Obscure Planes You've Never Heard of
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 лип 2024
- Here’s a brief collection of obscure pusher-design aircraft you’ve probably never heard of.
Cirrus VK-30
00:05
In the 1980s, Wisconsin students Alan & Dale Klapmeier and Jeff Viken aimed to create a top-tier kitplane. Dale's NASA background influenced the wing design while Jeff’s wife Sally crafted the Fowler flaps. Prioritizing low drag and efficiency, the Cirrus VK-30 emerged in a Wisconsin barn. It incorporated parts from existing aircraft, like gear from a Piper Cherokee. Introduced at Oshkosh Airventure in 1987, the spacious 5-seater VK-30 was unmatched in its size and capabilities, boasting 215 knots speed and 1,300-mile range. Of the 40 VK-30 kits sold, only 13 were completed due to their complexity. Many crashed, with few still flying. While commercially unsuccessful, the VK-30 paved the way for the best-selling aviation aircraft in recent decades and inspired the Cirrus-jet.
Grinvalds Orion
2:54
The Grinvalds Orion, a French kitbuilt aircraft introduced in 1981, boasted unique features like 4-seats, a pusher prop, and an all-glass structure, offering pilots an expansive side view. While similar aircraft like the Prescott Pusher and Cirrus VK-30 emerged nearly a decade later, the Orion stood out for its elegance. The central-mounted Lycoming IO-360 ensured stability, but the engine-propeller distance resulted in a complex drive system, causing most building challenges. Originally designed for two passengers with a 65hp Continental, the production model seated four with a 180 HP Lycoming IO-360. After the designer's tragic death in 1985 due to a propshaft failure, many orders were canceled. However, several Orions were constructed, with a few still operational in Europe, including a turboprop version.
Prescott Pusher
5:15
The Prescott Pusher is a notable experimental aircraft. Developed by Sikorsky, Piper, and Learjet engineer Tom Prescott in 1985, it used cutting-edge CAD/CAM software. Its launch at Oshkosh garnered massive attention, featuring in 10 aviation publications for its innovative design and modular construction. However, once tested, its allure waned. It was bulky, had insufficient power at 180HP, and design flaws like a low stance and awkward landing gear placement led to challenging takeoffs and high stall speeds. Many labeled it unsuitable for regular pilots. Within three years, amidst negative feedback, the company shuttered. While some kits sold, owners had to make continuous modifications, yet even modified versions remained impractical for multiple passengers.
Angel 44
7:36
Designed by missionary bush pilot Carl Mortensen, the Angel 44 followed his earlier Evangel 4500, a boxy STOL craft. While the Evangel resembled a tin can, the Angel mirrored a Piaggio Avanti bush plane. It had twin pusher Lycoming IO-540s with wheel shields to protect props from debris. Its aerodynamic fuselage aimed to boost cruise speed, and its tail resembled an enlarged Cessna 402. Distinguishing features include its thick, swept wings and large tires. The Angel, IFR-certified, carried a 1,920 lb load at 175 knots and withstood up to 20 g's. Designed in 1972, it achieved FAA certification in the early 90s after 11,000 hours of work. Only four were produced, and though acquired by a Chinese firm, no recent production updates exist.
Grob GF-200
9:30
After identifying a market gap for 4 to 6 passenger aircraft, Grob introduced the 4-seater GF-200 in 1983. Initial designs utilized a 270 hp Lycoming engine and composite prop, causing certification delays due to the unfamiliar composite airframe. With German government funding, it received certification in the early 90s. Originally planned with a Porsche engine for a 225-knot cruise, budget constraints led to using Lycoming and then Continental engines. While the prototype showcased its exterior design, it lacked interior amenities and displayed troubling slow-speed flight characteristics. Running out of funds and failing to attract buyers, Grob halted the project. The sole GF-200 now resides in Munich's Deutsches Museum.
