Pusher props for WW I fighters

[John Bailey]

Watching the Ultralight tow planes at the Finger Lakes Aerosport Park
(http://www.fingerlakesaerosportpark.com/)
Labor Day Week fly-in, it occurred to me that WWI fighters could have
solved their gun aim/synchronization problems easily by adopting a
pusher prop configuration. Wondering why this solution was never
adopted, I realized:
1) The engine in front provides a modicum of protection for the pilot.
But surely, an engine behind would avoid the more dangerous tail
attack.
2) Cooling of the engine might be more difficult--but now the castor
oil is blown away from the pilot, not into his face.
3) Strength of the fuselage, arranged for a pushed configuration might
be less certain. OTOH, several of the original jennys were pushers.

Picture of a pusher prop ultralight:
http://www.fingerlakesaerosportpark.com/photos-04-1/94-Rhet-plane.jpg

Any thoughts about this tradeoff?

John Bailey
http://home.rochester.rr.com/jbxroads/mailto.html

[Keith Willshaw]

"John Bailey" > wrote in message
...
> Watching the Ultralight tow planes at the Finger Lakes Aerosport Park
> (http://www.fingerlakesaerosportpark.com/)
> Labor Day Week fly-in, it occurred to me that WWI fighters could have
> solved their gun aim/synchronization problems easily by adopting a
> pusher prop configuration. Wondering why this solution was never
> adopted, I realized:

But it WAS adopted


> 1) The engine in front provides a modicum of protection for the pilot.
> But surely, an engine behind would avoid the more dangerous tail
> attack.

Trouble is in a crash the pilot was sandwiched between
the engine and the ground

> 2) Cooling of the engine might be more difficult--but now the castor
> oil is blown away from the pilot, not into his face.
> 3) Strength of the fuselage, arranged for a pushed configuration might
> be less certain. OTOH, several of the original jennys were pushers.
>

The pusher prop meant you coudnt have an air gunner firing to the rear


> Picture of a pusher prop ultralight:
> http://www.fingerlakesaerosportpark.com/photos-04-1/94-Rhet-plane.jpg
>

Picture of a Vickers Gunbus

http://www.rcaf.com/1914_1938_formation/aircraft/fighters/gunbus/
http://www.ukskies.co.uk/index.htm?http://www.ukskies.co.uk/V/pages/Vickers%20-%20FB5%20Gunbus.htm

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Tex Houston]

"John Bailey" > wrote in message
...
> Watching the Ultralight tow planes at the Finger Lakes Aerosport Park
> (http://www.fingerlakesaerosportpark.com/)
> Labor Day Week fly-in, it occurred to me that WWI fighters could have
> solved their gun aim/synchronization problems easily by adopting a
> pusher prop configuration.

In addition to the Vickers Gunbus already mentioned are the Airco DH.1 and
DH.2 and the Royal Aircraft Factory F.E.2 but I'm sure there were more.

Tex

[Cub Driver]

There's a darling Farman at the Owl's Head Museum in Maine. It was a
pusher, but it still didn't have fixed guns. Instead the gunner sat in
front of the pilot; if the plane were attacked from behind, he stood
up and fired over the pilot's head.

Furthermore, he didn't wear (didn't have!) a seat belt.

There's a great book by an American cowboy who became a Canadian truck
driver, then a Farman gunner for the RFC, and finally a pilot. (Well,
that wasn't the end of the story: he returned to the U.S. and joined
the Air Service, but that was a disappointment for him, and also for
the reader.) www.warbirdforum.com/horses.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com