![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Tina wrote in news:1186370891.595213.170320
@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: The data I saw showed the 337 single engine pusher doing better, maybe it is old data. The tractor prop is wasting energy blowing on the windscreen and cowling, problems the pusher doesn't have. I know the biggest gains the Mooney Exec had in going to the 201 had was because of the cowling and windscreen redesign. That's for the early airplanes regarding the Skymasters. the loss was in cooling drag, which Cessna improved. After that the SE ceiling cruise and climb were virtually identical, but the reputation the rear engine had for better SE performance never went away.. I never heard that q tips did worse than straight bladed props, that was an interesting observation. Actaully, it was more than an observation. the Q tips were installed as a noise requirement for Swiss registered airplanes. These airplanes had a supplememt to the POH with degraded performance. Having said that they also had "Swiss Mufflers" but they're supposed to have no effect on performance. Also flew a couple of Arrows similarly equipped as well as a Cessna 182 RG. Same deal for all of them IIRC. Some were German and I seem to remember they had a different muffler assembly in Germany which deliverd worse performance and made more noise. Aren't Lakers configured as pushers? That is an interesting example. because the engine is just hanging out there, you could put the prop on either end. Well, you're getting down to comparing apples with oranges. You'd have to take two essentially identical aircraft and try both configurations with it for a satisfacory answer based solely on observed performance, but in reality, a real world airplane is going to throw so many other variables, such as cooliing requirements, planform due to CG considerations, disc availability due to fuselage cross section, whoch, of course is down to cabin space, mission requirements yadda yadda yadda. At the end of the day, when you look at similarly powered aircraft with similar missions, or even better, if you look at the Cafe racers, the evidence says it's al down to how clever the designer is, and there's not a lot in any configuration, pusher, tractor tandem wing, canard or conventional... Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
monitoring pusher props | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 11 | May 16th 06 11:53 PM |
Pusher props for WW I fighters | John Bailey | Military Aviation | 3 | September 11th 04 10:18 AM |
Interested in Tractor vs. Pusher Gyroplane | Dunewood Truglia, Esq. | Rotorcraft | 1 | July 2nd 04 04:26 PM |
1/2 VW and a shrouded/ducted propeller? | BllFs6 | Home Built | 9 | May 6th 04 05:33 AM |
Ducted Fan Design | David | Home Built | 5 | February 7th 04 06:15 AM |