Talk:Pusher configuration

message: The SPAD A.2 had a prop mounted inside the fuselage, not in front or behind. Have any other aircraft used this configuration? Drutt (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problems really - the aircraft in question was a plain thoroughly conventional tractor aircraft - except that it had an extra nacelle placed forward of the propeller - strange I know but no problem about which it is! The only other aircraft I can think of with the same arrangement was the B.E.9 --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

message: Most of these were good - but I've re-instated information in the "definition" at the top of the page that had become unclear. I think getting back into a debate about whether a pusher prop really "faces the rear" or "pushes" the aircraft is liable to decend to one of semantics and be most unhelpful. This is not an engineering text - and our definition needs to enlighten rather than mystify an ordinary user who just wants to know what a "pusher" aircraft is.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most recent edits 

message: The gear that enabled bullets to pass between the blades of a spinning propeller was strictly a "synchronisation" gear - although it is more usually called an "interrupter" gear. The article on the subject (rightly, I think) calls it an interrupter gear - although it does explain why this is strictly speaking incorrect. In either case very marginally notable in this article, the subject of which specifically didn't need any such thing!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No and I didn't. Read my post please and respond to point made rather than repeat yourself. Many things have strictly incorrect names. The name "Pusher configuration" has even been questioned because the propeller does not literally "push". If everybody called motorbikes cars then that's the term we would use. This is actually a highly trivial matter HERE - we are not saying anything other than the very obvious fact that pusher props never required interrupting/synchronisation. If you want to change the term used for the article on synchronisation gears that would be another matter altogether - by no means sure I wouldn't agree with you in that case. Until then, "Interrupter" - even if its strictly wrong, remains the main entry for the topic, and this highly peripheral mention of it is not the place to change this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Glad you saw the need to edit out personal stuff from earlier drafts of the above answer - I'll follow your example and keep this as impersonal as I can. We are agreed that "interrupter gear" in this context is less technically correct than "synchronisation gear", or at least that it does not describe quite so well what actually happens when such a gear operates. The main article for the subject actually makes this clear, and explains why. The article is none the less called "Interrupter gear", probably (although I have not seen this argued) on the grounds that it is the more common term (as I think it probably is, if marginally). In any case if we are going to decide to call "interrupter gears" (in this sense) "synchronisation gears" we should start, I think, by renaming or otherwise editing the main article (this one) rather than one that mentions the subject at all only in passing, and in a negative sense. In the meantime consistency (calling the same thing by the same name, at least) takes priority here. In particular, we link to another topic by its own name rather than through a redirect, where practicable. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interrupter vs synchronisation 

message: GraemeLeggett says : "Push-pull, while mentioned here, is not really a case of pusher configuration". When the push engine is located like true pushers (twin boomers for example), we can consider it is quite a pusher, because the aircraft has the same layout as true pushers. When the push engine is just added to a conventional layout (push-pull inside the wings or above the wing for example), I agree that it is questionable. Maybe we have to focus on specific pusher configurations. Plxd (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A "push-pull" is BOTH a tractor and a pusher at the same time, if you like. We do indeed "focus" on aircraft that are specifically pushers here - but push-pulls do need a mention, probably about as much as they already get? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Push-Pull

message: To SoundOfMusicals I say, "Well done".
There's possibly something to be added about a rear positioned propeller being advantageous for certain circumstances. There's the Miles M.35 (where the choice was about pilot view in decklanding) and there were a number of British wartime designs for ground attack aircraft that were not taken up (where it was a view to protecting the engine). However until I can check Buttler to see if he generalizes on the subject, or another source holds an opinion, I don't think they could be added (yet).GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent rewrite of history section 

