tricycle undercarriage

"QDurham" wrote in message
...

I stand corrected. But I think the first wheeled Wright plane was
tricycle.


I believe you're thinking of a Curtiss machine. The first Wright airplane
with wheels was the Model B of 1910. It still had skids, but added two
bicycle-type wheels on each skid near the center of gravity. You can see an
image of one he

http://www.fi.edu/press/aviation/BFlyer_front_view.jpg

Tail draggers help when you have a very large diameter prop circle
i.e. stops the prop hitting the runway. Of course not a problem with
multi-engine or jet propulsion.

Mustang
Spitfire
Hurricane
Tempest
Typhoon

to name a few.

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:43:34 -0000, "killfile"
wrote:

Early landing gear was heavy, because materials technology dictated that it
had to be big, and thick to solid. In addition to this it was, of course,
another thing to fail. One of the other big, big factors was that the nose
gear needs to go into the nose - which on on piston engined fighters, was
usally full of ... engine. (Bar the P-39, which was rear-engined.)

One of the best illustrations of why the switch was made was the Me-262,
which originally had a tail-dragger configuration. On the initial test
flight, they found that the jet wash headed straight for the tailplanes and
pinned the aircraft to the ground - to get it airbourne, the pilot had to
take the horrendously dangerous manouver of tapping the brakes to bring up
the tail.

Matt

Thanks for the answers.

I was off on the dates for the shift to tricycle undercarriage
dominance ... sorry.

I guess what I was asking was - when the designers of the Spitfire, or
the FW-190, or the Mustang, etc. sat down to consider the
undercarriage part, why did they go with the taildragger design
instead of the tricycle design, when the latter offered so much more
visibility on the ground, and which seems to be the design of most
modern aircraft today?

From the answers, weight and strength seem to be the primary
considerations. I suppose the tricycle design requires 3 large wheels,
while the tailhanger design can get away with 2, so there is a 1/3
savings in weight. I am not sure about strength, though ... why should
the tailhanger undercarriage design be inherently stronger than the
tricycle?

Do take-off/landing characteristics have anything to do with it? With
propeller aircraft, does the tailhanger design lend itself to easier
takeoffs and landings?

(QDurham) wrote in message ...

Well said. Couldn't agree more. A good wheels landing is a total delight --
particularly in that miserable (in landing) Twin Beech.

Quent

Learning wheel landings were so much fun - having to push the stick
forward to pin the wheels right after touchdown is definitely an
unnatural act at first!

Here is a bit of a anomaly. Most taildraggers (my power tailwheel
experience is limited to Cubs, Citabrias, Cap-10s, and one fabulous
wheel landing in a 450 Stearman) are a bit squirrely after touchdown
due to the CG being aft of the main gear. Theoretically, the narrower
the gear, the more they will tend to want to groundloop - the P-47
with a really wide gear was much less groundloop prone than a Wildcat,
for example. Nowadays I fly high performance gliders, most of which
have the ultimate narrow taildragger gear - one main wheel on the
centerline. And in my experience, unless you get really sideways (or
snag a wingtip, which is the usual cause of a glider groundloop), they
have absolutely no tendency to switch ends on landing. My theory it
that the stability is due to the relatively long wheelbase (in
relation to gross weight), low CG, and (usually) a fixed tailwheel or
skid. Any ideas from you aero majors out there?


Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Kirk

"G. Stewart" wrote in message
om...
Thanks for the answers.

I was off on the dates for the shift to tricycle undercarriage
dominance ... sorry.

I guess what I was asking was - when the designers of the Spitfire, or
the FW-190, or the Mustang, etc. sat down to consider the
undercarriage part, why did they go with the taildragger design
instead of the tricycle design, when the latter offered so much more
visibility on the ground, and which seems to be the design of most
modern aircraft today?


One factor would be that the Spitfire, Hurricane and Me-109 were
lightweight aircraft with heavy engines, you'd probably need to prop
the rear when you removed an engine

From the answers, weight and strength seem to be the primary
considerations. I suppose the tricycle design requires 3 large wheels,
while the tailhanger design can get away with 2, so there is a 1/3
savings in weight. I am not sure about strength, though ... why should
the tailhanger undercarriage design be inherently stronger than the
tricycle?

Do take-off/landing characteristics have anything to do with it? With
propeller aircraft, does the tailhanger design lend itself to easier
takeoffs and landings?

