Bushcat Thoughts

455 Bravo Uniform

455 Bravo Uniform

Final Approach
Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
5,346
Location
KLAF
Display Name
Display name:
455 Bravo Uniform
Has anyone here flown, own, or built one?

I think that’s my next adventure. Order a kit and build.

Anything you can share would be great.

I’m actually looking for the bad points especially. I can see all the good points in existing articles and videos. What’s not to like?
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I’m actually looking for the bad points especially. I can see all the good points in existing articles and videos. What’s not to like?
Click to expand...

Okay ... since you asked:
  • It's slow. This is may not be the best airplane for pilots who want to boast about Cirrus-like airspeeds from their LSA. I've flown mine all over the southwest, and twice back-and-forth from Texas to Wisconsin. But you really appreciate how big of a county the USA is when you're crossing it at ~100 mph.
  • There's generous baggage volume behind the fuel tank, but it's placarded for only 15 lbs of weight. Much additional baggage weight-carrying capacity is available in a mesh baggage carrier located immediately behind the seats. SkyReach advises that that simple limit on the rear compartment is to help less "observant" pilots who won't calculate W&B to avoid excessive aft CG's. So -- one just needs to be circumspect about loading a whole bunch of weight way aft in an 800 lb. airplane.
That's not a long list of "complaints" -- because I just don't have a lot of them. I love the little airplane. It's hugely fun, gets lots of admiring attention wherever it's flown, and has a direct operating cost of less than $20 / flight hour - just negligible. It'll land and takeoff in ridiculously short distances. The Factory and their U.S. distributor provide absolutely terrific support. Someone who buys a "non-certificated" LSA (or experimental aircraft) ought to seriously consider whether his new plane is going to "fly okay", absent any certification oversight during its development. The Bushcat's flying qualities are just totally "conventional" -- it flies like an airplane: no unique or surprising characteristics. If one buys the factory-assembled SLSA version, I think that it's one of -- if not the -- least expensive fly-away new aircraft that can be purchased.

Recommended.

Mystic Bluffs.jpeg

Gallup AM.jpeg
 
Last edited:
They did have an issue a year or two ago where after doing a retest of their stall speeds etc, they found that the stall speeds were coming in a lot higher than expected, and they released a DA limiting the gross weight to 1235 lbs while they looked in to it. Since then they have redesigned the tail and added VGs to the wing to bring the gross weight back up to 1320. During the tail redesign they took the plane through some kind of fairly rigorous ASTM testing.

The new design has an improved pitot static system, which improves the accuracy of the indicated airspeed at high angles of attack, and apparently the hands-off stability of the plane has improved.

I've never flown in a Bushcat, this is just what I gleaned from being interested in it.
 
Oh, also I get the impression they're not very warm if you're flying them in cold weather - somebody on the Bushcat facebook group was saying air would rush in from the wing roots and he was designing some perspex covers to fit in there to prevent it from happening. Even if you did that, I can't help feeling cabin heaters wouldn't be very effective when they have to fill the entire fuselage and empennage with warm air, and my guess is that they're not very airtight.

Also, check for cats before takeoff*

* not sure if that's a Bushcat - maybe a model of the Cheetah, the earlier model?
 
I spent a lot of time talking to them at Airventure a year or two ago. Thought seriously about getting one but never did. I liked the idea, the price, and the performance. Wasn’t totally sold on the long term durability. Felt like after a few years of use things would start wearing out. Built a lot like older ultralights with thin wall large diameter aluminum tubing bolted and pop riveted together. I have no proof it’s not robust, just a gut feeling. Ultimately I determined for the 75k or so they were selling for I could get a used kitfox or similar aircraft and have just as much enjoyment with a little more piece of mind.
 
I’m a little biased because I like the plane. I have done some research on it and considered building one. I have never flown one, but I would like to and have heard good things about how they fly.

My biggest concern would be the sailcloth covering. It’s a preprinted, fitted cover that is pulled tight and held in place by rope. The factory rep in Jasper, GA showed me his plane and while I liked the aircraft, the cover was having issues because a previous owner used the wrong chemicals to clean it (not a huge issue if you build and care for it yourself).

I have questions about how well the fabric would handle outdoor storage and if I build a tube and fabric plane I would like folding wings. I am young and move around so I have accepted that I may never have a hangar.
 
I bought an all metal plane because I wasn't sure I'd get a hangar in Southern California. Luckily (and after 2.5 years of waiting) I was able to get a hangar at KFUL. Expensive, but at least my plane is out of the elements.