I don't own these clips. All rights are reserved to their respective owners, and used with prior approval. Creative common videos are also utilized. If your clip is included and you'd like it removed, please email me, and we'll address the matter right away. richard@aircraft-adventures.com
Video Sources:
• [4K] Cirrus SR22T Land...
• Inside Cirrus Aircraft...
• Allison Turbine Powere...
• Cirrus Model VK 30 w I...
• Edgley EA7 Optica - th...
• ORION G 801- Flight of...
• Orion G802
• N40LE Prescott Pusher ...
• Prescott Pusher Turbine
• Prescott Pusher II Mar...
• Arrival of the Angel A...
• Warsaw Airport Chopin ...
Why the VK-30 idea didn't explode in popularity I have no idea. What an amazing plane idea it was. It should not have been a homebuilt though. If it were built as a ready to fly plane I'm sure it would have "taken off". lol, pun intended. Not to mention it's WICKED beautiful.
In a way, it sort of did explode in popularity, with the Cirrus SR series. Much simpler to produce, much simpler to operate, and nearly same performance.
Many crashes in the first kits that were completed.
The trouble with single engine pushers is a lot of the weight is at the back and affects the centre of gravity, stall speeds etc. So you have to take more care with your calculations.
The edgely optica was supposed to be slow. It was designed for ground inspection roles such as pipeline inspection, where it could take over from helicopters which had much higher maintenance costs. It was also supposed to have longer loiter time than your average helicopter. Really a different use case to your average get A to B type of plane.
Agree fully, not the same plane, but was just making a general statement about visibility on high performance planes.
"I like the history lecture on each item presented. You do very good research work." 👍
I got to fly right seat in the Angel. Was given controls after lift-off and I flew the pattern, approach and landing. It handled nicely although quite loud.
Every one of those planes are gorgeous!
Agreed!
Excellent video, Thank you.
Prescott Pusher! I remember that one!
Guy on our airport built a VK-30. Never flew. Always had cooling problems….
A plane like the Orion and VK30 could do well with a hybrid power system. An electric motor in the tail and the piston engine in the mid-section. This would eliminate the need for a prop shart. The prescott need a small jet engine.
That is a great idea but a 200 hp electric motor is very heavy. Now you have the weight of almost two engines but the power of only one.
@@robjohnson8522 Motors produce far more hp per pound than engines do. Siemens, for example, manufacturers a 260 kW (348 hp) aircraft motor that weighs only 110 lbs - about 5 times the power-to-weight ratio of an aircraft piston engine. The challenge is the battery pack, or hybrid drive system. But @maxmodels is correct -- mounting a motor in an ideal location is easier and doesn't require a prop shaft. The tradeoff is the energy source for the motor weighs much, except for short flights.
I got to see the original VK30 at the Wisconsin Dells airport. It was a beautiful plane.
I LUSTED after a VK-30 in the mid-late 1980's, when I started my aviation endeavors. Sadly, life got in the way and I didn't continue them at that time-- but still lusted after a VK-30. I understand their problems centered around the complex and trouble-prone driveshaft-- but wonder if more modern manufacturing processes could address and mitigate those issues. I'm building a Glasair now, but would still love to own a VK-30.
Yes I see this a lot in previous design ideas that have a bad rep , we have have more technology now , and or "OK so that bit is a problem ? then fix it or upgrade it"
It's like John Denver all over again , that plane got a bad rep for stupid things that could be easily fixed.
Glasairs are sweet! Which model? As to the Cirrus saga...I have a hard time imagining what modern process would circumvent the issue of connecting the distance between the prop and engine. The physics issues don't go away.
They got it "fixed" when they put the engine up front and made it fixed landing gear. 👍
@@aircraftadventures-vids Not every idea turns out to be a good one 🤣
@@aircraftadventures-vids - I'm building a Glasair II FT. Structurally about 80% done now. In the VK-30, I don't think the DISTANCE between the engine and prop were the problem-- seems like adequate supporting structures for bearings (at both ends) and balancing the shaft were the problems. I think Klapmeiers' engineering was good and I never read about any problems with the physics-- the flight characteristics were fantastic. If I were building one today, I'd take a bunch of lessons from the Porsche 928-- They have a long driveshaft from the engine to the rear diff. They seemed to work OK...
