Aircraft with unusual landing gear configurations

[boguing]

I have an offspring working on his final year aero eng project and need a little help.

I dimly recall there being an aircraft that more-or-less had a wheel at each corner of it's boxy fuselage. Think shopping trolley or, heaven forfend, a helicopter...

I know why it's not a great idea, but I'd like to look at the history of any type that did try it to see what handling problems it had in reality.

Couldn't think of a better place to ask!

[treadigraph]

Lockspeiser LDA-01 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockspeiser_LDA-01)? It had a more conventional nosewheel in a later guise...

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/547x272/305_1_6ba2fd46e22171cc58c93c2f051a58ecd938178a.jpg

[boguing]

Brilliant - it's not the one I'm thinking of but it gives me something to go on. Many thanks.

[treadigraph]

Hmmm, there was a light aircraft... high wing... tractor engine... (no, I'm not thinking of anything with Wipline floats!)

Various car-planes over the years...

[treadigraph]

Fairchild XC-120 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_XC-120_Packplane) was another four wheeler...

[DaveReidUK]

Sikorsky S-55/H-19
Westland Wasp
Lockheed XFV
Flying Bedstead :O

[slacktide]

Not the one you are looking for, but I present the SNECMA Coléoptère.


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/497x636/snecma_col_opt_re_on_ramp_1959_7e40eb3f7bfaa6b17141b03c7d412 3129dca4f02.jpg

[Self loading bear]

Kalinin-7

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/799x473/7b7d5cfc_ff53_4e3a_b2cd_f7dda444d13a_904019ea24f8d12bb706c33 f4673fe4d3806efc2.jpeg

And the M-323

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/704x207/1dbccddb_1741_4c2c_ace8_86e13f9c3989_6aeec1936303a1acfac500a e5324c7069c29c36b.jpeg

And of course the “Roc” Stratolaunch

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1231x627/3e1d9a9c_d4bb_43b9_a674_a12f6d89066f_711a27ec44f629c4e16a135 6a9c66ee16476444b.jpeg
(The plane on the left of the picture)

[boguing]

Fairchild XC-120 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_XC-120_Packplane) was another four wheeler...
I think that's it! That or the 115 Boxcar which your link led me to.

Childhood memory playing tricks and remembering the full hull depth running further back (and so back wheels even further back), and seeing the pod on its wheels whilst ignoring the main gear.

I think my quest is over - nobody made a non-canard with the main gear split substantially fore and aft - except the B-52, which needs the high angle of incidence to get off the ground (and nose-down in flight attitude).

Thanks all.

[stilton]

CH47 is basically a box with wheels at each corner

[mustbeaboeing]

One of these ?


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/825x492/c424ab05_86c4_4372_873b_c92199e12493_c05406c6493ff28be78d3ff 00c607617d15c110e.jpeg

[jonkster]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/550x224/u2_26_c83637892a3644f93e71b8f63b912bfc5cbb7bb6.jpg

[NutLoose]

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/october-1954-flying-bedstead/

[NutLoose]

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-lockheed-xfv-1-salmon-55297636.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=B772E7BF-F8F9-4216-96C7-E733EC7F4720&p=184110&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26r esultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d0%26qt%3dxfv%26qt_raw%3dx fv%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3 d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%2 6et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0% 26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d %26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d %26apalib%3d%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d %26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d% 26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3d%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1 %26vd%3d0%26lb%3d%26fi%3d2%26edrf%3d%26ispremium%3d1%26flip% 3d0%26pl%3d

[Fargo Boyle]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/XB-48_ready_for_landing.jpg/1200px-XB-48_ready_for_landing.jpg

[Noyade]

I dimly recall there being an aircraft that more-or-less had a wheel at each corner of it's boxy fuselage.

O'Neil Model J Magnum.

Magnum Pickup (http://www.pilotfriend.com/experimental/acft4/53.htm)


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x387/scan0435_fc01915df90f3bc107287ef803dea98296595ac7.jpg

[treadigraph]

I think the Magnum Pickup may be the aircraft I'm thinking of in Post 4 though that's not the pic I recall, the gear config looks right! Probably a photo from Oshkosh in one of the mags.

[BEagle]

Of course there was the rather hideous East German airliner, the Baade 152:


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1280/db58a8e4759ecacbf506f740cfcad8bf_e170dc348d2a6b805a9ecb86eca ee5c6c764528d.jpg

[Less Hair]

Dornier had something special for the Do 27 on mud and soft grounds:
https://images.app.goo.gl/VqzjhtnCTuhnt4v7A

[treadigraph]

Of course there was the rather hideous East German airliner, the Baade 152:

If I have nightmares tonight, you know who I'm going to blame...

[pax britanica]

And there's me thinking that the Trident (weird but logical) offset nosewheel qualifies -not even close

[DHfan]

I'm glad it wasn't only me getting ready to suggest that.

[old,not bold]

And there was the Vickers Windsor......

