Here are some random photos from Air Venture Oshkosh 2016
We were there for 4 days. The first day, we just wandered around. The second day we had a visit to the Sonex factory. Besides the aircraft on display there were almost endless rows of all kinds of aircraft. Airshows every afternoon and some evenings as well. A couple of dozens places where set off for seminars covering all kinds of aviation stuff, starting early in the morning and ending about 5-6 in the afternoon. All in parallel, so no chance of attending but a fraction.
This was my first time there, and I hardly feel I scratched the surface of this thing, just too much too see and do. Food everywhere also, but I always thought grossly overpriced junk food that taste absolutely nothing was a special Norwegian recipe; I was wrong 
It’s definitely not the food that attracts people to this venture.
The airshow was too much advanced acro for my taste, but had some very good things also. A double decker with a belly mounted jet engine that looked and sounded surreal. Snow Birds was excellent and also the simulated Pearl Harbor attack with a dozen Japanese fighters and bombers in the twilight. RV-8 team was excellent. There was also show in pitch dark, lots of fireworks and LEDs. All very fancy, but all you see is fireworks and LEDs, it gets old very fast.
The main thing, for me, was all the homebuilts and the stands. Should have had much more time for the seminars, maybe next year
Hey, LeSving, thanks for sharing! Frankly, I’d hesitate to get into some of the contraptions you show here…. That said, there’s something I’ve been wondering about for a while: why are pusher airplanes pretty much relegated to experimentals where there seems to be a lot of them? There’s got to be a reason (engine cooling is one I can think of). Ideas?
172driver wrote:
why are pusher airplanes pretty much relegated to experimentals where there seems to be a lot of them?
Hard to say exactly. However, I attended one seminar about a new iteration of the “facetmobile” (interesting airplane). He got a question about why he didn’t make it a pusher. He said the (new) facetmobile includes so many new things that he wouldn’t stress it even more with the complexities of a pusher. But I guess what he actually meant was that it would require a complete re-design, with a million new “details” to solve (like COG, structural stuff, aerodynamic and so on). It would be a very different aircraft.
Another thing about pushers is they are less versatile. They require longer runways, and the prop is always in danger of picking up stones and dirt kicked up from the propeller. They can only be used on very good paved surfaces. There are many microlight designs with a pusher, but those have the engine mounted high on the wing.
Yes, there are some really interesting looking contraptions… thanks for sharing. However, I have the feeling that the old aviation saying “If it doesn’t look right, it won’t fly right” is more true than ever.
My personal favorite would be this cute little “all electric” plane inside a tent. Or the “N429IC” polished aluminium single seater pusher that looks like a 1950ies jet fighter prototype.
And regarding pushers in general (i think we had that discussion before): I am a firm believer in Darwinism and if 110 years of powered flight (which incidentally commenced with a pusher!) has pushed this concept into a niche, then aircraft obviously perform and sell better the other way round. Some reasons for it are: Propeller efficiency is worse in the wake of the aircraft and the wings; takeoff and landing angles are limited; for mass and balance reasons pushers almost always require a center mounted engine with long drive shaft which is quite a complication; the engine needs forced cooling on the ground because it receives no cooling airstream from the propeller; the propeller is invisible to the pilot so engine starting poses a greater risk to bystanders, children and animals; most pushers who made it through natural selection have a very unpleasant sound (caused again by the propeller(s) operating in turbulent air) and associated noise issues (e.g. the Piaggo Avanti). To name just a few…
Regarding engines, there are a couple of things worth commenting. Electric is definitely coming. The “Lancair looking” electric airplane up there has 3h endurance (according to the sales dude) for instance. The motorglider (the white fuselage with black cowling) comes in two versions, one with a 40-60 hp gasoline engine, and one with an electric engine. They are both priced the same, showing the decline in price of electric power (all carbon and cost US$ 170k, so not cheap)
The PBS jet engine in the SubSonex is almost too good to be true. The SubSonex also performed in the airshow, both in the day and in the night. I didn’t see any turboprop versions of the engine.
Continental had a very nice display. Lots of “traditional” continentals and 3 different diesels. They also have the Titan engines, which seems to be preferred by most of the experimentals on display, for some reason, the (i)OX 340 in particular. I didn’t even bother to enter the tent of Lycoming, nothing new there since 1930.
Verner Engines have huge success with their radials. They now have 4 different versions. Large bore 5 and 7 cylinders with 80-140 hp and what they call VW-versions with 3 and 5 cylinders (40-70 hp). The VW versions use VW cylinders and pistons. They are all direct drive, low RPM (2200) engines, light and relatively cheap. Much cheaper than the comparable Rotec from Australia. Verner has been around for a couple of decades already, but with limited success of their boxer engine.
The AeroMomentum engine is a Suzuki engine converted for aero use. Very nice design of all the parts.
what_next wrote:
Or the “N429IC” polished aluminium single seater pusher that looks like a 1950ies jet fighter prototype.
More info on Ed Lesher’s Teal is available here. It set a lot of records in the 60s.
The Lesher Teal reminded me of the MiniImp (http://www.mini-imp.com) but I haven’t seen one of those flying, apparently they have some issues with the drive shaft and the weight that comes with it, plus the plans aren’t as good as of Vans or Sonnex. Might be a nice basis for a electric hybrid design though.
For some reason my aircraft is a pusher, too. I haven’t gotten behind the reasoning, yet. Thurston later corrected this with another Teal. But @Pilot_DAR might know more about this.
IMO the pusher gets much attention in the experimental world because of a huge fraction of semi-professional designers and a big fraction of designers without commercial constraints for their designs.
mh wrote:
IMO the pusher gets much attention in the experimental world because of a huge fraction of semi-professional designers and a big fraction of designers without commercial constraints for their designs.
Maybe, but still I don’t see how the advantages of a pusher could outweigh it’s shortcomings.
The hang glider (two pictures with the two cylinder model aircraft engine on the “garden chair” with wheels kind of thing) was something on it’s own. He told he used to fly that hang glider, the double decker thing. Then he got older and had trouble with his feet. So he designed this thing he could mount onto the glider so he could take off and land without using his feet. He had only tried it once, before he had to go to Oshkosh. The controllers were very peculiar. Pitch was done with weight shift and turn was done with two drag rudders (I’m not sure if he used his feet or hands for that). Now he also had to control power, and he wasn’t entirely sure if his first solution was the best (ordinary throttle lever thing)
