![[EG]Turn-A_Gundam_BD_02_V2(1080p_10bit)[9B8A6E14].mkv_snapshot_08.19_[2015.04.25_21.54.06].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/9cjnCYt.jpg "[EG]Turn-A_Gundam_BD_02_V2(1080p_10bit)[9B8A6E14].mkv_snapshot_08.19_[2015.04.25_21.54.06].jpg")
Why are they flying the planes backwards?
What are the advantages of a push type prop plane?
>he doesn't know about the ass-ender
TURN PLANE TURN
TURN PLAAAAAANE
>>12504074
Fuck you, anon.
>flying planes backwards
>what are UAVs
Pusher-configuration planes have been used may times throughout history. They've never really been that popular though. Keep in mind, jet planes are pushers as well.
>>12504014
The advantages? Forward visibility is increased, the change in configuration allows for a shorter fuselage, the flight is supposedly a bit more stable, and... there's not a whole lot else I'm seeing that's significant.
Mostly, it seems like the big advantage is that it allows planes like UAVs to mount more avionics and surveillance equipment in the front without needing to worry about obstruction by the propeller (and the rest of the engine).Incidentally, this is one of the most uncited wiki articles I've ever seen, but I'm too lazy to check why.
Pushers were popular around the beginning of flight, and then went out of style in favor of other configurations. It occasionally shows up in weird modern designs or ultralights, but possible the most well-known use of the pusher configuration is in modern UAVs.
>>12504014
There are quite a few advantages, a least in terms of stability and aerodynamics. The stabilizers can afford to be smaller since the engine tends to self-stabilize, and thus saves weight, and at the same time there is basically no drag due to propwash. Wikipedia has more to say on the topic and is probably a more credible source than me, however.
>>12503972
Turn A is all about extravagant design decisions if you missed it, my friend.
>>12503972
Because the propellors are turning in reverse, DUUUUH!
>>12503972
who cares
it looks cool
Not the first time this idea has been tried, either.
>>12504130
So what are the advantages in forward mounted propellers to say that they appear to have been more popular for at least several decades?
>>12505818
I wonder why soviets were producing those in CS instead of creating their own planes.
Yes, the true excuse is that developers of game didn't wanted to model another plane.
To be fair, the first plane was a pusher
It's awesome.
>>12505833
Cooling when the plane is stationary is probably the biggest reason. Pushers tend to overheat. Ruggedness is another factor. Tractor prop + taildragger minimizes prop strikes, especially on undeveloped or impromptu runways.
>>12505941
Yep
>>12505833
Tractor configuration was popular for airplane for several reason :
- firstly the large size of propeller was critical
- then it greatly simplified landing and taking of at a time where the plane were not very stable
- lastly it allowed to cool the engine much very easily.
(and the aerodynamic bellow 400km/h wasn't to hard on that)
To give an example : the Grumman F4 particular wing come from a redesign to avoid very long landing gear, themselves a result of the huge propeller fan.
Then there's also that constructor were used to that (stable) aerodynamic design.
Nowadays thanks to computer we can make planes that are inherently instable and would not be flyable by human if the flight-computer didn't micro-corrected itself.
>>12506002
I always thought that F4U is not Grumman, but Vought plane.
Grumman have made F4 Wildcat, F6 Hellcat and F8 Bearcat.
>>12503972
Because it only does 77 damage.
https://youtu.be/Vqpgcr8uVGw
>>12504480
>>12506027
Nice body
>>12506060
The chick on the left isn't too bad either.
>>12506078
Nice mother you mentioned there. It would be quite sad if something would happen to her.
>>12506078
>>12506012
Ah yes, thanks, I changed the filename.
On this I think they also got the paint wrong or something, made the whole nose yellow although it was supposed to be only a small part of it.
I'm lazy to verify
>>12506133
>filename
I don't think that's a spitfire.
>>12506392
>>12506133
Yes, that's P-51D Mustang. I think that it's one of the early ones, before D-20.
Dammit, how many did that DeviantArtist got wrong ?!
Its name "subgenius" should have been a hint.
Okay, this one is right.
" PBY_5A_Catalina_1_by_t_subgenius "
And this one, isn't from the same source.
>>12506598
>you will never fly around the world in a home-converted Catalina, visiting nice looking places and just generally adventuring around
>>12506637
I'd love to own a sertain soviet or land-lease plane like Yak-9 to travel all over Europe.
>>12506002
>we can make planes that are inherently instable and would not be flyable by human if the flight-computer didn't micro-corrected itself
Pretend I'm an idiot and explain why we'd want to make an unstable plane. More maneuverable?
>>12506736
>More maneuverable?
Pretty much, yeah.
>>12503972
there are actually planes like that dumdum
>>12506736
The more stable you make a plane, the harder it is to turn and maneuver because a stable plane wants to move in a straight line and not turn.
To make a maneuverable plane, make the design "unstable" and just use computer software to help fly the plane stably.
>>12506721
honey mayonnaise
>>12506736
That's hard to pretend, those thing aren't obvious to anyone. Me I happen to be an aeronautics technicians.
In short increasing stability mean your aircraft will resist more attempt at turning, your ailerons aren't just to change the attitude but also to fight of the aerodynamic force pushing you back into Flow/Gravity/Thrust stable position.
ex : Airliner are made to stay stable even if you don't touch the command.
If you built the plane the other way however... you have to keep it from doing thing like Cobra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermaneuverability
So fighter of the far future might look like a mix between Yukikaze and Macross, Turn on a dime and own the skies with thrust vectoring.
>>12506637
Don't remind me.