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/400x225/windsor_f48c8c0a06e70a624a4d6275a3f91557c2c9b063.jpg

[DuncanDoenitz]

Enough with the ugly aeroplanes already. My eyes are bleeding.

[DHfan]

I always thought the Windsor was a dumb idea but it's only dawned on me, literally in the last few months, that with a geodetic wing it wasn't so dumb after all.

[Less Hair]

Here is one more:http://www.luftarchiv.de/index.htm?/piloten/ar232.htm

[Cornish Jack]

No piccy, but I seem to recall a Percival high wing s/e intended for freight and agricultural work ?

[ex82watcher]

CJ, I think you are referring to the Percival Protector ?

[DHfan]

Could be the Edgar Percival (as opposed to just Percival) Ep.9 which was an odd looking thing but with a relatively normal undercarriage, given its design.

[treadigraph]

Ah yes, the Prospector (remember seeing one at Oshkosh) - which reminds me of the Auster Shopping Trolley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auster_B.4) - the B.4:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1612528071_edcb8463c54b863b03a6b43d22fe92300b741b77.jpeg

[Peter47]

Possibly off-topic (not really configuration), but I wonder if there were any issues with the Tridents off-centre nose wheel. I've never heard about there being any problems but it sure looked odd.

[Less Hair]

https://i.stack.imgur.com/XZEYN.jpg

The Il-62 tailwheel. Used on the ground to prevent tipping.

And my all time favorite the Sea Dart:

Convair Sea Dart video

[DaveReidUK]

Possibly off-topic (not really configuration), but I wonder if there were any issues with the Tridents off-centre nose wheel. I've never heard about there being any problems but it sure looked odd.

Yes, the offset weight of the wheels when stowed caused the aircraft to fly right wing low.

[DHfan]

Ah yes, the Prospector (remember seeing one at Oshkosh) - which reminds me of the Auster Shopping Trolley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auster_B.4) - the B.4:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x400/1612528071_edcb8463c54b863b03a6b43d22fe92300b741b77.jpeg

That's certainly odd but the picture I found was a bit less odd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Percival-N747JC.JPG

[treadigraph]

Ah yes, N747JC was the EP9 I saw at KOSH! I remember another one at Biggin in the late 80s - involved in a nasty fatal crash shortly afterwards at Lydd - parachutists aboard as I recall.

[ex82watcher]

Yes, the offset weight of the wheels when stowed caused the aircraft to fly right wing low.
Ah,so that explains why they frequently used to stray from centre line when going up and down UA37 ,and often needed a 'little help'

[treadigraph]

Is that why CAAC bought them?

[Jhieminga]

Dornier had something special for the Do 27 on mud and soft grounds:
https://images.app.goo.gl/VqzjhtnCTuhnt4v7A
Check out the B-36 version of that:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x898/yg7eakeauas31_3d93570cfee24780fb14c658dfeaab0ef66cf52e.jpg

[treadigraph]

Did they develop that after the Boscombe Down out-landing (https://www.a-e-g.org.uk/convairs-mighty-b-36.html)? :}

[Jhieminga]

:ok:
As far as I know it was tested on the prototype, so the answer is: probably not. It would certainly have been a better option on that particular occasion... :cool:

[Old and Horrified]

I flew the Trident for 5 years and for a serious answer to the question it did mean that you could take off down the middle of the runway without the boom boom boom down the centre lights. However, it also meant that we got occasional queries from other pilots asking if something may be wrong with our nose gear.

[speedrestriction]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/220x149/220px_boeing_nb_52a_carrying_x_15_cb302c67ef7e44ca9508dd6a68 ee7ee0d20590c7.jpg

Don't forget the BUFF

[boguing]

I got my answer ages ago, but what a great thread it turned out to be. And maybe I've done a favour and got all the ugly stuff in one place.

[Farrell]

Of course there was the rather hideous East German airliner, the Baade 152:


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1280/db58a8e4759ecacbf506f740cfcad8bf_e170dc348d2a6b805a9ecb86eca ee5c6c764528d.jpg

Nonsense!
This was such a beautiful aircraft!
Retro Thunderbirds look nowadays.
I love the Baade!

[Less Hair]

It's a Junkers concept for a jet bomber from WW2. It got built in the Soviet Union after the war and was test flown and crashed named samoljot 150. Then the team was permitted to return to east Germany and developed this modified passenger version. They even developed "Pirna" jet engines for it. It crashed too and the project got stopped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baade_152

[ex82watcher]

Is that why CAAC bought them?
Surely Treadi,theirs flew 'light wing lo' Apologies if that's too Benny Hill for some people !

[777fly]

There were no particular issues with the Trident nosewheel offset when manoeuvring on the ground, as I recall. As already observed, the offset did keep the nosewheel off the centreline lights during takeoff and landing, thus avoiding the annoying thump thump thump experienced on other types. I always believed that the offset was built in for this reason, as the triplex auto landing performance was expected to put the aircraft exactly on the runway centreline every time. However, I learned later that it was that way to accommodate the larger than normal electronics bay that dealt with the auto land system. The one unusual effect of the offset was the need to add one clockwise turn on the rudder trim to zero the yaw effect of the offset wheel and gear door.

