I'm trying to decide between QB Bearhawk and QB RV-7. Any thoughts on completion stats between the two aircraft? I'm leaning toward the Bearhawk but am concerned as it looks like a lot of kits have been started but not finished.
Printable View
I'm trying to decide between QB Bearhawk and QB RV-7. Any thoughts on completion stats between the two aircraft? I'm leaning toward the Bearhawk but am concerned as it looks like a lot of kits have been started but not finished.
There are a lot of RV kits that get started and not finished as well...the sample is much larger tho. Do the numbers on Bearhawk completions include plans built? Can't do that with an RV, so I wonder if the comparison is apples to apples.
From what I've seen since my envolvment with homebuilts since 93' is the RV's are the best you can get for project completion and the set the bench mark in a solid build process and completeness. The bigger issue is metal construction right for you, although there is learning in any new project make sure this is the construction medimum that best fits your skill sets, I'm a composites guy but to each their ownSpencer
Thanks for the inputs. I love both airplanes, but can only do one. The Bearhawk seems to make more sense for my mission preference. In reviewing some of the websites, it just looks to me like a lot of guys have had their QB kits for a number of years with not a high completion percentage. I don't know if that is an accurate perception though. I was just curious if anyone has heard of any problems with the kit or plans that may be hindering completion.
What kind of workshop setup do you have for the project? Have you done any sheet metal work before? I've found time and time again the biggest drivers for getting the airplane done often have nothing to do with the plane type it's self, but alot to do with a usuable every day work shop, a rutene schedule where you can spend a few hours a day every day an proficient fabrication skills in a particular construction method.Spencer
My preparation is coming along. I'm converting my garage to a workshop, finished the insulation and wiring with 110/220, paneling the walls and installed the airconditioner so I can work in the Texas heat. Also attending an EAA RV-7 workshop in August. I think even if I decide to go with the Bearhawk the RV-7 workshop will be time well spent since there is still riveting to be done on the Bearhawk. Will be attending a fabric covering workshop when one becomes available clsoe to me.
Hopefully I can shed some light on Bearhawk Completions since I'm working on building one, currently. If you haven’t already, I’d recommend joining the Bearhawk builders groups over on yahoo groups: (groups.yahoo.com/group/bearhawk and groups.yahoo.com/group/bearhawkqbkit).
Online builder logs aren't 100% accurate in judging the completion rate of either plane, but for the most part Bearhawk builders don’t really document their projects online. They also don’t tend to show up at shows or anything. It’s a whole different builder community (Bearhawk) that tends to be more rural or family oriented (not showplane, formation flying, or aerobatics).
For Bearhawks, there are many projects that get sold to a second builder who completes the plane. This one, for example (http://www.mykitlog.com/rogletree) that was sold to Jared Yates (http://jaredyates.com/bearhawk/) , who hasn’t updated his log recently but is getting very close. Also, there is a mix of scratch built entirely, scratch built with kit compenets, and whole kitbuilt Bearhawks out there. There's no good way to figure the completion rate with all that. I know that over 1200 plans have been sold (for the 4 place), I have 1196. Also there have been at least 121 fuselages sold, many more wings from Avipro. I’d guess that about ½ or possibly more of the kits are either complete or are being actively worked on. Many more kitbuilders reach completion, most scratchbuilders give up after pounding out the ribs (or never start after buying plans).
The Bearhawk build is much different from vans both in techniques used and instructions provided. The Bearhawk Kit manuals are out on the bearhawkaircraft site for free. Read through them, compare to an RV builders manuals if you have the chance. You’ll notice vans is a much more pre-engineered build, everyone does it mostly the same. There is a lot to still figure out yourself on the bearhawk. For example the vans firewall forward is an entire kit with lots of detail. The bearhawk is 3 pages in the manual and they say use whatever engine you want (lyc 360, 390, 540, cont 470, franklin, or even auto conversion). They provide mounts for some engines but pretty much leave the rest to you.
Also, vans has all the hardware pre-planned because it can work that way. With a bearhawk, a weld bead or tube trimming can set you off a whole AN bolt length size. As a result no hardware is provided with the kit, just a list of stuff to buy and sizes that should be close (wicks has the list made up into a kit).
