I knew I made the right decision by getting on the waiting list for the Bearhawk Five. Exciting times ahead for Bearhawk Aircraft-thanks for all you do Virgil!
^ This. Their website is a lot of fluff. "Speed ratio of 4.0" while citing a 145mph top speed. If anyone thinks these things can remain airborne at 36mph TRUE airspeed, they are mistaken. Try 50mph on the best day at max gross. Speed ratio 2.9. A far, far cry from claimed.
@@Triple_J.1 The fact is they were very transparent in this video. If they really wanted to bump up some arguable numbers, they could have easily (and rightfully) ran it on just 10 gallons of gas with zero cargo, put tiny hard tires and fly it off the tarmack. They didn't even do that. They demonstrated factual numbers in a real-world type of situation. Sure, I'd like to see a fully loaded video as well but that's no reason to throw insults. Maybe you should show us your own 6-seater that can do better.
@@rochboulanger6565 The conditions in this video were not fully enumerated: Cold. Everyone is layered up with hoodies and heavy coats. It is winter. Therefore low or even negative density altitude. This greatly improves power output, and also prop thrust and wing lift, allowing flight at a lower true airspeed. (meaning, much shorter takeoff roll). Perhaps an additional +10% improvement over standard ISA conditions from this very cold temperature alone, and a lot more (20-30%) against the same takeoff on a hot summer day. There is a strong headwind. The wind-sock is nearly full chat. The microphones and speakers are getting blown out. Perhaps a 12-15kt headwind. This provides an additional +20% improvement in takeoff distance right there. Possibly more. (Headwind as a ratio of minimum takeoff speed, it is larger for slower airplanes, therefore greatly inflates takeoff performance for a low gross weight test). Low weight. Far below what most would consider "useful" in the real world. (solo pilot, half tanks of gas. Only 1.5-2hr worth at max cruise). They might have been able to take another 200lb out of the plane to get a true minimum weight takeoff distance. But that would only infer what it could do at a STOL competition. Not out of a builders backyard on a trip somewhere. Real world in a large 6-place utility airplane would be 4 people, 100lbs of gear, and half tanks. (Talking 1,000lb+ onboard). Two-up, full tanks, and overnight bags would be the lowest number anyone would have a real-world use for. Max Gross weight, most forward CG figures are what all other airplanes are sold by. This includes Aviat Husky and all Vans, Rans, Carbon Cubs, etc. the only majot exception is MAULE which is completely and totally incapable of living up to the comapnies marketing hype (like their 400' takeoff through a double-door open hanger for that classic Maule glory shot). Citing performance at artificially low weights closer to empty than max gross has almost no place in aviation. It does not relate to reality, and it cannot be extrapolated from these antidotal one-condition performances. Engine: A hoss of a Power-plant. Probably the upper limit of what people are likely to install. Not the average. This is around 330hp vs 230-260hp most O-540s produce. Occasionally a 540 comes as a 300hp model. But a modified 540 or 580 is another animal. Clearly this is what the airplane can do with THAT engine. But it will NOT perform like that with 100hp less. This engine is in the range of $80k-$120k depending. Many people are probably thinking of spending half that. And that change will double the takeoff distance demonstrated. Prop: Best available, twice the price most people would readily spend for a utility plane flown in the rocks or true bush workhorse conditions. It hs it. It can do it. But unless buyers spec this top of the line engine/prop combo, their airplane will fall short. Tire: Nice large tires. This greatly improves the airplane and will probably be a common feature. It also adds several degrees to the AoA attainable at rotation and shaves several yards, not only feet, off the takeoff roll. The original Barrows design is quite good in its own right. My issue is the marketing fluff and their incessant fast-and-loose performance quotes that cover their webpage from top to bottom: Just cite performance figures for the basic aircraft, max gross weight, forward CG. Then Cite another for the Cadillac version with VGs, big motor, etc. and realize the two are $50-$100k apart. The Truth is THIS exact airplane, at maximum gross weight, on a ISA standard day, with THAT engine and prop combo... Is a 550-600 foot airplane, and will probably like to have closer to 900-1,000 over some trees. Someone building a 230hp model should plan on 660ft ground roll, And a good 1,320ft of room to climb over tall trees at moderate to high density altitude... (1/4 mile strip). Perfectly acceptable utility workhorse airplane. Much tougher than a 180. More accessible and affordable than a Beaver. Its like a 6-seat Super-Cub. But faster. (Faster landing and stall speed, also). Just market it as such.