[DH106]

There were no particular issues with the Trident nosewheel offset when manoeuvring on the ground, as I recall. As already observed, the offset did keep the nosewheel off the centreline lights during takeoff and landing, thus avoiding the annoying thump thump thump experienced on other types. I always believed that the offset was built in for this reason, as the triplex auto landing performance was expected to put the aircraft exactly on the runway centreline every time. However, I learned later that it was that way to accommodate the larger than normal electronics bay that dealt with the auto land system. The one unusual effect of the offset was the need to add one clockwise turn on the rudder trim to zero the yaw effect of the offset wheel and gear door.

I wonder - did the Trident's nose wheels have brakes on them then - not for stopping the aircraft but for halting the wheelspin on retraction, since the sideways retraction would involve tilting the axis and thus induce considerable gyroscopic forces, unlike forward/backward retracting nose units.

[BEagle]

There was still quite a lot of promotional material for the 'VL-DDR' Baade 152 lying around in one of the rooms at the Elbeflugzeugwerke training centre at Dresden when I was doing some A310MRTT work there some 15 years ago or thereabouts.

I still think that was hideously ugly!

[clark y]

The Trident's offset nosegear must have been pretty good as Fairchild Republic used it on that beauty of the sky, the A-10.

As for ugly, Australia's contribution, check out the Transavia airtruk.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transavia_PL-12_Airtruk

[PDR1]

Well if you want "ugly" you surely have to include the exceptional efforts put in by Blackburn to include almost everything they ever made. Whether it be the Blackburd:

https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20200105134717/1434642571707.jpg

Or the Blackburn Blackburn (so fugly they named it twice):

https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20191215124238/1434642123130.jpg

Or the beast that dare not speak its name, the YAy/YA8/YB1 ASW offering (clearly intended to save ammunition by scaring Russian subs back to Kola):

https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20180903103629/1434617493689.jpg

I suggest while other individual aircraft might win on points, Blackburn obviously deserve a Lifetime Achievement Award and Fellowship of the Order of Quasimodo in recognition of their dedicated contribution to fugliness in aviation.

PDR

[ex82watcher]

Old and Horrified / 777fly ,during your your time on Tridents,I imagine that you would have done some trips to Scandinavia,via a CLN SID,then turning left at DVR,and thence to DANDI.At weekends we were allowed to operate off-route,and such flights were usually turned left at or before CLN and routed direct to DANDI.This took you through the overhead of the T82 radar at Eastern Radar at Watton,by when you would be up at FL330 one of my colleagues wouid then always sent the assistant out of the Fire-Escape onto the roof to look for you,and if seen. he then would call you and say " Speedbird xyz,we have you visual ! I know it's a long time ago - 1980s,but I wonder if you remember hearing such an odd transmission ?

[ex82watcher]

PDR, you missed out the Beverley.

[PDR1]

Well the Beverley wasn't actually a Blackburn design - it was designed by General Aircraft who were subsequently taken over by Blackburn. There are more than sufficient true Blackburn examples available so there's no need to include bought-in ones. If you want more, well Roc and Skua are obvious, but what were they smoking when they penned the Cuberoo:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/BlackburnCubaroo.jpg

or the Sidecar:

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/download-en-uk/heritageimage/webImage/20200105123653/1434642569008.jpg

Don't get me wrong, there are good Blackburn aircraft. It's just that they are like intelligent brexiters - not exactly common.

PDR

[Bagheera S]

You just can’t leave out this bad boy;--

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x480/6cdffda3_0b65_4e86_b030_6d8690a244f9_6966a81831a4f87fa24d043 57e6937dacecdcff2.jpeg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/736x515/eebf40c6_44e8_4561_8744_99b354a47143_32456cc773244d20f795e3f 82b9d445190b4ab26.jpeg
and then was this thing, more landing gear than aeroplane;

[Landflap]

Flew the Tridents but never even asked why the nosewheel was offset. Many offered answers to the unasked question anyway but one fave was that the Autoland was so accurate that it was annoying to hit every centre line light after landing.

I think a wheel brake was automatically triggered on selecting gear up but, gees, was a long time ago. I also experienced no handling problems during retraction ( but I was very gifted at handling) and never managed to keep wings level on airways anyway..........er, if & when allowed to fly the ruddy thing by pole hogging seniors !........

[DaveReidUK]

You just can’t leave out this bad boy;--

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x480/6cdffda3_0b65_4e86_b030_6d8690a244f9_6966a81831a4f87fa24d043 57e6937dacecdcff2.jpeg



We didn't. See post #6.

[DaveReidUK]

Flew the Tridents but never even asked why the nosewheel was offset. Many offered answers to the unasked question anyway but one fave was that the Autoland was so accurate that it was annoying to hit every centre line light after landing.

Over the years, that attained the status of an urban myth.

Of course the reason for the offset NLG was related to Autoland, but in a rather less obvious way.

