluminum wing (as you already observed indirectly by considering the equivalent airfoil but lighter). Maybe you meant the 206? That could be easier.
 
zaitcev said:
I don't know about that idea. A strutless wing requires a good precision and impeccable materials when assembling the spar. Does not take much to get it twisted in undesirable way. I don't know of any popular low-wing without the wing box prebuilt at the factory.
Click to expand...

In other words, to fabricate one would require a precision jig to make sure everything lines up correctly?

Obviously this does not apply to a pre-existing wing, but then you pay the weight penalty of a high-speed all-aluminum wing (as you already observed indirectly by considering the equivalent airfoil but lighter). Maybe you meant the 206? That could be easier.
Click to expand...

No, I'm looking at eliminating the wing braces for a few more knots of cruise speed. The Bearhawk already has an all aluminum wing, but I'm assuming it weighs considerably less than a C210's. I think the wing from the Found Bushhawk (FBA-2) would be suitable too, but those are a bit harder to find. I'm just looking for the easiest way to fit a cantilevered wing to the Bearhawk frame without paying too much of a weight penalty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top