Single-engined pusher planes: any role for those?

[tomo pauk]

What role could assume a single-engined plane in pusher configuration (eg. Saab 21 was such a plane), and do that better than a 'classis' design? Throw in your propositions for a good pusher, too

[Ratsel]

Dangerous to bail out I would assume.

[tomo pauk]

For sake of discussion, we'll assume that other designers went Saab's way (= pilot/crew have ejection seat)

[Ratsel]

Oh I see, well hard to beat the Bell XP-52, but alas it was cancelled.

[tomo pauk]

The XP-52 was as real as any what-if plane

[davebender]

CAS. A rear prop normally provides superior forward visibility and you've got the nose free for a light anti-tank cannon.

I'll leave actual designs to the engineers among us.

[stona]

The Japanese were working on the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden at the end of the war. They built two. I bet they didn't have an ejection seat!
Cheers
Steve

[TheMustangRider]

The Japanese were working on the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden at the end of the war. They built two. I bet they didn't have an ejection seat!
Cheers
Steve

I've read somewhere they had this device that could eject the propeller in case of an emergency.

[FLYBOYJ]

A propeller pusher, be it piston or turbo powered leaves a lot of room in the nose for a big gun(s) or other stuff (radar). Depending on fuselage length and engine weight you can also maintain a C/G that enables a payload close to the MAC. Use a twin boom design like the Saab 21 or the Convair XP-54 and you have an inner wing for stores or additional fuel. On the down side a twin boom pusher will be harder to manufacture than an aircraft similar to the J7W1 Shinden or XP-56

[tomo pauk]

A German pusher, maybe with BMW 801 (providing they can cool it without compromising much the airflow just aft engine), 2 x MK101/103, wings sized as for Fw-190, dive brakes - ready for tank hunting (and to kill Il-2s it encounters?), while able to out-pace Soviet fighters?

[Ratsel]

I really don't see it as a dogfighter especially in WWII.. as most times the attack came from the read with little or no warning. engine right there will not end well for the pilot flying the pusher.

edit:

whoops.. you said tank hunter also.. missed that part lol

[tyrodtom]

Better for the pilot if those bullets hit the engine instead of him, of course either way it ends up in a downed aircraft. But with the engine in the rear there'd be more chanch of the pilot surviving to fight another day.

[stona]

I've read somewhere they had this device that could eject the propeller in case of an emergency.

Like the Do335,though that blew the whole a*se end off!

Steve

[davebender]

I doubt that.

CAS requires low and slow maneuverability. Engine(s) rated for maximum performance @ 1,000 meters. Significant armor to protect the pilot against ground fire. Large and heavy cannon(s) able to penetrate tank armor and infantry bunkers.

In the modern world that means an A-10. During WWII that means a Hs-129 or Ju-87G. These aircraft stand no chance against contemporary fighter aircraft unless the enemy pilot is poorly trained. Fighter escort is mandatory unless you have achieved aerial supremacy.

[Readie]

I'll vote for the Walrus. Not glamorous I grant you, but a workmanlike 'pusher' that many downed pilots were glad to see alight by them.
I know its 'wiki' but the article is quite succinct.
Supermarine Walrus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cheers
John