[Mike6567]

Over the years, that attained the status of an urban myth.

Of course the reason for the offset NLG was related to Autoland, but in a rather less obvious way.
I always understood the original design included built in front boarding stairs? Resulting in nosewheel retraction sideways.

[DaveReidUK]

I always understood the original design included built in front boarding stairs? Resulting in nosewheel retraction sideways.

Lots of types have forward airstairs without needing a sideways-retracting nosewheel.

The extra space on the Trident that a conventional forward-retracting nose gear would have required was instead used for an avionics bay containing all the Autoland kit - some of it (the triplicated VRUs, for example) being pretty humungous, as I recall.

[pax britanica]

Apologies for initiating the trident thread drift, a plane which to my mind was definitely not ugly, in fact rather elegant and stylish . I too always thought Blackburn aircraft were astonishingly ungainly , even the Roc and Skua which look vaguely normal had to have back to front sloping windshields, I seem to recall the legendary Eric Brown who must have come across their earlier products being slightly alarmed at his first sight of a Baracuda . They also seemed to have somehow survived despite most of their efforts not just being ugly but not actually any good Rocs/Skua, Bothas etc to name a few altho I suppose they redeemed themselves at the very end of their existence with the tough menacing looking and apparently highly effective Buccaneer. A really brilliant thread overall with some truly startling ideas perhaps the caterpillar tracked B36 main gear being the most extraordinary.
PB

[aroa]

Austers had a couple of other oddities
Pantos. ..like short ski , to land on water and slide up to stop on the beach. Could be fun if yr judgement of distances was out, loss of lift on the water landing and subside into the surf.
Not enough distance/ lift off the beach...subside into the surf. Can’t understand why this fun idea never caught on.

And a tank track like arrangement, but very light weight build, for landing on soft or rough ground .
Cant remember if it was this odd job that had the ability to offset for drift.

Austers hopefully are forever..the normal ones. 9.5 out of 10 for the aircraft. 0.5 / 10 for the crappy cable operated shoe brakes.

[galaxy flyer]

For completely over-the-top complication, I offer the C-5–it rotates, it folds on retraction, reverses to extend, then, on the ground kneels forward, level and aft.

Oh, I forgot, in earlier times, it twisted all four paws to manage crosswinds, but even at USAF budgets it got too much to maintain or work correctly.

[Bagheera S]

So a few more WTF LG’s

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/445x209/3d412f4d_9512_4788_874b_cf18f0d790dd_f75d58b853ebbb8a9ac99fb 2ed0379aaa6492c35.jpeg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x800/07015a54_ca0a_4a2c_a7b0_ee1e99091072_b9b318555407023d679f512 d6b68ef20afe8189f.jpeg

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/191x218/4dc70be9_c619_4349_b0a8_69b28fff44c6_0b0031addc627d1e83a928a 127417de3b8cc49d9.jpeg

[MLHeliwrench]

The Grumman Goose flying boats have cool retractable wing pontoons so you can dip one ring down to clear the other wing over a dock

https://youtu.be/0i3tuUNNgVc

[B2N2]

My contribution, the F82


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x350/image_d141956c577225b28090782d40c1a7ad5bcb05c2.jpeg

[Jhieminga]

The Grumman Goose flying boats have cool retractable wing pontoons so you can dip one ring down to clear the other wing over a dock
That's an aftermarket mod, original Geese did not have that option. It makes for a useful docking method, I will admit that.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x725/image_62e7924982f9a30e79c73806e886b4a93a46b839.jpg

[DaveReidUK]

That's an aftermarket mod, original Geese did not have that option. It makes for a useful docking method, I will admit that.

The McKinnon conversions have retractable floats.

[Firestreak]

Then again, there was always the option of no wheels at all. Winkle Brown’s book details the trials he carried out with a Vampire landing onto a flexible rubber mat , wheels up. All leading towards landing on a carrier to save the weight and complexity of an u/c capable of absorbing the stresses of carrier ops. I wonder why it never caught on!

[DHfan]

It does seem a bit daft that they went to all the expense of building the test infrastructure, and testing it, without a single person asking how they were supposed to move the aeroplane after it had landed.

[DHfan]

I know it's not exactly unusual configuration, but it's certainly unusual.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Beardmore_Inflexible_nose.png

It's not the picture I was looking for, or even necessarily the right aeroplane. I've seen a picture somewhere of somebody looking at a wheel about 8' diameter which is the only remaining part of whichever aircraft it was.

[JonnyT1978]

The General Aircraft Monospar variant (ST.25u?) with a tricycle undercarriage was pretty ungainly

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/760x271/im1938env165_p018c_07fbc295b48dd23b697ca2ccb11f9a83b3950c3e. jpg

[Jhieminga]

The McKinnon conversions have retractable floats.
Thanks, I'll go and read up on them :ok:

[PAXboy]

Following flying boat links down the usual YouTube rabbit hole ... when they taxied from the tarmac to water - when did they raise the wheels? In one clip, showing part of the dials and indicators, there was a pull-type knob with the clearly stated lable that I'll just leave here: PULL FOR QUICK ERECT.

