Largest conventional-gear airplane

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

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!

Rich Ahrens wrote in news:4877a11f$0$90342$804603d3
@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com:

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...


I'm as surprised as anyone!


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!


Hmm, interesting solution to the problem. They had and have some very
clever guys there..


Bertie

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

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

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

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

In article ,
Dale wrote:

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

Boeing XB-15:

Length: 87 ft 7 in
Span: 149 ft
Height: 19 ft 5 in
Empty Wt: 37709 lb
Gross Wt: 65068 lb
Power: 4 x P&W R-1830-11, 1000 hp @TO; 850 hp @6000 ft
Top Speed: 197 mph @6000 ft
Cruise: 171 mph
Landing: 70 mph

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Dale wrote in
:

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


But lighter over all, I think . I know a few guys who flew them up into the
late '70s. It was not highly thought of.


Bertie

In article ,
gatt wrote:




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

That huge fin and rudder also grab a lot of crosswind. G

The B-17 is a pretty nice airplane to fly however. Ailerons heavy as
heck, rudder not so bad, elevator pretty light. I've flown one in
xwinds up to 40 knots (only about 30 degrees cross) and while it makes
you work it doesn't take superman....but like any t/w airplane you gotta
stay ahead of her.