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