Prescott Pusher

Velocity173

Velocity173

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 3, 2012
Messages
15,597
Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Always liked the looks of the Prescott Pusher. Wish there were more of them around. Just one of many new kit ideas that never caught on.

 
An acquaintance built one. He’s a multiple aircraft builder and has his stuff together.

He said his was a dog with fleas, or words to that effect.
 
A 3-rotor wankel, now thats interesting.

Also interesting to see the listed Wikipedia speeds:

  • Cruise speed: 170 kn (190 mph, 310 km/h)
  • Stall speed: 50 kn (58 mph, 93 km/h)
  • Never exceed speed: 204 kn (235 mph, 378 km/h)
  • Range: 870 nmi (1,000 mi, 1,600 km)
  • Service ceiling: 18,000 ft (5,500 m)
  • Rate of climb: 1,100 ft/min (5.6 m/s)
Anyone have any real world numbers? Perhaps its the proportions of the plane but the wing looks small for a 50kn stall.
 
When I first saw it, I thought it had a Gatling gun in the nose.
Wishful thinking or just old age?
 
Shepherd said:
When I first saw it, I thought it had a Gatling gun in the nose.
Wishful thinking or just old age?
Click to expand...

Looks like the builder had dreams of an A-10 when building the plane. Pretty sure that thing in front is supposed to look like a Gatling gun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
It switches back and forth from a view of a fake GAU8 and a landing light.
 
I have a think for pushers. Cool!
 
I suggest the owner/seller show it flying. Mazda + Prescott Pusher almost certainly = really rotten airplane.
 
Shepherd said:
When I first saw it, I thought it had a Gatling gun in the nose.
Wishful thinking or just old age?
Click to expand...

Experimental dispenser. I dunno, takes some balls to spray that stuff out in front of you and depend on airflow to keep you clean.
 
If you do a little research the talk was that the performance and handling were bad.
 
Guy had one at my home drone. I think he spend more time fixing than flying it. Neat looking airplane though.
 
Is there an inherent advantage a pusher has vs a front engine? I can't think of one, but maybe I'm missing something. Seems like a front prop with an empennage would be more stable.
 
WDD said:
Is there an inherent advantage a pusher has vs a front engine? I can't think of one, but maybe I'm missing something. Seems like a front prop with an empennage would be more stable.
Click to expand...

Mostly a disadvantage since it normally limits takeoff/landing angles to avoid prop strikes as well as airflow over the prop being disrupted by the fuselage where a tractor-design is in undisturbed air. Pusher props normally lose 10-15% efficiency if the testing from Rutan's VariEze is reliable. Conversely, the pusher design results in the wings/control surfaces flying in undisturbed air so that lessens the impact from prop wash. Possibly a bit quieter with engine/prop in rear, but likely not a major factor since exhaust gasses get bounced off the pusher prop.
 
Last edited:
..man, I wish I was held to such loose standards where I work

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: the in-flight separation of the propeller for undetermined reasons."
 
WDD said:
Is there an inherent advantage a pusher has vs a front engine? I can't think of one, but maybe I'm missing something. Seems like a front prop with an empennage would be more stable.
Click to expand...
People will say they're quieter, have smoother/better airflow over wings and control surfaces, and does not obstruct the pilot's field of view

..and they look cool.. look at all the Velocity / Rutan designs.. some even argue that a jet engine is technically a "pusher" ..

granted, few (any?) designs are successful, but the B-36 did okay and I think just about all the military drones are pusher as well.. probably to keep the prop and all it's "noise" at the rear away from the sensitive equipment in the front
 
It might be an angle effect of the above photo but it looks highly swept wing and tail heavy with the engine on the back. Assuming fuel is in the wings. And then the usual but not insurmountable aerodynamic issues with small t-tails...
 
Why did Burt R - genius designer - make the EZ a pusher I wonder ?
 
WDD said:
Why did Burt R - genius designer - make the EZ a pusher I wonder ?
Click to expand...
Perhaps to move the CG closer to the main wing, which is towards the rear on his canard designs?
 
^to that point, are there any puller configured canard designs out there?
 
WDD said:
Why did Burt R - genius designer - make the EZ a pusher I wonder ?
Click to expand...

Two primary reasons. Safety and looks. He wanted an aircraft that the main wing couldn’t stall, therefore not spin. He was also a big fan of fighters, especially the Viggen. While not pure canard (Burt insists it is) in that the canard doesn’t provide 100 % pitch, he liked the looks of the Viggen, hence Vari-Viggen.
 
Last edited:
Tarheelpilot said:
Isn’t there a really fast twin turboprop pusher from Italy?
Click to expand...
It's one of Tantalum's dream planes should he make it big a dogecoin.. haha jk

But yeah the Avanti is an under appreciated power house. A fast and fuel efficient powerhouse. It absolutely humiliates the King Air..

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top