Single-engined pusher planes: any role for those?

[vikingBerserker]

I'd think the layout of a pusher plane would have been great for a recon aircraft with look forward and down capability.

 

[Milosh]

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

The NASM when they did the restoration of Fw190F-8 found the 20mm shell for blowing the canopy still in place. Wonder how many others there are/were? On another note, it was found that a gate guardian Tallboy at a RAF base was full of explosives not so long ago.

 

[Lucky13]

I'd like the SAAB J21 with a better engine, Merlin perhaps....
Could boost performance a bit me think...

 

[tyrodtom]

The Saab 21 already had a DB605, it maybe could have used some of DB's latest horsepower refinements.
After WW2 was over there were plans to install a Griffon, but those were sidelined when the J21 was redesigned for jet power.

 

[Elmas]

A propeller pusher,............................ Depending on fuselage length and engine weight you can also maintain a C/G that enables a payload close to the MAC.
.....................

Uhmm...with a piston engine and propeller I see this a little bit difficult.
Once all the heavy ammo in the nose are expended, the plane tends to be dangerously nose-up......and a nose-up plane is the nightmare of every pilot.....

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Uhmm...with a piston engine and propeller I see this a little bit difficult.
Once all the heavy ammo in the nose are expended, the plane tends to be dangerously nose-up......and a nose-up plane is the nightmare of every pilot.....

Only if the aircraft is designed to be operated within its C/G and MAC envelope. Please re-read my post or do you know what C/G - MAC is?

 

[tomo pauk]

[about German assault plane able to out-pace Soviet fighters, while having 2 x 3cm dive brakes]
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.

BMW 801 was developing it's max power at those 1000m (1550 PS prior 1943, some 1750 from '43) - just great for CAS Of course, I'd not leave a CAS plane un-armored, no worries about that. Germany did not have 'large heavy cannon' to speak of prior 1944, so the 3cm will do, with twice the number of barrels vs. Hs-129. The dive brakes enable the plane to make a dive (say, 60 deg from 3000m?) so the hit at upper armor can actually penetrate. If you have a good info about Ju-87G/Hs-129/Hurricane IID penetrating infantry bunkers with their cannons, please share.
Such a plane would be slower than A-10, anyway

Uhmm...with a piston engine and propeller I see this a little bit difficult.
Once all the heavy ammo in the nose are expended, the plane tends to be dangerously nose-up......and a nose-up plane is the nightmare of every pilot.....

The ammo can be located around the CoG (as cannon ammo on Mosquito NFs/FBs), not necessarily in the nose (as in P-38); of course, guns/cannons are under pilot(s), not in front. So, no issue with CoG there.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The ammo can be located around the CoG (as cannon ammo on Mosquito NFs/FBs), not necessarily in the nose (as in P-38); of course, guns/cannons are under pilot(s), not in front. So, no issue with CoG there.

You also use elevator trim to correct any adverse pitch tendencies

 

[Elmas]

Please re-read my post or do you know what C/G - MAC is?

My FAI ( Fédération Aéronautique Internationale) license to be able to compete in aeromodelling competitions was released in 1965 when I was thirteen.....No kits and much less ready made airplane models in those times, you had only to design and built your own........
And I would not to say that, fortysix years after, now I'm PhD in Structural Engineering and I teach that at the University.
Is that enough to know what CG and MAC are? Did I pass the examination? I don't know, I hope so.

And I do remain of my idea: in a piston pusher fighter most of the permanent weight (engine and propeller) remains always aft of the CG, while most of the consumables must of necessity be located ahead of the CG.
What you are going to do: to place all the consumables around the CG and to add a little bit of ballast in the nose of the plane to compensate for the weight of the engine and propeller?
Thence the dangerous attitude of these planes to be nose-up at landing: all the designers of piston pusher figthers tried (more or less unsuccesfully) to solve this fact.
As I read somewhere in this Forum "one thing is a test pilot, another a 20 years old boy with one hundred hours" ..... almost all the Air Forces tried pushers in the '30s, here the Italian prototipe SS 4, that crashed in 1939, killing her pilot

but fortunately refused to use on a large scale what were going to be "widow makers".

