PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - A case for re-defining the tricycle undercarriage as a conventional undercarriage
Old 13th Sep 2015, 17:14
  #2 (permalink)  
pattern_is_full
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,226
Received 14 Likes on 8 Posts
Shame on you, trying to apply logic to language!

I don't ever use the term "conventional gear," precisely because it is not descriptive, and thus ambiguous.

I use "tail-wheel" and "nose-wheel," or "tail-dragger" and "tricycle" - because they not only differentiate, but describe the difference.

And they are more efficient. My father, an engineer and English professor and writing instructor, always said "Never use a long latinate word when a short anglo-saxon word will do the job."

If one goes by historical precedence for "convention", the Wright Flyer used skids. So really, the only "conventional-undercarriage" aircraft flying today are mostly small helicopters.
pattern_is_full is offline