A case for re-defining the tricycle undercarriage as a conventional undercarriage
 

I have often wondered why a conventional undercarriage means a tail-wheel type when very probably there is a far greater percentage of todays aeroplanes having a tricycle undercarriage. Maybe there is a good argument for re-defining a tricycle undercarriage as the new "Conventional undercarriage"?:E

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.

What do you call the B47 and B52 landing gear?
Bicycle? (With stabilizers).

Yep - (or "tandem"). At least for the 47. The 52 actually has 4 gear, not exactly in line when extended, so more of a "very narrow, very long quadricycle."

http://g02.s.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1RWm8I...-baby-seat.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/i...xaouZGt2BiMiWw

Conventional, if you're brought up on Fourniers.