I would imagine that with these fabric aircraft, keeping it out of the elements long term would be required. A few days in the sun here or there shouldn't hurt it. But I think at least a full airplane cover or some sort of canopy would be best if tied down outside longer than a month.

I really like the Bushcat. I love my plane, so unlikely to add another. But between the Bushcat and the Kitfox, both are very appealing and, from a kit price, pretty close. Per specifications, the Kitfox will fly faster (128 mph cruise) vs the Bushcat (105 mph cruise), but the Bushcat will have a larger cockpit width (55.25 inches) vs the Kitfox (43 inches) per their websites. My Sportcruiser's cabin with is 46.5 inches and is pretty comfortable, but I think 43 inches would start feeling snug.
 
My understanding is that the fabric is the same as that used in sailboats. I know very little about sailing. I am guessing sails must be strong and able to weather the elements well (wind, water, UV, salt).
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
My understanding is that the fabric is the same as that used in sailboats. I know very little about sailing. I am guessing sails must be strong and able to weather the elements well (wind, water, UV, salt).
Click to expand...
Sails are indeed strong, but they are only exposed when sailing. Once the sailing is done, they are generally furled and covered to prevent excess uv exposure. Also, if your sail does rot, rip, or otherwise fail, after a bit (or more) of drama, the boat is still upright and generally safe. In a plane......... not so much.

Having said that, I'd have no qualms about owning and flying a hangared Bushcat. The total time the fabric would be flown would likely be much less than the total time a sail would be sailed in terms of hours, and routine inspections should easily show any problems developing well before they become serious problems. Of course, sailboats rarely experience 100 mph winds...without creating serious wardrobe and laundry issues for the sailor.... ;)
 
MuseChaser said:
Of course, sailboats rarely experience 100 mph winds...without creating serious wardrobe and laundry issues for the sailor.... ;)
Click to expand...
True, but there are different grades of "canvas" for differing degrees of stress. Aircraft, from the Wrights to the present, have always used "sail cloth". The Wright flyer used cotton cloth, also used for sails. Ceconite is polyethylene terephthalate, also known as "dacron", commonly used for in sailboats. The major issue with dacron/ Ceconite is UV light breaking the chemical bonds, and thus weakening the sail. Proper finishing of the covered plane is required to protect the fabric. The "sail cloth" used for planes is better supported (glued to the structure, stitched as needed) to take the increased stresses.
 
I understand a full Dacron-Trilam replacement is about $7,000 plus labor. This should occur every 7-10 years on average, though some on the South African pilot form (Avcom.co.za I think?) have had their Cheetahs for longer and the fabric was still testing OK. I believe it comes down to what MuseChaser and Cap'n Jack stated... how long has that fabric been exposed to sunlight? In flight, it's unavoidable. On the ground, a cover in lieu of a hangar would be better than not covering at all I would think.

That said, the more I read, the more there is to like about the Bushcat. 66 pounds baggage behind the seats, and what looked like an available underbelly storage container of some sort in one of the photos? 617 pounds of useful load from what I calculated. Take-off and landing under 300 feet? Seems like it would be all sorts of fun to fly!
 
rtk11 said:
I understand a full Dacron-Trilam replacement is about $7,000 plus labor. This should occur every 7-10 years on average,
Click to expand...

OTOH, the Bushcat innovative slip-on and lace-up system should beat traditional dacron cut-sew-iron-dope on labor. And I'd suspect that wings-only recovering will be the most common replacement since they're most exposed.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
. I am guessing sails must be strong and able to weather the elements well (wind, water, UV, salt).
Click to expand...
You would be guessing wrong.
My old skipper always bought sails late in December - that way when his wife noticed something new and asked if he had been buying sails again, he could answer "not this year".
 
Been looking at building a kit version of the Bushcat I like the fact that doesn't require a paint booth since it's all aluminum no need for any coatings over steel, or covering to primer, and paint perfect for a garage build. The lack of folding wings one negative not sure I like where that flap handle location is watching videos have to reach over with the left hand, or let go of the control stick reach up maybe not big deal. I did do some searching for accidents only a few that I could find none were fatal. Few nosed over no injuries worse was someone hit terrain on final no details was in Australia had serious injuries sounded like an off field attempted landing.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand how it takes off and lands so short with a "high" landing stall speed of 43 mph. My Cessna 150 has a stall speed of 48 mph and can't do nearly as good by a factor of 3x-5x. Carbon Cub SS has a stall speed of 31 mph, so a huge amount less energy (1/2) and speed (velocity squared factors).
 
