Pusher configuration

Advantages
Practical requirements

1. Placing the cockpit forward of the wing to balance the weight of the engine(s) aft improves visibility for the crew. Similarly any front armament can be used more easily. 2. The absence of front engine allows special e uipment (radar! "#$ cameras) to be efficiently installed in the fuselage nose. %. &onse uently! this configuration was widely used for early combat aircraft! and remains popular today among ultralight aircraft! unmanned aerial vehicles (#"$) and 'P$ radio( controlled planes. ). "ircraft where the engine is carried by! or very close to! the pilot (such as paramotors! powered parachutes! autogyros! and fle*wing trikes) place the engine behind the pilot to minimise the danger to the pilot+s arms and legs.
Aerodynamics 1. A pusher may have a shorter fuselage and hence a reduction in both fuselage wetted area and weight. 2. In contrast to tractor layout, a pusher propeller at the end of the fuselage is stabilizing.A pusher needs less stabilizing vertical tail area and hence presents less weathercock effect at takeoff roll it is generally less sensitive to crosswind. !. "hen there is no tail within the slipstream, unlike a tractor there is no rotating propwash around the fuselage inducing a side force to the fin. At takeoff, a canard pusher pilot does not have to apply rudder input to balance this moment. #. $fficiency can be gained by mounting a propeller behind the fuselage, because it re%energizes the boundary layer developed on the body, and reduces the form drag by keeping the flow attached to the fuselage. &owever, it is usually a minor gain compared to the airframe's detrimental effect on propeller efficiency. Also, this effect is not nearly as pronounced on an airplane as it is on a ship, due to the higher (eynolds number at which aircraft operate. ). "ing profile drag may be reduced due to the absence of prop%wash over any section of the wing.

*isadvantages
Structural and weight considerations

1. " pusher design with an empennage behind the propeller is structurally more comple* than a
similar tractor type. +he increased weight and drag degrades performance compared with a similar tractor type. ,odern aerodynamic knowledge and construction methods may reduce but never eliminate the difference.

2. " remote (buried) engine re uires a drive shaft and its associated bearings and supports! special devices for torsional vibration control! increasing mechanical re uirements! weight and comple*ity.
Center of Gravity (c.g.) and landing gear considerations 1. +o maintain a workable -. position, there is a limit as how far aft an engine can be installed. +he forward location of the crew may balance the engine weight and will help determine the -.. As the -. location must be kept within defined limits for safe operation load distribution must evaluated before each flight. 2. *ue to a generally high thrust line /needed for propeller ground clearance0, negative /down0 pitching moment and sometimes absence of prop%wash over the tail, higher speed and longer roll is re1uired for takeoff compared to tractor aircraft. ,ain gear located too far aft /aft of empty aircraft c.g.0 may re1uire higher takeoff rotation speed or even prevent the rotation. +he (utan answer to this problem is to lower the nose of the aircraft at rest such that the empty c.g. is then ahead of the main wheels. !. *ue t!. o the center of gravity often being further back on the longitudinal a2is than on most tractor airplanes, pushers can be more prone to flat spins, especially if loaded improperly. Aerodynamic considerations

1. ,ue to the generally high thrust line (aft propeller- ground clearance)! a low wing pusher layout may suffer pitch changes with power variation (pitch-power coupling). Pusher seaplanes with especially high thrust lines and tailwheels may find the vertical tail masked

from the airflow! severely reducing control at low speeds! such as when ta*iing.
2. +he absence of prop%wash over the wing reduces the lift and increases takeoff roll length. !. Pusher e1. ngines mounted on the wing may obstruct sections of the wing trailing edge, reducing the total width available for control surfaces such as flaps and ailerons.

). .hen a propeller is mounted in front of the tail changes in engine power alter the airflow over the tail and can give strong pitch or yaw changes.
Propeller ground clearance and foreign ob ect damage 1. 3ecause of pitch rotation at take off, propeller diameter may have to be reduced /with a loss of efficiency0 and4or landing gear made longer and heavier. ,any pusher have ventral fins or skids beneath the propeller to prevent the propeller from striking the ground at an added cost in drag and weight. 2. 5n tailless pushers such as the (utan 6ong%$7 ehe propeller arc is very close to the ground while flying nose%high during takeoff or landing. 5b8ects on the ground kicked up by the wheels can pass through the propeller disc, causing damage or accelerated wear to the blades, or in e2treme cases, the blades may strike the ground. !. "hen an airplane flies in icing conditions, ice can accumulate on the wings. If an airplane with wing% mounted pusher engines e2periences icing the props will ingest shedded chunks of ice, endangering the propeller blades and parts of the airframe that can be struck by ice violently redirected by the props.

). /n early pusher combat aircraft! spent ammunition casings caused similar problems and devices for collecting them had to be devised.
Propeller efficiency and noise 1. +he propeller passes through the fuselage wake, wing and other flight surface downwashes % moving asymmetrically through a disk of irregular airspeed. +his reduces propeller efficiency and causes vibration inducing structural propeller fatigue and noise. 2. Prop efficiency is usually at least 2%)9 less and in some cases more than 1)9 less than an e1uivalent tractor installation. :ullscale wind tunnel investigation of the canard (utan ;ari$ze showed a propeller efficiency of <.=) compared to <.>) for a tractor configuration % a loss of 129. !. Pusher props are noisy and cabin noise may be higher than tractor e1uivalent /-essna ?,- vs -essna 1)20. #. Propeller noise may increase because the engine e2haust flows through the props. +his effect may be particularly pronounced when using turboprop engines due to the large volume of e2haust they produce. !ngine cooling and e"haust 1. In pusher configuration, the propeller does not contribute airflow over the engine or radiator. @ome aviation engines have e2perienced cooling problems when used as pushers. +o counter this, au2iliary fans may be installed, adding additional weight. 2. +he engine of a pusher e2hausts forward of the propeller, and in this case the e2haust may contribute to corrosion or other damage to the propeller. +his is usually minimal, and may be mainly visible in the form of soot stains on the blades.