message: This was VERY bad really - which was showing up more and more as the rest of the article was improved. It is still far from perfect - in particular it needs at least a few citations (find them please - rather than peppering in  tags) and examples. On the other hand I think it now makes a good deal more sense overall than it did. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the kind remarks Graeme - I obviously put in the above before I read them! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  About the sentence: "Well before the beginning of the First World War it was apparent that etc...", it seems it is a bit complicated and incomplete. The aft framework was surely draggy, but the open cockpit, braced wings and gear drag (common to tractors and pushers) was very high too. The pusher propeller efficiency was certainly very low, the worst possible, IMO the first cause to the tractor superiority.Plxd (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But the tail, with all its extra bits and pieces and wires and whatnot was EXTRA drag. Actually there was relatively little if any difference in prop efficiency as such. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a drag estimation. Say a pusher aircraft with about 30-40 % of induced drag (like any "slow" aircraft); remaind 70-60 % of parasitic drag. Tail framework drag may be about 10 % of that, that is 6-7 % of the total drag. Pusher propeller efficiency drop is certainly more than 10 %; a drop of 15 % is probable (about 12 % for a clean VariEze, likely more for a 1914 biplane). The propeller may count 2 times the tail.Plxd (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tail framework drag only 7% of total drag !?! have a close look at a typical 1913-1915 pusher for a moment! I'm sure that is a VERY optimistic estimate - much more likely to be something between 15% and 25% (most of the rest being the drag of the wing structure of course). Prop efficiency drop is not necessarily more for a high drag airframe than for a modern "clean" one - it would probably be either about the same or rather less, due to the much more slowly revolving prop (about 1500 rpm). A useful guide may be that a "replica" pusher with a modern engine needs to develop about twice the horse power of the original powerplant to achieve a similar performance. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Following your estimate, the tail framework drag (the framework only, not the tail surfaces) counts 20 % of the total drag, that means 29 to 33 % of the total parasitic drag (wings, tail, open fuselage, gear, engine, tanks, armament), not forgetting the induced drag being 30 or 40 % of the total drag. If we consider that the framework count 20 % ot the parasitic drag, we get about 12-15 % of total drag : about the same value that the push prop efficiency drop. So I keep my previous remark. Your last sentence explains the deciding effect of the prop loss of efficiency.Plxd (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "history" section 

message: I have now rewritten everything down to the "configurations" section - a great deal of what follows I really want to trim (much of it to the point of deletion) - I would appreciate feedback, obviously, before doing anything so drastic, as well as comments on the article "as rewritten". --Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Plxd for your work on this - although I disagreed with some of your changes I have left the most important - moving the paragraph describing the standard Farman layout to the "history" section. This produces problems (like the disociation from Barber) but on the whole it does work rather better. Any ideas about what should (or shouldn't) get edited or deleted in the lower part of the article?? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  My changes were for an easier reading (Farman text group), and chronological (Pénoud, French/English pushers,  homebuilt before UAV at the end of history). I moved the technical remark to notes level in order to simplify the introduction text for the current WP reader : shorter text, without (text inside) or "although" etc.... I added bullets, I know one do not like that, but IMO it is necessary whithin a long section, again to ease the reading. Another advantage, this constrains to look for a tittle giving the essential sense of the text, and to search and group some infos which are scattered. About "Avantages/disadvantages" section, I agree with your remark : too much detailed. There are too numerous and different aircraft, each one with special characteristics, so trying to write a simple WP sources reliable pros/cons may be hopeless or too complicated, anyway too long. "Too long" was the reason to create the (disputed>to be deleted) List of. I started to modify and complete this section because of too many incorrect or even false content (never tagged, too); for example some (frequent) affirmations as "better efficiency because of boundary layer etc..." or the visibility/no interference with prop or engine was not placed in first rank of advantages. Thanks for your re-writing; this article was quasi-sleeping. Plxd (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Farman" layout was very simply the way that "true" or "classical" pushers were laid out from around 1910 - when the forward elevator (an all-flying canard) started to go - right up till The first serious experiments with alternative pusher "formats" began in the late thirties early forties. Remarks about a proper description of how a "Farman pusher" was laid out being "irrelevant" are frankly highly bizarre. If you think otherwise - at least bring up your arguments here! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another "new try" 