I had heard of all of these but I still enjoyed the video!
not unknown but nice anyway: many Rutan planes and piaggio Avanti:fastest Prop plane today
Those are the opposite of unknown, they are the definitive object when mentioning pushers.
At 3:26 - so true. And reportedly it had better flight characteristics, too. So unfortunate that it wasn't widely available in kit form. Way ahead of its time.
Great video. Thanks
Glad you liked it!
The Cirrus looked good and I like the rear propulsion for noise and looks. But out of 13 planes there were 11 fatalities, that's one hell of a record. I wonder what happened.
Maybe that's why they have such belief in parachutes.
PS. small turbofan is the holy grail answer. Or was. We are about to have UFO disclosure which might change aviation just a tiny bit.
In the last crash that I recall a prop shaft failure resulted in an off-airport landing. The aircraft either hit rocks or uneven terrain in the desert on landing resulting in I believe 2 fatalities. Might have been a combination of the glass fuselage composite construction and high approach or impact speed that caused the breakup. I think torsional vibration caused the shaft failure.
@@bernieschiff5919 yeah if it has a long drive shaft that could perhaps create some snapping forces if it isn't rigid or balanced. Maybe the uneven torque of a piston engine. I can't find the stall speed for it but it's built like a fast bird which makes ditching more dangerous. Fiberglass is a pretty tough material so I wouldn't suspect that first as a cause of injury, quite the opposite. But it could have been unforgiving terrain or a stall crash. If you land on semi flat terrain you probably have to be unlucky to die.
Torsional vibration is a serious deal. Ridgid and flexible systems can work but analysis needs to be done. Metal fatigue plays a part here as well. This was similar to the Veri-easy canard in approach speeds and also has had a poor record in crashes, thin fiberglass as used in homebuilt aircraft tends to shatter and not deform like aluminum so perhaps not as good with impact absorption.@@danfrederiksen1607
I think these pusher designs will become popular with electric propulsion you can center the batteries and stick the motor and prop far aft without a propshaft.
Too heavy to work for these type of homebuilts. At present time they work for small trainers that can barely manage a few hops around the pattern.
I was hoping you would have included the cobalt valkyrie pusher aircraft. That plane was something special.
I remember a Learjet project that had straight wings and a pusher propeller (or two contrarrotating ones?), powered by a PT6.
Yes, the Learfan I think
Wow. You made this ine pretty quick! Thanks for the great list. If you'd like another suggestion, I'd love to see one on ultralight gliders. I have selfish reasons for this. 😂
Is it possible to turn off the subtitles please? It's a bit distracting.
yeah sorry, I no longer use the permanent titles, you can turn on and off on the newer videos
I rode in the Angel 44. It actually has potential.
It looks tough. In its case, the pusher props make sense to protect them from damage in the bush.
But I suppose in the end operators compared the cost of a twin to singles like the Cherokee six, with a similar useful load, and chose the less expensive route.
I would love to have my own Angel (with upgrades)
AWESOME VIDEO BROTHER! well done 👍 new sub
Thank you!
hard of all of them and seen 3 of them Cirrus (used to be on display at Oshkosh), Prescott (Oshkosh, had over 36 mods by the pilot to cover its issues) and the Orion (say that in Scotland, really nice polish pilot it had a carbon fiber shaft, he cl;aimed fixed its issue), The Orion was a major development in kit plane design its building methods are still used to day Id love to build one or a Vampire a cool auzi pusher
You would think that after a propshaft breaks, owners would be interested in some kind of analysis as to why and some engineering work toward a way to keep it from happening again.
I could see as soon I saw it that there are no rubbers in the connections , ( It's like a rubber disk with 6 holes in it ) So Fatigue Cracks here we come...
