Discussion Older pusher planes and plans.

[barry wilson]

How many people on site know where the older pusher model plans are? I remember at least a few kits available in my time but never seem to stumble over them or the plans anywhere. Other than vic smeeds model that pops up quite often that is. I never built a pusher and some were quite attractive. At least to me.

[Gonnacrash]

Barry,
Cleveland Models..C/L.... someone somewhere still kits this I once found.

In the late 1940's, The Cleveland Model and Supply Company was under a US Government contract to supply special model airplane kits to the Industrial Aviation community. This was just one of many programs aimed at helping returning WWII GI's, who wanted to work in aviation, transition back into civilian life. These kits were called "Industrial Training Kits" used to teach aviation theory, design, consrtuction and flight dynamics. . This kit is called The Streamliner and its design is the typical rib, balsa sheet covered constuction

Guess one could make it R/C.

Don - Basehor, Ks

[barry wilson]

With that long nose you could get an electric to balance. A little dihedral and it would perhaps do well on rc. Although the u control kit was probably too heavy I imagine. I think the eliptical wing makes it interesting.

This is one I had not seen. Perhaps because it is controline and my experience there was limited to the firebaby? Instead I landed up running after quite a few free flight models for years.

I wrote the last although it does not seem logical come to think of it. It is a sign of aging I guess that I am not instantly sure of the name of my u control model either. So the correct name will format in my mind shortly if wrong.

[coosbaylumber]

Over at SAMTalk, they had mentioned about one or two weeks ago as to how many folks had brought a rubber powered twin to a recent meet. May want to ask there.


Wm.

[patmcc]

How about this from 1957. A Frog 149 diesel is shown on the plan with single channel escapement r/c but would be a natural for electric & elevons.

[barry wilson]

It being a frog does not suprise me. If I remember some pushers were english kits. My hobby shop seemed to always stock a good variety of english kits back then.

The box art on some deplicted some pleasant designs I remember. Of course all will be infernal combustion as this dates back well before the age of practical electrics.

Just located the plans for the old 1944 yogi pusher with twin rudders.

[patmcc]

The original Delta 707 had a Taifun engine but the plan published by Aeromodeller showed a Frog 149 because that engine is a type of reed valve that would run equally in both directions.

[RyanNX211]

Don't know anything about it

[barry wilson]

On the typical mixmaster truly rear pusher layout type. With todays carbon fibre tubes I imagine driving way back there might be possible using the tubes for a driveshaft and sheath. No difficult centre of gravity problems either. Inner roller bearings at both ends of the outer larger carbon fibre tube with perhaps one or two set into the tube at equidistant points. should minumise the shaft tube drag and tendency of the shaft to whip.

Almost all cooling would be lost for the electric motor. So in addition very small fan on the motor shaft. Or just design good input and output ducts for the motor? The outer tube the inner shaft runs in could be part of the planes structural strength. Or even the rear structure alone for the tailfeathers.

Besides the cooling and loss of artificial higher airflow over the control surfaces. Perhaps compensating for that by increasing the percentage formula for them. With the new materials easily available perhaps a new design of a true rear end pusher of more or less conventional appearing design with a wing up front is practical? A folding prop on the end might feather nicely reducing drag with the motor shut down as well. That prop should last very well I would think. I was just wondering about decreased efficiency by having the prop right behind the tailfeathers. Well making it a vee tail might help if it proves to be an issue.

. I do not know if anyone has gone there yet. Obviously someone should consider it. Since the bulk of the heavy motor mass and battery might locate at about the cg point this plane might be very responsive and agile. Just for fun maybe I will attempt a design over the next while for the fun of it. Actually a pod and boom plane. Not a new concept really other than the prop at the very back for an electric.

After mentally re fomatting what I am just additionally posting perhaps taking my meds and getting to bed is also a good plan.. If the tail design was properly thought out. Some kind of all flying tail. Just removing the main wing and reversing it may allow the same design to be flown as a prop forward cannard design. This would have very reduced drag so could be made highly efficent and able to fly well at both high and low speeds.

[*jj]

Another pusher: the Ace of Diamonds from 1958. Mine has an electric motor which is above the CG, with the batteries etc. in the fuselage below. It fies very well: plans from the X List.

[kineticartist]

I built this rubber pusher from Italian plans last year: http://www.riviste-di-aeromodellismo...x_eng_bis.html

It flys very well after I figured out how to make a canard fly (can you say twin pusher?).

It is called the Gambero which in Italian means shrimp. I enlarged the jpg to full scale using the 300mm propeller as the datum. Of course the lines were huge so I had a lot of problems. Only every other former was shown on the plan so I had to figure out the middle former shape.

I also didn't realize that there was an extra rib on the right wing for a reason so I took it out. Now I have too much left thrust in the nose block. I will lengthen the right wing one rib bay to get the thrust in line, so to speak.

The Gambero is a beautiful example of Art Deco design and it is a treat to see it fly.

Arthur

[Guizzo 17]

Originally Posted by owner

I built this rubber pusher from Italian plans last year: http://www.riviste-di-aeromodellismo...x_eng_bis.html

It flys very well after I figured out how to make a canard fly (can you say twin pusher?).

It is called the Gambero which in Italian means shrimp. I enlarged the jpg to full scale using the 300mm propeller as the datum. Of course the lines were huge so I had a lot of problems. Only every other former was shown on the plan so I had to figure out the middle former shape.

I also didn't realize that there was an extra rib on the right wing for a reason so I took it out. Now I have too much left thrust in the nose block. I will lengthen the right wing one rib bay to get the thrust in line, so to speak.

The Gambero is a beautiful example of Art Deco design and it is a treat to see it fly.

Arthur

I am pretty sure she is not an Italian model!
I saw her on a Brit magazine some time ago with a different name!


Barry, if you are looking for a pusher, why don't you try the Cement Mixer? Look here!http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showp...&postcount=471

[barry wilson]

The cement mixer is another pleasant design I have never seen before. It kind of amazes me that a reasonable cg is even possible with only a little over 2 oz of nose balast. I guess the radio battery is stuffed as far forward as possible as well to achieve that.

If the wing were a little further aft might save an ounce or locating heavier batteries far forward in an electric should do it. One really nice thing about your nitro plane is no fuel residue lands up on the plane. Even without a directed exhaust. Is engine thrust line offset in any fashion or just straight out?

[kineticartist]

Hi Guizzo 17,

Of course the actual origin of the design is irrelevant, it is still a beautiful design. However, I did pull it off the Italian Model Airplane Magazine website and here is a jpg of the Gambero.

If there is an extant plan, in English, and improved as far as details are concerned, I would like to know how to get a copy.

Arthur

[JMP_blackfoot]

This model looks a lot like the "Vélivole" design of the Belgian modeller Watteyne, which was published in Aeromodeller June 1946. I haven't found a picture, but it clearly is very close. A nice looking model in any case.