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

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*

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

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

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

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

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!

"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.

"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.

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