Advancement of prop blade in flight, new information

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...
You've heard wrong. The overheating problem was quickly corrected.
Single-engine climb-rate was 100 fpm better at sea-level on the rear
engine.

Thank you kage and Doug. I stand corrected.

Still, that doesn't mean that a rear-engine is the perfect solution for
every airplane, and of course it's similarly not true that no airplane
should have a rear engine.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message Still, that doesn't mean that a
rear-engine
is the perfect solution for every airplane, and of course it's similarly
not true
that no airplane should have a rear engine.

Which is the reason Rutan doesn't put pusher engines on all of his designs.
It's my understanging that the C-337 performs better on the rear engine
because the rear prop sucks air in behind the blunt end of the fuselage thus
decreasing drag. On a slick low-drag design, I imagine the difference
between front and rear drive would be much less pronounced.

D.