I seem to recall that tail draggers cope better with rough field
conditions and since most of the RAF fighter bases in the 1930's
had grass runways I suspect this was a major factor.


Keith

"G. Stewart" wrote:

Thanks for the answers.

I was off on the dates for the shift to tricycle undercarriage
dominance ... sorry.

I guess what I was asking was - when the designers of the Spitfire, or
the FW-190, or the Mustang, etc. sat down to consider the
undercarriage part, why did they go with the taildragger design
instead of the tricycle design, when the latter offered so much more
visibility on the ground, and which seems to be the design of most
modern aircraft today?

Just think about it for a second..........

Taking each of those 3 types you mention - where would you put the
nosewheel ??

You would have to provide space underneath the engine.

Then, raising the tail would cause the prop to touch the ground.

So you would then have to lengthen the main gear legs to raise the whole
a/c (and move them back to maintain cg).

I suppose one solution would be to put the 'nosewheel' BEHIND the
mainwheels - into the lower fuselage behind the wing (or radiator in the
case of the P-51!).

You would still have to lengthen the mainlegs - but you could then make
the fuselage datum parallel to the ground.

Would such a scheme work - a 'reverse' tricycle undercarriage ??

I have a mental picture of just such an arrangement - but I can't think of
the a/c it was on ??

And would a reverse-tricycle undercarriage have the same effect as a
'normal' one - in terms of flared landing, ground-looping etc ?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers Website - http://www.flankers.co.uk/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++

Kirk Stant wrote:

Nowadays I fly high performance gliders, most of which
have the ultimate narrow taildragger gear - one main wheel on the
centerline. And in my experience, unless you get really sideways (or
snag a wingtip, which is the usual cause of a glider groundloop), they
have absolutely no tendency to switch ends on landing. My theory it
that the stability is due to the relatively long wheelbase (in
relation to gross weight), low CG, and (usually) a fixed tailwheel or
skid. Any ideas from you aero majors out there?


Consider that the wheel is usually very close to the CG, the arm between
the CG and the very effective rudder is long giving a great deal of
rudder authority at low speeds and that the tail skid or wheel does not
touch the ground until the glider is all but stopped, and sometimes not
even then 8-)


Rick

"Rick" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Kirk Stant wrote:

Nowadays I fly high performance gliders, most of which
have the ultimate narrow taildragger gear - one main wheel on the
centerline. And in my experience, unless you get really sideways (or
snag a wingtip, which is the usual cause of a glider groundloop), they
have absolutely no tendency to switch ends on landing. My theory it
that the stability is due to the relatively long wheelbase (in
relation to gross weight), low CG, and (usually) a fixed tailwheel or
skid. Any ideas from you aero majors out there?


Consider that the wheel is usually very close to the CG, the arm between
the CG and the very effective rudder is long giving a great deal of
rudder authority at low speeds and that the tail skid or wheel does not
touch the ground until the glider is all but stopped, and sometimes not
even then 8-)


Rick


Don't forget that a glider has LONG wings out there. Those long wings have
a fair amount of mass, and if mass is distributed farther from the CG, it
will result in a a more stable aircraft. One extremely unstable aircraft
that comes to mind is the Sopwith Camel.. All the heavy parts (fuel tank,
engine, pilot, gun) were located in about a 7' or 8' secton very near the
CG..

KB

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:24:00 +0000, in rec.aviation.military Ken Duffey
wrote:

So you would then have to lengthen the main gear legs to raise the whole
a/c (and move them back to maintain cg).

Gull wings, a.k.a. F4U Corsair series.

when the designers of the Spitfire, or
the FW-190, or the Mustang, etc. sat down to consider the
undercarriage part, why did they go with the taildragger design
instead of the tricycle design,

In addition to weight and cost, a very important factor in the first
two aircraft was the absence of any tradition of retractable tricycle
landing gear. By the time the Mustang came along, it had been proved
out in the P-39. But the P-39 was pretty much a dead end in aircraft
design (as someone pointed out, one reason there was room for a front
retractable landing gear was that the engine was in back, with all
sorts of consequences for the pilot cockpit, balance, etc.). So the
Mustang stayed true to the P-40 tradition, big liquid-cooled engine up
front, two retractable mains, and a small tail wheel.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com