Single-engined pusher planes: any role for those? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

tomo pauk

Creator of Interesting Threads
13,801
4,333
Apr 3, 2008
What role could assume a single-engined plane in pusher configuration (eg. Saab 21 was such a plane), and do that better than a 'classis' design? Throw in your propositions for a good pusher, too :)
 
For sake of discussion, we'll assume that other designers went Saab's way (= pilot/crew have ejection seat)
 
Oh I see, well hard to beat the Bell XP-52, but alas it was cancelled.
 
CAS. A rear prop normally provides superior forward visibility and you've got the nose free for a light anti-tank cannon.

I'll leave actual designs to the engineers among us. :)
 
The Japanese were working on the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden at the end of the war. They built two. I bet they didn't have an ejection seat!
Cheers
Steve
 
The Japanese were working on the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden at the end of the war. They built two. I bet they didn't have an ejection seat!
Cheers
Steve

I've read somewhere they had this device that could eject the propeller in case of an emergency.
 
A propeller pusher, be it piston or turbo powered leaves a lot of room in the nose for a big gun(s) or other stuff (radar). Depending on fuselage length and engine weight you can also maintain a C/G that enables a payload close to the MAC. Use a twin boom design like the Saab 21 or the Convair XP-54 and you have an inner wing for stores or additional fuel. On the down side a twin boom pusher will be harder to manufacture than an aircraft similar to the J7W1 Shinden or XP-56
 
A German pusher, maybe with BMW 801 (providing they can cool it without compromising much the airflow just aft engine), 2 x MK101/103, wings sized as for Fw-190, dive brakes - ready for tank hunting (and to kill Il-2s it encounters?), while able to out-pace Soviet fighters?
 
I really don't see it as a dogfighter especially in WWII.. as most times the attack came from the read with little or no warning. engine right there will not end well for the pilot flying the pusher.

edit:

whoops.. you said tank hunter also.. missed that part lol
 
Last edited:
Better for the pilot if those bullets hit the engine instead of him, of course either way it ends up in a downed aircraft. But with the engine in the rear there'd be more chanch of the pilot surviving to fight another day.
 
I doubt that.

CAS requires low and slow maneuverability. Engine(s) rated for maximum performance @ 1,000 meters. Significant armor to protect the pilot against ground fire. Large and heavy cannon(s) able to penetrate tank armor and infantry bunkers.

In the modern world that means an A-10. During WWII that means a Hs-129 or Ju-87G. These aircraft stand no chance against contemporary fighter aircraft unless the enemy pilot is poorly trained. Fighter escort is mandatory unless you have achieved aerial supremacy.
 
I think one of these would have done nicely as a night fighter

Dornier Do P.252

Or these as a day fighter

http://www.luft46.com/dornier/dop247.html

Henschel Hs P.75 Luft '46 entry


XP-54 may have come to something had they not stuffed it around and found an engine for it.

Rolls-Royce had developed a braking system for the pushers in the proposed Supermarine Type 325. The XP-54 had a seat that dropped out past the propellor's arc to facilitate bailout. I believe the XP-55 had explosive bolts on the prop shaft.
 
Indeed,the NASM's Do335 (actually a composite of several aircraft) was loaned back to Germany in 1974. The aircraft was shipped back to Oberpfaffenhofen for Dornier to undertake some restoration work. The Dornier technicians,some of whom had worked on the original aircraft,were disconcerted to find that the explosive charges designed to blow off the propeller and fin were still present and,worse,still armed!
Cheers
Steve
 
XP-56 had a couple of turns of det cord on the gear case. Just testing these devices on the ground could get rather exciting :)

I think in most cases the pusher prop just didn't offer any (or enough) advantages at the time to warrant production. There were certainly enough prototypes. A lot was learned that could be applied to future designs and that seems to be the practical problem.
Turning theory into practice, getting the airflow into the propeller and getting the control right for the tailless designs and getting the weight/drag right of the twin boom designs took a bit more work and time than they originally thought ( a lot of conventional designs took more work too.)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back