Patrol Flying Report By Greg King

The Bearhawk Patrol is a 2 place tandem sport-utility aircraft that is heavily

influenced by the 4 place Bearhawk. It has the same wing span -33'- but
slightly longer wings to make up for the narrower fuselage. The flaps are
longer with the inboard ends now extending all the way to the fuselage to
increase effectiveness. The tail is smaller because of a slightly smaller CG
range and a more effective airfoil shaped horizontal stabilizer.
The fuselage is significantly narrower then the 4 place version, but still very
wide for a tandem aircraft. There is lots of room both up front and in the back
so that even the largest pilots will have plenty of room. There is a door on the
right side and is similar to the 4 place Bearhawk with a forward swinging door
and upward swinging window. Entry to either seat takes some forethought the
first time, but seems easier then a Super Cub or Citabria because of the added
space and larger door. After a few flights, entry and exit seemed easy and
natural. The prototype had a simple and ground adjustable front seat that
moves up as it moves forward and seems to place pilots of varying sizes in a
very good flying position.
The stick and rudder pedals move through their large range of movement
smoothly and freely on the ground with the rudders being widely spaced in the
wide fuselage. Looking at the control surfaces while moving the controls
reveals that the surfaces themselves have a great deal of deflection available
which should be useful on gusty days at low speeds. There are trim tabs on
both elevators that also operate as servo tabs over part of the elevator travel to
lighten control forces. The trim control lever is over the left shoulder and
moveable throughout about a 90 degree arc, similar to a Champ. There are
sight tube fuel gauges in each wing root and a total of 55 gallons available.

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

1700 lbs 1800 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.

Quick-Build Kits and Subcomponents

Four People, Full Fuel, 150160 mph
High useful load

-1300 pounds w/180hp

-1100 pounds w/250 hp

Specifications:

Useful Performance
Top Speed (Vne)

175 mph, IAS

250 hp -160 mph

@75%-150 mph @62%

Cruise Speed (260

hp)

150 mph (62%), TAS (varies with

builder,engine,weight)

180 hp -145 mph@ 75

%-135 mph @ 60%

Cruise Speed (180

hp)

135-140 mph, TAS

Landing Speed

40 mph, IAS

40 mph touchdown
speed

Takeoff Roll

200-500 ft, demonstrated (depends

on engine)

400 foot takeoff at

2,500 pounds (250 hp)

Rate of Climb @
gross

1,500-1,700 fpm (varies with

builder,engine, etc.)

Range @ 65% est.

650 mi.

650-800 mile range on

standard tanks

Range @ 50% est.

900 mi.

Empty Weight
850-1000 miles with
aux tanks

1150-1350 pounds (varies w

/builder /engine /prop)

Gross weight

2500 pounds (2700 pounds on floats)

Utility

Useful Load

1350-1150 pounds (varies w/ builder/

engine/ prop)

Four FAA-people, full

fuel (50 gals std)

Fuel Capacity

50 gallons (standard) 72 gallons

(optional, w/aux tanks)

Cabin size of Cessna

180

Wing span

33 ft.

Wing Area

180 sq. ft.

52 inch cargo door

Length

23 ft. 6 in.

Cabin Width

42 in.

Cabin Length

9 ft 8 in. (firewall to back of back of

baggage area)

Super wide CG
envelope (12")

Construction

Build time 850-1200

hours (actual builders'
times)

All-metal wings-90%
factory riveted, solid
rivets

Fuselage 4130 tubepainted and ready for

cover
Proven Design

1000+ hours on
prototype

125 plus plus kits

delivered

Over 65 now flying

(kits and plansbuilt)

Performance specs
verified by builders

FILOSOFA DEL CONTROL DE MOVIMIENTO DEL CENTRO DE GRAVEDAD

En un avin convencional, la distribucin de la carga de combustible y
la secuencia de consumo del mismo derivan, principalmente, de
consideraciones sobre las cargas en las alas y de
losdesplazamientos del Centro de Gravedad (cg). Las cargas sobre las alas
incluyen fuerzas aerodinmicas, peso propio, distribucin de combustible y peso
del fuselaje y su contenido.
En cualquier avin en vuelo estacionario, la carga total sobre las alas es igual al
peso del avin. Los pesos del fuselaje, combustible y alas, incluyendo motores y
gndolas son cargas hacia abajo. Las fuerzas aerodinmicas son cargas hacia
arriba y hacia atrs, ms un momento de torsin. Todo ello hace que se
produzcan unas fuerzas cortantes y momentos flectores en el encastre de las alas.
Ver la figura 1.