@@rochboulanger6565I’m hard pressed to believe this experimental can outperform a Helio Courier at gross and yet they are seemingly suggesting exactly that.
Thank you for the context around how you are flying the aircraft. Great video, well put together. Really appreciate what you all are doing with Bearhawk!
I have had my eyes on Bearhawk for a long time and have been so impressed. Useful load matters and the speed with that wing is a game changer. STOL, the icing on the cake. :)
Very nice. What's the cruise speed 75% power? Definitely a workhorse but dang I can see the fuel burn from here. Lol. It's just absurd we've gotten to the point in aviation where an engine cost twice as much as the plane.
This airline cruises about 140mph at 75% with the larger engines and a less draggy configuration, we typically see 155ish out of a stock airplane. Engines have always been about 80% of the cost of the airframe that is holding true still. Aviation is not immune, everything went up 40% in the last few years, just like everything else.
@ i agree the cd is heavy for its output. But it the 5 being so large it could probably handle it. At that point its certainly sacrificing some landing potential. But i bet the fuel burn would be pretty decent and it might potentially be quieter in the cabin. I could see pros and cons to it.
@ i also think there needs to be a bushplane home for a del120 lyc. But its weight makes that challenging. Honestly a ul520 would probably be a better all rounder in that hp range but a diesel bush plane sounds like a cool idea
Fantastic airplane! I'm sure glad to see someone else in control of the kits now... beyond the exquisitely built wings and welded fuselages, they left a LOT to be desired by the builder; no real manual and very little support. Pending these changes, I might just bite again!
The CG is really wide with the airfoils we use. It is actually pretty difficult to get it out of CG. As long as you use your head when loading the 1400 lbs into the airplane you won’t have any issues.
Head wind component, air temperature, actual Dyno horsepower of that specific engine with those mods. Actual gross weight and also CG position. Forward CG increases stall speed and precludes early rotation due to increased tail download.
I knew I made the right decision by getting on the waiting list for the Bearhawk Five. Exciting times ahead for Bearhawk Aircraft-thanks for all you do Virgil!
Super impressive for a plane with as much payload capacity as that, nice flying also Virgil! Keep it up, love seeing what you are doing over there
Thanks, I like the new tailwheel trainer you came up with. I would love to have one for the shop when you get them ready to go.
I’m having a George Costanza world’s colliding moment here ^ 😂
Load it to the gills..and let's see some numbers...fantastic aircraft by the way. Greetings from Iceland
^ This.
Their website is a lot of fluff. "Speed ratio of 4.0" while citing a 145mph top speed. If anyone thinks these things can remain airborne at 36mph TRUE airspeed, they are mistaken. Try 50mph on the best day at max gross. Speed ratio 2.9. A far, far cry from claimed.
@@Triple_J.1
The fact is they were very transparent in this video. If they really wanted to bump up some arguable numbers, they could have easily (and rightfully) ran it on just 10 gallons of gas with zero cargo, put tiny hard tires and fly it off the tarmack. They didn't even do that. They demonstrated factual numbers in a real-world type of situation.
Sure, I'd like to see a fully loaded video as well but that's no reason to throw insults. Maybe you should show us your own 6-seater that can do better.