That’s pretty long, but I really like my Bearhawk kit, it is different than a vans. I’d let the mission determine the airplane and then go develop the skills to build what you need.
-Matt Kunkel
Thanks Matt. You gave me some good insight. I need to find a kit builder near by and get a look at it first hand. I agree with you that mission must decide the airplane you eventually build. The Bearhawk fits my mission better than any other airplane out there. I just want to ensure myself that I will be able to finish what I start.
Jim
There are some kit builders in TX. I'm sure one of them would welcome you to come by for a visit. You might be able to locate one here: http://bearhawkbuilder.com/ or join the Berahawk Yahoo list and ask there. I think mission comes first in the decision.
What is your primary goal for actual use of the airplane? What is your age?
RV7, Fast, but limited baggage capacity, and low wing means you will be looking at the wing instead of the ground. Excellent reputation, plenty of help available. Plan on a sunshade and or tinted canopy. Can buy one on the current used market now fairly cheap if you have a pile of cash or can get a loan. Can land off airport, but not like the Bearhawk can.
Bearhawk is slower, typical cruise about 125mph for fuel efficiency. Lycoming 360 or 540 size engine. Hauls a ton of stuff...seriously. Tube and fabric design. Can buy quick build options, exchange cash for time saved. Very roomy interior. High wing, can camp under it, and see the ground you are flying over. Slow build from plans will take you a good 6+ years if you have a full time job and limited build time available. Some guys push 6+ years on RVs if they don't work at it regularly or just don't have the time they thought they would. If you have all the time in the world, you can crank a Bearhawk out in 3 years probably, maybe less if you are an overachiever type.
You do not see many finished, because they take a LONG time to build. Compare that to the number of RVs finished. Great plane though when it is done. Plenty of help available on the Bearhawk forum on Yahoo.
If you are anxious to fly...buy.
If you are anxious and still want to build, RV7 quickbuild.
If you are young, patient, and complete the projects you start, then go for the Bearhawk or Patrol(two seat tandem version of the Bearhawk).
It is easy to start a big project with enthusiasm, only to lose motivation 6 months or a year down the road when the reality of the size of the job hits, as well as the never ending charges to your credit card. How motivated and financially able are you at this point in your life?
Leaning toward the RV due to the builder's support network and proven track record. (I may change my mind tomorrow.) I'm old enough that I don't want to spend years building. Looks to me like the RV QB may go together somewhat faster than the Bearhawk QB. Thanks Guys for everyone's input.
Most people will change their mind numerous times. If you can manage to get a flight in any of the ones you are considering, it will help you decide.
The current used aircraft market is great if you are a buyer right now. So unless you are absolutely sure that you want a big project to work on, you can plop down the same money and fly next week if you buy. Obviously it won't be a brand new
airplane, and you will be limited as to the work you can do yourself on it. But if flying is your main goal, that is a very fast option.
Van himself made a comment a while back, that given the choice for long cross country flying, he would opt for the RV9 instead of the RV7. From what I have read, it is a bit more docile with not quite the sports car handling of the RV7.
Speed is a big seller on the RV. But it comes at the cost of limited baggage hauling. The speed difference over a few months of flying is not a big deal between say 125mph vs 190mph. But over the course of a year or more, you definitely save time and can dodge around weather more easily. Are you a get there fast, land, get things done, and get back home type? Then the RV is the way to go. How much time will you have to fly? If you fly on weekends only, and want to do a weekend trip and be back by Sunday night so you can be back at work on Monday, then speed becomes a factor. If you are retired, or work for yourself and have more free time and a more flexible time schedule, then it is no big deal flying a plane that cruises at 90mph.
Other planes similar to the Bearhawk and Patrol would be the Rans S7, Kitfox S7 Supersport, Highlander from Just Aircraft, Sportsman 2+2 from Glasair, Murphy Rebel, and others.
You will easily drop 50 bills + building any of them.
