tricycle undercarriage

why should
the tailhanger undercarriage design be inherently stronger than the
tricycle?

For the mains, no real difference. You do take some of the shock off
the mains with a taildragger if you make a stall-down landing, where a
bit of the weight is borne by the tail wheel. In a trike, you never
put weight on the nose wheel until the plane is rolling on the ground.

But it is certainly more difficult to build a strong nose gear than a
strong tail gear.


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?

Quite the contrary. A trike is easier to taxi, easier and safer in the
takeoff, and very much easier and safer on landing. The major
exception would be rough-field landings, where a wheelie in a
taildragger is more likely to have a happy outcome. It is not
generally recognized that the tires on a J-3 Cub are low-rent "tundra
tires" -- they're soft, to absorb rocks and ruts in the fields that
were common when the plane was built.

The Hurricanes of RAF 17 Sq retreated from Rangoon in March 1942 to a
rough field some miles north of the city. Several had their tail
wheels torn off by rocks; they were replaced by bamboo skids.


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