Thread Tools
Oct 26, 2020, 09:20 AM
Registered User
GoatZilla's Avatar
And flipped the intakes?

And... the pilot would fly from the rear of the plane?
Sign up now
to remove ads between posts
Oct 26, 2020, 04:05 PM
Registered User
Don Stackhouse's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoatZilla
So how would you manage to fit a tractor style prop in a plane shaped like the 500L?
First of all, consider the basic design and the claims they make for it. The opening line in their article title pretty much says it all:
"Six-person private craft promises to fly at jet speeds, but with eight times lower fuel consumption and twice the range".

That simply violates the laws of physics. The plane is a scam. In aviation, "separation" is usually an important issue. In this case, the separation involved is separating gullible investors from their money.

This would not be the first airplane to embody that concept, there is a long line of predecessors.
Oct 26, 2020, 05:27 PM
Registered User
GoatZilla's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Stackhouse
First of all, consider the basic design and the claims they make for it. The opening line in their article title pretty much says it all:
"Six-person private craft promises to fly at jet speeds, but with eight times lower fuel consumption and twice the range".

That simply violates the laws of physics. The plane is a scam. In aviation, "separation" is usually an important issue. In this case, the separation involved is separating gullible investors from their money.

This would not be the first airplane to embody that concept, there is a long line of predecessors.
Yeah I got that part.

I was just following the argument to its conclusion. If the tractor is better, then put the prop on front.

The point is I think relocating the prop to the front would drastically change the nature of the aircraft.
Oct 26, 2020, 06:44 PM
Registered User
Don Stackhouse's Avatar
Not as much as you might think.

Note, I am not particularly impressed with that aircraft, even without considering the pusher prop.

However, the key assertion seems to be claims of (unreasonable and impractical amounts of) extensive laminar flow.

The assumption that seems to apply in this case is the same one that seems to be endemic throughout the aerospace industry, that the flow in the slipstream behind the prop is inherently and extremely turbulent.

This is false.

NASA wind tunnel tests demonstrated that the majority of the flow behind a prop is still laminar.

There are nested, thin helical sheets of turbulent flow, one sheet for the wake of each blade.

However, the flow in between these thin sheets, probably 80% or more of the total propeller wake, is still smooth and laminar.
Oct 26, 2020, 11:07 PM
12th Pursuit Squadron
TheAeronut's Avatar
I've always found that picture fascinating. One thing that I particularly noticed today is the airflow over the wing.

J.P.
Oct 27, 2020, 10:12 AM
Registered User
Awesome thread to stumble onto! Great read. i fly 5 different ritewing draks that are pushers, they are quite a handful lol
Last edited by Zorg here; Oct 27, 2020 at 07:24 PM.


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Efficiency - tractor versus pusher Brett_N Electric Plane Talk 18 Apr 09, 2019 11:01 AM
Discussion tractor prop efficiency vs. pusher prop efficiency? larrysogla Engines 9 Mar 19, 2009 02:09 PM
Discussion Best climb efficiency with Pusher? Electraflyit Modeling Science 8 Jul 03, 2008 12:31 AM
Question A-10 pusher set up, which is more efficient? gromitvt10 Pusher Prop Jet Models 4 Feb 07, 2006 06:40 PM
Pusher-Tractor in-line less efficient shaneyee Modeling Science 4 Jun 22, 2004 10:30 PM