Mystery vintage aircraft pic – this will get you guessing!

… I wonder if Geoffrey de Havilland saw this before starting the vampire concept?

Possibly – the RAF had one for tricylce training during the War

Well located Agent G-ORDY!

TT

It’s still around. Or was a few years ago.

John

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v405/Aeroclub/StearmanHammondY1s.jpg

Seems it’s owned by the Hiller Museum in California – unless it’s another type altogether?

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNumSQL.asp?NNumbertxt=15522&cmndfind.x=17&cmndfind.y=6

Here’s another one:

http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/nnumsql.asp?NNumbertxt=15521

I wonder why it’s listed as a “Miller P D” rather than a “Stearman-Hammond” ?

… as they were all abject failures except perhaps the Avanti which has taken years to acheive some sort of sales success….

Piaggio have stuck with the twin pusher arrangement for a long time – although I do remember their P.166 being noisy. I wonder if, conversely to an apparent increase in propellor noise with them being at the back, this layout meant it was quieter in the cabin?

Roger Smith.

The C337 is often included in a list of banned/restricted types where the airfield chooses to employ a noise sensitive policy. In the case of Elstree and Turweston, they have less than understanding neighbours with regard to aviation 🙁

The pusher config creates an airflow problem, both in terms of the airstream coming to the prop (not coming from freeflow) and also cooling esp. air-cooled engines.

As I understand it the Cessna 337 is banned at Elstree and Turweston amongst others. As for the list of aircraft using pushers I rather think it proves my point, as they were all abject failures except perhaps the Avanti which has taken years to acheive some sort of sales success. Beech had to buy back the Starships to break them up as it just wasn’t worth supporting them.

I’ve never head that about 337s being banned, though they do make a distinctive sound.
One guess at to why they might be louder is the sound waves bounce off tailbooms and the larger stabilizer.

I don’t think pushers are any less efficient, in fact the opposite has been claimed.
Too many (Cessna’s XMC testbed, Burt Rutan, Bill Lear’s Learfan, the Optica, the RFB Fantrainer, Molt Taylor’s Aerocar, the Lake family of amphibians, the Beech Starship, the Piaggio Avanti, the Republic Seebee, to name a few)
have chosen the configuration for it to have too much of a disadvantage.

BTW: I knew the plane…the first time and someone beat me to it…:(

Also the SECAN SUC10 Courlis in France.

John

It’s still around. Or was a few years ago.

John

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v405/Aeroclub/StearmanHammondY1s.jpg

I’m not an aerodynamicist but as I understand it pusher props don’t work as well as the more conventional tractor props for some of the reasons mentioned. Certainly, on a subjective level, a Sky Arrow sounds a lot louder on take-off than other Rotax 912 powered VLAs which might indicate the pusher prop is working harder. The Cessna 337 is banned from many airfields because of the noise and that has both a pusher and a tractor prop.

I’ve never head that about 337s being banned, though they do make a distinctive sound.
One guess at to why they might be louder is the sound waves bounce off tailbooms and the larger stabilizer.

I don’t think pushers are any less efficient, in fact the opposite has been claimed.
Too many (Cessna’s XMC testbed, Burt Rutan, Bill Lear’s Learfan, the Optica, the RFB Fantrainer, Molt Taylor’s Aerocar, the Lake family of amphibians, the Beech Starship, the Piaggio Avanti, the Republic Seebee, to name a few)
have chosen the configuration for it to have too much of a disadvantage.

BTW: I knew the plane…the first time and someone beat me to it…:(

I’m not an aerodynamicist but as I understand it pusher props don’t work as well as the more conventional tractor props for some of the reasons mentioned. Certainly, on a subjective level, a Sky Arrow sounds a lot louder on take-off than other Rotax 912 powered VLAs which might indicate the pusher prop is working harder. The Cessna 337 is banned from many airfields because of the noise and that has both a pusher and a tractor prop.

I wonder why the same “pusher” concept as this Stearman-Hammond for a light aircraft, has not been used on other designs?

It seems a very safe aircraft to use on the ground, with a prop well away from ground crew and having a nose wheel, and wide main undercarriage track. The pilot and passengers have a good all round view, and it could possibly be quieter inside too?

I’m wondering if the spinning characteristics of this layout, with a mid-mounted engine work against it? Or, propeller disc blanking (by the fuselage) or cooling issues have an effect? Did types like the Aircobra/Kingcobra, DH Vampire, etc. have recovery from spinning problems?

Brilliant – Well found Barnstormer!

ATB

TT

… I wonder if Geoffrey de Havilland saw this before starting the vampire concept?

Yes it is close. Same idea…
Here is the Stearman-Hammond, *Note matching engine cowling and window shapes etc.

Now I wonder why I too thought of Arpin ?

Phew – glad I didn’t jump in with both feet when I first saw this – for some reason the name Arpin sprung into my head. 🙂

Roger Smith.

Well, it is not what you usually think of when someone says “Stearman.”
It is a Stearman-Hammond Y, probably with the Menasco C-4 inverted four cyl engine. Something Stearman tried, just before WWII. (And I “think” they had hopes of reviving it, after the war-but the market was flooded with surplus aircraft then)There was one sitting derelict, at Flushing NYC small airport for decades (circa 1960s and 70s) near my home, where my father kept his Monocoupe and Navion.
You can GXXgle for additional photos and stats.

(Sorry for typo/corrected-spelled Stearman/Stearmond!)

Something tells me I, too, have seen it somewhere, and quite recently, too.

One of the mags, I’m sure, had an article or pic of some kind of pusher aircraft…. :confused:

I’ve Seen That Plane Somewhere…

I know I’ve seen that plane somewhere- I’ll dig up the reference and let you know what I find. It is indeed a twin-boom pusher aircraft.