Well, I’ve flown both model and full size pusher and tractor planes and personally I’ve never noticed the engine/prop placement being a major factor in the different landing characteristics, provided proper attention has been paid to weight and balance issues.
Are full-size pusher models common today? JLA (I think) mentioned a particular Cessna above, and I know one or two of the Burt Rutan planes are pushers, but I’ve never actually seen one…
I’ve seen several Rutan airplanes in real life (including assisting pilots in dragging them out of hangars) and a local pilot in my area owns an in-line twin Cessna. In addition, I have personally flown the RANS Airaile, Max-Air Drifter, and Quicksilver ultralights/microlights, all of which are pusher-engine airplanes. I’ve ridden in a Breezy, another pusher. There is also the Buccaneer amphibious, the CGS Hawk, and several others in the very light airplane category. So in one sense they’re “common”, in that there are a quite a few models by several makers currently being flown, but they aren’t well known outside of the ultralight/homebuilt category of aviation enthusiasts.
Cessna, Beechcraft, Maule, Piper, RANS, Christian, Rutan, Bellanca, Robinson, Bell, Schweizer, Mooney…
I wonder how people who are unfamiliar with aircraft perceive the use of these names we throw around as casually as Ford, Toyota and Volvo?
I was trying to remember whether one of Jom Bede’s planes was a pusher, and I looked at his wikipedia page.
What the hell is up with that? I’ve never seen anything like this on wikipedia. Red background, cults, and so on and so forth. Anybody know what’s up?
ick I can’t look at it.
My dad was building a BD-5A. It was indeed a pusher. The moving company smashed it and he bought a Skyhawk. BD-5 kits are now being sold by BD-Micro.
I bolded the ones I’m familiar with, ie. I’ve heard of them. That is, if Bell is the helicopter Bell and not a plane Bell.
I’m a casual “fan” of military aircraft and large commercial aircraft. I know next to nothing about small commercial/civilian aircraft; my dad was a pilot many moons ago, and was certified on a Gulfstream I, but hasn’t flown anything larger than a child’s birthday balloon since about 1960.
If you show me a NATO warplane from about 1925 onward I can almost certainly identify it; if you show me an executive jet from any era AND give me a stack of catalogues to cheat from I probably still can’t identify it.
An interesting note, the Wright flyer had counter rotating props driven off the same engine. You can see in this photo, one of the chains has a ‘twist’ in it to spin the prop the other direction.
This was a problem with the Skymaster. People didn’t realize the rear engine quit or was not at full throttle.
There was the unsuccessful Beechcraft 2000 (Starship) that was certified in 1988. they were developing the props for it in my area so I got to see a lot of it.
Then there is the Angel designed for short field takeoffs (missionary work).
And the Piaggio P180 Avanti II.
Lear attempted one but it didn’t make it into production with the 2100.
on a smaller note there is the Air Cam that was developed for National Geographic. It is a blast to fly.
The problem with a pusher design in larger aircraft is the use of turbines to drive them. Specifically, the hot exhaust that hits the props. It’s one more problem to deal with in a field that is seeing the introduction of cheap, fuel efficient jet engines. The personal jet is replacing the turboprop so future pusher props are unlikely in commercial aircraft.
I don’t see those references on Wiki now…
When I open the page, it’s black text on a red background. The top three lines, above the box that says the article needs citations is
WIKIPEDIA IS A DANGEROUS CULT
*** Do not get sucked in ***
BE VERY WARY
Is that what you saw/see, Johnny L.A.?
I didn’t see it mentioned, so I will.
Having the center of mass of a wing be forward of the 1/4 chord is important for torsional stability of the wing, making it inadvisable to mount heavy engines and props on the trailing edge. I’m not sure how the B-36 got away with this.
This would not be an issue for pushers mounted on pods or fuselage.
Yes.
And now it’s not.
Well, I hate to admit it, but your whooshing me.
I see the normal wiki colors, with an unusual box that starts:
…so I figured whatever “controversial” claims you saw involved communism (“Red background”) and cults, and they got editted out by the Wiki staff.
I saw the page like this too and it was subsequent to your latter post. But now just 10 minutes later the page is back to a normal Wiki page. I wonder why Jim Bede is getting this treatment?
Nope. The background of the page was bright red. Nothing metaphorical here.
There was an edit earlier, but it’s strange that some people see this and some don’t. In my case, it disappeared. There was an edit today, but it just took out a random factoid and that’s it.
Very weird.
ETA: Googling “wikipedia is a dangerous cult” I get the Jim Bede page as part of the first hit. And also another guy who saw the same thing on a different wiki page.
Sorry about quoting myself, but my post was pretty far up-thread. I heard back from the head of the history organization, but he didn’t have any additional information. Right now I don’t have any definitive data on why the B-36 was a pusher configuration.
Sorry. I’ll keep trying. (I have the email addy of an old crew-chief on a Peacemaker, I’ll try him next)
I saw the original red background with the cult warning yesterday. Very strange. I looked for a way to report it but didn’t see any.