[Max Tow]

TSR2. Unfair, I know, but it was still distinctly odd looking even when it did work properly!

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/701x400/3880a410_42d5_4c01_a0ed_fc973b3ba474_1_201_a_175488b352c351a 92e14dc1244b0d2c4e0b66370.jpeg

[FlightlessParrot]

I know it's not exactly unusual configuration, but it's certainly unusual.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Beardmore_Inflexible_nose.png

It's not the picture I was looking for, or even necessarily the right aeroplane. I've seen a picture somewhere of somebody looking at a wheel about 8' diameter which is the only remaining part of whichever aircraft it was.
Were you perhaps thinking of the picture in this thread of a wheel from the Beardmore Inflexible?
Beardmore Inflexible Wheel (http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23338)

[FlightlessParrot]

The General Aircraft Monospar variant (ST.25u?) with a tricycle undercarriage was pretty ungainly

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/760x271/im1938env165_p018c_07fbc295b48dd23b697ca2ccb11f9a83b3950c3e. jpg

That's not an undercarriage, that's a Zimmer frame.

[FlightlessParrot]

DHFan
I knew there was another image I had seen that matched your description, and it is this:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1280x923/1280px_mannesmann_poll_wheel_bcf11f82e3b0b112057a17a3abb5dda 53bfc5a27.jpg
From the Mannesman Giant Triplane (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mannesmann_Giant_Triplane)
The wheel is now at Duxford, and looks like this
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x600/mannesman_poll_wheel_fbdea7972c8300b1d00ab671c37749eb03be25b b.jpg

I had a memory of seeing this in James Gilbert's The World's Worst Aircraft (1975, one of the earliest and best books with that title); that memory must have been from maybe 30 years ago, but climbing up a ladder to the top shelf my bookshelves, there it was.

[TCU]

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/560x327/9952aa10_4c54_4487_8c10_7a8f236f5380_222bb3c41309420a35d2832 b2965334801dbc2cc.jpeg
If you are going to experiment with fuselage arrangement, engine configuration and pioneer mono-wing, you might as well chuck in landing gear Bleriot 125....it didn’t fly that well

[Haraka]

You beat me to it FP! My reference was Haddow and Grosz's German Giants ( R Planes) Putnam where I must admit I had remembered it as the :Poll Giant Triplane.

[PR0PWASH]

I always thought the Windsor was a dumb idea but it's only dawned on me, literally in the last few months, that with a geodetic wing it wasn't so dumb after all.


I know a little about Geodetic construction but can't think why its relevant, could you explain?

[PR0PWASH]

No its not Broken.. Stinson with Crosswind landing gearhttps://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/982x654/nc9270k_1_96e3720ae42ba63b6c56b1d56a5ca0d17e794889.jpg

[Jhieminga]

TSR2. Unfair, I know, but it was still distinctly odd looking even when it did work properly!
Not all that different from the average Cessna retraction cycle.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x683/cessna_210_16_d1a5d82d35e4b396195201f8935da899b8138a17.jpg

[FlightlessParrot]

You beat me to it FP! My reference was Haddow and Grosz's German Giants ( R Planes) Putnam where I must admit I had remembered it as the :Poll Giant Triplane.
Poll seems to be its aka: but they all agree on Giant Triplane. With hindsight, anything called a Giant Triplane seems doomed to failure.

[megan]

Don't have a photo but there was a Hurricane with nose wheel fitted so students could learn to taxi with out endangering the aircraft, the nose wheel only came into ground contact if the aircraft nosed over, preventing a prop strike.

[DH106]

Just been reading about the YB-60 prototype of a jet powered B-36 bomber - with a swept wing and 8x jet engines in a similar layout to the B-52.
Anyway, the swept wing gave some C. of G. issues on the ground which necessitated an auxiliary tail gear - which was apparently lowered during the landing ground run (with the pilot holding in nose down elevator so it could extend).

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1000x387/yb_60_cdf4bd608d0c8afc40bcb0bf6bc5235353823192.png

[DHfan]

DHFan
I knew there was another image I had seen that matched your description, and it is this:

I had a memory of seeing this in James Gilbert's The World's Worst Aircraft (1975, one of the earliest and best books with that title); that memory must have been from maybe 30 years ago, but climbing up a ladder to the top shelf my bookshelves, there it was.

I'm pretty sure it's the first one I was thinking of. I found the one with JDK at the Science Museum when I was searching too but that wasn't it.

[DHfan]

I know a little about Geodetic construction but can't think why its relevant, could you explain?

I know no more than the man in the street about it but what little I do know suggests it's more flexible than 'standard' construction so the load would be spread over the four wheels. A more rigid wing could presumably result in one wheel taking very little, if any, load.

[nuisance79]

A340 been mentioned?

[DaveReidUK]

A340-300 been mentioned?

Why specifically the -300 ?

