Bearhawk questions

[yakdriver]

You can't have it both ways. You either have a nice short field load hauler or a cross country cruiser. The airplane that comes closest is a Glassair Sportsman with an IO 390. 150-160 kt cruise and great short field performance. Don

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

That's exactly what a Cardinal wing is.

Actually, now that I looked those up, the 177 wing is a foot shorter than the 210. Also, the 177 is a laminar wing, not so sure about the 210. They may be similar, but not the same.

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

You can't have it both ways. You either have a nice short field load hauler or a cross country cruiser. The airplane that comes closest is a Glassair Sportsman with an IO 390. 150-160 kt cruise and great short field performance. Don

And that proves it can be done. The Bearhawk is a great candidate because it's so lightweight and weight is a big issue in STOL performance. Give it some aero clean up with a custom cowl, windshield and strutless wing and it should easily get close to that cruise speed, with superior STOL performance.

 

[tsts4]

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?

Before you go too far down this road, you might want to read Order 8130.2G and AC 20-27G about using salvaged, previously certified parts in a E-AB aircraft. Here’s what the pertinent paragraph out of 8130, Section 9. Experimental Amateur-Built Airworthiness Certifications :

b. Use of Salvaged Articles from Type-Certificated Aircraft. The use of used or salvaged articles (for example, landing gear, horizontal stabilizer, and engine mount) from type-certificated aircraft is permitted, as long as they are in a condition for safe operation, however―

(1) When a project involves a major article, such as wings, fuselage, or tail assembly, contact AIR-200 for a determination of eligibility to 14 CFR §21.191(g). AIR-200 will coordinate with Flight Standards Service, Aircraft Maintenance Division, AFS-300 personnel to resolve such issues.

(2) No credit will be given to the amateur builder(s) for any work on these salvaged articles when determining whether the amateur-built aircraft has met the major portion requirement. This would include any “rebuilding” or “restoring” activities to return these articles to an airworthy condition.

This means you could end up not qualifying for E-AB certification under the major portion rule (AKA the 51% rule).

 

[Capt.Crash'n'Burn]

Before you go too far down this road, you might want to read Order 8130.2G and AC 20-27G about using salvaged, previously certified parts in a E-AB aircraft. Here’s what the pertinent paragraph out of 8130, Section 9. Experimental Amateur-Built Airworthiness Certifications :...


...This means you could end up not qualifying for E-AB certification under the major portion rule (AKA the 51% rule).

Thanks for this. In other words, the best way to pull this off would be to do the fuselage from plans. That's good because it would save money.

 

[tsts4]

Thanks for this. In other words, the best way to pull this off would be to do the fuselage from plans. That's good because it would save money.

Won't say it's the best, but it's the safest from a certification standpoint. However, I wouldn't necessarily throw in the towel on the idea, I just wouldn’t spend too much money until I checked it out some more. First, I’d go the EAA and Matronics forums http://eaaforums.org/ , http://forums.matronics.com/ and pose the question to see if anyone has successfully taken a certified salvaged wing and mated it to an eligible E-AB fuse and went on to receive an E-AB AWC. If you can’t confirm or deny, then take it the FAA – all they can say is no and you go on to build according to the plans.

Note: there’s no Bearhawk sub-forum on Matronics so just pick 2 or 3 of the more active ones (like RV and Zenith) and post. Best bet is the EAA forum.

 

[jasstech]

Isn't this exactly what a breezy is? Build the fuselage from plans and slap on a certified wing. Typically it is a cub wing.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[tsts4]

Isn't this exactly what a breezy is? Build the fuselage from plans and slap on a certified wing. Typically it is a cub wing.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Yes and since it's plans built vs a kit and the Cub's wing is relatively simple, my guess is he FAA has determined the use of a salvaged J/PA-whatever wing isn't an issue as far as the major portion rule goes. If the Breezy was a QB kit with a complete welded fuse, etc, etc, then using a salvaged wing might be a more of a problem because "you will not receive credit for work done on, or the use of, salvaged major assemblies or subassemblies when determining whether your amateur-built aircraft has met the major portion requirement." IOW when the Amateur-Built Aircraft Fabrication and Assembly Checklist is completed, you still have to show you did 51% of the of the fabrication and assembly tasks. AC 20-27G spells it all out.