Originally Posted by
Discorde
Why was the Tudor designed as a taildragger, against current trends in large transport aircraft design? Surely a tricycle version would not have been too complicated or expensive to engineer?
An interesting question. I don't have a definitive answer, but I remember reading that it may have been a combination of two factors. Firstly, Roy Chadwick had a lot of experience with large, tailwheel aircraft and at the time it seemed sensible and expedient to stick with a proven layout for the new aircraft rather than adding to the time and development costs for a nosewheel design. Secondly, there is a small weight penalty for a tricycle undercarriage design as the nose undercarriage has to support a greater percentage of the overall weight of the aircraft therefore has to be a more substantial undercarriage structure than the tailwheel.
I'm not suggesting either of these were particularly valid reasons for not designing the Tudor with a nosewheel from the start, but merely putting them forward as the possible answer to the question.
The Nene powered Tudor 9 was of course designed from the outset with a tricycle undercarriage, and later became the Ashton.