[dixi188]

A340. 3 main legs, like the DC-10-30/40.
I suppose the DC-10-30/40 is unusual as you could have the centre main leg extended or retracted, but don't try retracting it on the ground if you don't know what you are doing!

[PR0PWASH]

I know no more than the man in the street about it but what little I do know suggests it's more flexible than 'standard' construction so the load would be spread over the four wheels. A more rigid wing could presumably result in one wheel taking very little, if any, load.


Hmm maybe that was a consideration and perhaps a valid reason if dealing with rather rigid undercarriage designs but the displacement available from the Oleo struts in use would give a far greater compliance than that afforded by any increased wing flexibility

[asw28-866]

Hi Megan,
Perhaps the Hawker "Dodo"...
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x411/dodo_01de0993ab6e4c3389960c49903b11bb94bed488.jpg
Photo credit and information here:
Hawker ?Dodo? ? The flightless Hurricane ? RAFCommands (http://www.rafcommands.com/seac/hawker-dodo-the-flightless-hurricane/)

866

[Self loading bear]

On all accounts in line with the U2, Baade 152 and the XB48:
The Myasishchev M4/3M/VM-T:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/220x165/c1fdbb4c_4db5_4b2c_ac19_e6baad0bce78_a3ee19cb8fb9df5870e5665 9dc6d0dd6013aa6c0.jpeg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x547/ec0aeca3_b0d7_45cd_8953_924032cf34c4_4119f7ac82164255497db3f 4b6feb2c1ed3fd218.jpeg

[Spooky 2]

The main landing gear of the Constellation are “walking gear” and the knack for getting the aircraft “on step” during engine runup can be a challenge for the novice Connie pilot. Back in the old days, it was considered poor form to drop the Connie with a load of passengers in the back! With the aircraft “on-step” the “before takeoff checklist” was successfully completed

The Captain would verbalize "coming up" as he increased the power for the sunup which was conducted by the FE. Reducing the power would caise the aircraft to "come off the step".

Not sure if all models of the Connie had this design as I only flew the 1049H.

[PAXboy]

Spooky 2 Could you illustrate that? I have seen many photos and videos of Connies but no idea what you mean by the step. Never heard that reference to any aircraft - other than flying boats!

[Spooky 2]

Looked all over for a visual reference but can't find anything and have no manuals for back in the day. I think there were several other aircraft during that time period with a similar design, but cannot pick out which ones. One of those things you had to experience to visualize.

[boguing]

Walking gear are explained here...

Constellation (https://www.pilotweb.aero/features/super-constellation-the-star-of-switzerland-1-3754825#1.3754810:~:text=WALKING%20MAIN%20GEAR%20LEGS,door%2 0on%20the%20fuselage%E2%80%99s%20right%20side.)

[megan]

asw28-866, that's the one. :ok:

[FlightlessParrot]

Walking gear are explained here...

Constellation (https://www.pilotweb.aero/features/super-constellation-the-star-of-switzerland-1-3754825#1.3754810:~:text=WALKING%20MAIN%20GEAR%20LEGS,door%2 0on%20the%20fuselage%E2%80%99s%20right%20side.)
I have a poor imagination for this sort of thing, and still can't understand what is happening. Is there a drawing anywhere (I have Googled, and only found the site where Spooky gave his description earlier).

[Leecj1]

I have a poor imagination for this sort of thing, and still can't understand what is happening. Is there a drawing anywhere (I have Googled, and only found the site where Spooky gave his description earlier).

Confused here too, but as lowly SLF. I'm envisioning something similar to what the old Austin Morris 1100 did on a hill start...so the gear on the Connie sort of raised against spring tension with brakes on and power applied? Then dropped with brakes off? I love this working from home...

[Less Hair]

Did we have the Brodie system already? Hanging on a wire for landing?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brodie_L-4.jpg#/media/File:Brodie_L-4.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brodie_landing_system (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brodie_L-4.jpg#/media/File:Brodie_L-4.jpg)

[Jhieminga]

There's an L.1049 crew operating manual here: https://aviatechno.net/files/l1049c_crew_operating_manual.pdf Perhaps that contains some clues (I haven't checked yet...).

Edit: from page 117.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/495x663/screenshot_2021_02_11_at_18_07_08_a4401d1ffbbfa34c5c99849c72 b136cb7063a714.png
Pages 66 and 67:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/698x666/screenshot_2021_02_11_at_18_10_39_9d60c6438f5d3b12db1a1ee49f d5b17575a0dbd8.png
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/459x311/screenshot_2021_02_11_at_18_10_59_0744b514cd339d3db164df9d95 e0b177628a1f6e.png
From this, it would appear that the drag strut, which normally restricts forward and aft motion of the main gear leg, incorporates a hydraulic cylinder that permits some movement, damped by hydraulic fluid.

[Fareastdriver]

Whilst I was at Wenzhou in the late nineties watching the daily TU154 take off was a must. It had to backtrack the runway and there wasn't a turning circle so you could hear the twelve main wheels howling and screaming as it was turned around. It would then start the take off and as it passed you there would be an absolute pandemonium of noise and smoke. It would then disappear and one would then see it as it reappeared above the smoke haze retracting the undercarriage to get some altitude and leaving behind a trail of asphyxiated pigs.