Matthew Rogers said:
I don't understand how it takes off and lands so short with a "high" landing stall speed of 43 mph. My Cessna 150 has a stall speed of 48 mph and can't do nearly as good by a factor of 3x-5x. Carbon Cub SS has a stall speed of 31 mph, so a huge amount less energy (1/2) and speed (velocity squared factors).
Click to expand...
Weight and wing. It’s over 200 lbs lighter than a 150, a more modern and probably more efficient propeller.
 
I was considering one. And actually drove out to the dealer and took a test flight. I really wanted to like it. I didn't like it.

The primary concern was the seating position. The seat is about 3 inches off the floor. so your legs stick straight out. Not bad for the pilot I guess, but when I wasn't flying, my knees were up around my ears. It is very awkward and uncomfortable.

Second, the tail fins are useless. I spent the whole flight on the rudder. Just flying straight and level. I believe they added a bigger tail at some point since i flew.

Third, yes, it's slow in cruise and fairly fast at stall for a "bush plane".

Forth, They call it a bush plane but I've never seen any land anywhere rougher than a golf course fairway (on youtube of course). I don't see how things like kitfox and bushcat can be in the same category. If a kitfox is an ATV, a bushcat is a golfcart.

Last, It's a pretty floppy airplane. The one I flew was a tail wheel and it was sitting outside the hanger after the flight. Some wind came up and the whole thing twisted and shook. The owner rolled it back in to the hanger. It looked like the wings were going to blow off. We had just flown so it wasn't that windy.

Anyway, pretty negative I know. Sorry, I drove out there ready to sign the check and instead never looked them up again.

I ended up getting an RV14 kit. Totally different animal obviously but that's how it went.

Good luck,
 
This guys seems to be doing somewhat off airport landings with his Bushcat …. not exactly Sierra Nevada mountain side type but not a golf course either.

 
I agree that the sports car seating is an acquired taste. But I'm seeing 30-35 mph stall speeds mentioned with the new tail. Also, like many of the more popular bush planes, the Bushcat has manual flaps, which gives one a lot more options in off-field operations. I am impressed by the remarkably wide, low stance of the Bushcat. Great for taildraggers.

If you watch some of the African safari vids with Bushcats, you see a lot of off-airport and bush operations. Clearly, they've got a lot more experience in Africa with a South African brand. Just as Australians have a lot more experience than we do with the Australian-built Jabiru. Bushcats are used in wildlife patrols, pipeline and electrical patrols, and LEO operations.

The Bushcat design is fairly new in the US. Only 30-ish have been registered and none assembled in "The West," that I know of.

We came out of the long-distance liveaboard sailboat cruising world, mostly the Caribbean and the Med. Sail material is nothing to sneeze at. After all, dacron fabric is dacron fabric, whether in a sail or on a wing. The variables are weights, layers, UV-finishing, and materials sandwiched in between layers, like rip-stop.

The jury is still out on the "floppy," as you describe it. Clearly the pre-cut, pre-fit, and laced tightening skins are an innovative idea. The sail material, otoh, are primo. And the sailcloth is no more prone to sun degradation than doped and painted dacron, maybe less. The rip-stop weaving of the sailcloth is more durable and repairable in off-airport operations than drum-tight dacron. Time will tell if it's accepted.

Also, reskinning the Bushcat is a 3-day process, Vs. weeks for an owner-operator of a dacron-covered and painted plane.

I can remember how revolutionary and controversial pre-sewn dacron wing skins that you slipped onto the wing like a condom were back in the 70's. Before that--after we'd spent days stripping cloth and prepping surfaces--we'd custom cut and glued down each piece of cloth, stitched between top and bottom skins in-between the ribs, heat shrink with an iron (or melt, if not careful) to tighten the skins, saturated the material with various epoxy systems, and then painted the plane (often doping and painting with roller brushes).

With the Bushcat's laced-skin tensioning and all those zippered access points, really through inspections and repairs are possible. Modular bolt-on construction makes damage easier to repair. Is the Bushcat's modular bolt-together construction as robust in a crash as the welded cage of a Kitfox? Probably depends more on the angle and speed of impact than construction. 4-point harnesses tend to sieve the squishy-parts of people about equally above a certain speed.

I'm stuck between eyeing a $30k 1946 Aeronca Champ with no electrical, hand-propping, PITA recovering, and a 20-yr old engine, vs a Modern and more versatile Bushcat for about twice a much. Sure, I'd really prefer the Aerotrek A220, but it's twice again as much as the Bushcat.
 
Last edited:
rhkennerly said:
I agree that the sports car seating is an acquired taste. But I'm seeing 30-35 mph stall speeds mentioned with the new tail. Also, like many of the more popular bush planes, the Bushcat has manual flaps, which gives one a lot more options in off-field operations. I am impressed by the remarkably wide, low stance of the Bushcat. Great for taildraggers.
.
Click to expand...