message: That said, I would like to propose that the introduction paragraph be replaced in its entirety with the following:
A pusher aircraft is a propeller powered airplane in which the propellers are mounted so as to be behind the respective engines to which they are attached. Due to balance constraints, this normally means that the engine or propeller is mounted behind the centre of gravity, either near the trailing edge of the airplane's wing, or further aft.NiD.29 (talk) 05:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thought - I like it. There is the basis for a very sensible "initial" definition there - even if it it doesn't QUITE say everything we want to say - and they'd LOVE us to work in those references. Give me time to have a cup of tea and I'll work on it a bit! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 06:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a first look at yet another new "definition", using Mr Nieuport's definition above as a starting point - now what about note 1!!! This actually lists TRACTOR aircraft with engines and propellers well behind the wing, proving that our (very old) sources' definitions don't stack up against modern "light aero fantasy" very well at all! Its not all that clear from the text that this is in fact the point being made, so this is one thing will have to be clearer (assuming we keep it in at all). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I have been "bold" and added the new definition etc. to the lead - this is based on our discussion above. Just so no one can blame me for any changes anyone else makes, here is the original text of the new lead, as I originally composed it:
In a pusher propeller powered aircraft the propeller(s) are mounted behind their respective engine(s).  
Gunston, Bill, The Cambridge Aerospace Dictionary  Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 2004, ISBN-13 978-0-521-84140-5/ISBN-10 0-521-84140-2 as opposed to the much more common tractor configuration, in which the engine(s) are mounted behind their propellers. Due to balance constraints, this normally means that the engine or propeller is mounted behind the centre of gravity, either near the trailing edge of the airplane's wing, or further aft., and in fact the pusher configuration has sometimes been defined in these termsBarber, H An Aeroplane Speaks - Glossary 1917 (a pusher is)"an aeroplane of which the propeller is mounted behind the main lifting surface" Roskam, Jan Airplane Design, Volume 2, page 132 1985  "When the propeller...is located behind the c.g. the installation is referred to as a pusher installation" On the other hand some modern, unconventional propeller driven aircraft designs actually mount tractor propellers behind the c.g.Examples of this include Radab Windex motor glider, Seawind 300C seaplane, A-90 Orlyonok amphibian, e-Genius GFC 2011 competitor
To convert a tractor engine and propeller combination to pusher operation - it is not sufficient to simply turn the engine and propeller round, since the propeller would continue to "pull" driving the aircraft to the rear. Assuming the engine cannot be run in the reverse direction, the "handedness" of the propeller must be reversed. The loads on the thrust race are also reversed, as the pusher propeller is pushing into the engine rather than pulling away from it, as in a tractor. Some modern engines designed for light aircraft are fitted with a thrust race suitable for both "pushing" and "pulling", but others require a different part depending in which sense they are operating.Wheeler, Allen H., Building aeroplanes for 'Those Magnificent men', London Foulis 1965, p.52, describes the mounting of a Rolls Royce Continental C.90 engine into a replica Bristol Boxkite, in which all these problems actually arose.
Early pushers more or less standardised on the so-called "Farman" type - which may be summarised as "a single propeller on the centreline immediately behind the wing - rotating between booms supporting the tail".  Other early pusher configurations were actually relatively minor variations on this theme. Pushers have since been designed and built in many different layouts, some of them quite radical, these are covered in the section on "Pusher configurations", below. 
---Soundofmusicals (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work! I think that should cover all the bases. :) NiD.29 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Windex, Orlyonok (small eagle) and e-Genius look like gliders, as if there was no engine, with just a prop installed for max efficiency. One can add the example of the glider (propeller belt drive), too. But the glider and tractor layouts are quite similar, and conventional. I am surprised that you qualify the Windex layout as a pusher.Plxd (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Proposal 

message: I wonder if we have a problem here with conflating a "pusher aircraft" with "pusher engine". This came to me after tweaking the current lead. The note identifies the Radab Windex as a tractor configuration that meets the pusher aircraft criteria. To my mind, its engine is in tractor configuration, but the overall layout is a pusher aircraft. 
We still have problem with referencing.
* tractor configuration is entirely unreferenced and therefore of no help in identifying a uncertain "pusher" as a tractor.
* ideally, any aircraft listed needs have a reference supporting that it is (or is not) a pusher.
GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Windex, Orlyonok (small eagle) and e-Genius look like gliders, as if there was no engine, with just a prop installed for max efficiency. One can add the example of the glider (propeller belt drive), too. But the glider and tractor layouts are quite similar, and conventional. I am surprised that you qualify the Windex layout as a pusher.Plxd (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: A thought

message: Tried to read the article but it is not clear what the purpose of the article is at the moment it is just a mixture of random ideas like Most built Pushers perhaps it needs a think about what it is trying to do. MilborneOne (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reasons (listed in "disadvantages"), pusher (propeller-driven) airplanes are rare birds. "Most built" figures give a weight of that in a better way than an alphabetic list. "Configurations" gives a summary of existing layouts, trying to allow some understanding of how a pusher may be designed. Plxd (talk) 08:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article unclear

