Which Model

In
wrote:

I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.

If you are willing and able to build from plans, look into Bob Barrows'
new design, the Bearhawk Patrol. This is a 2 seat tandem bush plane
similar in construction to his 4 seat Bearhawk design. The patrol has a
gross weight of 2000 pounds, and an empty weight around 1000 (IIRC) with
a Lycoming O-360. It will take engines from 115-200hp and is designed
for outstanding short field performance.

I've got no relationship with Bob other than that of a satisfied
customer (building the 4 seat Bearhawk). He can be reached at:

R & B Aircraft 2079 Breckinridge Mill Rd Fincastle, VA 24090
(540) 473-
3661

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

Dale,

It's nice to have a airplane up to the Supercub or even a C180/185.
But for a new comer, I'd like to stay with the less type like a 150HP
150/152 and the rest of those Kitfox class. I want to have something
that I can build with less than 1000hrs and less than $50k. And
definitely not plan built.

Jizhong
On 2 Apr 2004 05:39:57 GMT, Del Rawlins
wrote:

In
wrote:

I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.

If you are willing and able to build from plans, look into Bob Barrows'
new design, the Bearhawk Patrol. This is a 2 seat tandem bush plane
similar in construction to his 4 seat Bearhawk design. The patrol has a
gross weight of 2000 pounds, and an empty weight around 1000 (IIRC) with
a Lycoming O-360. It will take engines from 115-200hp and is designed
for outstanding short field performance.

I've got no relationship with Bob other than that of a satisfied
customer (building the 4 seat Bearhawk). He can be reached at:

R & B Aircraft 2079 Breckinridge Mill Rd Fincastle, VA 24090
(540) 473-
3661

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

In
wrote:
Dale,

Who's Dale?

It's nice to have a airplane up to the Supercub or even a C180/185.
But for a new comer, I'd like to stay with the less type like a 150HP
150/152 and the rest of those Kitfox class.

Well, the Patrol is designed to work well with smaller engines, not that
it matters if you want to build from a kit. If you are interested in a
certified plane, a 150/152 would be my absolute last choice in a 150hp
plane. They are cramped and don't have a lot of useful load with the
heavier engine. In a certified plane I would want a Citabria, which has
a more comfortable cockpit than the Cub which you didn't like, and is
faster at the cost of a small amount of STOL performance.

I want to have something
that I can build with less than 1000hrs and less than $50k. And
definitely not plan built.

Understood. Be aware that you may spend more time that that even if you
build from a kit, since build times vary a LOT depending on experience.
I don't know what their prices are like these days, but consider the
Murphy Rebel.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

On 2 Apr 2004 21:51:50 GMT, Del Rawlins
wrote:

In
wrote:
Dale,

Who's Dale?

It's nice to have a airplane up to the Supercub or even a C180/185.
But for a new comer, I'd like to stay with the less type like a 150HP
150/152 and the rest of those Kitfox class.

Well, the Patrol is designed to work well with smaller engines, not that
it matters if you want to build from a kit. If you are interested in a
certified plane, a 150/152 would be my absolute last choice in a 150hp
plane. They are cramped and don't have a lot of useful load with the
heavier engine. In a certified plane I would want a Citabria, which has
a more comfortable cockpit than the Cub which you didn't like, and is
faster at the cost of a small amount of STOL performance.

I want to have something
that I can build with less than 1000hrs and less than $50k. And
definitely not plan built.

Understood. Be aware that you may spend more time that that even if you
build from a kit, since build times vary a LOT depending on experience.
I don't know what their prices are like these days, but consider the
Murphy Rebel.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

It would be fairly easy to build a rebel for under50K but 1K build
time is pushing it for a first time builder.
Drew Dalgleish
Centralia ont
Murphy rebel C-FYHO

OK, Del,

Let me give you a little bit more background of where I come from. I
fly a Skylane but I'm planning to move back to China either this year
or next. I need something to fly there. It seems that the rules are
quite loose for ultralight and homebuilts in China. I've alway liked a
bush plan.

I really like to fly 150/152 and it's much cheaper (half the cost).
You might be able to get a good project plane for under $10k and a mid
time o-320 for similar amount. (I'm talking about treating it as a
homebuilt in China.) But it's not a good bush plane. I'm wondering
why.How can we shrink the T/O distance shrink by a factor of two?
Compared with a Cub, I think the wing area is similar. I figure it
must be the gross or the lack of power. So if I get a 150hp at the
front, what will be the T/O at the gross of 1600#?

Jizhong
On 2 Apr 2004 21:51:50 GMT, Del Rawlins
wrote:

In
wrote:
Dale,

Who's Dale?

It's nice to have a airplane up to the Supercub or even a C180/185.
But for a new comer, I'd like to stay with the less type like a 150HP
150/152 and the rest of those Kitfox class.

Well, the Patrol is designed to work well with smaller engines, not that
it matters if you want to build from a kit. If you are interested in a
certified plane, a 150/152 would be my absolute last choice in a 150hp
plane. They are cramped and don't have a lot of useful load with the
heavier engine. In a certified plane I would want a Citabria, which has
a more comfortable cockpit than the Cub which you didn't like, and is
faster at the cost of a small amount of STOL performance.

I want to have something
that I can build with less than 1000hrs and less than $50k. And
definitely not plan built.

