lastdingo said:The common reason for counter-rotating propellers is to cancel torque - what's the reason here?
Tophe said:To reduce the size of the prop disc, a 6-blade single propeller would do as fine as two 3-blade (contra-rotating) propellers, no?
Orionblamblam said:Plus, while a six-bladed prop might be smaller in diameter than a three-bladed prop, that doen't mean it'll weigh less. And it certainly doesn't mean that it'll be less complex or require less maintenance.
Stargazer2006 said:Let's put it this way: if push-pull configurations were THAT efficient and easy to maintain, there probably WOULD be a lot more types using it nowadays! Yet if I'm not mistaken, there never was any true production type in push-pull configuration anywhere in the world!
lastdingo said:Stargazer2006 said:Let's put it this way: if push-pull configurations were THAT efficient and easy to maintain, there probably WOULD be a lot more types using it nowadays! Yet if I'm not mistaken, there never was any true production type in push-pull configuration anywhere in the world!
Dornier Wal, Dornier 18, ...
On the contrary, if such a layout were THAT bad, why Burt Rutan would have used it nowadays for its 309th design (Adam M309)?Stargazer2006 said:if push-pull configurations were THAT efficient and easy to maintain, there probably WOULD be a lot more types using it nowadays! Yet if I'm not mistaken, there never was any true production type in push-pull configuration anywhere in the world!
Stargazer2006 said:... and one can hardly call the Wal a "production type"!
Not to mention the Model 76 "Voyager".Tophe said:On the contrary, if such a layout were THAT bad, why Burt Rutan would have used it nowadays for its 309th design (Adam M309)?Stargazer2006 said:if push-pull configurations were THAT efficient and easy to maintain, there probably WOULD be a lot more types using it nowadays! Yet if I'm not mistaken, there never was any true production type in push-pull configuration anywhere in the world!
Jemiba said:Stargazer2006 said:... and one can hardly call the Wal a "production type"!
Of the Do J/Do 15 about 250 were built. Not a very large figure, but if production number is
the scale to speak of a "production type", thats certainly enough. Add about 170 Do 18, principally
very similar, around 20 Super Wal, and the handful of Do 26, you'll get a production number, that
would make at least nowadays producers dream.
But push-pull wasn't only a theme for Dornier, just remember the Latécoère 21 and 521, or the
Farman F.22 series. What actually is quite rare are twin-engined types with engines in the nose
and in the rear. Maybe because those engines occupy space in the fuselage, that could be used
for carrying passengers/payload ? Another argument against fuselage mounted push-pull engines,
as already mentioned by Arjen, could be obstructed forward view, but AFAIK both civil examples,
that readily come to my mind (Cessna Skymaster, Matra Moynét Jupiter) were marketed with the
argument "safety of two engines in an aircraft, which handles like a single-engined one (or even
better)".
Tophe said:Dear DWG,
your list is interesting, while going in many different directions.
Flitzer said:Just in case they might help.
P
Mole said:Flitzer said:Just in case they might help.
P
By the way, is your web site down? I get a generic placeholder at www.flitzerart.com. :-(