Los efectos de la distribucin de combustible sobre esta fuerza cortante

y momento flectorpueden ilustrarse con el siguiente ejemplo: supongamos que
un peso fijo de, digamos 1000 kg, se mueve desde el interior del fuselaje a un
lugar a lo largo de la envergadura del ala. Obviamente la cortadura sobre el ala en
el lado del fuselaje habr sido reducida en 1000 kg. Si esta carga se ha colocado
en el extremo, ms all de la gndola exterior, el momento flector resultante es
igual al producto de esos 1000 kg por la distancia desde el encastre al punto de
aplicacin de la carga. Sin embargo, si la carga est aplicada ms ac de la
gndola interior, el momento flector se reduce, al reducirse la distancia del punto
de aplicacin de la carga. Consecuentemente con lo anterior, desde un punto de
vista estructural, el combustible debera ser cargado desde el interior hasta el
exterior. En vuelo, donde la fuerza de sustentacin produce un momento flector
contrario, el consumo debe ser al revs, desde el exterior hacia el interior, para
as disminuir el momento flector resultante. Ver la figura 2.

Tambin debern ser tenidas en cuenta ciertas consideraciones sobre el

movimiento del cg. A medida que el peso del avin se incrementa con la carga de
pago hasta el peso mximo sin combustible, el nico requerimiento es que el cg
est entre los lmites indicados en la Hoja de Centrado y Carga. Sin embargo, en la
carga de combustible, por la flecha del ala, el combustible de unos depsitos
tienen ms efecto que otros sobre el movimiento del cg, por eso se sigue una
secuencia de carga que minimice el desplazamiento del mismo, llenando los
depsitos de forma que se carguen alternativa y simultneamente delante y
detrs de la lnea del cg, consiguindose que sus respectivos momentos se
equilibren. Para ilustrar esto, en la figura 3 se muestra la secuencia de carga de
un A340/600. Se puede observar en esta figura que primero se llenan
parcialmente los depsitos 1, 2, 3 y 4, situados delante del cg. Despus los
depsitos exteriores, situados detrs del cg. El resto de la secuencia sigue la
misma tnica, llenando simultneamente depsitos situados delante y detrs del
cg, hasta completar la carga.

En la figura 4 se muestra grficamente este movimiento del cg a medida que se

sigue la secuencia de carga. El consumo debe realizarse de forma inversa. Con
ello se asegura que el centro de gravedad no sale de sus lmites.

Es obligatorio realizar la carga y el consumo de combustible segn indica el

fabricante del avin en sus manuales.

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 amount of tension in the wire and the compressive

force in the spar depend on the lift and the angle of the
tension wire.
Simplified diagram of the forces on a lift wire supported wing spar

The formula for the tension wire is:Where

T is the tensile load in the wire
L is the load caused by the lift
Theta is the angle between the wire and the vertical
Where
C is the compressive force in the spar
L is the load caused by the lift
Theta is the angle between the wire and the vertical
NOTE The minus sign denotes compressive forces in the
spar
If more than one bracing wire is used, the compressive
forces are added over the inboard section(s).
When we apply a vertical shear force Sy and the structure is symmetric about
x axis, then why is it logical to have the position of shear center at the
location of intersection of line of action of shear force and x axis?
If we go by basic definition then the moment about the shear center due to shear
forces should be 0, so the line of action of external shear force is logical, but when
we consider moment about x- axis, rather than getting cancelled, I think they get
added.

eg. This is the situation.

