Lewis Ascender STOL aircraft

[-]

Gronkers@reddit

Looks like it would be good on take off, not so much on landing short without faceplanting from engine up high in front.

[-]

onebronyguy@reddit

Im more concerned about the results of a hard landing ,prop or engine assembly departure and its consequences to the cockpit

[-]

existensile@reddit

With the engine so high on the airframe it would probably aggravate the aerodynamic nose heaviness from the large tires

[-]

ThreeHandedSword@reddit

it probably sits at more than 15 degrees on all 3

[-]

BrianEno_ate_my_DX7@reddit

I’d think the landing gear being so far forward helps mitigate that.

[-]

Altruistic_Apple_252@reddit

They took a great idea - a bush plane with two engines for safety when flying over inhospitable terrain - then found out is had great visibility, kept the visibility and took away the second engine.

[-]

Tyraid@reddit

What kind of useful load we talking? Is this Rotax I assume

[-]

workahol_@reddit

Lycoming IO-390

Google will take you to the rest of the specifications.

[-]

whitewingpilot@reddit

If you read its history - it needed pontons very much!

[-]

SuDragon2k3@reddit

Just make the wheels bigger, looks like it would be enough flotation.

[-]

KokoTheTalkingApe@reddit

Its twin-engine daddy, the DoubleEnder, is even weirder looking.

[-]

LEGENDARY_AXE@reddit

I used to use one of those for bush flying in Flight Simulator, and it almost felt like cheating

[-]

LEGENDARY_AXE@reddit

Pretty much! It has oodles of power for a bush plane too, which means you can come in incredibly slow with crazy angles of attack. It almost feels like it’s hanging off the prop

[-]

settlementfires@reddit

those things are cool.

this thing is also cool. specialized bush planes are awesome.

[-]

boundone@reddit

Huh, NOT where I was picturing the other engine. Makes sense though.

[-]

GlockAF@reddit

It’s like the french bulldog of aviation

[-]

homer-price@reddit

It answers a question that I’m not sure anyone was asking.

[-]

KokoTheTalkingApe@reddit

It answers a question I didn't know I was asking.

[-]

ZdrytchX@reddit

High wing mounted engines are potentially hazardous for STOL operation because if you need airspeed, its going to dunk you into the earth.

[-]

Conch-Republic@reddit

BRRRRRRRRRRR

"What?"

BRRRRRRRRRRR

"What?!"

[-]

existensile@reddit

It's the same for more conventional designs.

[-]

Catch_0x16@reddit

A thruster and a super cub had a baby.

[-]

jamcultur@reddit

It looks like it would very fun and very noisy to fly.

[-]

loghead03@reddit

At the end of the day it’s just a bastardized Cub.

Better view over the nose, worse view out the right side, harder to change the oil, no aftermarket (meaning no cargo pods, fuel pods, or lumber racks), and you’re not gonna be able to find any spare parts to get it home when you inevitably put it on its back or snap a gear leg.

On the one hand, the mounting does make it harder to strike the prop. On the other hand, the off center thrust would definitely make slow speed throttle manipulation a two-handed affair, and the higher CG would increase the tip-over moment at least badly enough to negate the advantage of the further aft engine mounting.

The airfoiled horizontal stab is interesting, although it seems symmetrical, which makes me wonder what advantage it has besides drag reduction.

[-]