Lowrider LSA

Thanks Don!! I'll try to do that very thing once we get settled.

Here ya' go Lowrider, check out the EAA experimenter magazine online with an article on the BH LSA. The pics alone are going to sway you. http://experimenter.epubxp.com/i/108002

Unless a guy is in a real hurry to go the LSA route, I'd suggest waiting till the FAA rules on the EAA / AOPA's petition for exemption up to 180 hp and dropping the 900 lb EW / 1320 GW restrictions.

If this goes through it opens up a ton of new options for light aircraft users.

After attending Sun and Fun 2012, where there were LSA options at every turn, I came away not impressed with any of them for the flying I do (Alaska bush).

Just a thought.

Take care,

Crash

Crash,

I'm with you. The BH will do my mission as a LSA but it they do approve the Rec Pilot change, I will still have the ability to go to 1500 lbs.

Signing off for a week or so while I move to ID.

Safe Flying!!

Or I'd wait for this....

http://supercub.com/outlaw1.html

Crash

The carbon wing covering on this bird will be interesting. I saw the prototype while at the factory this summer, they had a wing rib/slat/flaps mockup showing how all the parts fit together. Manual slats, fowler typer super trick flaps, all carbon ribs. Projected stall and cruise numbers slower and faster then (by a lot) anything else out there or even talked about, if it wasn't coming from them I'd call BS, but we'll see. They told me the #'s but I won't repeat them as you wouldn't believe them.... lets just wait and see. Lots of really nice little details to make it easy to clean out, like a carbon tub floor you can hose out. Rear controls that quickly remove with no protruding hardware to hang up on gear.

Unlike other slatted birds, the design will do it's thing at a more normal AOA, not the extreme nose high one we've all seen. Thus the gear is nothing special:first off a Grove type spring gear because of its very low drag, (as compared to Cub style gear anyway) and to let the plane show off its high cruise potential. Cub type gear an option of course. Very large door/ or doors, like an S-7, due to the way the spars are laid out and the resulting structure, like 5' long.

Note they are using a Rotax 912S as the company owner feels it does the job just fine, in fact better then fine, and in fact has a whole lot of hours behind one (hunting coyotes out of a Rans S-7) it is one that has been "gone through" by a engine shop and is putting out 135 hp, still with the usual 2000 hr. TBO. Fuel burn should be 4+ GPH using premium mo gas. Too bad it will sound like a chainsaw and give the pilot a headache within 10 minutes. Sorry.... I just couldn't let those uninformed statements slide by! More like a BMW motorcycle and turbine smoothness plus the best power to weight ratio possible with proven reliabilty is why they are using it. Plus extensive personal experience in about as hard of flying as you can do, coyote hunting in Wyoming with the high DA's and down in the dirt, that is what this plane is all about.

Looking at the picture of the BH one thing I noticed is the door. I really was taken by how practical the cub door is for hand propping. If you use the Rotax this is a non issue since you are stuck with electrics but with a Continental wouldn't the fold up/down door be a better option for an aircraft with no starter?

The BH door can be built seaplane style and clear the strut. So the hand prop style that many cub drivers use will work on the BH as well.

Back up and running for the most part...2724 miles with a 10K lbs trailer behind my F250. Good trip except for ice in Eastern SD last week. Sandpoint is beautiful as always and the snow is melting...black bear in the yard last night.

I thought long and hard on the BH LSA and I think I'm going with it. Anyone talk to Bob yet about the 0-320? I'm not sure it is necessary and the extra weight may not justify the added performance but the extra power would be nice if you need it.

Lowrider said:

I thought long and hard on the BH LSA and I think I'm going with it. Anyone talk to Bob yet about the 0-320? I'm not sure it is necessary and the extra weight may not justify the added performance but the extra power would be nice if you need it.

Click to expand...

What ever you choose just remember that your "new" sea level is 2100 feet and you will be flying in the mountains. Full throttle will already be 2" less manifold pressure.

Any performance numbers on this yet? Can anyone please tell us more about he 613.5 airfoil wing? What is the cord on this wing? At what station is the single spar located? I bet is between the 15.75" or 18.90" mark if its a 63" cord. I´d like to see a picture of the rib is possible

Put flaps on it

Sky,

Roger copy! I'm pretty familiar with high density altitude and hot which is another reason to look hard at the 0-320.

Spain,

Once I get my trailer and truck unloaded I'll try to get the figures from the drawings....at this point I'm not exactly sure where they are located. Perhaps someone will come up with a picture of formed ribs and specs and post it for us.

Bugs,

Flaps be good....I've been thinking about them...maybe Cessna style Fowler like things with a simple torque tube system in the roof. Can't add that much weight but i'm not there yet. I'm going to build the fuselage first so I have some time to look at flaps.

I asked about wickerbills or Gurney flaps on the wing but got no response to it....they would be easy and light. I asked Bob about using VG's and he said they are for poorly designed wings..'nuff said.

A simple torque tube thing is exactly how the Patrol flaps are accuated. Those flaps are 104" long.

Cub junkie said:

A simple torque tube thing is exactly how the Patrol flaps are accuated. Those flaps are 104" long.

Click to expand...

Hmmm....may be looking for a drawing of the thing in a bit. I'd like to have an overhead flap lever too. Is that in the Patrol design as well?

No on the O'head flap handle. Its in the same spot as a stock PA18. After giving it some thought I think I would scrap the O-320 idea and go with a well built small continental. I think if you start adding a bigger engine you would need balanced tail which is heavier and then the flaps would also add weight. You are starting to venture into the area of the Patrol with those mods and losing the concept of building a sub 800 pound back country toy. I know you like the extra room the B'hawk designs have so have you considered a wide body cub fuselage with some light wings with flaps? The Patrol and the LSA both have a riblett airfoil but are slightly different from each other, along with the LSA having a narrower chord. The wings are one of the selling points of the Patrol for me. Lots to choose from for sure.

edit: I see someone has posted a pic of each wing drawing on Back country pilot in the Bearhawk Patrol LSA thread. That will get you started.

Lowrider said:

..... which is another reason to look hard at the 0-320.

Click to expand...

0-320 vs 0-200??? This will be tough since there is 50-60 lbs difference between the two engines. There could be a serious CG problem unless the 0-320 can be moved aft a considerable amount? Removing a heavy starter and generator is possible for some of the shift. Perhaps mounting a wind driven generator on the tail would help some? Another thought would be to use an Aeromatic prop on the 0-200 in order to get the full power range available? This would total 221 lbs. An 0-320 with no generator, a light weight starter and a lightweight wood prop would be aprox. 230 or so lbs. Then mount a 10 lb or so wind driven generator on the vertical fin. The CG may be close to the same with each engine??

It is fun to think about various ideas. Perhaps some of my thoughts will help you trigger some ideas of your own?

I talked with Mark Goldberg from Bearhawk Aircraft about the LSA and he has provided the following information -
From Mark Goldberg with Bearhawk Aircraft who makes the kits for the four place, the Patrol and the new LSA. Just a couple comments on previous postings. This little plane doesn't need flaps. It lands at 30 MPH and slips VERY well as do all Bob's designs. I would not think it a good idea to put in an O-320. Keep engines under 110-125 HP. If you want a bigger engine it would be wiser to go the LSA's big brother - the Patrol. The LSA airfoil was designed with lower power engines in mind. Happy to answer anyone's questions either on the forum or privately. N95MF@hotmail.com. Thanks. Mark
Dave

It's too bad they didn't design in the flaps, they are nice to have. Gliders land slow too and have flaps or spoilers. The Rans S7, Highlander, and Sport Cub are LSA's and have flaps.

Bugs66 said:

It's too bad they didn't design in the flaps, they are nice to have. Gliders land slow too and have flaps or spoilers. The Rans S7, Highlander, and Sport Cub are LSA's and have flaps.

Click to expand...

What Bugs said. I don't have them either, and it limits what you can do.

