Curious what pilots think about pusher configurations for Light Sport Aircraft

Posted by vortexaircraftusa@reddit | flying | View on Reddit | 26 comments

With the FAA expanding Light Sport Aircraft limits recently — including higher speeds and weights — I’ve been wondering if we’ll start to see more creative designs in the LSA world again.

It feels like most new LSAs stick to the traditional tractor layout (engine up front, conventional tail), even though we’ve seen pusher configurations perform really well in the experimental category.

For those who’ve flown or worked on pushers before — what’s your take? Do they really offer better visibility, handling, or efficiency, or do the noise and maintenance tradeoffs outweigh the benefits?

I’d love to hear what other pilots think about whether the new rules might open the door for something a little more modern in this space.

[-]

setthrustpositive@reddit

The Archon, SeaRey, and AirCam are the only 3 that interest me.

Most pushers in the Light Sport category look very......cheap. The Challenger and Kolb series have been the big sellers in the States. But compared to the Searey, they look cheap.

[-]

Kermit-de-frog1@reddit

Well if it ever really goes to production , and you want to be Temu maverick the archon sf-2 https://archon.aero the kid inside me still wants one 😎

[-]

setthrustpositive@reddit

Its been available for 10+ years in Europe as a single seater.

[-]

No-Series-3997@reddit

This looks hilarious and I want it

[-]

Kermit-de-frog1@reddit

Honestly…. Me too 😎

[-]

Dave_A480@reddit

Off-centerline thrust can be problematic. That's why larger certified aircraft are only pushers if they are amphibs

[-]

skunimatrix@reddit

Means you probably have canards. “And canards are gay” - The Kid.

[-]

old_flying_fart@reddit

Far more LS/UL pushers are pod & boom.

[-]

old_flying_fart@reddit

I've built and flown a Titan Tornado, and flown about a half dozen other pushers (drifter, aircam, kolb, etc)

Better visibility: YES! This is the main selling point as far as I'm concerned. It's a game changer for low & slow flight.

Better handling: Not in the models I've flown. I've found handling to generally be worse. The empennage-fuselage connection just isn't a stiff and you can feel it.

Better Efficiency: Not really. A true pusher (propeller at rear of airframe) will be more efficient, but most pushers are pod & boom (engine & propeller in the middle of the airframe) and there's some inherent extra drag & weight from that design. Notice that no serious racers or aerobatic aircraft are pod & boom.

[-]

keenly_disinterested@reddit

There are pros and cons to both designs, but the primary downsides for pusher-style aircraft are engine cooling difficulty, ground clearance for the prop, higher weight, and higher stall speeds for a given wing loading.

[-]

Excellent_Ad_1413@reddit

Coming from someone who has over 5,000 hours in virtually nothing but experimental/ultralights and still has more hours in two stroke powered pushers you answer is…… weird looking planes draw a crowd but don’t sell to the masses well. For a couple of reasons. 1. Most pushers sit on their tail when empty, that’s a HUGE turn off to the wife and skeptics. 2. Cockpit layout makes many uncomfortable by not having something in front of them (cowling). 3. They are louder inside and outside.

Now the advantages of them are many and I have always preferred pushers….. but I have a tractor design now because I need a quiet plane that can haul stuff and two people and land on a 1000” runway in the trees.

On the noise issue, titan aircraft sold virtually none of the Tornados in Europe because it couldn’t be made quiet enough. Cub crafters switched to the rotax 916 because they couldn’t meet noise requirements easily and no one in Europe wanted the gas guzzling lycoming.

From an efficiency standpoint, tractors usually win this battle. Flight design and Pipistrel have driven this point home hard. 140 mph cruise on 5.5 gph at altitude. So quiet people literally have asked me if it was electric when I have flown them. HUGE cockpit size, looks futuristic but not odd looking. Generally 550+lb useful and easy to work on.

That being said the top three planes I absolutely love to fly, quicksilver sprint, challenger 2 on floats, titan tornado 2 with a 912.

[-]

ufront@reddit

I'm curious about your experience with Challenger II on floats. I would love floats but have worried the 503dc might not be beefy enough. Were yours Full Lotus, Puddle Jumper, or something else?

You've intrigued me about Tornado 2. I can imagine one with a 912 would be a lot of fun.

[-]

helno@reddit

Trades cooling and vibration issues for minimal real word improvements in performance.

Good luck.

[-]

Galactic_Rigby@reddit

I fly a Challenger II with the pusher. Biggest thing is the asymmetric thrust. Power on pushes the nose down and vice versa. It uses flaperons for trim, so basically find a comfortable cruise rpm, then trim it and leave it. Coming to land and slowing down, the nose wants to drop a tiny bit since the center of thrust is so high. I leave in some power in on final, so I have to keep a bit of back pressure on the stick. But when I chop the throttle as I go to round out, it basically flares itself into a nice trimmed out touch down since the prop isn’t pushing the nose down at idle. I like it personally since you can use throttle to control pitch to an extent and it becomes a tool to smooth out landings.

[-]

coleary11@reddit

How would that feel when adding power for a go around?

[-]

Galactic_Rigby@reddit

It’s something to factor in, but the pitch control is very light and responsive. You just get used to adding some back pressure when adding power. Honestly, I rarely touch trim on the thing.

[-]

JustAnotherDude1990@reddit

Things I had never considered because I have never flown a pusher. I want to fly one now.

[-]

Galactic_Rigby@reddit

If you’re ever around southern Wisconsin during the warmer months give me a shout, always happy to take people up.

[-]

JustAnotherDude1990@reddit

Right on.

[-]

Far_Top_7663@reddit

There is a reason why most airplanes are still conventional. There are virtually no canard pushers in the FAR 23 words and when tried, they failed (Beechcraft Starship, designed by Rutan). Even in the experimental / homebuilt world, pushers are more common. Other things being equal, conventional planes are lighter (especially if you want to keep equal crashworthiness), have a slower stall speed, are more efficient (burn less per equal speed), have easier to cool, are quieter, and lighter for a given performance.

Note: I am specifically talking about CANARD pushers.

[-]

AdDangerous729@reddit

I own an experimental pusher and it's common to have cooling issues. You really gotta have your "ducts" in a row lol

[-]

DDX1837@reddit

I built and flew a Velocity for many years. Much better visibility. Quieter (at least to those inside the plane). Only downside to a low, rear mounted engine is the possibility of FOD to the prop.

It's impossible to say that a pusher would have better or worse handling or efficiency than a tractor since there is no airframe that allows one or the other. Unless you're doing single engine work on a Skymaster. However, I've been told they fly better on the rear engine than the front engine.

[-]

I’d love to hear what other pilots think about whether the new rules might open the door for something a little more modern in this space.

Please downvote this comment until it collapses.

Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.