• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Bearhawk Model 5

bcone1381

PATRON
Michigan
I think there is interest for a Utility STOL aircraft that allows a pilot to take off in 800' with full fuel and 1000 pounds of freight into the bush at 160 MPH, or economy cruise at +6 hours at 7 gph.

Beginning in the 1990's, Bob Barrows designed and built a line of 4 experimental Utility STOL aircraft with exemplary performance numbers. All of them have a 4130 steel tube and fabric fuselage, Aluminum wing with solid rivets, a single wing strut like a Cessna, go fast (STOL - fast) carry cargo, pax and gas.

His first model in about 1997 was a four place outperforms a Maul (and C-180 in many categories), the Patrol designed in 2002 outperforms the XCub, the LSA with an O-200 get rave reviews, a O-360 powered two place model side by side was introduced and is called the Companion.

Within the past few weeks Bob and the kit factory owner revealed the new Bearhawk Model 5. Its wider & longer than the classic four place with more power and higher MGTOW. Its in flight test right now, and I thought I'd share a video.

I'm not connected in any way with the factory outside of being a happy customer and am building a Patrol. Being a fan of the design, designer, and the factory and, I think the product line is undervalued, and folks hear might be interested in the capabilities the Model 5 brings to the STOL Utility backcountry experimental aircraft market place.

The video is produced by a Bearhawk builder/Professional Pilot who's doing test flights. It humbly shows off the airplane in a hanger, with the person who completed the prototype kit. Its not a sales hype video, no fancy music, no hot rod flying. Rather its basic low hype R&D that is producing a product with tremendous capability.

If your a builder its worth watching just to see a light weight experimental build.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k29_JrCACpY&feature=youtu.be
 
Well I have about 75 hrs in that particular one, if you have any more specific questions.
It does perform as advertised. If I had a need for more room or seats it’s pretty awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using SuperCub.Org
 
Do you have 185 time? How does it compare?

Is it a 185 substitute? I guess it wouldnt be a ifr platform? Probably more effected by turbulence due to weight? But better performance?

Ps- i inly have a few years of aviation under my belt
 
Bearhawk Modle 5

I do not have any left seat 185 time. I have a few hours of 180 pic time.

It is the closest thing in the experimental world to the operational aspects of a 180/185.

Tough by design, if the builder installs an IFR panel and finishes it off the interior the same, it is a very similar package. The control harmony is excellent, the roll rate is subjective but I think it’s better than the patrol I fly, which is better than the cubs I’ve owned. Not FX3 aileron feel but good.

I would jump in it for IFR without an autopilot but of course you can install a GFC500 easily. The one pictured above was the prototype with an IO-580 (beast) and super stable. I’ve flown it over an hour trimmed at altitude and never a touched the stick.

I don’t know the number of kits that have been delivered but first kit to be completed just flew to its new home in CA last week, and I have two friends building it, one IFR capable if needed and one as a ranch tool. Each to their own mission.

There are a few videos of it on 500AGL and other YouTube channels.

Images of the first kit completed model 5 enroute to CA. This one has an IO-540.
IMG_5978.JPG
IMG_5951.JPG


Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingers… [emoji849]
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5978.JPG
    IMG_5978.JPG
    129.8 KB · Views: 206
  • IMG_5951.JPG
    IMG_5951.JPG
    215.3 KB · Views: 193
I do not have any left seat 185 time. I have a few hours of 180 pic time.

It is the closest thing in the experimental world to the operational aspects of a 180/185.

Tough by design, if the builder installs an IFR panel and finishes it off the interior the same, it is a very similar package. The control harmony is excellent, the roll rate is subjective but I think it’s better than the patrol I fly, which is better than the cubs I’ve owned. Not FX3 aileron feel but good.

I would jump in it for IFR without an autopilot but of course you can install a GFC500 easily. The one pictured above was the prototype with an IO-580 (beast) and super stable. I’ve flown it over an hour trimmed at altitude and never a touched the stick.

I don’t know the number of kits that have been delivered but first kit to be completed just flew to its new home in CA last week, and I have two friends building it, one IFR capable if needed and one as a ranch tool. Each to their own mission.

There are a few videos of it on 500AGL and other YouTube channels.

Images of the first kit completed model 5 enroute to CA. This one has an IO-540.
View attachment 63829
View attachment 63830


Transmitted from my FlightPhone on fingers… [emoji849]
Is that screen showing 23.7 inches of manifold and 74 percent power at 10,500 ft?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
I doubt it's 3" from ram, but I wasn't flying so I can only offer reports from Ryan Barker and Rollie VanDorn that flew that one. My time is all in the prototype (per se) with the IO-580, and I'd have to look at photos to see what that produced the few times I was any significant altitude. Since both Ryan and Rollie commented on it's climb performance from 8-10k I have to believe the number is accurate.