If you buy a completed experimental aircraft, you are in the same boat as just buying a certified aircraft as far as maintenance. Your choice is to take it to an A&P for the annual and other major work, or the original builder of the airplane. Since you did not build it, you will not be able to get the repairman cert from the FAA. That is only issued to the ORIGINAL builder of the kit.
The fastest kits to build would be even smaller, like the Titan Tornado. But again, you will drop a good 30 bills + on even those, with even less baggage capacity. BUT, it will get you flying fast and you put it together yourself. You could be in the air in 12 months or less building one of those.
Vans has become like the Cessna 150 of the kit market as far as appeal goes. They are a dime a dozen now. Nobody is going to pay much attention to you while fueling up, which is good if you just want to gas and go. The more unique an airplane you land at any given airport, the more likely that your 15 minute fuel stop will turn into an hour or more show and tell session.
There is something for everyone in the experimental market now. Do your research, be realistic about how you will ACTUALLY use the airplane. And also keep in mind that, for the most part, you will probably be flying alone the majority of the time.
Also, with the tandem vs side by side seating issue, having a seat right next to you to put stuff on is very handy. It is kind of hard to grab things if other the seat is behind you.
I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. Anyone can maintain or modify an Experimental Amateur-Built aircraft. FAR Part 43 does not apply to Experimental Aircraft (see 43.1), in fact, there ARE no regulations governing maintenance and inspection of homebuilts. The aircraft's Operating Limits are the only governing item, and the FAA "boilerplate" usually says only that the aircraft must be inspected yearly by the holder of the Repairman Certificate or an A&P (not an IA).Quote:
Originally Posted by BearHawke
In the ~15 years of ownership of my Fly Baby (purchased in '96), I've removed and replaced cylinders, generators, starters, starter clutches, tail surfaces, wheels, brakes, radios, transponders, altitude encoders, antennas, and landing-gear legs (primary flight structure, on a Fly Baby). I just made the log entries myself and signed it off.
Now, just because you CAN maintain your own aircraft doesn't mean you SHOULD. I was fortunate enough to have an experienced EAA Tech Counselor talk me through this stuff, and spent time talking to my A&P to ensure I was doing things right. Get someone experienced to look at your work, even if they don't sign it off.
I stand corrected.
While technically my statement may not meet FAA paper pusher guidelines, the advice was solid. Meaning, if you buy an experimental from someone, and you're not an A&P, and you did not build it, you had better bring it to an A&P or the original builder for the annual or major work.
The RULES may allow that I can send my 10 year old out to swap out the ignition system on my RV8 and then go flying. In practice, that would not be a good idea obviously.
But as was said, just because you can work on it, does not mean you should. At least not without supervision or follow up checks by an A&P.
Back to the Bearhawk...quick video on what you can haul. That would be tough to squeeze into an RV.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rgnbjviNhg
Certainly.Quote:
Originally Posted by BearHawke
But consider a similar point: Imagine the aircraft suffers a prop strike and the Lycoming needs to be torn down, inspected, and rebuilt. Most RV builders (and, I suspect, most Bearhawk builders) buy their engines as ready-to-install units. What in the construction of the aircraft prepared the builder to perform this task? Most builders did little more than hang the engine onto the mounts and connect controls, pipes, wires, and hoses. What makes the typical Lancair IVP builder qualified to maintain a twin-turbo aircraft engine?
Every homebuilt owner...builder or not... needs to be aware their abilities may be limited, compared to a licensed A&P. We're authorized to perform the task, but we always have to consider whether we're putting ourselves at risk. Good buddy of mine built an award-winning Long-EZ. Every year, he does the annual...then taxis over to the FBO to have their mechanics check the engine over. He like that peace of mind.
Sure, there are builders whose abilities put the average A&P to shame. But aircraft are really fairly simple. The engines are 1930s technology. A builder is always going to have an edge when it comes to airframe work, but it's really not that complex. For basic aircraft, like the Bearhawk and RV series, there should be plenty of advice available within the local EAA community.
Well said.
And though the Lycoming and Continental engines are old technology, if you have never torn an engine down and rebuilt it or had to do major engine repairs, it's definitely not a good idea to go it alone and figure it is alright.