Now look at the final solution depicting the shear

flows

So as I suggested, instead of moments being equal and opposite, I think they

exactly equal in magnitude and direction. So where am I getting a wrong
interpretation?
EDIT:- I tried to keep the question general and explained accordingly, to be specific
the question is as follows:The thin-walled single cell beam shown in Fig. 20.11 has been idealized into a
combination of direct stress carrying booms and shear stress only carrying walls. If
the section supports a vertical shear load of 10 kN acting in a vertical plane through
booms 3 and 6, calculate the distribution of shear flow around the section.

Boom areas: B1 =B8 =200mm2, B2 =B7 =250mm2, B3 =B6 =400mm2, B4 = B5

=100mm2.
x is horizontal and y is vertical
It is a closed section beam. An idealized version of an airplane wing

Section IV.5 The Determination of

the Flexural Shear Flow Distribution by Considering the Changes
in Flange Forces (The Delta P Method)
The method of solution based on the general shear flow
equation is valid for beams with uniform cross section
(constant moments of inertia). However, in aircraft structures
it is common to encounter nonuniform beams. The wing box is
a good example. In such problems the general shear flow
equation could lead to erroneous values for shear flows. This
is because this equation assumes Ix, Iy, and Ixy are all
constant along the length of the beam whereas in a
nonuniform beam that is not the case. Therefore, we must use
a different method of analysis when dealing with nonuniform
beams.
The Delta P method described in this section is what we would use for
nonuniform beams. Note that nonuniformity could be in different forms. For
example, we could have a skin-stringer box beam with stringer areas varying
along the length of the beam causing the moment of inertia to be a function of
position along the length. We could also have webs of varying dimensions,
i.e., tapered . The shear flow analysis using the Delta P method is more
tedious than using the general shear flow equation and is not recommended
for uniform beams.
The example problem below shows the procedure for using the Delta P
method. Let's consider a square beam of 100 in. in length subject to a 100 lb
load at its tip passing through the centroid. There are four stringers at the
corners, each with an area of 1 sq. in. We'd like to find the shear flow pattern
by using the Delta P method.

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.

As in previous method of solution based on Eqn. A14.14, we must begin at a

point with known shear flow. So we cut the box beam along one web which
would make shear flow zero there. Then we start with stringer A and calculate
the shear flow along the 5" length (i.e., the distance between sections A-A and
B-B) by dividing the Delta P of stringer A by 5". This shear flow has to be
equal to that in the adjacent web at the top. Since the web is untapered, the
shear flow along all four sides would be equal. We march around the entire
section and find the shear flow in each web. Notice that equilibrium is
maintained in each stringer and in each web as it must. Please note carefully
the directions of the forces and shear flows. You can click on the picture for a
more detailed drawing of the stringers. Each stringer and web is in
equilibrium, this can be proven by summing the forces.

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.

Delta P METHOD: Application Procedure

1. Identify the section (ie station A-A) along the beam
where the shear flow is to be determined (usually the
root for a cantilever beam).
2. Choose another station (ie station B-B) in the vicinity of
the first one. For tapered beams, the closer the better.
3. Determine the bending moments at station A-A and
station B-B.
4. Determine the normal stress in each stringer, using
equation A13.13, at each station.
5. Determine the normal component of the force in each
stringer at each station.
6. Calculate the difference between the axial forces at the
two stations for each stringer. This is the dP for each
stringer.
7. If the beam has a closed cross section, modify it to an
open section.
8. Evaluate the q' variation at station A-A based
on Delta P/Delta L
9. Replace the removed web(s), and calculate the
necessary constants (i.e., q01, q02, q02,...q0n, where n
= no. of cells).
10.
The vector addition of q' and q0 in each cell gives
the final shear flow distribution at station A-A.

11.
12.

SECTION IV.5 EXAMPLE 1

13. For the uniform single-cell, skin-stringer cantilever box beam and

loading of example 1 in sections A15.9 & A15.10 determine the shear

flows in the webs at the root section using the Delta P method.
14.

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.

25.The normal force is just the stress times the area.

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.