EAA AirVenture 2024 (“Oshkosh”) Report 2

Let’s open Installment #2 of my report on the Oshkosh 2024 experience with weird aircraft seen…

At the seaplane base, an electric Beaver:

(Supposedly arrived from Vancouver by truck rather than in 10-minute hops from Tesla Supercharger to Tesla Supercharger.)

A couple of times, we walked by the Beechcraft Starship, in which high hopes, a proven Pratt engine, and Burt Rutan’s design genius worked together to produce something that was worth less than the two engines still in boxes from Pratt. Approach and arrival…

Wikipedia says that six were airworthy as of 2020. We went back to take another look towards sunset:

Some more fun Rutan stuff in the EAA Museum:

Here’s a Hawker Harrier derivative, still serving in the active duty U.S. Marine Corps (supposedly retiring next year):

Never forget Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc., in which a plaintiff attempted to take Pepsi up on an advertised offer for one of these not-to-easy-to-fly planes:

It was found that the advertisement featuring the jet did not constitute an offer under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. … “The callow youth featured in the commercial is a highly improbable pilot, one who could barely be trusted with the keys to his parents’ car, much less the prized aircraft of the United States Marine Corps. … The teenager’s comment that flying a Harrier Jet to school ‘sure beats the bus’ evinces an improbably insouciant attitude toward the relative difficulty and danger of piloting a fighter plane in a residential area. … No school would provide landing space for a student’s fighter jet, or condone the disruption the jet’s use would cause. … In light of the Harrier Jet’s well-documented function in attacking and destroying surface and air targets, armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, and offensive and defensive anti-aircraft warfare, depiction of such a jet as a way to get to school in the morning is clearly not serious even if, as plaintiff contends, the jet is capable of being acquired ‘in a form that eliminates [its] potential for military use.'”

I’m not sure how to characterize this one:

American transportation then and now…

Dyke Delta “Whitehouse Limousine”:

Down to the basics:

A Rotax-powered helicopter (with T-bar cyclic):

A 1936 Stinson promoting the health benefits of a 5-cent Pepsi:

Adjusted for official CPI, that’s equivalent to $1.14 in today’s mini-dollars so you might say that Pepsi is cheaper because it is possible to buy a can at Walmart for less than $1.14. However, I think Pepsi in 1936 was likely served at a drugstore counter where people could socialize with friends and, therefore, the present-day comparable is perhaps what a soda would cost at a fast-food restaurant (though, of course, the modern soda is also much larger).

A scale replica of the P-38 by the Brown Arch:

If “buy a shotgun” doesn’t give you an adequate feeling of security, here’s the Home Defense Edition of the Cessna T-37… the A-37:

Amphibious campers:

15 thoughts on “EAA AirVenture 2024 (“Oshkosh”) Report 2

  1. What is the structure running along most of the top of the Beechcraft Starship (I’m not an aviator, so apologies)?

    • Anon: As TS says, it is likely an antenna. More specifically, an antenna for a high frequency (“HF”) radio, which is actually a LOW frequency radio compared to what’s used day to day (“VHF”). The HF radio is required for most oceanic trips, though it is absurdly inferior to satellite-based text and voice systems that the typical long-range aircraft is equipped with.

    • Got it, but why have I never seen a similar antenna on other modern planes (again, I’m not an aviator)?

    • “I never seen a similar antenna on other modern planes” Although the starship looks “modern” it’s not and is a 50 year old design.

  2. Wonder if the only woman at the show got her choice of pedestal & chose the ornithopter art.

  3. “If “buy a shotgun” doesn’t give you an adequate feeling of security, here’s the Home Defense Edition of the Cessna T-37“. Joe Biden said we nothing less than an f-15 would do!

  4. Zoom in closely. The person driving the ornithopter identifies as a “Rocket Scientist”.

  5. Why are smart people who can do math still pretending that electric airplanes and helicopters can be a thing? Unless the energy storage density of batteries increases by a couple orders of magnitude, all these things will demonstrate is that you can convert the useful load of an aircraft into batteries so you can have 30 minutes of flight time.

    • Harbour Air here in Vancouver is just about the only practical use case for an electric aircraft. They fly Beavers and Otters around the Georgia Strait… sorry Salish Sea, between Vancouver Island and the mainland, and flights are usually no more than 30 minutes.

    • For the same reason apparently intelligent people believe that “AI” can think or that quantuum computers are real. Or that injecting an untested vaccine based on freshly developed tech is a good idea.

      Because they are, in fact, over-educated fools. Academia is full of this kind of people. (On a business side people cheering for all of this are simple scammers.)

    • @randall g – Has anybody published stats for the electric Beaver? That is, useful load, range, etc… Even if your flight is 30 minutes long, you still need 45 minutes of reserve. Also, after your flight, how long to recharge before the plane takes off again?

Comments are closed.