Seems like 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of another?

Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:17:36 -0700 (PDT), Mark
wrote:
The point was to ask whether tractor vs pusher
is simply a matter of personal taste, or really a
matter of performance.

You don't see that many people talking about
Cozys and Velocities. The Long ez kit isn't
offered anymore.

---
Mark

problem with pushers is one single dropped anything in the engine bay
will eventually impact the prop in flight.
I can point you to an mt prop with the perfect impression of an
aircraft washer about 6" out from the hub..

And I know of cases where the spinner of a tractor was hit dead-on by
birds. There is nothing in accident statistics to indicate this alleged
problem has been an issue.

the other problem is that a canard can never extract as much
performance from the wing.

First, the subject of the thread is pusher versus tractor. There are and
have been pushers that don't use canard wing layouts.

Second, got a cite for your "performance" claim? Because I've got
references that claim just the opposite, such as:

"Theoretically, the canard is considered more efficient because using the
horizontal surface to the horizontal surface to help lift the weight of
the aircraft should result in less drag for a given amount of lift."
From: "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge" FAA publication, 2003.

sideslips in a tractor aircraft are easy. you never hear of the
deviations from heading that occur in a canard. I'm told they can be
attention getting.

Again, a pusher is not a canard. You're confusing wing configurations
with engine configurations.

crashworthiness of an aircraft is directly related to the speed at
landing/impact. a tractor aircraft can extract more from the wing and
can be landed slower than a canard.

Sigh. See above.

separately from that the pushers were all composite aircraft.
the crashworthiness of some composite aircraft has been a little less
than tin aircraft shall we say.

Congratulation on making statements with high-density baloney that aren't
even related to the pusher/tractor issue.

First, pushers have been around at least since the Wright brothers and
were built in wood and metal long before fiberglass composite aircraft
were built.

Second, what does the "crashworthiness" of "some" composites have to do
with anything? And by "tin" do you mean "metal" or do you really think
there are aircraft made mostly of tin?

so without the evangelists out there doing the sell on the designs
interest tends to focus back on the aspects that are less than ideal.
plus also vans has produced some good flying aircraft that almost
anyone can build with assurance that they will end up with an aircraft
worth the build.

Huh?

the lightest aircraft you can build has a prop up front.

Do you believe this for real or are you just trolling?? The lightest
aircraft you can build don't even have an engine (e.g. hang-gliders,
cloud-hopper balloons, and cluster balloons.) And the lightest powered
aircraft one can buy (ultralight powered parachutes and trikes) _are_
generally pushers!

There are pros and cons to putting engines in front, in back, on top, out
on the sides, and maybe even the bottom of the fuselage, but the final
determination is influenced by the intended mission of the aircraft - an
issue that wasn't addressed.