Any worth in 'pusher' aircraft?

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

Very true. I suspect that one of the major reasons for the emphasis on high-altitude performance of bombers, especially US heavy bombers, was to make interception more difficult. Given the technology of the day, it was very difficult to combine high rate of climb, reasonable weapons load (in the 1930s, many US fighters were armed with one RCMG and one HMG), and sufficient speed and endurance to actually make more than one pass.

I don't think any of this really negates my disdain for the YFM-1. It was really a bad design, attached to a poorly-written specification. If nothing else, one of the requirements in the spec should have been "at least 25% faster than any bomber in service or in development."
 

Agreed, completely, and I wasn't trying to argue your point. Sorry if it came out that way. I share your disdain for the YFM.

25% would probably be the bare minimum speed advantage. The 40% mentioned upthread would probably be needed, but I don't have the knowledge to support or disprove it.
 
The logic at the time was, any attack on continental U.S. would come from offshore. They thought incoming flights would be discovered early enough at sea for the lumbering Airacudas to climb to the projected altitude and have fuel to wait for them. As it became obvious bombers were getting faster, higher and YFM-1 couldn't get there in time, it opened the door for point defense interceptors with little need for large, heavy amounts of fuel Such as the unmentionable (P-39), The P-40, P-38 and even the P-43. When we went to war and realised escort fighters were needed, we had to modify our interceptors.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
A YFM without radar-controlled vectoring was about as useful as a pinholed condom.
Click to expand...
The YFM was brought about at a time when scouting was the proceedure to detecting the presence of enemy units (The USN, at the time, was still reliant on scouting aircraft, too). The scouts would spot the enemy and vector the YFMs to contact.

The YFM was an answer to the USAAC's need for an interceptor, though Bell's designers seemed to lean a bit into the realm of Buck Rogers, it was still a concept that would mature with the P-38.
 

Given its laggard performance, it really needed vectoring in order to be useful. I'm not taking issue with the concept of interceptors, just with Bell's execution of the concept.
 
swampyankee said:
An overly complex wrong answer
Click to expand...
Kind of depends. What are you trying to shoot down??????



the Army and Douglas had been working on the design (and mock up/s) of the XB-19 since 1935.
By late 1937, enough R & D funds had been made available so that a contract change calling for the construction of a single prototype under the designation XB-19 was issued on November 19, 1937, but not approved until March 8, 1938. It plane wasn't finished until 1941 But the Army was trying to figure out how to stop things like B-19 at the time they were working on the Airacuda.
An XP-40 with a pair of .50s in the cowl might not have looked very impressive for trying to take out a B-19?
 
The "Rex's Hanger" YouTube channel has a vid about an Italian(?) seaplane that would do just that.
 
The Cessna 337 and Cessna 377 uses a combined pusher and tractor engine arrangement. The pusher engine was the more important of the two in terms of thrust and in fact the USAF added warning lights to notify the pilot in the event of a rear engine failure, since it was not out where he could see the fan stop turning.

The B-35 and B-36 were a pushers.

The B-42 was a pusher and an excellent performer, so much so that Douglas planned to build an airliner based on it, which would have been called the DC-8.

 
Not WW2, but apparently the Piaggio P.180 Avanti is one of the fastest prop business aircraft you can buy, and the pusher arrangement contributes to this. But this causes a terrible noise on takeoff, sufficient that some airports have banned or limited the type. I wonder if WW2 era pushers had noise issues.

 
Northrop proposed a pusher Piaggio for the same U-9A contract later won by the Aero Commander twin. Since the company had the two demonstrators they went ahead and used them to ferry personnel between Hawthorne Airport and Edwards AFB for the next 20 years or so. When I worked in El Segundo they would come over and had a unique sound.

I guess a big reason the Northrop entry did not win was that was that the Army wanted to use the light twin for parachuting. Don't know if that is practical with a pusher, but the psychological aspects of jumping out of one must be significant.
 
SaparotRob said:
So that's what that is.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia says:

"Interior noise is lower than in conventional turboprop aircraft, because the propellers and engine exhausts are behind the cabin. However, due to the strongly disturbed flow in which the pusher propellers operate, the exterior noise is higher."

So, the owners just as likely say, "let them eat cake, it's quiet here inside for me."
 
Works for me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Fairey 2-engined bomber - any worth in that?
Replies
12
Views
2K
Howard Gibson
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
Zmauky
Z
Small Aircraft Carriers
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
4K
EwenS
E
Hybrid aircraft carriers
8 9 10
Replies
191
Views
7K
Warspite63
Aircraft made in steel?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
J.A.W.
Menu
Log in
Register