"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