Editing Pusher configuration (section)

==== Aerodynamics ====
A pusher may have a shorter fuselage and hence a reduction in both fuselage wetted area and weight.<ref name= "Aircraft Design">{{cite book |last= Raymer|first= Daniel P.|date= 1989|title= Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach|location= Reston, Virginia|publisher= American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics|pages= 222–223|isbn= 9781600869112}}</ref>

In contrast to tractor layout, a pusher propeller at the end of the fuselage is stabilizing.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Fluid-Dynamic Lift: Practical Information on Aerodynamic and Hydrodynamic Lift |journal= NASA Sti/Recon Technical Report A |volume= 76 |last= Hoerner |first=Sighard | chapter=XIII Directional characteristics of aeroplanes: IV Influence of Propulsion |page=17|bibcode= 1975STIA...7632167H |year= 1975 }}</ref> A pusher needs less stabilizing vertical tail area<ref name= "ask don">{{cite web |title= Don discusses propeller effects in detail...|first= Don|last= Stackhouse|url= http://www.djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/propeffects.html|access-date= 15 October 2011|url-status= dead|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20111121020132/http://djaerotech.com/dj_askjd/dj_questions/propeffects.html|archive-date= 21 November 2011}}</ref> and hence presents less [[Weathervane effect|weathercock effect]];<ref>{{cite book |last= Roskam|first= Jan|date= 1999|title= Airplane Design Part II: Preliminary Configuration Design and Integration of the Propulsion System|volume= 2|location= Lawrence, Kansas|publisher= Design, Analysis and Research Corporation|page= 132|isbn= 9781884885433}}</ref> at takeoff roll, it is generally less sensitive to crosswind.<ref group="note">Because of less weathercock stability</ref><ref>{{citation |url=http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1992/1992%20-%201611.html |title=Grob tests highlight exhaust problem |journal= Flight International|date= 24–30 June 1992|page=11 |url-status= dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110520124243/http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1992/1992%20-%201611.html|archive-date= 20 May 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{cite tech report |first= Philip W.|last= Brown|title= Flight test Results for Several Light, Canard-Configured airplanes|number= |institution= NASA Langley Research Center|date= 1 October 1987|doi= 10.4271/871801|issn= 0148-7191|eissn= 2688-3627|url=https://saemobilus.sae.org/content/871801/|url-access= subscription}}</ref>

When there is no tail within the slipstream, unlike a tractor, there is no rotating propwash around the fuselage inducing a side force to the fin. At takeoff, a canard pusher pilot does not have to apply rudder input to balance this moment.<ref>{{cite book|first= Darrol|last= Stinton|date= 1983|title=The Design of the Aeroplane|chapter= Propeller Effects|pages= 304–307|publisher= Granada Publishing|location= St Albans, Hertfordshire, England|isbn= 9780632018772}}</ref>

Efficiency can be gained by mounting a propeller behind the fuselage, because it re-energizes the [[boundary layer]] developed on the body, and reduces the [[form drag]] by keeping the flow attached to the fuselage. However, it is usually a minor gain compared to the airframe's detrimental effect on propeller efficiency.<ref name= "ask don" />

Wing profile drag may be reduced due to the absence of prop-wash over any section of the wing.{{citation needed|date = March 2014}}