Or a boomed tail. Given the problems with TV and the huge market problems (you're locked in to one engine/drive-shaft/prop combination), a boomed tail is probably a better choice, unless one goes to an electric motor. Both the tail below the prop (Carmichael, J5/J6, Strojnik) or two tail booms (like the C337) works great.2. Getting a prop far aft might require either a long shaft with its potential for TV problems or perhaps an electric motor with hybrid propulsion.
Could. Sailplanes solve this by having the front edge of the canopy very far forward (good pressure gradient) and keeping a negative pressure in the cockpit. Flow over the canopy will stay laminar. Flow on the sides will form turbulent wedges, which is why the edges of the canopies on the sides are flat.3. Providing for reasonable ingress/egress while preserving laminar flow on the front part of the fuselage could be tough.
The Cobalt Co50 solves it another way... heavy and complex.
Forward sliding shell is more practical, but still messy.
I solved it sailplane-style. Not perfect, but a good balance of practical and laminar.
Every single decision. Or most of them.What else about the design do you see as a 'lot more involved'?
Your traditional tractor plane is mostly linear. Increase engine weight and you move the wing FWD a bit. Or you extend the tail a bit.
On my design (boomed pusher), increasing engine weight means changing the entire fuselage shape and wing position. Basically a new design.
CG considerations. Tractor front seats are roughly in the CG. Pusher front seats are highly disturbing the CG. Try a 4-seater for fun ;-)
And there is simply way less good prior art with pushers. Especially conceptual, systems and layout design is really an order of magnitude harder than in a tractor.