Starting the prototype involves hand propping the 170hp auto fuel burning O360 which is not nearly as difficult as I had imagined. Taxing is normal with
good visibility overall At 5' 10" I was not able to see directly over the nose
which is normal for this type of aircraft, but only need very gentle S-turns to
keep track of the runway ahead. Directional control during taxi is straight
foreword with a tall wheel of Bob's design. Steering is smooth and positive.
For tight 180's moderate differential breaking is required to make the tail
wheel swivel which would make unlikely to go into swivel mode without
conscious effort. The brakes are powerful, but not touchy because of the short
mechanical advantage on the brake pedals.
Take off happens very quickly with only about 7.6lbs per hp at solo weights. I
am sure that all that power and torque generate significant left turning
tendencies, but with the light and powerful rudder, I didn't really notice. The
tail can be raised almost immediately after adding power and the airplane is in
the air and climbing very soon after that. I usually used 2 notches of flaps for
takeoff which really makes the airplane leap into the air. Once in the air, the
nose needs to be pointed up sharply to keep the airspeed reasonable and below
VFE if flaps are used. Initial climb rates solo are about 2000 fpm at 86mph at
sea level.
During climb out after coming to grips with the impressive performance, the
next thing that becomes apparent is the light and powerful controls. All
controls are very light and harmonized. I find myself rolling into turns more
aggressively and banking more steeply than in aircraft with heavier controls.
The roll rate is quick, but feels even faster then it truly is because the light
ailerons allows the pilot to use large displacements without having to use a lot
of pressure on the stick. Adverse yaw is not noticeable during normal flying
because the light and powerful rudder makes compensating for it feel natural.
When using large aileron displacements while purposely not coordinating
with rudder there is some adverse yaw. At first this seems significantly more
then a Citabria or Super Cub, but I believe that the reason for this is because
the ailerons are so light that they allow you to apply full aileron deflection
without much force. To apply the same full aileron to a Citabria would require
both hands and significant effort which would mask some adverse yaw. The
large windows on each side of the aircraft can be opened in flight at moderate
speeds and provide an open cockpit feel and excellent photo opportunities.
Leveling off at 8000' and leaving the throttle up yields a max cruise of about
140mph (tas) (with no wheel pants!) which feels very fast. Throttling back to
18" still gives about 132mph with 7gph fuel burn which should provide over
seven and a half hours of endurance and 1030 miles of range until dry tanks.
The aircraft is not designed for acrobatics, but it does 60 steep turns and
wingovers well and is a joy to fling around. Visibility is good in flight, but
being a high wing aircraft the inside wing ends up blocking the view in the
direction of turn until the turn gets steep enough to use the skylight which
requires close to 45 degrees of bank. The airplane has lots of rudder authority
and remains composed with full slips which are very effective at bleeding off
energy. At normal loadings, slips are rudder limited. At more rearward
loadings, the rudder and ailerons reach their stops at about the same time. The
flaps are very effective and slow the stall down from 45mph to 35mph (cas) at
solo weights. Stall recoveries are straight foreword and the aircraft is docile
throughout stalls. The airplane can be spun with full rudder during a stall, but
recovering from incipient spins is quick and normal. The airplane is statically
and dynamically stable in all axes with good damping. These nice
characteristics remain with 300lbs in the back seat.
Descent requires some planning as the aircraft is fairly clean and it is hard to
get it to come down steeply without using lots of flaps or bringing the engine
back to very low power setting. I prefer using about 54mph (cas) on final with
30 degrees of flaps. This gives plenty of float for a gradual flare and enough
time to get it where you want it while still not using much runway. For short
runways 50mph and 40 degrees of flaps gives just enough energy to flare with
some margin for error but almost no floating. Slower than that would be
possible with some skill for getting into fields around 500' long with room left
over.
The airplane exhibited normal characteristics in both wheel and 3 point
landings and seems as easy as any tail wheel airplane on the runway. The
elevators have plenty of power to raise the nose beyond the 3 point attitude
and all weights and loadings. The controls might initially feel a light to pilots
who have not flown aircraft with light control pressures in the past, but after
getting used to the light control pressures, they feel very natural.
Performance testing was conducted to develop aircraft thrust and drag
characteristics which was used to calculate performance characteristics at
varying weights. The top speed, stall speed and climb rate were verified with
empirical testing and correlate well. This is for a 170hp engine with a fixed
pitch performance prop. The prototype weighs less than 1000 lbs. Empty.
