Is a push propeller better than a pulling propeller?

-i was looking at concept aircraft and they said that a push propeller mounted on the tail would increase fuel economy is that even possible?

it is the same prop just mounted backwards isn't it?At least in theory the prop blast from a pusher prop does not increase the speed of the air flowing past the parts of the airframe behind it, so there is less parasitic drag from most of the airframe.

At cruise the reduction in drag is not as great as you might think. Prop blast looks like a hurricane when a plane does a stationary run-up, but at cruise the airflow in the prop blast is only 15 to 20kts greater than the airflow elsewhere.



The theory rarely works in practice, for a number of reasons. Chief among them is that putting the prop behind the airframe insures that you do not have consistent airflow across the entire propeller disk. As a result, you lose some thrust.

The other problem has to do with getting a reasonable center of gravity with the weight of the engines and prop that far back - for stability, a plane needs to be a little nose heavy.
John R has the right idea. The pusher prop won't have much better performance at subsonic speeds, and at it won't work well, if at all, in the transonic or supersonic range. There is a real disadvantage because it has to operate in the "dirty" are behind the airframe. Another serious problem is engine cooling during ground operations. They are pretty and "futuristic" just not really practical.
Why not have both? The Cessna 337 Skymaster is one..



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_Skym鈥?/a>
A push propeller is better because it is the back. it gives you better performance
all I know is pusher props can look a lot better



CIP = Beechcraft Starship
push it, pull it, it's all the same really. one goes backwards and one goes forwards. it's all you need to know .