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

No its not Broken.. Stinson with Crosswind landing gearhttps://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d17e794889.jpg

Not all that different from the average Cessna retraction cycle.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....99b8138a17.jpg

Poll seems to be its aka: but they all agree on Giant Triplane. With hindsight, anything called a Giant Triplane seems doomed to failure.

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.

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....5353823192.png

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.

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.

A340 been mentioned?

Why specifically the -300 ?

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!

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

Hi Megan,
Perhaps the Hawker "Dodo"...
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....bb94bed488.jpg
Photo credit and information here:
Hawker ?Dodo? ? The flightless Hurricane ? RAFCommands

866

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....6013aa6c0.jpeg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1ed3fd218.jpeg

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.

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!

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.

Walking gear are explained here...

Constellation

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

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...

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

There's an L.1049 crew operating manual here: https://aviatechno.net/files/l1049c_...ing_manual.pdf Perhaps that contains some clues (I haven't checked yet...).

Edit: from page 117.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cb7063a714.png
Pages 66 and 67:

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7575a0dbd8.png
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....77628a1f6e.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.

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.

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

I like this one:
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0c93846bc1.jpg



Video:

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...

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...

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


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.


For comparison, here's a Spitfire.

Now corrected. Thanks

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

Spitfires also have a fuselage and two separate wings.

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

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


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c330536478.jpg

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