Pull-push

Thread started off by asking for post-war civil aircraft. The Dornier 335 is neither post war, nor civil…………..

Planemike

I think one survives in the US?

Yes, it is at the National Air and Space Museum. (Do.335).

I give you the ultimate push me pull you (although not post war), the Caproni-Maroni C2 ‘Scud’ experimental fighter, ironically without armament! Apparantly it could reverse direction in flight!:D:confused:

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/way-weird/weird.php

something wrong with my calendar – It says July 9th not April 1st

Roger Smith.

Push and Pull German style

I think one survives in the US?

I give you the ultimate push me pull you (although not post war), the Caproni-Maroni C2 ‘Scud’ experimental fighter, ironically without armament! Apparantly it could reverse direction in flight!:D:confused:

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/way-weird/weird.php

Yes…………………
Didn’t it come from the same factory that made the famous Italian tank with one forward and five reverse gears? I was told that the prototype ‘Scud’ was destroyed when, in flight, the test pilot unfortunately engaged both engines in ‘pull’ mode causing it to pull itself apart. Apparently the aerodynamic qualities of the two halves were even worse than those of the whole!

I give you the ultimate push me pull you (although not post war), the Caproni-Maroni C2 ‘Scud’ experimental fighter, ironically without armament! Apparantly it could reverse direction in flight!:D:confused:

http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/way-weird/weird.php

That was another nice machine. Now you mention it, of course you are absolutely correct, she was flown back from Edwards and I think she may have been flown to the Smithsonian.

I believe she stopped at Oshkosh for Air Venture.

According to http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/research/voyager/ “Voyager made only one further flight when it returned to the Scaled Composites headquarters located in nearby Mojave, California. Voyager was then disassembled and donated to the National Air & Space Museum where the aircraft is now on display.”

However, Voyager was in the museum at Santa Monica in 1992 (with its winglet repaired) and I don’t know when it reached the NA&SM, nor how it got there with a 110ft wingspan!

They both look very similar and both look as though the design team were unsure whether to go with a jet or turboprop and decided to cover both possibilities.

The only one I know to compare with the HUSTLER is the Matra Moynet M-2000

An artist’s impression of the Hustler, some mean looking machine!

http://www.machdiamonds.com/peregrine.html

Also, there was a business plane prototype done in the 80s by American Jet Industries (they owned Gulfstream at the time) calledthe Hustler, IIRC…with a turboprop in front and a jet in the rear. Like most, it never made it into production.

That was another nice machine. Now you mention it, of course you are absolutely correct, she was flown back from Edwards and I think she may have been flown to the Smithsonian.

I believe she stopped at Oshkosh for Air Venture.

That was another nice machine. Now you mention it, of course you are absolutely correct, she was flown back from Edwards and I think she may have been flown to the Smithsonian.

Add Rutan’s Voyager to that list. Only one built for the sole purpose of circumnavigating the world non-stop and unrefuelled. I’m not sure it even flew again after its return. Admittedly, although built as a push pull design, it only used one engine for cruise flight.

I’m sure it flew at least once more, on a positioning flight to get it back from Edwards Air Force Base. It later went to the Smithsonian but I don’t know how it got there.

Here’s a photo of the Defiant, another Rutan design:

Does this count ?

Claudius Dornier CD-01A Seastar

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Claudius-Dornier-CD-01A/0912044/L/&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=4&sok=keyword_%28%5C%27%2B%5C%22push-pull%5C%22%5C%27_IN_BOOLEAN_MODE%29%29_&sort=_order_by_photo_id_DESC_&prev_id=1045871&next_id=0855732

I can’t think of a good reason why not. Definitely a push/pull so it qualifies, and it’s an amphibian to boot.

The Adam 500 I knew about, shame the company is in financial difficulties as I’d like to see more of those about. The other two I’d never heard of either. Thanks for posting links to pics or drawings of them. The Piel looks quite a tasty little machine, pity it never went into production.

ADAM A500
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/7/5/1306577.jpg

Star Kraft SK-700
http://www.1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/KleinBernhard/7698L.jpg

Piel C.P. 500
http://www.nurflugel.com/Nurflugel/n_o_d/images/airplanes/tandem_piel_3view.jpg

Add Rutan’s Voyager to that list. Only one built for the sole purpose of circumnavigating the world non-stop and unrefuelled. I’m not sure it even flew again after its return. Admittedly, although built as a push pull design, it only used one engine for cruise flight.

Does this count ?

Claudius Dornier CD-01A Seastar

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Claudius-Dornier-CD-01A/0912044/L/&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=4&sok=keyword_%28%5C%27%2B%5C%22push-pull%5C%22%5C%27_IN_BOOLEAN_MODE%29%29_&sort=_order_by_photo_id_DESC_&prev_id=1045871&next_id=0855732

Just as a side note – most turboprop fixed wing aircraft could be considered “Push-Pull” technology as the propeller supplies most of the Thrust – while the exhaust supplies some push.

ALLISON YT-56-A-3 TURBOPROP

The T-56, a jet engine that uses a propeller to produce most of its thrust, was originally designed to power the Lockheed C-130 Hercules. Because the T-56 compressor and turbine rotate at a high speed (13,820 rpm), a reduction gearbox is used to allow the propeller to turn at a much slower, more efficient speed.

The production T-56 engine delivers approximately 4,000 hp to the propeller, while an additional 800 pounds of thrust is produced by the jet exhaust.

4 x 800 is 3200 lbs of thrust which will equal 3200hp at 375mph. Nothing to sneeze at!!!;)

Its maximum operating altitude is 55,000 feet.

At 375 mph a pound of thrust is equal to 1 horsepower. Somewhere I have the full formula for this – is simple physics.:rolleyes:

I know the intent here is for propeller driven aircraft so have put on my Flak-Jacket.:cool:

Regards,

Truc

Any truth in the story that Cessna so ‘named’ the 336, paying lip-service to the 335 from Dornier???
Chumpy.

In my several books on Cessna history, I’ve never heard that, but anything is possible…an inside joke by engineers?
But I doubt it.
All Cessna “light twins” had a 300 series model number (310, 320 and the later 340).
It’s very possible that the new “entry” and “easy to fly” light twin would have been called the 330, and it’s well documented that they looked at several design proposals…so 336 really could be its natural number.

Anorak Alert!
BTW: There was a Cessna 335, an “economy” unpressurized 340.
It was not a big seller.

BTWII: There was also the experimental 327, a slightly smaller 337 powered by a pair of 160hp engines.
It featured a strutless cantilever laminar flow wing similar to the Cessna 210. A very nice looking plane.