I have nothing personal against the BC, for the record. I thought they were cool enough to actually seek out the deal and arrange a test flight.

That's true, the price is pretty nice, but on par with a kitfox.

I really like the coverings. I like how they look and feel and that they are easily replaced. I would say any critics haven't actually seen it up close. Aside from replacement/repair, I prefer more common polyfabric coverings.

Manual flaps are great for bushplanes. In the BC he flap handle and stick are both right hand operated. It's awkward (dangerous?) To reach over and hold the stick with the left hand to operate the flaps with the right. You can't operate the flaps if you're doing anything overly precise with the flight controls. Compared to the cub with the flaps on the left. Or any center stick setup.

Those African videos that I've seen show these guys landing on massive flat areas of grass or dirt. No riverbed or far more advanced stuff that the other bush plane channel guys are doing.

Also, the door holder opener stick thing. Trying to get out involves a little battle with the door trying to close on top of you. I wager that has been corrected with a simple hydraulic spring.

The Bushcat is an ok-ish plane imo. I just think the kitfox is superior in every conceivable way and for a comparable price.
 
Ray Jr said:
Those African videos that I've seen show these guys landing on massive flat areas of grass or dirt. No riverbed or far more advanced stuff that the other bush plane channel guys are doing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we all get seduced by the guys out west flying in their "public land: owner/operator" t-shirts. Of course, they're located above the cactus belt in the grasslands (and for the most part, shut down for the summer by smoke and heat). So there's that.

We saw the same thing in the sailing community, everybody buying boats for the life they could imagine, not the life they had. In truth, here in Mararitaville Nord, I'm more likely to fly like Bushcat Tom & Darrell, or Dewey Davenport and all those Airknocker guys put-putting around from grass-strip to grass strip or field to field. More likely to collide with an FA-18 out of Oceana than hit a deer.

Besides, my favorite videos are from a bush pilot dropping his C-182 & C-170s into some amazingly tight places. backcountry 182.

I like the KitFox, as well as the Aerotreks. But wait times--new or build--are too far out for a guy that's 68-yrs old. You don't think it happens to you, but it sneaks up on you.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I heard the time from kit-to-fly is very short in a Bushcat.
Click to expand...

They say 250-400 hrs. however, I’m not mechanically handy, get overwhelmed sweating every detail, & I could make more money creating data tools in that time than I’d save, probably. If they had an owner-assisted build I’d consider that…maybe. If they let me bring my dog. But 3-weeks of motels & eating out ain’t cheap either. I doubt ‘she, who must be obeyed’ would be best pleased, either.
 
rhkennerly said:
I like the KitFox, as well as the Aerotreks. But wait times--new or build--are too far out for a guy that's 68-yrs old. You don't think it happens to you, but it sneaks up on you.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Kitfox told me 2 years before they start packing my kit when I called them in January. I politely withdrew my request. 2 months later my RV14 tail kit arrived. Wings should be here in July. :)
 
Doesn't it take about 400 hours to cover a kitfox with poly probably if you know what your doing it would take me 800 hours. Then have to construct a paint booth to paint it in if you have the room, and live somewhere neighbors won't get upset with the smell would not work in my tract home neighborhood. I wonder what the wait times are on a highlander? I think if I was going to build one of those I would use Oratex instead of poly no paints needed.
 
kell490 said:
Doesn't it take about 400 hours to cover a kitfox with poly probably if you know what your doing it would take me 800 hours. Then have to construct a paint booth to paint it in if you have the room, and live somewhere neighbors won't get upset with the smell would not work in my tract home neighborhood. I wonder what the wait times are on a highlander? I think if I was going to build one of those I would use Oratex instead of poly no paints needed.
Click to expand...
Our club has a 7AC project and it was covered with poly, using pre-sewn "socks". The fuselage was finished in under 10 days inside a single car garage space with a few people actually helping and several standing around. Figure 3 people, 10 days, working maybe 4 hours max each day. So I could see 400 hours for the entire plane. But this work was not very "focused" and a lot of it was done with students to teach them about flying, so certainly not skilled labor.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
Our club has a 7AC project and it was covered with poly, using pre-sewn "socks". The fuselage was finished in under 10 days inside a single car garage space with a few people actually helping and several standing around. Figure 3 people, 10 days, working maybe 4 hours max each day. So I could see 400 hours for the entire plane. But this work was not very "focused" and a lot of it was done with students to teach them about flying, so certainly not skilled labor.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the poly covering require primer, and block sanding then automotive paints like urethane? I have painted cars before usually takes several coats of primer between block sanding to level it off once that is done ready for urethane paint and clear coat. Those paints are extremely noxious unless your in a paint booth air pulls the fumes away just opening the can if I'm not in a booth I use a mask.
 
kell490 said:
Doesn't the poly covering require primer, and block sanding then automotive paints like urethane? I have painted cars before usually takes several coats of primer between block sanding to level it off once that is done ready for urethane paint and clear coat. Those paints are extremely noxious unless your in a paint booth air pulls the fumes away just opening the can if I'm not in a booth I use a mask.
Click to expand...

