Is there any advantage of putting a motor at the back of a plane instead of the front?

Answer 1

There are no main advantages or disadvantages between front mounted engines and rear mounted engines. It's purely down to the choice of the designer.

Answer 2

Pusher mount re-energizes the boundary layer developed on the body, and reduces the form drag by keeping the flow attached. However, this effect is not nearly as pronounced on a small airplane as it is on a submarine or ship, where it is quite important due to the much higher Reynolds number

Wing efficiency increases due to the absence of prop-wash over any section of the wing. Rear thrust is more stable with potential to make an aircraft more maneuverable.

Visibility of a single-engined airplane is improved because the engine does not block forward vision. It was widely used for early combat reconnaissance aircraft, and remains popular among ultralights.

The propeller of a single-engined airplane can be placed closer to the elevators and rudder increases the speed of the air flowing over the control surfaces, improving pitch and yaw control at low speed, particularly during takeoff when the engine is at full power.

This can be beneficial while bush flying, especially when taking off and landing on airstrips bounded by obstacles that must be avoided while the airplane is moving slowly.

Disadvantages include safety considerations. A crash landing could result in the engine coming forward through the cabin/cockpit. Bail-out could be difficult. Any debris kicked up by the nose wheel or ice from the wings can cause FOD damage.

The streamlined air flow is not as efficient as the mass of air coming off the back side of a front mounted prop. Engine exhausting through the propeller can increase noise levels. They also create complications Flap deployment and operation.

One more thought. a Rocket is the only aircraft engine that operates solely on thrust. Props and Jets use the difference in pressure between the front and back. In theory they pull the aircraft just like the sails on a boat. Rear mounted engine is called 'Pusher' as it pushes the aircraft. A fron mounted engine is called 'Tractor Mount' because it pulls the aircraft.

Answer 3

Two examples of "push-pull" propeller aircraft which come to mind may help in answering your question... namely the Adam Aircraft A500 and the Cessna Skymaster. Both of these aircraft are "in-line thrust" twin-engine airplanes. The front engine pulls and the rear engine pushes. In push-pull aircraft, a failure of the rear engine results in a notably greater performance loss than the failure of the front engine. This is because the thrust/airstream created by the front propeller must necessarily channel its way around the front cowling and fuselage of the aircraft, and the result of this deflection is a lot of extra drag. Drag is the physical force which directly opposes thrust. Since the airstream created by the rear propeller isn't forced to curve its way around the body of the aircraft, the result is higher performance and less drag when compared to the front mounted engine of an in-line twin. Does this make airplanes with exclusively rear-mounted engines better? That's a matter of personal opinion. http://www.airalpha.com/AircraftSales/Piaggio.aspx
Above is a link to one of my favorite aircraft, the Piaggio-Avanti. It is a twin engine turboprop aircraft with rearward mounted engines. It has markedly greater performance than traditional turboprop aircraft such as the Beechcraft-Kingair. Don't get me wrong, I'd take a brand new Kingair any day of the week! Anyways, I hope this helps. I'm rambling now.

Answer 4

Several planes throughout the years have been "pusher" types. Curtis had a pusher bi-plane, the Republic Sea Bee was a pusher, even the B-36 Bomber used pushing instead of pulling props. 727 & L1011 are pusher jets.
Other than weight distribution, center of gravity, and design purpose of the plane, most likely doesn't matter.

Answer 5

In most cases you should be using "engines" rather.

There are advantages and disadvantages for the pusher configuration and it boils down to your functional needs. For the pusher, its more disadvantages are more like balancing difficulties, unpredictable behaviours when control surfaces are deflected, excess noise when engine exhaust flows through the props and so on. Benefits are slightly more maneuverability, better visibility, reduced form drag etc.

So the final answer, no definite all around advantage.

Answer 6

The rear prop can put out more thrust, so pushers are either faster, or can stay up longer. Thus most UAVs and drones are pushers. But pushers are a bugger to fly and the props get dinged, so they're not popular with most operators. With UAVs it doesn't matter since there's no pilot to complain.

Answer 7

The other advantage that has been missed is that of noise. All the noise and vibration is behind you.

The Piaggio is one of those rare pusher prop business aircraft that has done well in a jet oriented world. One of its selling points is the quieter cabin.

Answer 8

The wright flyer was a pusher (rear engined) and that flew really well until it killed wilbur or was it orville that bought it?

Check out some of Burt Rutan's aircraft designs. he has all sorts of cool looking and inovative designs.

I can't answer your question with any authority (sorry) I think however that some of your previous answers are "BU LL SH IT" sorry bout language.

Answer 9

I take it you mean props as opposed to jets.
The performance is essentially the same, engine for engine, blades for blades.
Its trickier to create the same stability with a rear mounted push prop so airdraft designers tend to keep it safe and cheap and follow tried and tested designs.

Answer 10

No, more thrust is available at the front of the plane with a motor.

To stick a motor at the back of the plane would greatly hinder it's performance.

Unless of course we're talking an ENGINE, in which case more push is avaible at the back. Specify