Read the forum code of contact
By: 15th January 2012 at 18:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-They tried it - with the RFB Fantrainer
Ken
By: 15th January 2012 at 18:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think the issue lies with excessive buffeting with the prop due to the airstream being "dirty".
By: 15th January 2012 at 19:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-What about the OV-10 Bronco?
Why bother with a pushprop when you can have the layout of the OV-10 Bronco? You can still mount a radar in the nose and over mounted wings to give a better ground view. Dual props/engine to give added redundancy.
By: 15th January 2012 at 19:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Why bother with a pushprop when you can have the layout of the OV-10 Bronco? You can still mount a radar in the nose and over mounted wings to give a better ground view. Dual props/engine to give added redundancy.
ah yes, and there was also the Pucara too, or what the British once referred to as Galtieri's stallion!
but then again, twin props maybe not so good for certain types of trainers
By: 15th January 2012 at 20:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-James bond's gyroplane
Don't forget James Bond's gyroplane from You only live twice. That's a push prop. How's that for frontline air support? You can transport it in several crates.
By: 15th January 2012 at 20:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Pushers run the risk of prop damage from loose objects disturbed by the nosewheel on rough runways.
By: 15th January 2012 at 21:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think BAe once had a pusher project called SABA (Small Agile Battlefield Aircraft)
By: 15th January 2012 at 21:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-brand new fighter is made for SAAF.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/see-south-africas-new-multi-mission-combat-plane-in-action/
By: 15th January 2012 at 22:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-you figure for trainers..it would give both pilots much better view
and for light attack/cas aircraft, allow either a small radar to be placed in the nose or guns ala F-5
I'll see your SAAB 21 & raise you the jet-propelled J21R it morphed into -
By: 15th January 2012 at 23:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Pushers run the risk of prop damage from loose objects disturbed by the nosewheel on rough runways.
Not only this, but a lot of pusher aircraft (as opposed to tractor) have issues with cooling on the ground.
Ryan
By: 16th January 2012 at 00:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Mixmaster ... though neither trainer nor CAS model.
Leads to tall landing gears, lots of vibrations, cooling problems (as was said above), and generally an awkward layout.
RFB Fantrainer was certainly the best interpretation of the trainer theme.
And one could put two propfans on a A-10; would sure sound cool. But probably wouldn't be worth the trouble.
By: 16th January 2012 at 00:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Don't forget the Sadler Piranha guys
By: 16th January 2012 at 01:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-brand new fighter is made for SAAF.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/see-south-africas-new-multi-mission-combat-plane-in-action/
Yes, we had a thread on it here:
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=112299
Fits this thread very closely.
By: 16th January 2012 at 06:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think this can be considered pusher light-attack if count in UCAVs,
but for manned...? hmmmmm......
Posts: 3,442
By: J-20 Hotdog - 15th January 2012 at 17:47
you figure for trainers..it would give both pilots much better view
and for light attack/cas aircraft, allow either a small radar to be placed in the nose or guns ala F-5