In article
,
a wrote:

On Nov 3, 10:55*am, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
a wrote:
My aerodynamic question had always been why there are fewer pusher
props. In a puller some of the wind energy is used up against the
airplane.

In a pusher, the prop has to operate in turbulent air stirred up by the
structure in front. *Depending on the design of the airplane, the prop
also has to be stronger (e.g., heavier) to withstand the cycling loads
if there's a wing or something blocking part of the prop disk from the
slipstream (think Long-EZ).

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks! I seem to remember the pusher in the C310 was less effective
too.

Cessna?

The C-336/337 turns out to perform slightly better in single-engine
flight on the rear engine than the front.