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?

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

"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.

"QDurham" wrote in message
...

Weight, drag, expense. Of course the Wright Flyer had tricycle gear.


The Wright Flyer had skids.

"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

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

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?

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

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

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