@@maxgood42 Spring steel couplings are quite common in aviation, especially in helicopters. The difference being the powerplant usually being a turbine which has smooth torque output. A damper needs to be used preferably before the transmission for a piston engine.
@@chippyjohn1 And as a pusher even with a turbine there is turbulent air coming of the body hitting the blades so that will also make it ruff .
@@maxgood42 True, but not as much as the torque pulses from a piston engine.
true quality concent.
Thank you! And this time I'm using my voice, lol
Выглядят самолёты очень гармонично . Только один вопрос - сохраняется ли КПД винта при таком его размещении в полном объёме ? Ведь фюзеляж сильно его затеняет несмотря на прекрасную аэродинамику ?
The planes look very harmonious. There is only one question - is the efficiency of the propeller maintained with such a full placement? After all, the fuselage greatly obscures it despite its excellent aerodynamics?
The Custer Channel Wing was a strange pusher.
Agreed 100%. There's so many more to cover, I can add it for a pt II next time.
Before the Piaggio avantie there was the gull amphibian and then the later conventional high wing land plane..
The Poles also designed an air ambulance pusher .
The russians also built a twin pusher light twin Amphibian for backcountry fishing and exploration.
Yes, the Royal Gull! One of my favorite planes. I have a video on it, check it out.
@@aircraftadventures-vids
I did but theres a later land plane with gull wings and pushers that was used as a transport air ambulance and observation/coast guard patrol aircraft .. P166 Albatross.
ua-cam.com/video/RsndQR1HCb0/v-deo.htmlsi=KNBpZRgL4Dv_aSUZ
Civilian version but Italian and South African AF / military and coast guard versisions.
@@aircraftadventures-vids have you heard about the B-36 plane?? its a pusher plane as well
@@matthewwilson5019
6 turning 4 burning ... featured in the James Stuart's film about SAC ... unlike most actors he actually flew them and others begining his career as a WW2 bomber pilot 😎 respect🇬🇧🧙♂️
You forgot the Lear Fan!!
aspiring home builder here is it better to just avoid pusher planes?
Rohr 2-175 Fan Jet?
I believe the Angel derived from Bob Mael’s “Mael Twin.”
If batteries get lighter and we're able to use lightweight electric engines wouldn't the pusher configuration get a comeback?
In my opinion, pusher engine aircraft would be much more better as all thrust will not blocked by the engine fairing and the fuselagem and any other fuselagem interference. That's why the Beechcraft Starship was very fast aircraft.
Get update regarding impulse value of the disturbed air going over fuselage, wings, stabilizer, ruder and landing gear.
The speed of the starship is not extraordinary considering the small fuselage and the high power of two turboprops .
Don't forget that the Starship airframe used composites. As I recall, the FAA certification was time consuming.
Molt Taylor Mini-IMP and Micro-IMP
Lockspeiser LDA-1
Good pick! That's actually in one of my recent videos about cargo planes, check it out.
Will do, thanks!!
Could We Make A Colab?
The first plane had crashes?
Yes, several
Fire the closed caption ‘bot. It doesn’t know what a kit plane is.
Miscaptioned as a “kid” plane.
No worries, it’s been laid off 👍
Did we miss any? Comment below about your favorite lesser known pusher aircraft
You left out one of the ugliest airplanes ever to, regrettably, take to the sky…the OMAC Laser 300. I actually worked on this project in Albany, Georgia. I first saw the TPE331 powered version in Reno, Nevada. The final version was PT-6 powered…both wonderful powerplants.
I missed a bunch I'm sure! I'll be doing another "Pt II" pushers and make to add the OMAC. OMAC = "Old Man's Aircraft Company"
FBO I worked for at the time was to be a sales and service center for OMAC. Several of us were at the press day in Albany.
@@bruceferrero8178 Cool. I was a Pratt & Whitney Canada installation design engineer.
Ev conversion would make several of these aircraft viable just eliminating the long driveshafts would be worth it
NAL Saras!