@@rochboulanger6565
The conditions in this video were not fully enumerated:
Cold. Everyone is layered up with hoodies and heavy coats. It is winter. Therefore low or even negative density altitude. This greatly improves power output, and also prop thrust and wing lift, allowing flight at a lower true airspeed. (meaning, much shorter takeoff roll). Perhaps an additional +10% improvement over standard ISA conditions from this very cold temperature alone, and a lot more (20-30%) against the same takeoff on a hot summer day.
There is a strong headwind. The wind-sock is nearly full chat. The microphones and speakers are getting blown out. Perhaps a 12-15kt headwind. This provides an additional +20% improvement in takeoff distance right there. Possibly more. (Headwind as a ratio of minimum takeoff speed, it is larger for slower airplanes, therefore greatly inflates takeoff performance for a low gross weight test).
Low weight. Far below what most would consider "useful" in the real world. (solo pilot, half tanks of gas. Only 1.5-2hr worth at max cruise). They might have been able to take another 200lb out of the plane to get a true minimum weight takeoff distance. But that would only infer what it could do at a STOL competition. Not out of a builders backyard on a trip somewhere.
Real world in a large 6-place utility airplane would be 4 people, 100lbs of gear, and half tanks. (Talking 1,000lb+ onboard). Two-up, full tanks, and overnight bags would be the lowest number anyone would have a real-world use for.
Max Gross weight, most forward CG figures are what all other airplanes are sold by. This includes Aviat Husky and all Vans, Rans, Carbon Cubs, etc. the only majot exception is MAULE which is completely and totally incapable of living up to the comapnies marketing hype (like their 400' takeoff through a double-door open hanger for that classic Maule glory shot).
Citing performance at artificially low weights closer to empty than max gross has almost no place in aviation. It does not relate to reality, and it cannot be extrapolated from these antidotal one-condition performances.
Engine: A hoss of a Power-plant. Probably the upper limit of what people are likely to install. Not the average. This is around 330hp vs 230-260hp most O-540s produce. Occasionally a 540 comes as a 300hp model. But a modified 540 or 580 is another animal. Clearly this is what the airplane can do with THAT engine. But it will NOT perform like that with 100hp less.
This engine is in the range of $80k-$120k depending. Many people are probably thinking of spending half that. And that change will double the takeoff distance demonstrated.
Prop: Best available, twice the price most people would readily spend for a utility plane flown in the rocks or true bush workhorse conditions. It hs it. It can do it. But unless buyers spec this top of the line engine/prop combo, their airplane will fall short.
Tire: Nice large tires. This greatly improves the airplane and will probably be a common feature. It also adds several degrees to the AoA attainable at rotation and shaves several yards, not only feet, off the takeoff roll.
The original Barrows design is quite good in its own right. My issue is the marketing fluff and their incessant fast-and-loose performance quotes that cover their webpage from top to bottom: Just cite performance figures for the basic aircraft, max gross weight, forward CG. Then Cite another for the Cadillac version with VGs, big motor, etc. and realize the two are $50-$100k apart.
The Truth is THIS exact airplane, at maximum gross weight, on a ISA standard day, with THAT engine and prop combo... Is a 550-600 foot airplane, and will probably like to have closer to 900-1,000 over some trees.
Someone building a 230hp model should plan on 660ft ground roll, And a good 1,320ft of room to climb over tall trees at moderate to high density altitude... (1/4 mile strip).
Perfectly acceptable utility workhorse airplane. Much tougher than a 180. More accessible and affordable than a Beaver. Its like a 6-seat Super-Cub. But faster. (Faster landing and stall speed, also). Just market it as such.
@@rochboulanger6565I’m hard pressed to believe this experimental can outperform a Helio Courier at gross and yet they are seemingly suggesting exactly that.
A vid like this for each of the models would be sweet!
That is in the plans.
Excited to see you grow this company and community!
Thank you for the context around how you are flying the aircraft. Great video, well put together. Really appreciate what you all are doing with Bearhawk!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I have had my eyes on Bearhawk for a long time and have been so impressed. Useful load matters and the speed with that wing is a game changer. STOL, the icing on the cake. :)
Come check it out.
