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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Largest conventional-gear airplane
gatt wrote:
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. XB-15: 87 ft 7 in |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Largest conventional-gear airplane
Maxwell wrote:
The 17 would still be heavier, if we stuffed your fat ass in it. Clearly you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to contribute. *plonk* |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Largest conventional-gear airplane
Mike wrote:
"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 Somebody flew one of those to Burning Man last year. I hear you just about can't stall 'em. http://picasaweb.google.com/startled...19491939354866 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/...e411f7.jpg?v=0 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Largest conventional-gear airplane
gatt wrote in
: 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. I#ve only ever talked to a Lanc pilot. A canadian guy I had a couple of beers with in London. He said it was pretty easy to fly if it was rigged correctly, not so easy if it wasn't. Bertie |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Largest conventional-gear airplane
gatt wrote in news:214hsh.2oc.19.1
@integratelecom.com: 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 I was thinking more of weight, but it would probably correlat roughly. Bertie |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Largest conventional-gear airplane
gatt wrote in news:214kqd.dfs.19.1
@integratelecom.com: Maxwell wrote: The 17 would still be heavier, if we stuffed your fat ass in it. Clearly you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to contribute. *plonk* Uh oh, now you've done it. you're on the lits now Bertie |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Largest conventional-gear airplane
on 7/11/2008 1:37 AM Bertie the Bunyip said the following:
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.. Geez, I managed to out-trivia you for once? Shocking... Among the Pe-8's features were hand-operated machine guns in the rear of the inboard engine nacelles. It also had a single compressor above the bomb bay, driven by an auxiliary engine, which fed air to the engines via a huge duct in each wing in place of superchargers. So strictly speaking it was a five-engine beast! |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Largest conventional-gear airplane
"gatt" wrote in message ... Maxwell wrote: The 17 would still be heavier, if we stuffed your fat ass in it. Clearly you have absolutely nothing whatsoever to contribute. *plonk* Oh worrra worra, I have been kill filed by a sock puppet. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Largest conventional-gear airplane
"gatt" wrote in message
... Mike wrote: "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 Somebody flew one of those to Burning Man last year. I hear you just about can't stall 'em. http://picasaweb.google.com/startled...19491939354866 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/...e411f7.jpg?v=0 If you can, it's got to be at a pretty slow speed. When we landed it seemed as if the thing was almost stopped already. For a large aircraft the short field abilities are simply incredible. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Largest conventional-gear airplane
In article ,
gatt wrote: 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 Curtiss C-46: Length 76'4 Wingspan 108'1 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Conventional v tricycle gear | [email protected] | Piloting | 117 | July 16th 08 12:04 AM |
Landing Gear Parts, Antique Part, EXP Airplane Auction | Bill Berle | Home Built | 0 | November 24th 04 05:11 PM |
Landing Gear Parts, Antique Part, EXP Airplane Auction | Bill Berle | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 24th 04 05:11 PM |
Landing Gear Parts, Antique Part, EXP Airplane Auction | Bill Berle | Owning | 0 | November 24th 04 05:11 PM |
WarPac War Plans-any conventional? | Matt Wiser | Military Aviation | 1 | December 8th 03 09:29 PM |