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).