Rear-Engine Pusher Fighter?

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

Well, considering that a large number of paper projects never made it to sheet metal, and only the Saab made it into production may tell us something.

1. In theory the pusher had to contend with a disturbed airflow hitting the propeller.
2. With no prop in front armament was easier to layout/concentrate
3. Without going to a twin boom layout like the Saab arranging for control surfaces and stability was a problem.
4. Going to a twin boom layout doesn't really decrease drag over a normal fuselage.
 
In German use, such a configuration allows for, say, 3-4 x 20mm, or 2-3 x MK 108, or 2 x MK0103, or 1-2 x 37mm + MGs. So it's a bomber destroyer, or/and tank buster that can both do the job fight back @ Allied fighters.
Vs. Spit MkV through -IX, it allows for a central weapon battery, eg. 3-4 x 20mm (fighter), or 1-2 x 40mm + MGs; all 20mm yields far better firepower than what Spits have had, while the 40mm variant has less better accuracy than wing mounted guns of Hurri IID.
As for US use, V-1710 needs turbo to to have decent HP (1425/1600 in 1943), or two stage compressor (like P-63 had); central battery allows for more accurate/'better' fire (for same number of MGs), or a still decent punch with one or two MGs less. Dunno how well R-2800 would've fared at aft hull, cooling-wise.

Allied planes could've picked some roll rate, with MGs relocated almost to centreline.
 
For ground attack, visibility from the forward cockpit must be nice.
 
tomo pauk said:
Dunno how well R-2800 would've fared at aft hull, cooling-wise.
Click to expand...

The XP-56 had a buried 2800 and, while the aircraft had its problems, cooling did not appear to be one of them. Also, the B-36 and XB-35 both had buried air cooled radials and seemed not to have unsolvable problems with them.
 
tomo pauk said:
Dunno how well R-2800 would've fared at aft hull, cooling-wise.
Click to expand...

See: www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org - U.S.A.A.F. Resource Center - Northrop XP-56 "Black Bullet"

engine needed fan cooling, and an extension shaft, gear-box, revised exhaust ports and a few other changes.

tomo pauk said:
Allied planes could've picked some roll rate, with MGs relocated almost to centreline.
Click to expand...

The twin boom design may have canceled some of that out. Most of the tail-less planes seemed to have handling problems.
 
Check out the Hungarian Marton XV-01 on the Axis History forum.
2 DB-605s in push-pull configeration.
I think it's a fake, looks like someone did a photoshop job on Me-109 noses, and components of various other aircraft.
 
Another push-pull that has not been mentioned is the Russian Moskalev SAM-13. Smaller than the Fokker but a very similar layout. SAM-13, Moskalev

All the WWII Rear-Engine fighters (built) I can think of have already been mentioned but right after the war there is the French Sud-Ouest SO 8000. Sud-Ouest SO 8000 Narval - shipboard fighter


And since the XB-35 and B-36 have been brought up, I'd like to add the Douglas XB-42. Douglas XB-42 Mixmaster


Of course, there are numerous WWII paper airplanes from all counties of both pusher and tandem designs and a few WWI pushers too.

By edit: I forgot about the Bell Airacuda. It was an "Interceptor" but it would not be able to intercept much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_YFM-1_Airacuda


Sorry if I have strayed off-topic.


WJP
 
Last edited:
The Soviets experimented with it as well, kinda looked like the SAAB actually. I'll have to dig up the name of it.

----------------------------
Oops didn't see it posted above
 
P-39/63 would've made a cool US "Saab 21" after adding some booms empenage - just stumbled at the proposal @ the 'net

added: A wind tunnel model, allegedly of such a machine, pic from Wikipedia:
 

Attachments

  • Bell_XP-59_wind_tunnel_model_060913-F-1234P-012.jpg
    56.1 KB · Views: 771
Last edited:
This falls into the "paper airplane" category but Bell had two pusher designs that got a "P" designation; P-52 and P-59 (not to be confused with the P-59A jet).

The P-52 which was similar to the Saab 21 and Vultee XP-54, was to be powered with the Continental IV-1430. The aircraft was redesigned and re-powered with the R-2800. The redesign resulted in a new designation of P-59. I am fairly certain the wind tunnel model posted above is of the P-59 (which you are probably aware of).

To be sneaky, "P-59" was reused for the United States first jet, the P-59A (powered by England).

Now, if we want to go paper pusher airplanes and go big, hunt down the Curtiss XP-71. Below (hopefully) is an image of the XP-71 when it was to be powered by Wright R-2160 Tornados. Later on it was re-engined for R-4360s.



WJP
 
From "Secret projects of tomo pauk", vol.394, the P-39 pusher.
Additional pair of HMGs aside of wheels; perhaps additional fuel in booms to compensate for expanded ammo in front. Or maybe putting the HMGs into booms? Since the engine is turned front-to-back, air inlet is at hull side.
 

Attachments

  • Aira-pod push.JPG
    23.8 KB · Views: 607
  • 39pusher.JPG
    52.8 KB · Views: 856
From the same book, Northrop pusher:
 

Attachments

  • bullet800.JPG
    48.4 KB · Views: 476
It seems that for a ground attack aircraft a forward-placed cockpit may be advantageous.

For example, see Wikipedia page for the Henschel Hs 129, where it says "The aircraft was expected to be attacking its targets directly in low-level strafing runs, so the cockpit had to be located as close as possible to the nose in order to see the ground."
Henschel Hs 129 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A rear-engine pusher aircraft might be able to fullfull this requirement.
 
I know where the center of thrust is in the case of a prop aircraft.

Where is the center of thrust for a jet, or rocket ? At the Exhaust ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
31
Views
941
SaparotRob
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
A
Heaviest armed Japanese single seat, single engine fighter?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
MIflyer
M
S
Day fighter Ta 154
Replies
0
Views
614
spicmart
S
W
Twin engine Tornado
Replies
15
Views
840
wuzak
W
Menu
Log in
Register