No piaggio menyioned, day ruined
Got great news, i got a PIAGGIO-ONLY video on my channel, check it out! 👍
You’re kidding right? These are ones you’ve never heard of. This list couldn’t include it.
Beechcraft Starship
The Starship remains the most beautiful private aircraft ever produced. There are only two left flying today.
"only two left flying today". Wow, must have nothing to do with being a turd on a stick and everything to do with poor "genius" Rutan being mistreated.
@bravocharlie639 the wings on the Starship started delaminating. Other than that. It cost twice as much as King-Air C90. Had the same passenger capacity. So it had its fair share of reasons not to ownn one. Beechcraft bought all but two back from the owners. Then scrapped them.
@@bravocharlie639 I don't know, the owners love them and keep them flying on their own dime. So what's the problem?
Hahaha, that's not a LA-4, it's an LA-250 Renegade
ugh you're right, good catch. 👍
@@aircraftadventures-vids Hahahha, hey! just having fun....
That's not a Renegade shown in the picture. It is a 'one-off' modified Lake Buccaneer (reg. # N550YS)
Ah so that's what it is. And I just looked up the reg. Sadly it was lost in a stall-spin crash over 10 years ago @@denisn1076
@@denisn1076 Wow ! You're right, I was mainly looking at the engine.
Most pushers are total turds.
Not because its inherently inferior. But because those proponents of different designs are generally not great designers.
I have yet to see a pusher with proper cooling inlets, ram air intakes, Meredith effect, and laminar flow fuselage, etc. they go to all the effort and screw up the areas that are known to be the areas that need work and will produce benefits.
абсолютно провальные проекты в плане компоновки . Неопытные инженеры поиздевались над технологами . В классической компоновке вставить винт в хвост ? Разнести массу по оси Х или длинный вал ? Чем вы будете инерционные колебания демфировать ? Своими мнимыми желаниями ?
Корабэлы как-то умудрялись гасить колебания валов длиной под 40 метров, масса которых на порядки больше авиационных, и не ставили гребные винты спереди парохода (а почему, не догадываетесь?) - схожим способом не разучились гасить колебания и тута. Ваши "классики" установили винт перед фюзеляжем, воздушный поток от которого активно тормозится всей площадью и длиной этого самого (не самого аэродинамичного по сравнению с крылом или оперением) фюзеляжа. Опытный ты наш, так в каком случае КПД винта будет выше?
@@aivarassaulys5039 ваша компетенция оставляет желать лучшего. Остойчивость корабля и центровки самолёта посмотри внимательно. Новатор мамкин. И обороты сравни . А теперь вихревая аэродинамика , которая при корневом наплыве и турбулизаторе на фюзеляже даёт прирост подъемной силы на 20 процентов без увеличения размаха. Посмотри проекты Рутана и последний Сириус 22. Но вам дебилам ансис в компьютере, что палка макаке.
Horrible computer voice…zero credibility
Usual AI Rubbish, Climb at becomes climate. Get real.
Anyone remember the "Prescott Pusher"??? I have one😊
I was hoping to find a detailed walkaround video with a review on your Channel but I'd love to at least read your comments about the Prescott Pusher.
Any aft mounted engine design has problems, unless it's a jet . Rotate on take off and your propeller strikes the ground Duh !!?? In the Cessna 337 , the aft engines overheated , not enough cooling back there. In cars , it's an abortion idea, VW air-cooled engines all suffered over heating and lacked power . Then they build a stupid car called Porsche which had an even bigger air-cooled engine stuck in the back where it lacked cooling, same as the Cessna 337 . It's stupid !!! Now days Porsche 911 concept designs come liquid cooled and have radiators in the front to handle the heat generated by those thirsty flat 6's in the back. Look at the plumbing required and the length of it and potential failure points . Well it's similar for airplanes with one extra potential disaster, PROPSTRIKE !!!!
Teach me senpai.