Largest conventional-gear airplane

B-17?

gatt wrote in news:212qgk.ete.19.1
@integratelecom.com:


B-17?



Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17, and
also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200 was a bit
bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though probably not the
payload of even the 17.
The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can think of
that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of any Russian
aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone could have, it would
have been them!


Bertie

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
gatt wrote in news:212qgk.ete.19.1
@integratelecom.com:


B-17?



Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17, and
also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200 was a
bit
bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though probably not the
payload of even the 17.
The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can think of
that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of any Russian
aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone could have, it would
have been them!


Bertie

The 17 would still be heavier, if we stuffed your fat ass in it.

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
gatt wrote in
news:212qgk.ete.19.1 @integratelecom.com:


B-17?



Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17,
and also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200
was a bit
bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though probably not
the payload of even the 17.
The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can
think of that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of
any Russian aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone could
have, it would have been them!


Bertie

The 17 would still be heavier, if we stuffed your fat ass in it.





Awww, still with the blind lames,


Good luck with that fjukkktard.


I'm not going anywhere... And I haven't even broken a sweat yet.





Bertie

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:11:46 +0000 (UTC), gatt wrote:

B-17?

My money's on the XB-15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:X...n_airstrip.jpg

--
Dallas

on 7/10/2008 7:46 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
gatt wrote in news:212qgk.ete.19.1
@integratelecom.com:

B-17?



Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17, and
also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200 was a bit
bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though probably not the
payload of even the 17.
The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can think of
that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of any Russian
aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone could have, it would
have been them!

Like, say, the Petlyakov Pe-8? AKA the TB-7? It was the only four-engine
bomber the Soviets had during WW II. Its max takeoff weight was 35,000
kg vs a bit less than 30,000 kg for the B-17. 39 meter wingspan vs 32
meters. A photo:

http://www.aviation.ru/Pe/8/Pe-8.jpg

Rich Ahrens wrote in
. net:

on 7/10/2008 7:46 PM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
gatt wrote in
news:212qgk.ete.19.1 @integratelecom.com:

B-17?



Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17,
and also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200
was a bit bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though
probably not the payload of even the 17.
The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can
think of that might be in competition wiht those. I can't think of
any Russian aircraft that might be in contention, but if anyone could
have, it would have been them!

Like, say, the Petlyakov Pe-8? AKA the TB-7? It was the only
four-engine bomber the Soviets had during WW II. Its max takeoff
weight was 35,000 kg vs a bit less than 30,000 kg for the B-17. 39
meter wingspan vs 32 meters. A photo:

http://www.aviation.ru/Pe/8/Pe-8.jpg



Hhmm, never even seen that. I've never really looked much at Soviet
airplanes from that era. I must have a rummage around..


Bertie

"gatt" wrote in message
...

B-17?

It's certainly not the largest, but one of the most interesting is the
Antonov AN-2. It's the largest conventional gear aircraft I've had the
privilege of taking the controls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-2

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
gatt wrote in news:212qgk.ete.19.1
@integratelecom.com:


B-17?




Well, the Avro Lincoln was probably a good bit heavier than the 17, and
also probably the Lancaster, but I think maybe the Focke Wulf 200 was a bit
bigger than either. It certainly had more range, though probably not the
payload of even the 17.
The postwar Avor Tudor is the only other giant taildragger I can think of
that might be in competition wiht those.

Good suggestions.
Length
Avro Lincoln: 78 ft 3.5 in.
Lancaster: 69 ft 5 in.
Focke Wulf 200C-3: 77 ft 1 in.
Avor Tudor 1: 79 ft 6 in. (Wiki says the Tudor 2 was 25' longer.)
B-17G: 74 ft 4 in.


I wonder what they were like to handle on the ground. The B-17 might
have been easiest of them, I suppose, because of the huge rudder.

-c

Dallas wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:11:46 +0000 (UTC), gatt wrote:


B-17?


My money's on the XB-15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:X...n_airstrip.jpg


That would be the biggest suggestion so far at 87'7", except the Avro
689 Tudor Mk. 2 at 105'7".

http://www.tgplanes.com/Public/Snitz...p?TOPIC_ID=961