German Pushers?

EricGoedkoop · 21 September 2004, 09:27 AM

Does anyone have any idea why the Germans didn't experiment more with pusher designs? There was an Otto machine that I believe saw limited service early in the war, but I can't think of any others. It seems odd, given the popularity of the pusher layout in France, England and the United States. Is it because the Wrights didn't have as much influence in Germany, because Etrich did, or because they had earlier success with synchronizing gear?

Just got to wondering about it.

Eric

Volker_Nemsch · 21 September 2004, 09:40 AM

The German companies OTTO and AGO built some pusher aircraft during the first half of WW1. I enclose photos of both machines.

On the other hand the Germans used a great number of pushers (although not stictly of the type you are thinking of) - the successful Friedrichshafen and Gotha G-class aircraft.

Hope this helps a bit ...

Old Man · 21 September 2004, 06:15 PM

Most of which are unconnected to aerodynamics.

The first are considerations of national pride and rivalry. The Albatros company began by copying the Farman design, but this did not do much for the idea of a "German" heavier than air industry. One of the reasons the Tauben enjoyed such a vogue in Germany was precisely because the design was not French. The German company which did stick most firmly to pusher designs, the Otto concern, was Bavarian, and thus, while it received the patronage of the smaller Bavarian air arm, was effectively barred from consideration for the much larger Prussian contracts.

The second are decisions by the officers directing the early air arms. The French decided before the war that considerations of visibility were most important, and thus gave preference to pusher types, which put the observer in front of the wings (although it is hard to say how much of that decision was a rationalization for buying what was available, Farman being the predominant manufacturer, and committed to pusher machines). The Germans viewed transportability of the aeroplanes by road as a primary concern before the war, which, given the rate of crashes when a number of aeroplanes flew on to a new base at the time, is not as silly as it might sound today. The tractor bi-plane structure was more suited to such breaking down and reassembly than the "lattice-tail" structure. This consideration, incidentally, is what doomed the Tauben, as that type, too, could not be easily constructed in a manner that lent itself to road transport.

The third reason does have something to do with performance. The Germans aimed early at achieving the maximum endurance aloft, and the highest operational ceilings, in their military designs. The stronger structure of the tractor machine lent itself to carrying a greater weight of fuel, and so made it more suitable for one of the features most desired by the military.

Dan_San_Abbott · 21 September 2004, 07:38 PM

Old Man:
The reason the Allies built pusher aicraft was they had not solved the problem of synchronized firing through the propeller. After May 1915, the German aircraft designers had the solution provided by Herr Fokker. There was no longer a need to design and build pusher aircraft with a "lattice tail".
Blue skies,
Dan-San

Old Man · 21 September 2004, 09:23 PM

My comments were directed at the earliest stages of the aeronautical industries and military usages of the powers, which rather set the form for the different countries' industries before the war. Ancestral patterns, so to speak, are hard to break. The French had given preference to pusher designs for military reconnaisance before the question of armament arose; the Germans rather scorned that pattern of aeroplane, also for reasons unconnected with armament.

It is worth noting, too, that when the Germans at the start of 1915 set out to arm their machines, they did not make much use of pusher configuration, though as was pointed out above there were some pusher types available. Instead, they re-arranged the seating of the usual tractor biplane two-seater, and gave the observer an efficiently mounted flexible gun, and this proved sufficient in the spring and summer of 1915 both to see off attacks by French pusher types, and to act aggressively against them. The Fokker machine, though it certainly became important, was an unexpected development, and no part of the German air service's plans.

22 September 2004, 01:54 AM

I think the Gotha G.II/G.III/G.IV/G.V and Friedrichshafen G.II/G.III are also Pusher

EricGoedkoop · 22 September 2004, 04:57 AM

Thank you for your thoughts, Gentlemen.

I hadn't thought about the road transport issue, but of course now that you mention it I've seen quite a few pictures of German planes hitched up behind trucks by their tailskids with their wings detached. There's a drawing of the Albatros Doppeltaube that goes as far as to include a section view of the a/c and separated wings neatly tucked into a rail car.

I do believe nationalism had something to do with it, but then again Pfalz was building Morane-Saulniers and Fokker only slightly modified ones. It appears as though Hans Grade and some others were heavily influenced by Santos-Dumont's Demoiselle. I guess what surprises me is that the German designers from the beginning seemed willing to try all sorts of innovative and/or outlandish concepts (Geest's gull-wing monoplane, metal construction, SSW's push/pull triplane, cantilever wings) except the conventional pusher, but I suppose there's no accounting for prejudice.

Cigogne · 22 September 2004, 08:01 AM

The German pusher models mentioned, the Otto C.I, the AGO C.I, and the earlier Otto pusher that was also license built by Pfalz were the three major pusher designs to obtain production status. (Of these three, the AGO C.I was the most successful and also it was well liked by those that flew her.) However, other pusher type aircraft were on the drawing boards, experimented with, and built. These included the:

Dornier V.I: Single-seat sesquiplane (Vee-strut) fighter (1916)

Siemens-Schuckert Dr.I concept: (A two-engined push-pull design w/ "lattice tail" that crashed. 1917)

Albatros D.VI (May be the wrong number, but in the foggy cobwebs of memory I seem to recall that Albatros was developing a pusher-type for ground attack? I believe it had the D.VI designation. Not sure if it developed beyond the drawing/concept stage. Can someone remember more?)

Cigogne · 22 September 2004, 08:11 AM

Also to be considered pushers were the flying boat design types built by Hansa-
Brandenburg, Oertz, etc. Hansa-Brandenburg, a German company, built many flying boat designs. Some were in the German Marine inventory, but they didn't gain much acceptance, the Marine preferring floatplanes over flying boats. BUT, Hansa-Brandenburg was part of the Hansa-Brandenburg, Phönix, UFAG industrial combine that stretched beyond Germany's boundaries over into the Austro-Hungarian empire. Owned by Camillo Castiglione, they also marketed their designs to the Austro-Hungarians, where their flying boat/pusher designs were a major player in Naval Aviation.

EricGoedkoop · 22 September 2004, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigogne

Also to be considered pushers were the flying boat design types built by Hansa-
Brandenburg, Oertz, etc. . . . they also marketed their designs to the Austro-Hungarians, where their flying boat/pusher designs were a major player in Naval Aviation.

Certainly - they were successful to the point of being flat-out copied by Maachi. What higher praise can there be? But they weren't lattice tails, neither were the G-class, and strictly speaking neither were the twin-boom AGOs.

Does it have anything to do with Germany's comparatively late start in powered flight? By 1908-1909, were the Germans maybe more influenced by the successes of Bleriot, Goupy and others who were building tractors than they were by the "old" style of the Farmans?