I fly a lr60 and it does not have a stick pusher. The lear 35A had a stick pusher

I've flown the EMB-145 which had a pusher... probably a good thing because when we messed around in the sim, it would take an incredible amount of altitude to recover from a stall.

The BE400 doesn't have a pusher, but it also recovers pretty quickly on a stall.

The Falcon 900 stall protection includes auto slat extension that creates a pitch down force. IIRC, this met the certification requirements without the need for a pusher.

My understanding was that pushers were installed on aircraft with artificial feel units in the system. The issue was not being able to recognise the deepening of a stall by feel because of the synthetic feedback from the aircraft. Then again I flew the POS EMB-145 and it had a pusher even though the elevator was not hydraulically boosted. Odd for a 50k airplane...

It is my understanding that a plane gets a shaker if the wing does not give sufficient buffet to feel the stall, and a pusher if the plane is difficult to recover from a stall. Wings designed for high Mach numbers generally have airfoils that don't give much buffet close to stall, and have lots of sweep which make it hard or impossible to get the nose down in a stall. A T tail can make this worse, but does not necessarily require a shaker. Look at the CJ's. They have a t tail, but not much sweep, and a more forgiving airfoil. No pusher is required because it will come out of a stall easily.

If the french can do it, it can't be that hard.:rolleyes: