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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"QDurham" wrote in message ... Weight, drag, expense. Of course the Wright Flyer had tricycle gear. The Wright Flyer had skids. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"QDurham" wrote in message ... I stand corrected. But I think the first wheeled Wright plane was tricycle. I believe you're thinking of a Curtiss machine. The first Wright airplane with wheels was the Model B of 1910. It still had skids, but added two bicycle-type wheels on each skid near the center of gravity. You can see an image of one he http://www.fi.edu/press/aviation/BFlyer_front_view.jpg |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Tail draggers help when you have a very large diameter prop circle
i.e. stops the prop hitting the runway. Of course not a problem with multi-engine or jet propulsion. Mustang Spitfire Hurricane Tempest Typhoon to name a few. On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:43:34 -0000, "killfile" wrote: 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tricycle Midget Thought | Dick | Home Built | 4 | March 26th 04 11:12 PM |