message: "In canard designs a smaller wing is present at the front of the aircraft to provide pitch stability or control."  Oops! Not the first time I read that; lot of articles or even "serious books" repeat that; in "Unmanned Aircraft Systems: UAVS Design, Development and Deployment", one can read page 35 : "A canard configuration has the horizontal stabilizer, or foreplane, mounted forward of the wing". A canard (lifting or not) surface looks like a stabilizer (same general dimensions) but is not stabilizing at all; as located ahead of the CG, it is strongly destabilizing. It provides added lift and/or pitch control. The aft wing (the horizontal tail or the main wing in the canard case) IS always the stabilizing surface. The pitch stability comes from the lift slope difference between the front and the back surfaces. "Canard layout" section purpose is not to explain what the frontplane does. Plxd (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Canard layout

message: "removed statement re rudder input to counteract propwash - effect is cause by p factor, not propwash and is still present, propwash may however mess up lift characteristics of wing root, etc)".
Yes, takeoff condition (steady course) was lacking. According to "Design of the aeroplane", pages 304-307 : P effects are mainly assymetric blade effect, producing a pitching or a yawing moment. That comes if the prop is not at right angle, or if the aircraft is moving (pitch or yaw), adding inertial effects (rigidity and precession). During the takeoff, under steady conditions : prop disk perpandicular to the velocity and without neither pitching or yawing, there are no such effects, but only rotating propwash effect onto the vertical tail if it exists. So the conventional tractor/canard pusher difference.Plxd (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Propeller P-effects

message: It seems that the initial purpose of the page was just a Pusher airplane history and description. 
"Pusher configuration" asks for description of pusher thrust devices and machines using pusher devices.
1. in pusher thrust devices, we have propeller and ducted fan
2. in machines using pusher devices, we have :
:aircraft : 
:::aerostat pusher (airship)
:::aerodyne pusher :
::::rigid wing (airplane, WIG, 
::::flexible wing (UL trike, paramotor, powered parachute)
::::rotor wing (autogyro)
:others :
:::hovercraft
:::airboat, hydrocopter
:::maybe others
...a lot of topics. So, what to do ? focus on pusher airplane or follow this extended list ? Plxd (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting pushers, too. Russian name of propeller-driven sleighs is aerosani (not aerosan), sani means sleigh. Aerosani is a WP article. We have also prop-sleigh, aerosleigh, aeroski (?). What generic name type looks better ? Plxd (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: article used to be at Aerosan (seems to have been mmoved with little discussion).GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: just read the aerosani discussion. According russian speaking (in my family), "san" is not correct, it is always "sani", like scissors or trousers in english. The whole article begins and goes on with aerosani (except the title, strange enough). Plxd (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the article 

message: The writer has to choice : either Aerostatic and aerodynamic, or aerostat and aerodyne. Aerostat means an aircraft lifted by aerostatic forces; conversely an aerodyne is an aircraft lifted by aerodynamic forces, so aerodyne aircraft = aerodynamic aircraft aircraft. plxdesi  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.150.181 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title : aerostatic-aerodyne 

message: I don't have time to work on it now, but while the discussion above seems to be about semantics, has anyone really reviewed some of the assertions? They seem to be entirely speculative (particularly those about safety) rather than based on any study of accident statistics. From personal knowledge I can tell you that many pusher aircraft have fuel lines going through the cabin and are just as much of a concern that way, that in a crash a pusher is if anything more hazardous because the engine wants to continue moving forward into the cabin while the rest of the plane has come to a stop, and the claim of propeller fragments being a hazard to the cabin occupants in a tractor configuration (and in a pusher, less so) are all entirely specious. They might apply to a specific aircraft but certainly not to all pushers.
Many who are new to aircraft design consult Wikipedia as their first source of information and it's important to qualify partial truths rather than state them as absolute. Altaphon (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety, POV concerns 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Pusher configuration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121020132/http://djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/propeffects.html to http://www.djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/propeffects.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121030726/http://djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/pushtractor.html to http://www.djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/pushtractor.html
*Added  tag to http://www.kitplanes.com/magazine/pdfs/Grinvalds_Orion_0409.pdfOrion
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121030726/http://djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/pushtractor.html to http://www.djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/pushtractor.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121030726/http://djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/pushtractor.html to http://www.djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/pushtractor.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: To me (tech. eng.) the whole comparison-section "tractor vs pusher" appears to be strongly biased. 46.114.0.52 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quite unbalanced assessments