wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja) (09/13/84)
<In that case, the Cessna Skymaster had the best of both worlds> I've always heard that it was a toss-up between tractors and pushers. With a tractor, you loose some wing efficiency due to the disturbed airflow over the wing, and with a pusher, you lose some propellor efficiency due to the disturbed airflow to the prop. Call me old fashioned, but I would prefer an efficient prop. What all airplanes need, apparently, is the engine(s) mounted on pylons like a Lake Amphibian. The advent of jet engines must have greatly decreased the breakdown rate for aeronautical engineers......
rl@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Robert Langridge%CGL) (09/16/84)
<---
While on the subject of the relative efficiencies of pushers and pullers,
I haven't flown a Cessna Skymaster for years, but if my memory serves me
right, the engine-out performance (rate-of-climb) is better with the rear
fan still turning than with only the front. Anyone have the numbers?
Incidentally, the Skymaster has the obvious advantages of a twin, without
the usual disadvantages (particularly for a SEL licencee like me) of
worrying about asymmetric thrust if you lose an engine on takeoff.
Unfortunately it is also very noisy.
Bob Langridge, Computer Graphics Laboratory, University of California,
San Francisco, CA 94143. (415) 666-2630
...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!rl; ucbvax!rl; langridge@sumex-aim.arpaRick.Gumpertz@CMU-CS-A.ARPA (09/21/84)
From: Richard H. Gumpertz <Rick.Gumpertz@CMU-CS-A.ARPA> The Cessna Skymasher, to the best of my memory, has different size props front and back, so that might affect performance differences when using only one. Another advantage of push/pull is counter-rotation without having to stock mirror-imaged parts.