Jump to content


Pusher-Prop Aircrafts


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
23 replies to this topic

Susallia #1 Posted 28 January 2012 - 01:06 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    01-17-2012
The idea of pusher-propeller configuration on an aircraft exists back in the 19th century with the first successfull flying plane using the Pusher Configuration was made in 1871. Since then various prototypes were made but the wireframe chassis of the planes proved to weak to be able to work with this concept. Which to be honoust isn't entirely true as the famous plane of the brothers wright used the same pusher-configuration principles.

Making a leap of 30 orso years when the UK began to design a stiff nacelle type fuselage that would be able to work with the pusher-prop configuration, also known as the Farman Type due to Henri Farman developping several Pusher-Prop aircrafts. But due to the aerodynamics complications that is involved with the canard, resulting in deadly crashes, the US Army banned the use of the Pusher-Prop in 1911.

During WW2 both major airpowers once more experimented with the Pusher-prop configurations as they had overcome the fuselage and aerodynamcs complications but due to another nbig drawback of the design, which was that a bailing pilot tended to get sucked into the propellers once more spelled retirement. Only the Swedish Saab 21 was the only model that saw production. Nowadays there are Biplane Flying boats and Ultralights that mostly using the Pusher-prop configuration and to be honoust, that is a darn shame as it is a really promising configuration in Aircraft design.

Pusher-Prop Aircraft could sprout small nose wings, enhancing the planes manouverability to beyond what puller-prop configuration could handle. Good example of such manouverability is the Eurofighter Typhoon. using the same nose wing principles.

Aircraft designed with this configuration will soon lead you to the vast world of Crimson Skies but because I don't want to risk about any copywright infringement.
I made my own push-prop aircraft model in Second Life. Here are the pics from it.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Pathblazer #2 Posted 28 January 2012 - 01:17 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    01-22-2012
XP-55 Ascender
The pilots of this aircraft called it the "Ass-ender". LOL
This plane, which looks a lot like a wannabe single-seat form of the Beechcraft Starship, was not very impressive, having poorer performance than other, more conventional fighter aircraft.
EDIT: I like the model, BTW. :)
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" -Adam Savage, MythBusters
"Yay~" -Fluttershy, MLP: Friendship is Magic

riven311 #3 Posted 28 January 2012 - 01:23 AM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012
needs more guns!  or... guns with guns on top of it!  it looks nice!  just theres 2 things :P  we are not on world of tanks.  2 theres no girls on the web!  hehehe *runs away*

Susallia #4 Posted 28 January 2012 - 01:31 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    01-17-2012
Talking about the XP-55 Ascender, that reminded me that the Japanese had developped a Push-prop aircraft aswell close to the end of WW2.
The Kyushu J7W Shinden Interceptor.

Overal I love the Pusher-prop configuration, it has this kind of elegance and poetry to it, sadly the idea quickly got replaced by jet engines.
So what if in an alternate history, the Pusher-prop was further developped and successfull fighters were made?

riven311 #5 Posted 28 January 2012 - 01:38 AM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012
well in all fareness.....not big fan of the pusher props. with that in mind never been a fan of engines beening in the back of tank/planes.  never got the point in haveing the weak armor in the back....with the engine.

Eyeless_Camper #6 Posted 28 January 2012 - 02:00 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 195 battles
  • 182
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
As quoted from Wikipedia how the Saab J21 got over it.

"and eventually installed an early non-patented ejector seat developed by Bofors for the purpose and tested in 1943."

"When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the a** with a banjo”
-Chief Officer Steward Dogan on the USS Gurnard


Pathblazer #7 Posted 28 January 2012 - 06:16 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    01-22-2012

View Postriven311, on 28 January 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

well in all fareness.....not big fan of the pusher props. with that in mind never been a fan of engines beening in the back of tank/planes.  never got the point in haveing the weak armor in the back....with the engine.
Agreed. If a pusher-prop fighter have a bandit on his tail and that the bandit managed to hit him, then, yeah, it's all over.
At least a conventional aircraft would have a chance of surviving.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" -Adam Savage, MythBusters
"Yay~" -Fluttershy, MLP: Friendship is Magic

riven311 #8 Posted 29 January 2012 - 04:25 AM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012
what about a both a up and lower engine on a set of wings?  it have alot of power backing it up  as well if one or even two get shot it still go.

Pathblazer #9 Posted 29 January 2012 - 04:57 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    01-22-2012
Hmm. But what about fuel consumption?
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" -Adam Savage, MythBusters
"Yay~" -Fluttershy, MLP: Friendship is Magic

Susallia #10 Posted 29 January 2012 - 07:25 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 20
  • Member since:
    01-17-2012

View PostPathblazer, on 28 January 2012 - 06:16 PM, said:

Agreed. If a pusher-prop fighter have a bandit on his tail and that the bandit managed to hit him, then, yeah, it's all over.
At least a conventional aircraft would have a chance of surviving.

