Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
"pushing" Vs "pulling" Props  
User currently offlineBa97 From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 377 posts, RR: 0
Posted (11 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3024 times:

Please excuse my naivete on this:
Is there any engineering design reason why props are on the front of the plane or engine on commercial aircraft, thus "pulling" compared to backwards facing and "pushing". I have seen pictures of some military planes (German I think) and small private planes with a prop on the rear of the plane. With the overwhelming majority on the front, I expect there is a definite reason but then why the oddities?

there is economy class, business class, first class...then Concorde..pure class
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17649 posts, RR: 65
Reply 1, posted (11 years 10 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

While I am not 100% sure, I would say the main problem is weight distribution. Before long propshafts were feasible, putting the prop in the ass of the plane was not possible because the weight distribution would be off with an engine mounting behind the wing. With wing mounted props (as with wing mounted jets), you want the weight to be on the front of the wing to decrease the tendency of the wing to twist up.

As far as I have been able to discern from previous discussions of pushers on this forum, they are theoretically as efficient as pullers.

Problem #2: Air AFTER the plane is more turbulent. Pullers get less turbulent air and so can be more efficient. I'm not entirely sure about this one.

Problem #3: At least in smaller fighters, the pilots don't enjoy bailing out only to be chopped to pieces by their own prop.

The German plane you are referring to is probably the Do-335 Pfeil. Yes, it had a pusher prop and rear engine, but it ALSO had a nose prop and front engine. Very cool plane http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/profile/d335top.htm. The Pfeil resolved the bailout problem by having a jettisonable prop and fin.

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30408 posts, RR: 57
Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

All other things being equal a pusher prop won't be as efficent because of the turbulent air comming off the wing, Nacelle, or cabin ahead of it.

There is also issues of prop clearence on take-off, prop damage from rocks kicked up by the mainwheels.

User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8530 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2659 times:

Also prop damage from things flying off the engine, and the fact that they can be hard to cool.

But for some designs it makes good sense.

Practicality (Progressive Aerodyne Searey)

Weight distribution (Piaggio P.180 Avanti)

User currently offlineCanoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2919 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

I've always been a fan of the Cessna 337, with both a pusher and a puller. IIRC, you do a seperate multi checkride since it has counter rotating props.

The beatings will continue until morale improves
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2498 times:

Also the Beechcraft "starship" got the pulling props..

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17649 posts, RR: 65
Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2440 times:

Shouldn't that be pushing?

"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic "pushing" Vs "pulling" Props
No username? Sign up now!

Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"Use Correct Length Fasteners" posted Fri Oct 27 2006 22:25:48 by Andz
"I Have The Plane" Still Used In Flight Training? posted Fri Jun 2 2006 09:46:11 by Varig767
"Fly-By-Wireless" Concept Plane Flown posted Tue May 16 2006 23:34:32 by Kerberos
"Continental Ramp Procedures" At EWR? posted Mon Apr 24 2006 09:09:18 by Mir
Do Airports "grit" The Runway? posted Sat Mar 4 2006 08:13:16 by Goinv
Why "Bulk" Cargo? posted Fri Mar 3 2006 14:20:18 by Kaddyuk
Why The "wheel" On Landing Gear Levers? posted Fri Mar 3 2006 11:52:41 by Slinker
The Effects Of The 12 Vmc On A "normal" Light Twin posted Mon Feb 27 2006 15:08:07 by NorCal
Where's The 400 HZ "hum"? posted Wed Feb 22 2006 22:19:28 by KELPkid
"Flaring" The Nose During Landing - Who Does It? posted Wed Feb 15 2006 11:05:17 by Planeboy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format