A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Push-Pull propeller combinations.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old September 3rd 10, 01:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval
Peter Skelton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 93
Default Push-Pull propeller combinations.

On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 18:22:49 -0700 (PDT), Eunometic
wrote:

On Sep 3, 10:48*am, John wrote:
On Sep 2, 10:08*am, Eunometic wrote:





Several aircraft have been built with both a pull (or tractor)
propeller and a push (or rear) propeller aligned with each other.


Supposedly the arrangment is inefficient, yet the some of the Dornier
aircraft were record breakers.


Given that some aircraft were ruined or delayed by the problem of
combining gearboxes (He 177, Northrop XB-35 and if it ever came to it
the B-29 with its backup V-3420) * it looks like an attractive
proposition.


What's going on here?


List of such aircraft:


Cessna 337 Skymaster
Rutan Model 76 Vogager
Adam A500


Dornier Wal
Dornier Do X
Dornier Do 18 Seaplane, the German PPY Catalina.
Dornier Do 26K Seaplane, possibly the longer ranged seaplane ever
built.
Dornier Do 335 Pfeil (arrow) *perhaps one of the fastest piston
engined aircraft ever built.
Dornier Seawings Seastar, modern Seaplane of composites.


Savoia-Marchetti S.55
LeO H-242


I don't know about the others but my understanding is that the
Skymaster was an attempt to design a twin engined plane that would
have the same overall dimensions as a single engine aircraft and be
safer to fly since it would eliminate asymetric thrust during engine
failure. *The ironic thing is that the Skymaster safety record is no
better than a conventional twin.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Possibly psychological "a single engined failure isn't dangerous so I
won't maintain the aircraft factor" and ofcourse perhaps engine
failure isn't the major cause of light plane crashes.

A single engined turbo prop is safer than a twin engine piston and
possibly even safer than a twin turbo since the pilots inabiility to
handle asymetrical thrust may be worse than his abillity to handle a
glide/crash landing.

Famously some singles have crashed and smashed through brick walls
and the pilot walked free unscathed, the engine acting as a battering
ram and protection.

That a single piston is safer than a twin is a classic of
probability theory, taugh in junior high around here (not back in
the day though).

Peter Skelton
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just pull the little red handle! JJ Sinclair Soaring 65 September 5th 10 11:57 AM
Propeller or jet to push an in-line skater? John Doe[_4_] Home Built 33 July 28th 10 09:28 PM
PUSH START stanley adelson Aviation Photos 0 July 15th 08 01:16 AM
Question about center-line push-pull engine configuration Shin Gou Home Built 4 June 7th 04 05:57 PM
Nasal cannula, flowmeter combinations. Lord Struthers Soaring 0 May 5th 04 05:04 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.