vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
I'd think the layout of a pusher plane would have been great for a recon aircraft with look forward and down capability.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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
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.
.....................
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?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.....
[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.
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.
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.
FLYBOY said: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".
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
You may have some Swedes argue that fact...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.
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