Pushers in WWI

[fsn]

Not slightly odious gentlemen offering you some charlie on the street, but aircraft with the prop behind and not in front.

I am, as you may recall, something of a dabbler. I like to think I know a little about quite a lot* and my ability to be distracted by the design on a biscuit tin (spent 3 weeks on Victorian militia that time) means that I never get the depth that some of our more notable members have achieved.**

So, whilst perusing several books about WWI in the air, I am left with the question "did the Germans ever use pusher fighter aircraft?" The British, French and Belgians certainly did, but nowhere did I see a German pusher.

Am I wrong? Were there fleets of German pushers that history (and Osprey) have forgotten? Or are there other reasons the dastardly Hun refused the noble configuration. I mean, they obviously got the whole "who's in command of the aircraft" thing wrong. Youyr erudite comments appreciated.





* Europeanhistoryonly. IhavelittleornointerestinAfricaAsianorAmericanhistory. TheNorthAfricancoastdoesnotapply.
** Militaryhistoryonly. Otherformsofdeptharenotincludedinthisstatement. Iamquiteadabhandwithadibber.

[Leman]

No idea, my entire fleet of WWI aircraft consists of a pusher for the Allies and a Taube Monoplane for the Germans.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Noooooooooooooo they looked at the design and thought no chance!

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Certainly cant remember any

[petercooman]

some info:


"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. "

and some examples of german pushers:

the Gotha G.II/G.III/G.IV/G.V

Friedrichshafen G.II/G.III

[petercooman]

some more i found:

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.)
_

[fsn]

Thanks PeterCooman.

[petercooman]

'Welcome!