Sea Level Weight
(lbs)
Vmas(MTAS SL")
VmaxCruise
(MTAS8k")
Vy (MCAS,SL)
ROC (fpm)
Vx (MCAS)
Patrol Performance
1200 lbs 1300 lbs 1500 lbs
2000 lbs
144.4
144.2
143.7
143.2
143.0
142.4
140.8
140.5
139.8
138.9
138.4
137.2
85.7
2192
50.3
86
2000
52.4
86.6
1687
56.2
87.2
1443
59.9
87.6
1339
61.6
88.4
1160
65
AOC (degrees)
Vbg (MCAS)
BGA (degrees)
Vmd (MCAS)
ROS (fpm)
Vsl (MCAS)
Vs0 (MCAS)
Va (MCAS)
21.18
59.6
4.65
45.3
373
42.8
36.5
89.7
18.95
62
4.65
47.1
388
44.5
38
93.4
15.44
66.7
4.65
50.6
417
47.8
40.8
100.3
12.8
71
4.65
53.9
444
50.9
43.5
106.8
11.71
73
4.65
55.5
457
52.4
44.7
109.8
9.86
77
4.65
58.5
482
55.2
47.2
115.8
Greg King has been instrumental during the flight testing of the prototype
Bearhawk Patrol. Greg King is a flight instructor, and holds a bachelors
Degree in Aerospace Engineering
Bearhawk Patrol
The Bearhawk Patrol is a high wing aircraft designed for comfort, endurance and fun. The
generous proportions of the cabin provide plenty of room for just about any sized pilot, a
passenger (or two if they are small) and gear. The large baggage door ensures the ability to
easily load your cargo.
The available visibility is outstanding both on the ground and in the air. The patrols flight controls
are light and very responsive at cruise and slow speeds. Low landing speeds are further
enhanced by the use of the 18 ft. span, manually operated flaps (up to 40 degrees).
The Patrol can stay aloft for a very long time. With an O-360 Lycoming pulled back for maximum
endurance, a steady 100+ mph can be maintained for nearly nine hours. Or at a more brisk 140
mph pace, you have more than five hours endurance. The Patrols 55 gallon fuel tanks allow it to
reach many remote locations and return home safely. The Bearhawk Patrol is everything that
made the Super Cub famous and has significantly greater speed, climb rate and endurance.
Factually, the Patrol has three huge advantages over a SuperCub. First, there is NO opportunity
for a Moose stall. The slow flight characteristics are amazing and it won't spin unless you force
it. Second, there is a huge baggage door, since the longerons are up higher in the structure.
Third, it's 40 miles per hour faster in cruise.
Most importantly, the Patrol is FUN! The remarkable performance is easily utilized by the
average pilot. The stick controls connect the pilot to the aircraft in a way that a yoke cannot. The
Patrol can land in many fields that you would not even consider with other airplanes.
Furthermore, this stout airframe has experienced a very satisfying test program for intermediate
aerobatics with a crisp roll rate and responsive handling. The Patrol's versatility opens a whole
new world of aviation to the private pilot.
The Bearhawk Patrol can accept engines from 115hp to 210hp. The prototype is powered by an
O-360 Lycoming 180hp engine swinging a fixed pitch aluminum propeller. N289R was later fitted
with a C/S prop. The fabric covered steel tube fuselage is a time proven way to build a strong
and durable structure. The all aluminum, flush riveted wing features a Riblett 30-413.5 airfoil and
available 40 degrees flap setting.
The Patrol is a recent, original design of Robert Barrows of Fincastle, Virginia. Both aircraft are
designed to the equivalency of Utility Category standards for increased structural strength and
enhanced capability for unimproved airstrips. A 180hp Patrol has a cruise speed (60% power) of
140 MPH, a takeoff roll of 250 feet and a landing speed of 35 MPH. The wing span is 33 feet.
Cabin width is 32 inches. The Patrol has a 1,050 pound useful load (depending on a builder's
equipment selections), if built to Utility Category equivalency as designed.
Useful Performance
Top Speed (Vne)
Landing Speed
40 mph, IAS
40 mph touchdown
speed
Takeoff Roll
Rate of Climb @
gross
650 mi.
900 mi.
Empty Weight
850-1000 miles with
aux tanks
Gross weight
Utility
Useful Load
Fuel Capacity
Wing span
33 ft.
Wing Area
Length
23 ft. 6 in.
Cabin Width
42 in.
Cabin Length
Super wide CG
envelope (12")
Construction
All-metal wings-90%
factory riveted, solid
rivets
1000+ hours on
prototype
Performance specs
verified by builders
If the wing spar is braced with wire, the spar will be under
compression and the wire under tension. How do we make
sure the spar does not fail under compression?
The final shear flow pattern is shown above. The following solution steps
show how this pattern was obtained.