 

[Readie]

There were safe pusher aircraft though Elmas.
I have already suggested the Supermarine Walrus.
No CoG issues with this sturdy aeroplane.
John

ps. You had better know your stuff if you want to argue technical details with FLYBOYJ

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi, Elmas,

It would not be too difficult for designers to allocate a space for fuel tank ammo just above the CoG (a fuel tank being, say, 1 meter long) and then allocate space for engine just aft the fuel tank? So, the engine is half a meter away from CoG at the nearest point that way.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My FAI ( Fédération Aéronautique Internationale) license to be able to compete in aeromodelling competitions was released in 1965 when I was thirteen.....No kits and much less ready made airplane models in those times, you had only to design and built your own........
And I would not to say that, fortysix years after, now I'm PhD in Structural Engineering and I teach that at the University.
Is that enough to know what CG and MAC are? Did I pass the examination? I don't know, I hope so.

Well you did pass but you miss the point....

And I do remain of my idea: in a piston pusher fighter most of the permanent weight (engine and propeller) remains always aft of the CG, while most of the consumables must of necessity be located ahead of the CG.
What you are going to do: to place all the consumables around the CG and to add a little bit of ballast in the nose of the plane to compensate for the weight of the engine and propeller?

Depending on how much weight were're talking about and where its located, yes - and you may have to limit the amont of consumables if it causes the aircraft to go out of its CG/ MAC range, something calculated during the design stage. That's where the length (arm) of the fuselage comes into play

Thence the dangerous attitude of these planes to be nose-up at landing: all the designers of piston pusher figthers tried (more or less unsuccesfully) to solve this fact.
As I read somewhere in this Forum "one thing is a test pilot, another a 20 years old boy with one hundred hours" ..... almost all the Air Forces tried pushers in the '30s, here the Italian prototipe SS 4, that crashed in 1939, killing her pilot

but fortunately refused to use on a large scale what were going to be "widow makers".

There were plenty of safe pusher aircraft developed and even in today's world there are dozen of homebuilt designs that are safer than traditional tractor designs. How about this one, From Italy no less and its a great plane!

 

[Elmas]

I didn't say that a pusher aeroplane can't fly.

I said that a piston pusher fighter was (almost) completely useless for an Air Force of WWII era.

Every good aeroplane is the result of many compromises: and with a pusher figher a good one was never found, even with his performances in terms of speed and concentration of armament, for all ( or, better, some of) the difficult design problems I tried to explain.

Cheers

 

[Readie]

I didn't say that a pusher aeroplane can't fly.

I said that a piston pusher fighter was (almost) completely useless for an Air Force of WWII era.

Every good aeroplane is the result of many compromises: and with a pusher figher a good one was never found, even with his performances in terms of speed and concentration of armament, for all ( or, better, some of) the difficult design problems I tried to explain.

Cheers

Nicely summed up Elmas.
Maybe that's why the design was left on the drawing board so's to speak.
Cheers
John

 

[Siegfried]

My favourits are the work of Dr Richard Vogt the BV.208.3

The aircraft is not really tailess, I believe the term is 'semi-tailess'. This configuration was extensively tested by NASA and found not to have the flutter issues that were feared. In anycase Blohm and Voss had tested the layout on a modified Skoda-Kauba V-6

The advantage of the split tail (on wing tip outrigger booms) is that the pusher prop does not have to draw in disturbed air from tail surfaces.

The advantages of the configuration are obvious: outstanding forward visibillity, heavy concentrated fire power, including outsize guns for anti-tank work or standoff attacks and the possibillity of in flight refueling.

 

[Capt. Vick]

Assuming local air control, I think ground attack and bomber interceptor would be the best roles for a pusher to play. (Wasn't that the original question?) Engine in the rear theoretically protected by everything infront of it and the (assumed) low mounted wings (from ground fire) and all the armament concentrated in the nose. A tight cone of fire. There, that's my 2 cents.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I didn't say that a pusher aeroplane can't fly.

I said that a piston pusher fighter was (almost) completely useless for an Air Force of WWII era.

You may have some Swedes argue that fact...

 

[michaelmaltby]

And then there's the post WW2 Potez 75.

MM

 

[Capt. Vick]

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

Are we only talking about prop jobs? (Seeing as the J-21 was both a prop and jet in different models one could get confused.) Because all jets are pushers, they don't suck their way along! Though I may think a majority of them do actually suck. LOL

 

[Rivet]

Check out the Mig Staggerwing Canard Pusher. Several of these ac were used as squadron liason aircraft. Regards