Some companies offer experimental builders the opportunity to actually build their own engine and have it test run before they take it home. That certainly is a step above just buying one already built and hanging it on the mount.
But, that doesn't take the place of an general aviation A&P who has worked on Lycomings and Continentals for twenty years and has seen all the things that can go wrong with them.
And now we have all the alternative engines out there, which A&Ps typically will not work on in an "official" manner. So builders with those engines are even more on their own and would have to rely heavily on
online builder support groups and other resources. A seemingly simple thing like ring end gap and getting it wrong, and or spacing the gaps incorrectly in relationship to one another
can cause big problems with some engines. While in some cases there is more than one way to accomplish a task, in others there are only two...a right way and a wrong way.
You will never be sorry about having a second or third set of more experienced eyes look at what you have done and ask you questions about how you went about doing things.
Avionics is another good example. I took one electronics class in high school. Does that mean I am qualified to delve into the inner workings of steam gauges or glass panels? No way. I would not
even go there. Pack it up and send it off to the avionics company to troubleshoot.
One of the great things about the internet with regards to aviation or other pursuits, is that there is a wealth of information out there, and it is very easy now to simply post a question online and
get various responses from people who have been there done that, or are experts in their fields. That certainly has helped Experimental aviation see the growth it has. So when you choose
to become a builder, make full use of the resource at your fingertips. But also be able to swallow your pride and know when you really should have someone else do a specific task.
As you learn and gain experience, you can pass that knowledge onto the younger generations just getting involved, who have the same types of questions you had when
you started. Leaving builder websites up, long after your airplane has been successfully built, definitely helps in that regard. You may have finished your RV7 back in 2006,
but you can bet that a newbie just ordering the kit now, would be grateful to have access to the information, and what worked, what didn't work, how problems were resolved
etc.
Nice post, Bearhawke.
I do like the Bearhawk Patrol, even if it does have one too many seats. :-)
I think the 125mph cruise mentioned *may* be a bit unfair to the Bearhawk. Given I'm not flying yet but given the experiene I've had in other builder's planes and talking to those flying: 125mph with a fixed flat pitch climb prop. The guys with cs props are seeing closer to 135-140mph on an o-360 engine (or throttled back 540). Also, yes it's more fuel$$$, but the 540 at 65% at 8-9000 ft will do the 150-160 mph. It's all in what you want it to do.-Matt
That 125mph is direct from aircraft designer Bob Barrows and how he flies with his 360 in the Bearhawk. He is known to be frugal and not "hot rod Bob." Take one look at his instrument panel and you will see bare bone basics. But yes, you can indeed go faster at the expense of higher fuel burns.
In the RV community there are two main drivers of the completion rate - money and life. With the newer matched-hole kits (RV-7/8/9/10/12) there are virtually no technical issues and because of the fleet size almost any option you can imagine is already designed and/or available to purchase. So if you have the money and life doesn't get in your way you can get the airplane built.
The fact that you have two dramatically different choices says you have a confict that completion rate is not going to solve. Go with the one that sings to you... the one that excites you every time you see a picture of it. Having that spark will give you the perseverance to overcome any obstacle whether it's skill, time or incomplete plans. I finally built an RV-6 because I realized I fell in love with the RV family when I saw the RV-3 in 1974 and by 1996 it hadn't faded. I figured that was enough commitment to last through the build process. It was.
I love the RV's and they are exceptional aircraft but your heart may be saying Bearhawk. If so then go with it. It's a blond or brunnette, Ginger or Mary Ann question. Only you know the right answer.
out of curiosity, what does it matter how many OTHER people have finished the project? Or how LONG they took to build it. There are so many factors in that, and RV's are the biggest and most successful experimental, so just by shear numbers of kits sold, of course they are going to have more finished.
what matters is how long YOU will build it. How long you WANT to spend building and what your level of skills are for building. I would say whats more important is finding the aircraft that fits YOUR mission. Nothing saying you can't find a kit that has been started, to save you some time.
I looked at that as well, uavmx.
While your point is valid, if a particular plan or kit had a VERY low completion rate it could point to an overly complex design or simply poorly written instructions - and poor builder support. Research would be required to find out what is keeping people from completing them.