The Polyfiber process has two finish paint choices. One is a spray-on vinyl (polytone) that is appropriate for spraying at home and the other is a catalyzed paint that requires serious PPE. Block sanding? That depends on how good you were with finishing tapes and your spray gun in the first place. Regardless of how much sanding is required, re-covering an airplane is a big job.
 
Is the catalyzed paint automotive urethane or something similar I'm assuming home paint "polytone" doesn't stand up as well to fuel spills, and sun? Block sanding process is you spray primer filler which is 1-2 mils thick then use a guide coat like black lacquer spray can in a X pattern on the panel then long flat blocks sand paper sand the guide coat sands off on the high spots the low spots don't sand off. Then you spray primer filler on again and try to fill the low spots that is the process of automotive block sanding. I thought I saw some videos of polyfiber covering they were using primer filler and sanding it looked to me lot like that process used on automotive painting. I have won a few car shows with my paint jobs it's not easy at home really need a place to spray that poly primer filler then block sand sometimes it takes 20 times for novice of shooting primer and block sanding most of it off to fill the low spots only really fills 1-2 MILS thick. I never considered myself more then a novice automotive painter it's really hard work. The final paint done with a different spray gun one lot more expensive you don't want to risk getting polyfiller stuck in an expensive gun use cheaper guns for primer. My final paints and clears were shot with Iwata spray gun. I would use a friends paint booth he owned a body shop let me go there on the weekends my neighbors get upset with the smell.
 
kell490 said:
Doesn't the poly covering require primer, and block sanding then automotive paints like urethane?
Click to expand...
Poly-brush (fill weave - brush first coats), Poly-spray (silver UV block, multiple coats), then either Poly-tone (one part flat finish, easy to repair) or Arothane (gloss two part urethane harder to repair).
 
kell490 said:
I'm assuming home paint "polytone" doesn't stand up as well to fuel spills, and sun?
Click to expand...
Stains from fuel. Sun is not an issue. I wouldn't call it much more of a "home paint" even though I've sprayed it at home. Primary solvent is MEK - not very friendly, but it does let you know when it is getting through so you don't need outside air. Poly everything is pretty easy to clean out of your equipment with MEK and none of it is "heavy" like a high build automotive primer.
Not the same kind of sanding and filling on fabric that you do on metal. The fabric surface is pretty fair except at the seams / tapes and you aren't going to make those fair in. One swipe on a hard spot and you have cut through the fabric.
 
Also, there are other processes besides the Poly-FIber stuff. Stewart system is water based, for example. Or, you can even use "Dope".
 
This was constructed using Stewart System, hence the lack of need for a high tech spray booth. And really, if you are not going for an EAA award and flying under 100 kts (or under 70 for a 7AC), what does a few little drips or nibs really matter? If it is worth the extra $20,000, then send it out to a speciality paint shop and have them do it.
 
So…the Bushcat lace-on system is looking more appealing all the time? Slip-on, lace-up, no heat shrinking, no stitching, no epoxy, no dope, no paint, no paint booth, no fumes, no brain damage, no PPE, lots of colors. (Although the cowling requires paint).
 
Matthew Rogers said:
This was constructed using Stewart System, hence the lack of need for a high tech spray booth. And really, if you are not going for an EAA award and flying under 100 kts (or under 70 for a 7AC), what does a few little drips or nibs really matter? If it is worth the extra $20,000, then send it out to a speciality paint shop and have them do it.
Click to expand...

Quite true. The popular system around these parts seems to be Air-Tech. It is a catalyzed system, but requires a ton fewer coats than Poly-Fiber. That said, the Poly-Fiber system, using Poly-tone as the finish coat may be the easiest for a novice to use, even though there are lot of steps (and coats) involved.
 
rhkennerly said:
So…the Bushcat lace-on system is looking more appealing all the time? Slip-on, lace-up, no heat shrinking, no stitching, no epoxy, no dope, no paint, no paint booth, no fumes, no brain damage, no PPE, lots of colors. (Although the cowling requires paint).
Click to expand...

Yeah, but MEK smells nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top