Understood. Be aware that you may spend more time that that even if you
build from a kit, since build times vary a LOT depending on experience.
I don't know what their prices are like these days, but consider the
Murphy Rebel.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

In
wrote:

I really like to fly 150/152 and it's much cheaper (half the cost).
You might be able to get a good project plane for under $10k and a mid
time o-320 for similar amount.

Another thing to consider is that one reason 150s are often so cheap is
that they usually have a ton of hours on them and are suffering from
neglect. I have recently been working on a 150 belonging to a friend
who bought it last summer and used it to get his private license. This
was a basically safe, flying aircraft when we started digging into it
but I have been amazed at the number of problems we found and are having
to repair before he can fly it again. I guess what I am saying is go
this route if you want to, but don't expect it to necessarily be as
cheap as you hope.

(I'm talking about treating it as a
homebuilt in China.) But it's not a good bush plane. I'm wondering
why.How can we shrink the T/O distance shrink by a factor of two?
Compared with a Cub, I think the wing area is similar. I figure it
must be the gross or the lack of power. So if I get a 150hp at the
front, what will be the T/O at the gross of 1600#?

The 150 just isn't designed for the bush mission. As for the wing area,
the Cub has more at 178.5sq ft while the 150 only has 159.5. Combined
with the lower empty weight (even with a larger engine) of the Cub, this
gives it a lower wing loading and way better short field performance.
The stock gross weight of the cub is also higher at 1750 pounds, and can
be upgraded to 2000 pounds with a spar mod kit.

One aspect I think you would do well to ponder is that of repairability
in the field. I don't know what the parts situation is like in China,
but I suspect that getting parts for a Cessna isn't going to be all that
easy. The Cub, and many homebuilts for that matter, can be readily
repaired in the field using basic shop equipment. You can just about
roll a steel tube fuselage cage into a ball and still make it as good as
new with simple tools and an oxyacetylene welding torch. A dentist of
my acquaintance has wrecked the his cub over a half dozen times and is
still flying that same airplane (no, I don't fly with him). If you
prang the 150 over there good luck getting some of the fancy formed
aluminum parts to fix it. It may not be a bad idea to buy a spare
airframe to take with you for parts.

If it were me, I would strongly consider buying a kit for something like
the Zenith STOL 701 2 seater and an engine. That airplane is known for
a fast build time, good STOL performance, and simple flight
characteristics. You will lose some baggage capacity and top speed, but
you will have an airplane with ZERO operating time (think: no student
landings) on it which is repairable in the field with simple tools. You
know this is true because people build the same airplane from plans that
way.

----------------------------------------------------
Del Rawlins-
Remove _kills_spammers_ to reply via email.
Unofficial Bearhawk FAQ website:
http://www.rawlinsbrothers.org/bhfaq/

I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.

I'm looking into the flight quality, sturdiness and safety, building
and maintainance easiness, and factory and builder support. I
understand that they are all quite similar with the standard kits cost
just below $20k, and will probably cost a total of close to $50k when
ready to fly. Will take just over 1k hours for an average person.

Talking about CH701... you will rip the rest of your hairs off,
when trying to keep your drawings up to date :-)

-Jari Kaija
www.project-ch701.net

Jari Kaija wrote:

Talking about CH701... you will rip the rest of your hairs off,
when trying to keep your drawings up to date :-)

-Jari Kaija
www.project-ch701.net

Nice job on the website...

Jari,

Nice page. Your diary seems to end around the end of 2002. What's the
status now? How many hours do you think it'll eventually take you to
fly her.

Jizhong
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 06:13:04 GMT, "Jari Kaija"
wrote:

I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.

I'm looking into the flight quality, sturdiness and safety, building
and maintainance easiness, and factory and builder support. I
understand that they are all quite similar with the standard kits cost
just below $20k, and will probably cost a total of close to $50k when
ready to fly. Will take just over 1k hours for an average person.

Talking about CH701... you will rip the rest of your hairs off,
when trying to keep your drawings up to date :-)

-Jari Kaija
www.project-ch701.net

On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 13:12:45 -0800, wrote:

Hi, I'm a new comer and I hope this question has not been asked too
many times before.

I'm looking into a light bush plane type, kind like a PA-11. I'm
interested in one that can take two people and take off and clear 50'
in around 700', possible to be put on a float. I've looked at Kitfox,
Rans, CH701, Capella, Bushcaddy, and of course the J3 / PA-11.

I'm looking into the flight quality, sturdiness and safety, building
and maintainance easiness, and factory and builder support. I
understand that they are all quite similar with the standard kits cost
just below $20k, and will probably cost a total of close to $50k when
ready to fly. Will take just over 1k hours for an average person.

The other bench mark airplane is a Cessna 150/152 which I have quite a
bit of time in. I really like the flight quality and overal quality. I
also flown a few hours on a J3. Kind of drafty and strange. It could
be that I just need to get used to it. Now the C150 will need almost
1400' at gross. But it has a somewhat higher gross. One question is
that could the C150 be made to take off in less than 1000'. In terms
of cost, you can get one nice Cessna 150/152 at almost half of the
cost of the homebuilts that I mentioned.

Sorry I did not ask specific questions. I'd appreciate it if someone
can take the subjects and give some enlightenment and actual
experience.

Jizhong

Here's a bush plane that is being constructed new.

http://www.interstateaircraft.com/page5.html

Corky Scott