With Delta P method we must identify two adjacent sections along the length
of the beam. The section at which the shear flows are sought is called section
A-A, and the adjacent section, some distance away along the length, is called
section B-B.
We proceed by calculating the normal force in each stringer at section A-A. To
do this we need to use the general bending stress equation. First, we need to
identify whether there is any symmetry with respect to horizontal or vertical
centroidal axes. This is done by examining the stringer areas and their
distribution. Also determine how many components of bending moment are
present at section A-A. In this case the cross section is doubly symmetric, so
obviously the product of inertia is zero. Also with the force at the tip acting in
the vertical direction, there is only one moment at the root, that is Mx. Once
the stress in each stringer is determined, the force in each stringer is
determined by the product of stress times the cross-sectional area.
These steps are repeated at section B-B. Notice that this section is closer to the
tip, therefore, the bending moment at this section is less than that at the root,
section A-A. Since there is no change in cross-sectional geometry, the
centroidal location and the moment of inertia do not change. The forces in
stringer at section B-B are obtained and shown below.
The difference between the axial force at each end of the stringer is
determined next. This is where the name Delta P comes from.
Next, we close the section by replacing the cut web. To calculate the shear
flow along the web that was set to zero, we use the moment equilibrium
equation. This equation gives the constant shear flow qo. This value is then
added (with attention to direction) to other shear flows to obtain the final
shear flow pattern at the root, section A-A.
What we just did is the Delta P method in a nut shell. Notice how the shear
flows are exactly the same as found before. Because this beam has no taper
along its length, we could have taken station B-B to be anywhere along the
length and still get the same shear flows at the root. This, however, is not the
case in tapered beams, as we will discover next.
11.
12.
13. For the uniform single-cell, skin-stringer cantilever box beam and
15.
16. EQUATIONS USED
17.
18.
19.
20. SOLUTION
21.First define stations A-A and B-B. Since we are looking for the shear
flow at the root, let that be station A-A. This is a cantilever beam with
constant cross section, therefore station B-B can be anywhere between
station A-A and the tip. Since the cross-sectional properties are constant
along the length of the beam, the magnitude of the shear flows will be
independent of the location of station B-B. In this example, station B-B
is placed at 50 inches from the tip.
22.
23.Using equation A13.13, the normal stress in each stringer is found
(remember that the stringer coordinates are in reference to the
centriod).
24.
26.
27.Now repeat the procedure for B-B. If this cross section and/or the
stingers varied with the length, then the moments of inertia and centroid
would need to be calculated again. But in this case they don't. We just
need to recalculate the bending moments as the moment arms are
different for station B-B.
28.
29.The delta P's (i.e., the difference in the axial forces at the ends of each
stiffener between stations A-A and B-B) are:
30.
31.Remove the necessary webs to make this an open section. Webs AB
(the quarter circle) and web AB (the interior web) are removed in this
example. Now calculate the shear flow for the cross section. Here is the
way of finding the shear flows. Starting at 'A', show the dP found
earlier in the proper direction.
32.
33.In order to maintain equilibrium, there must be another force in the
opposite direction. This force can either be represented as a force or a
shear flow along the right edge of stringer A where it is attached to a
web.
34.
35.The shear flow in the web that is attached to stringer A is of equal
magnitude but of opposite direction due to equilibrium requirements.
The same is seen in stringer C. Note that since the web is rectangular,
the shear flow along all four sides would be equal.
36.
37.Stringer C has a shear flow of 250 lb/in on the left side. In addition, it
has a dP of 694.44 lb. Hence, in order to maintain equilibrium there is a
need for another shear flow along the right edge of stringer C. This
shear flow is calculated in the figure below.
38.
39.This new shear flow is passed onto the bottom web, then onto stringer
'B' which already has a dP acting on it.
40.
41.Since B is the last stringer having a free edge on the left, the force
acting along that edge should come out zero. If it doesn't, then
something is wrong in the calculations.
42.
43.
Here is a full picture of this process.
44.It is important to note that the shear flows calculated so far are not the
final answers. This is evident by the fact that these shear flows satisfy
only the force equilibrium and not the moment equilbrium. Now, we
replace the webs that were removed earlier and write the angle of twist
equation for each cell in terms of the two unknown constant shear flows
(one for each cell) q1 and q2. Since the angle of twist in cell one is the
same as that in cell two, we get one equation at the end in terms of q1
and q2 only.
45.
46.
47.Next, we sum the moments about 'A' to get another equation in terms of
the two constant shear flows. Notice that the moment due to external
forces is zero due to the location of the moment center.
48.
49.Solving the two equations simultaneously gives q1 and q2. The final
shear flows at the root section are given below:
50.
51.