While there is always some black magic around airflow, I don't know that it was anything more than a "that size and location should work well" type of design. That said, Bob Barrows was very interested to know exactly what number I was getting static and in cruise on the prototype though, and felt that the diameter should be slightly bigger on production models.

pb
 
Thanks Peter. I am curious how they were getting that kind of power at 10K and curious how the 300 hp 540 version stacked up against the 580 in climb.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using SuperCub.Org mobile app
 
I'll reach out to Ryan and see if he can chime in. Power is hard to not like, and the 580 is awesome. (Not comparing, just saying as a 180hp driver)
 
I cant look at a Bearhawk and not think Maule.. not that there is anything wrong with that.
The Bearhawk has always interested this long time Cub builder. The Patrol with the 0-360 should be a great performer. But…..does anyone know any of the particulars of the Bearhawk that shed a wing about six months ago in NW Montana? All I’ve heard was that the pilot was not current which is meaningless when it comes to airframe integrity unless he was going downhill in excess of Vne. Anyone??

Sarpy Sam
 
The Bearhawk has always interested this long time Cub builder. The Patrol with the 0-360 should be a great performer. But…..does anyone know any of the particulars of the Bearhawk that shed a wing about six months ago in NW Montana? All I’ve heard was that the pilot was not current which is meaningless when it comes to airframe integrity unless he was going downhill in excess of Vne. Anyone??

Sarpy Sam

Sarpy Sam,
That was an unusual incident that I hope the NTSB really does a good report on. While that one was a stick built LSA, there was no evidence of weld failure or such as one might lean towards. The info I know is that a strut failed in compression, which would mean somewhere north of a -3g load. You can see in the accident photo, where the strut finally kinked after bending past it's structural limit, but the info is from NTSB. There is a tire imprint on the underside of the wing where it swung down and contacted the tire prior to tearing off.

One thought we have discussed is an panic pushover to avoid a birdstrike, or something totally unexpected while in a level cruise flight? I expect if you suddenly pushed it right to the stop fast you could throw yourself into a negative G load that would exceed the limits. Normally one would think the pilot (and girl friend) was showing off with a loop and fell out of it, or similar, but there is no evidence of that, nor is there any reason to expect that from a morning flight to breakfast.

I've looked quite intensively to see if there was any correlation between that incident and Ron Synder's recent Patrol crash in PA, and it appears there is not, at least at this time. Although different in weight/tube size/strength/etc between LSA and Patrol, one thought was a elevator trim tab flutter causing a super fast and violent oscillations that wasn't brought back into control. I had heard of a tab flutter on an Aztec actually knocking out the pilot and the copilot landed while the pilot was unconscious. But all conjecture as none can be substantiated.

pb
 
Regarding Bearhawk airframe integrity: I watched from the seat of my cub as a friend in the Bearhawk he homebuilt, made a ridgetop landing, lost control, and tumbled end-over-end into a canyon. The tire mark where he lost control was at 5,481’ and the plane stopped in the bottom of the canyon at 5,248’ elevation. In that 233’ descent he contacted the canyon wall three times, deduced from the scars left in the hillside. He walked away with a broken sternum and a couple broken fingers.

The following day, standing in the bottom of that canyon looking at the wreckage, I was more surprised than anything at how well that plane held together and kept the outcome survivable for the pilot.
 
Must be my monitor resolution, I can't see any shudder in that video. It's not a different video?
 
Ryan replied that he didn't have additional info to offer and "that's the performance I got" ::shrug::

I looked at what I still had up for videos of the 5, and none of it's maxed out performance since I was paying the fuel bill. One shows around 6k pulled back to 23.1 and 2250 just loping along, but that's not any sort of comparison.
 
I think it could have be up quicker if he used some flaps. The flap handle is still low and requires moving head down pretty low to reach it. The big cargo door has the same issue with flaps as the 206 so a problem if you put a 3rd row in. I think yokes would make the front a lot easier to get in and out of. No brakes on the right side so not much good for training. Making it longer should help with keeping it straight, wider is better especially with big guys or lots of winter gear on and I do love that big door in the back!!! Just like a Maul it is using HP for performance not so much wing, it would be interested to see what it stall speed is. If I had to be hauling a lot of gear in and out I would love it!!
DENNY
 
Back
Top