Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Cessna 180 v. Bearhawk

  1. #1
    Mtns2Skies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    7

    Cessna 180 v. Bearhawk

    They seem to be very similar in capabilities and initial cost... Early model (4 seat) Cessna 180 that is. Which to go with?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Mtns2Skies View Post
    They seem to be very similar in capabilities and initial cost... Early model (4 seat) Cessna 180 that is. Which to go with?
    The classic answer applies: If you want to build, build. If you want to fly, buy.

    The Bearhawk is a great airplane, and given MY druthers, I'd pick it over the Cessna. But unless you find a good used one for sale, you'd better be looking forward to the construction process just as much (if not more) than flying it.

    Ron Wanttaja

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    20
    There are a couple of nice Murphy Moose out there as well as a few well priced kits. Has more useful load than the 185 or Bearhawk.
    Jerry

  4. #4
    Richard Warner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Covington, LA
    Posts
    69

    I'd go for the 180.

    The 180 is one hell of a good airplane. I have a1953 model with a bunch of STC's. It has a late model engine and a late type exhaust system. It also has the outside baggage door which the 53's didn't have. Maintenance is the one advantage you would have if you build a Bearhawk, which by the way is also a good airplane. I am an A&P with I.A., so I do all my own maintenance & annuals on my airplane. I also have built an airplane from scratch and I swore I'd never do that again. It took about 5 years to build it. What it comes down to is if you want to build, get after it and plan on flying a couple of years or longer down the road. Also, it will probably cost you a good bit more to build than you think. Know that if you ever sell it, as the manufacturer(builder of the airplane, you may end up having some liability if someone gets hurt in it. Also, insurance may be a bit higher. By the way, I do have a set of plans for the Bearhawk Patrol, but at age 77, I'm not sure I want to take it on even though I would use the kit for it. Have fun is the name of the game whichever route you take.

  5. #5

    I built and fly a 0-360 Bearhawk

    I really enjoy flying my Bearhawk and think it is perfect for aerial photography. It is very stable and a definite rudder airplane which is fine with me. The side windowa are large, open in flight, with very little wind in the cockpit. I take photos with the window open all winter. I use low power settings, 15-17 inches at 1900 rpm while taking photos, with a fuel burn of about 5.5 gallons.hour. I kept it simple and light, and it has been almost maintenance free for the last 150 hours. I have built and rebuilt 6 airplanes ranging from a T-Craft to a Comanche. I like the Beahawk flying characteristics better than anyother airplane I have flown. It feels solid, very stable, with benign stall characteristics. Although it flies great, it is important to remember it is a tailwheel airplane.

    Although it is very capable as a STOL airplane I have not taken it to back country fields yet. Maybe some day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mtns2Skies View Post
    They seem to be very similar in capabilities and initial cost... Early model (4 seat) Cessna 180 that is. Which to go with?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •