If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
tricycle undercarriage
From late WW2 onwards, many aircraft designs started using the
tricycle undercarriage scheme. Prior to this, most used the other one (you know, two large wheels up in front, with the plane tilted back onto a small support wheel). Why the change? Well, good visibility (while taxing/take-off/etc.) would seem to be a huge advantage of the tricycle undercarraige ... so I suppose the question really should be - why did most aircraft NOT use the tricycle undercarriage design until late WW2? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
why did most aircraft NOT
use the tricycle undercarriage design until late WW2? Weight, drag, expense. Of course the Wright Flyer had tricycle gear. Quent |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"G. Stewart" wrote in message m... From late WW2 onwards, many aircraft designs started using the tricycle undercarriage scheme. Prior to this, most used the other one (you know, two large wheels up in front, with the plane tilted back onto a small support wheel). Why the change? Well, good visibility (while taxing/take-off/etc.) would seem to be a huge advantage of the tricycle undercarraige ... so I suppose the question really should be - why did most aircraft NOT use the tricycle undercarriage design until late WW2? The tricycle gear has more drag and weight, but the primary reason was generally poor runways prior to 1950 or so. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"QDurham" wrote in message ... Weight, drag, expense. Of course the Wright Flyer had tricycle gear. The Wright Flyer had skids. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"G. Stewart" wrote in message m... From late WW2 onwards, many aircraft designs started using the tricycle undercarriage scheme. Prior to this, most used the other one (you know, two large wheels up in front, with the plane tilted back onto a small support wheel). Why the change? Well, good visibility (while taxing/take-off/etc.) would seem to be a huge advantage of the tricycle undercarraige ... so I suppose the question really should be - why did most aircraft NOT use the tricycle undercarriage design until late WW2? Are you referring to those 'late' designs such as Bell P-39, Production 1939 Douglas A-20, Production 1939 Douglas C-54, Production 1942 Martin B-26, Production 1940 North American B-25, Production 1940 Consolidated PBY-5, Production 1939 Consolidated B-24, Production 1941 ERCO Ercoupe, Production 1937 Fairchild AT-13, AT-14, At-21 Production ??? but early I really do not think they were as rare as you say and I only included USA aircraft. Regards, Tex Houston |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Of course the Wright Flyer had tricycle gear.
The Wright Flyer had skids. I stand corrected. But I think the first wheeled Wright plane was tricycle. Q |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Tail draggers are prone to ground loop whereas the trike configuration makes
for less destructive landings by tyro pilots. WDA end "G. Stewart" wrote in message m... From late WW2 onwards, many aircraft designs started using the tricycle undercarriage scheme. Prior to this, most used the other one (you know, two large wheels up in front, with the plane tilted back onto a small support wheel). Why the change? Well, good visibility (while taxing/take-off/etc.) would seem to be a huge advantage of the tricycle undercarraige ... so I suppose the question really should be - why did most aircraft NOT use the tricycle undercarriage design until late WW2? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
why did most aircraft NOT use the tricycle undercarriage design until late WW2? Cost, weight, and the fact that "conventional" (tailwheel) landing gear was a matter of pride with the Old Pilots. (Still is. There's a sign at Hampton Airport: "Real Men Fly Taildraggers".) Actually, trikes came in a bit earlier than you suggest. The Bell P-39 Airacobra and the Douglas A-20 (DB-9) were two examples of trikes designed and put into service at the end of the 1930s. Weight was a fairly significant matter. The Douglas AD / A-1 "Spad" was designed toward the end of World War II and served through the Vietnam War. It was a taildragger because Douglas had to meet a stringent weight requirement from the navy. I forget how many hundred ponds a trike would have added, but it was significant. For a while there, also, taildraggers were considered a requirement for carrier landings, since they could be caught by the tail and slammed down onto the deck in their normal landing position. Personally, I like to fly a taildragger. A two-wheel landing, well performed, is a very satisfying act. I'm always amused at the thought that I fly a taildragger but fly the plane right onto the ground, while the guys in the trikes have to make a stall-down landing. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Dan wrotre in part:
Personally, I like to fly a taildragger. A two-wheel landing, well performed, is a very satisfying act. I'm always amused at the thought that I fly a taildragger but fly the plane right onto the ground, while the guys in the trikes have to make a stall-down landing. Well said. Couldn't agree more. A good wheels landing is a total delight -- particularly in that miserable (in landing) Twin Beech. Quent |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tricycle Midget Thought | Dick | Home Built | 4 | March 26th 04 11:12 PM |