Plane with backwards engines?

[GSP]

I was getting on a jet at Manchester airport this morning and parked up a couple down was a funny looking plane with turboprops pointing the other way and a wing on the nose cone?

I've tried google but can't figure out what it was, does anyone have any idea as I would love to know?

[anonymous-user]

Was it a Piaggio Avanti ?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaggio_P.180_Avanti

Edited by el stovey on Monday 22 November 18:19

[GSP]

Yes, it was exactly that. Looked pretty strange next to everything else.

[Simpo Two]

'Pusher' is the word, as opposed to 'tractor'.

It's not new; the Wright Flyer had two pusher props!

[perdu]

And Piaggio have been doing the unconventional since Pontius was a pilot

[Simpo Two]

I think pusher props make more sense, because none of the power is wasted blowing the fuselage backwards.

[perdu]

Simpo Two said:

I think pusher props make more sense, because none of the power is wasted blowing the fuselage backwards.

just dont bale out on the side of the working engine!



mind you

the Wright Brothers invented this game, they can't have been that far out could they?


hmmm

Is it more efficient to push into unused airspace or drag it out of squirrely wobbly air more quickly?

(think I'll open another can and join our friends in the Lounge
night all!)

[Dr Jekyll]

There has been at least one aircraft, possibly two, with one backwards prop and one conventional prop. Perhaps one of our resident experts will know whether it's better to have a 'front' engine failure and have to fly on the rear, or vice versa.

[Eric Mc]

I can think of five straight away, the Dornier 335, Cessna 336 and Cessna 337, the test bed aircraft for the Dornier 335 and the Rutan Voyager.

The idea behind these push-pull designs is that, in the event of an engine failure, you do not have the problem of asymetric thrust from the good engine.

[Simpo Two]

Eric Mc said:

The idea behind these push-pull designs is that, in the event of an engine failure, you do not have the problem of asymetric thrust from the good engine.

More likely because you get twice as much power for the same frontal area = goes faster. I also wonder if the fact that the rear prop is working in air that's already been accelerated helps top speed.

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 23 November 10:36

[Eric Mc]

Simpo Two said:

Eric Mc said:

The idea behind these push-pull designs is that, in the event of an engine failure, you do not have the problem of asymetric thrust from the good engine.

More likely because you get twice as much power for the same frontal area = goes faster. I also wonder if the fact that the rear prop is working in air that's already been accelerated helps top speed.

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 23 November 10:36

Not sure it improves matters. The rear prop is also getting quite turbulent air which would negate any speed advantages.
Cessna certainly sold the 336/337 family on the "engine out safety" factor.

[anonymous-user]

Simpo Two said:

Eric Mc said:

The idea behind these push-pull designs is that, in the event of an engine failure, you do not have the problem of asymetric thrust from the good engine.

More likely because you get twice as much power for the same frontal area = goes faster. I also wonder if the fact that the rear prop is working in air that's already been accelerated helps top speed.

Yes, the idea behind them is having two propellors in a line with the fuselage, hugely reducing drag.

[Ayahuasca]

Tractor configuration makes more sense if engines are wing-mounted as high speed prop wash over / under the wings can increase lift.

[CanAm]

Eric Mc said:

I can think of five straight away, the Dornier 335, Cessna 336 and Cessna 337, the test bed aircraft for the Dornier 335 and the Rutan Voyager.

The idea behind these push-pull designs is that, in the event of an engine failure, you do not have the problem of asymetric thrust from the good engine.

Not to mention the Fokker D.XXIII.

[AnotherClarkey]

A nice selection of forward and backward facing engines here....

[Eric Mc]

Quite a few biplane bombers had tandem engines.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 23 November 18:50

[Urban Sports]

perdu said:

And Piaggio have been doing the unconventional since Pontius was a pilot

Too right, this one doesn't even have landing gear

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLYTSmPO0aY&fea...

[Kudos]

It's been there for quite some time.

Anyone know how much they cost? If I was in the market to buy one, they look fairly funky

[dudleybloke]

there was a tiny pusher in the film death race 2000.
a rutan variviggen i believe.

Edited by dudleybloke on Wednesday 24th November 12:14

[Flintstone]

Would this be the same Piaggio Avanti that was asked about in here only a few weeks hence? Those buggers get around, don't they?