I am not fully sure about that, a conventional aircraft have a single tailpiece, shoot that then the aircraft is still airborn sure, but it is reduced to sitting duck and hitting that tail piece in a less manouverable aircraft is alot easier than hitting the rotor/engine on a very nimble pusher-prop configuration. Also with the pusher-prop, the engine is in the back, leaving the whole nose cone free for more guns or extra fuel space.

riven311 #11 Posted 29 January 2012 - 07:31 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012
well you can shut off 2 the engines when your in a non-combat seting or have them on when you need the "pony" power hehe

Pathblazer #12 Posted 30 January 2012 - 01:30 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    01-22-2012

View Postriven311, on 29 January 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

well you can shut off 2 the engines when your in a non-combat seting or have them on when you need the "pony" power hehe
(chuckles) Pony power... (chuckles)
Well, I see your point. I just assumed that all four engines will be left on.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" -Adam Savage, MythBusters
"Yay~" -Fluttershy, MLP: Friendship is Magic

riven311 #13 Posted 30 January 2012 - 03:47 AM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 7
  • Member since:
    01-19-2012
drones that the USA use are pusher-propeller.  some thing i did not know infact.  heard they are heck of flyers.  do like to shot this out there.  for a biger planes like more then a 5 man crew.  what be more usefull pusher or non-pusher?

Pathblazer #14 Posted 31 January 2012 - 01:16 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 238
  • Member since:
    01-22-2012

View Postriven311, on 30 January 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

drones that the USA use are pusher-propeller.  some thing i did not know infact.  heard they are heck of flyers.  do like to shot this out there.  for a biger planes like more then a 5 man crew.  what be more usefull pusher or non-pusher?
Depends.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" -Adam Savage, MythBusters
"Yay~" -Fluttershy, MLP: Friendship is Magic

CrashTailspin #15 Posted 06 February 2012 - 04:03 PM

    Squadron Lead / Wargaming Stunt Pilot

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 3595 battles
  • 1,771
  • Member since:
    10-11-2011

View Postriven311, on 29 January 2012 - 07:31 PM, said:

well you can shut off 2 the engines when your in a non-combat seting or have them on when you need the "pony" power hehe

Just for the sake of discussion, if you have a 4-engine configuration like you mentioned earlier (an engine on the top and bottom of each wing) and you were to shut two of the engines down (say, the bottom two), you would create a pitch-down motion on the airplane, since the upper two engines are above the aircraft's center of gravity.  The opposite would happen if you were to shut the upper two down - you would create a pitch-up motion.

While you may be able to counteract this motion with a lot of opposite control pressure, the end result would be an aircraft with control pressures completely out of balance, potentially to the point where any fuel savings would be negated by a reduction in performance (drag increase, reduction in top speed, controlability issues, etc.).  Granted, I think it's a cool idea and commend you on your creativity, but I think this one may be relegated to the drawing board.

You must not question "The Forum Laws".  Any questioning of "The Forum Laws" results in automatic removal and / or locking of any post, regardless of the level of constructiveness or thought provocation.


markodash #16 Posted 23 February 2012 - 09:43 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 14
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
the problem with single engine pushers is one of center of gravity, unless you put your horizontal stab out on a boom tail the engine is going make the plane tail heavy. you have move the main wings back to support the engine, so the H stab gets moved to the front in a canard configuration. this still leaves you with an unstable aircraft, the plane will always want to put the heaviest end forward. there was a resurgence of canard designs when fly-by-wire controls allowed unstable aircraft to be controlled. but a WWII era aircraft did not have this and suffered for it, the early flying wings had the same problems (both the hortens and the YB/XB-35/49) the amount of constant on the fly corrections quickly wore pilots out.

Ghettobuster #17 Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:54 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 17 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    11-25-2011

View Postmarkodash, on 23 February 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

the problem with single engine pushers is one of center of gravity, unless you put your horizontal stab out on a boom tail the engine is going make the plane tail heavy. you have move the main wings back to support the engine, so the H stab gets moved to the front in a canard configuration. this still leaves you with an unstable aircraft, the plane will always want to put the heaviest end forward. there was a resurgence of canard designs when fly-by-wire controls allowed unstable aircraft to be controlled. but a WWII era aircraft did not have this and suffered for it, the early flying wings had the same problems (both the hortens and the YB/XB-35/49) the amount of constant on the fly corrections quickly wore pilots out.


Not only the above but the pusher Props were flying on limited fuel, the weight in the tail caused the amount of fuel to be so much smaller due to weight restrictions, also caused them to be more guns then any other variant of weapons

Ariecho #18 Posted 02 March 2012 - 04:54 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 508
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postriven311, on 28 January 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

well in all fareness.....not big fan of the pusher props. with that in mind never been a fan of engines beening in the back of tank/planes.  never got the point in haveing the weak armor in the back....with the engine.

That's why Israel developed the Merkava.  To let shells hit the engine, rather than the crew.

zcv45 #19 Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:38 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 21 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
british pushers are great in worldwar1 since it ended the fokker scourge
~~~~~~/``````````\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`||
~~~~~/~|~~~~~~\~~~~~~~~~~~/`````|````````|````\~~~~~|/
~~~~/~~|~~~~~~`````````````````````~~~~~~~~~~~~````````}>
~~~~\__________________==============____/``/|
~~~~~~~~o/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|>-<[]]]]]]]]]]|)~~~~~~`||

Archammer #20 Posted 06 June 2012 - 09:42 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 67
  • Member since:
    01-10-2012
Also, having the prop in the rear does not allow the additional control surface authority that you need in a fighter type aircraft. Plus the P factor from a single engine "pusher", and the rear CG would create some substantial adverse yaw that would be highly undesirable in a aerial battle scenario.