[Spooky 2]

FWIW, I believe the Martin 404 had a similar walking gear design as the Connie.

[digits_]

I like this one:
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/521x293/upside_down_4b700327d64f7048a8090b7986c4ab0c93846bc1.jpg



Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ApSDpnA2k0

[treadigraph]

I can't find a pic of it but I believe 1930s US airshow pilot Mike Murphy had a similarly configured aircraft named "Cheek to Cheek", though it could actually only be landed upside down if I recall correctly! The "right way up gear" was for show...

[Nuuumannn]

Well if you want "ugly" you surely have to include the exceptional efforts put in by Blackburn to include almost everything they ever made. Whether it be the Blackburd:

https://www.baesystems.com/en/download-en/heritageimage/webImage/20200105134717/1434642571707.jpg



And it fits with the theme of this thread, as, note that there is an axle connecting the two wheels together, not specifically unusual, but it is carrying a torpedo. The Blackburd (and the Short Shirl topedoplanes) were built to the same specification and took off with their wheel/axle combo attached, but dropped them before the torpedo was dropped, landing on the carrier on those prominent skids inboard of the wheels...

[Nuuumannn]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned this yet...

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49972603007_aaeac9ac77_b.jpgScience Museum Komet

Here's another one that is less unusual than the Komet, but made for tricky handling on the ground; look at the angle of those wheels.

https://live.staticflickr.com/7837/39707373713_40c596ec22_b.jpgDG200 front

For comparison, here's a Spitfire.

https://live.staticflickr.com/4850/44528309270_4fcb86155c_b.jpgSpitfire running-1

[nuisance79]

Why specifically the -300 ?

Now corrected. Thanks

[Herod]

Nuuumannn; I'm led to believe that the splay on the undercarriage of the Me109 was for tactical reasons. The legs are actually attached to the fuselage. This means that once the wings are removed, the aircraft can be carried on the back of a lorry, or on a railway car. Not so easy with the Spitfire, which would have had to have some sort of supporting cradle. So I've been told by people who know about these things.

[Nuuumannn]

Nuuumannn; I'm led to believe that the splay on the undercarriage of the Me109 was for tactical reasons. The legs are actually attached to the fuselage. This means that once the wings are removed, the aircraft can be carried on the back of a lorry, or on a railway car. Not so easy with the Spitfire, which would have had to have some sort of supporting cradle. So I've been told by people who know about these things.

That is true, the Bf 109's undercarriage legs attached to the fuselage and the removal of the wings could be done with relative ease. The splaying out of the wheels is certainly a consequence of this, but whether it was done to facilitate such a thing is not known. It certainly made for a difficult time during taxiing, which was tricky in the type. It was tail heavy, so tended to 'lead' from the tail. Ground loops on rollout after landing were commonplace - combine that with a terrible view forward from the cockpit and it required careful handling on the ground.

[DH106]

I suspect the splaying out of the gear was probably concerned with ground handling - making the wheel track wider than the very narrow track that would have resulted if the struts were vertical. A vary narrow track would have made taxiing - especially at high speed - much more challenging when turning.

[Jhieminga]

There's a good account of flying a Bf.109E here: https://haa-uk.aero/document/flying-the-emil-messerschmitt-bf-109e/ (click on 'download' on the right). He discusses the reasoning behind the undercarriage layout on page 4/5.

[DuncanDoenitz]

And it fits with the theme of this thread, as, note that there is an axle connecting the two wheels together, not specifically unusual, but it is carrying a torpedo. The Blackburd (and the Short Shirl topedoplanes) were built to the same specification and took off with their wheel/axle combo attached, but dropped them before the torpedo was dropped, landing on the carrier on those prominent skids inboard of the wheels...

According to Wikipedia, the "simple lines" were to assist "rapid production". I'll just let the full futility of that paradox sit there.

Personally, and speaking as a Yorkshireman, I think that when a Yorkshire Drawing Office invests in ruler, they are damn well going to use it.

[PDR1]

Not sure there's much "futility" in an aeroplane that was designed for manufacturability. IIRC according to "Narrow Margin" it took around a third of the man-hours to make a 109 compared to a Spitfire, and when first designed it was a world-class fighter (and arguably not too far short of that for much of the following 8 years). Features like a fuselage made from short flanged tube sections bolted together with no longerons made final assembly much quicker and simpler. It also allowed damaged mid-sections to simply be replaced rather than patched, arguably making it more battle-worthy. The design concept of having a fuselage with two separate wings rather than a fuselage and a 1-piece wing also made for much simpler manufacture. Remember that the very small numbers of spitfires available in 1939 was largely due to the difficulties experienced in ramping up production from the "Supermarine hand-built-by-craftsmen" to large factories. Spitfire depended on far too many large, hand-wheeled, compound-curved panels with tight tolerances in 3-dimensions (like the whole upper and lower wing LE skins).