Bearhawk Builder said:

I talked with Mark Goldberg from Bearhawk Aircraft about the LSA and he has provided the following information -
From Mark Goldberg with Bearhawk Aircraft who makes the kits for the four place, the Patrol and the new LSA. Just a couple comments on previous postings. This little plane doesn't need flaps. It lands at 30 MPH and slips VERY well as do all Bob's designs. I would not think it a good idea to put in an O-320. Keep engines under 110-125 HP. If you want a bigger engine it would be wiser to go the LSA's big brother - the Patrol. The LSA airfoil was designed with lower power engines in mind. Happy to answer anyone's questions either on the forum or privately. N95MF@hotmail.com. Thanks. Mark
Dave

Click to expand...

Thanks Dave!!!

Mr. Goldberg,

Thanks for your offer!!

Do you folks have a web site with further info on the LSA parts available thru you with prices?

I've seen the published landing speed but have not seen a stall speed. Power on/off stall speeds are important info I believe. The flaps would be great things to have if you are trying to get a set of floats unstuck on smooth water or any variety of other short field "drop it in" landings. I think the 65 hp climb rate was something like 700-900FPM. What is the realistic rate for 0-200 at gross? I'm considering the 0-320 for the potential of getting good performance with floats and also a little extra umpf on take off....but the weight is an issue and I won't run a Rotax so there is no simple answer except maybe a hot rodded 0-200.

Any other insight into the LSA would be appreciated by many I think....based up the number of reads.

Thanks in advance!!

Not trying to start a war here, just a question. How is it that a 65 hp tcraft or luscombe only get 4-500 fpm rate of climb (these specs I found on other sites) and the new bearhawk lsa is getting 700-900? Is the wing and airframe that much more efficent? Once again, I'm not trying to start a war, just a question...

Hi Clint,
Various reasons, really. In a nutshell, simplified, the Luscombe has a NACA 23012 airfoil and only 140 sq. ft. wing area vs. 170 sq. ft. for the Bearhawk LSA. The Tcraft has +/- 184 sq. ft. of wing and a NACA 4412 airfoil which has a lower Cl. (Both the 23012 & 4412 have lower design lift coefficients than the GA30A613.5 of LSA.) Prop, drag, Cm and other things factor in too.


Lowrider,
Have you considered the Corvair or an experimental O-290-D2?

Cheers,
Tom

My guess is, He had a souped up 65 hp(closer to 75), now he has a souped up 85(closer to a 100 or better) not sure which engine the specs were derived from, also it is a cleaner fuselage and wing, so probably best rate of climb airspeed is faster than T-Craft or Luscombe. I think a high performance 85 hp T-Craft would stay with it.

Just a guess,
Dave

Tom,

I did/have looked at the Corvair with the 5th bearing but the cost is right up there with the 0-200 and yes, the Corvair would be essentially a new engine but I think I want to stick with Cont/Lyc Technology. The 0290 weighs real close to an 0-320 and there are alot more of them out there, plus you can push the HP up on the 0-320 to better than 170 I believe without too much trouble and run pump gas....but I'm open to suggestions for sure!!

Hi Lowrider,

Yes, the initial cost of top of the line Corvair is up there with a used Lyc/Cont, but when it's time to rebuild/overhaul it becomes a lot more economical, however, you can't go wrong sticking with a Lycoming or Continental. O-290-D2s seem to be unwanted outcasts these days and there are some great deals on them to be found. They are a little lighter than an O-320. Parts are actually plentiful and many parts compatible with the -235 & -320. If experimental, the correct rings can be had from Hastings for about $50/hole. I converted my -290-D2 to 8.5mm (Accel) superconductor plug wires and auto plugs (NGK AB-6 & AB-7 plugs) - G3i has all the info for it along with a really nice electronic ignition that allows one to retain & revert to mags if the electronic ignition ever fails. Just tossing out options for consideration. Also, it's no big deal to open up the case to take Narrow Deck O-320 cylinders. Easy conversion.

Tom

Who is G3i ?

Thanks skywagon.

test reply