Nice , Best plane on the market !
Agreed!
Great numbers! you are just confirming the Bearhawk as the best all round aircraft - speed/STOL/quality of materials/ease of flying
Thanks
That’s a beautiful and amazing plane
Man oh man, that is some wicked stuff right there. Good job guys. 👍
Amazing Job!! Bearhawks really are the best!
Im a fan, for sure
keep flying. keep posting. dream airplane quite a ways off. wish you success!
Great video. Great airplane. Nice demo. Thanks!
I love these types of videos showing real performance
Can you please do one at gross weight???
I have been thinking about doing that, we will have to put it in the plans.
@The-virg thank you! Look forward to buying a kit
Beyond amazing!!! I can’t wait for my Companion to get in the air
Very nice. What's the cruise speed 75% power? Definitely a workhorse but dang I can see the fuel burn from here. Lol. It's just absurd we've gotten to the point in aviation where an engine cost twice as much as the plane.
This airline cruises about 140mph at 75% with the larger engines and a less draggy configuration, we typically see 155ish out of a stock airplane. Engines have always been about 80% of the cost of the airframe that is holding true still. Aviation is not immune, everything went up 40% in the last few years, just like everything else.
About time Virgil.......been waiting - lol
I am looking at this plane. Looking at options to install a P&W turbo-prop.
I didn’t realize a five could take a < 300hp engine. Hoping to place an order in about a year . Need to renovate the shop first
We can run the 260hp 540 from the four, IO-540D4A5. It is lighter and still provides a good performing airplane.
I bet you could fit something like a cd300 in that 5. Would be cool to see a (reasonably tested) diesel in a bush plane
Cd300 is a little heavy but I hope to have some options on the table soon
@ i agree the cd is heavy for its output. But it the 5 being so large it could probably handle it. At that point its certainly sacrificing some landing potential. But i bet the fuel burn would be pretty decent and it might potentially be quieter in the cabin. I could see pros and cons to it.
@ i also think there needs to be a bushplane home for a del120 lyc. But its weight makes that challenging. Honestly a ul520 would probably be a better all rounder in that hp range but a diesel bush plane sounds like a cool idea
@ but in the cd300s hp segment it’s definitely not a hp/weight champ nor are any of the diesel options
Waooo it's amazing
Fantastic airplane! I'm sure glad to see someone else in control of the kits now... beyond the exquisitely built wings and welded fuselages, they left a LOT to be desired by the builder; no real manual and very little support. Pending these changes, I might just bite again!
with such a long loading platform, how difficult is to get the weight and balance right?
The CG is really wide with the airfoils we use. It is actually pretty difficult to get it out of CG. As long as you use your head when loading the 1400 lbs into the airplane you won’t have any issues.
Have you verified from experience that the plane has a landing roll of under 500ft at gross or is that just a guess? What about takeoff at gross?
Nice plane there Virgil! How much of a head wind did you have?
Head wind component, air temperature, actual Dyno horsepower of that specific engine with those mods. Actual gross weight and also CG position. Forward CG increases stall speed and precludes early rotation due to increased tail download.
About 8-10 ish slightly off the nose for most of that day.
Hi my interest is your side by side companion I would like to see that flown please
Is this an all metal Aircraft?
I believe metal wing. Fabric fuselage. It’s maule ish
All metal wings. Tube and fabric. Fuselage.
@@The-virg The best of both worlds.
👊🤙
Nice, but kinda need to do it the other way, and average it out to see the real performance. Wind helps a lot.
Engine?
IO540 exp. with EFII and Cold Air,
@@The-virg Dyno horsepower? 330?
@@Triple_J.1 275 or so. Parallel valve 260 base motor.
Next time just have your boys put a mark at 150' and measure forward or back from there, much less walking =P