Just putting the other side of the argument...

PDR

[DuncanDoenitz]

As a technician, I have no problem with simplicity of design and ease of manufacture/repair and, if the result is an aeroplane with an operational record and scope for development like the Bf109, then bring it on.

On reflection, perhaps "irony" would have been a better choice of word, when their focus on mass-production results in the manufacture of 3 aeroplanes, Apparently it flew like it looked. (It wouldn't surprise me if the wings could be stowed inside the fuselage for transportation).

[DHfan]

Spitfires also have a fuselage and two separate wings.

I thought the "futility" was referring to the Blackburn aircraft anyway.

[Beamr]

While talking about unusual landing gear config: the Antonov A40 used a tank...


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/368x250/zurkctuzp6821_286f15355be02569f6397f92f8ebf6c330536478.jpg

[PAXboy]

Antonov A40 used a tank ... or was a tank?

[Beamr]

Antonov A40 used a tank ... or was a tank?
well... if the tank was T60 without the Antonov part, and Antonov was still Antonov even without the T60...

[Herod]

I suspect a problem with the power/weight ratio.

[Fareastdriver]

When Aerospatial, as it was called then, developed the S330 Puma they had this idea whereas it would be able to conceal itself in a forward location by taxiing into cover. Whirling rotor blades make this quite difficult but if the helicopter could propel itself without the rotor any gap in the trees would do.

So they dreamt up the tracked self propelled undercarriage,

For those that don't know the Puma's system there is a means where one can disconnect No1 engine input from the rotors yet leaving them connected to the No1 alternator and hydraulics. This was the source of energy for the tracked undercarriage.
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x332/puma_with_tracked_undercarriage_4291cb1adb387acc825153168177 3ed04f94e7e7.jpg
The procedure would have been: Land and shut down, fold the rotor blades, disengage No1 drive, restart No1 and then taxy the aircraft into its hide. There was a ski on the nosewheel to traverse rough ground.

They never tried to operate it on the aircraft but there was a mobile test rig to assess it. Rumour had it that when it passed the hanger doors on yet another test run somebody would start a stop watch. When the inevitable bang and clouds of smoke materialised in the distance the watch would be stopped; a list of times/names checked and the winner scooped the pool.

[pax britanica]

Cheating a little but wasnt there a 1950s jet design -Vampire??? which the famous Eric Brown test flew that didn't have any undercarriage at all and was deigned to be propelled off a ramp and land on a rubberised carpet kind of thing. Carrier Ops??

[Terry Dactil]

Cheating a little but wasnt there a 1950s jet design -Vampire??? which the famous Eric Brown test flew that didn't have any undercarriage at all and was deigned to be propelled off a ramp and land on a rubberised carpet kind of thing. Carrier Ops??
See posts #69 & #70
Great idea, but it kinda obstructs the runway after landing. Also there is the problem of taking off again. I don't think this idea was fully thought through.:=

Click Here (https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/davvrg/de_havilland_sea_vampire_lands_without_an/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
(click again in video to run)

[DHfan]

The Vampire and Winkle's already been mentioned - posts 69 and 70 on page 4.

[Noyade]

French...


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x387/monowheel_156f1a99af9256845bd91674c6bb6a659bb23abf.jpg

[Self loading bear]

Like a lot of gliders

[Asturias56]

or a U2.............

[Less Hair]

This will use the wheels for takeoff only, drop them and land on the skid after not too long.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ6i3H3E4NI

[c52]

I used to fly a glider like that - a Kranich II, I think.

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

Do I win a prize for the XF- (there you go, I added the hyphen) 85 Goblin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin#/media/File:McDonnell_XF-85_Goblin.svg

Not so much an undercarriage as it is an overcarriage

[asw28-866]

The reworked BN-3 Nymph prototype, the NAC-1 Freelance had a "ready for anything" U/C configuration...
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x783/1024px_norman_nac_1_freelance_g_naci_at_cotswold_airport_eng land_29sept2018_arp_d23eb05aec258c9d654cf73d03bee287749ea4f7 .jpg
Photo: Adrian Pingstone

(Assume the tailwheel was utilised when stored with the wings folded)

[FlightlessParrot]

The reworked BN-3 Nymph prototype, the NAC-1 Freelance had a "ready for anything" U/C configuration...
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x783/1024px_norman_nac_1_freelance_g_naci_at_cotswold_airport_eng land_29sept2018_arp_d23eb05aec258c9d654cf73d03bee287749ea4f7 .jpg
Photo: Adrian Pingstone

(Assume the tailwheel was utilised when stored with the wings folded)

A touch overenthusiastic on the round out, Hoskins.

[Planemike]

Have we had this on the list.........??Orličan L-40 Meta Sokol - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orli%C4%8Dan_L-40_Meta_Sokol)https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Orličan_L-40_Meta_S... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orli%C4%8Dan_L-40_Meta_Sokol)

[ex82watcher]

Though the tail is rather...erm 'abrupt',I quite like the look of that.

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

What about the Mistel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistel)?