|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
how big does landing gear have to be?
Comparing an A-26 -
Or a Constellation - To, say, a 737 - Why are the wheels of older aircraft so big for the size and weight of the aircraft? Sixto 87 300D |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
And then you got dem rimz
__________________
TC Current stable: - 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL - 2007 Saturn sky redline - 2004 Explorer...under surgery. Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I would imagine that it all depends on what you are going to be landing on.
Fresh, smooth tarmac.... little wheels, no problem, and less weight... Old bumpy dirt strip... may want a little more rubber...
__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST 1983 300SD - 305000 1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000 1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000 https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
^^^^ Indeed a lot of the earlier stuff had to land on grass for example - but as planes got bigger and heavier they needed stronger runways to support the weight.
It's the the old concrete to rubber ratio again...
__________________
1992 W201 190E 1.8 171,000 km - Daily driver 1981 W123 300D ~ 100,000 miles / 160,000 km - project car stripped to the bone 1965 Land Rover Series 2a Station Wagon CIS recovery therapy! 1961 Volvo PV544 Bare metal rat rod-ish thing I'm here to chat about cars and to help others - I'm not here "to always be right" like an internet warrior Don't leave that there - I'll take it to bits! |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
I suspect it has to do with needing the room for the props too.
__________________
Jim |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Technology has changed since those days...so has the alloys and compounds used.
__________________
1987 560SL 85,000 miles Meet on the level, leave on the square. Great words to live by Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread. - Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The big tires were for landing on unimproved or makeshift runways.
__________________
Remember, Safety Third! '99 E300 Turbodiesel, '82 300TD, 1996 12V Cummins Turbo, '94 Neoplan - Detroit 6V92TA |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Because military aircraft are designed to be slammed down hard on short poorly made runways.
Commercial planes land on nice runways. Navy planes have extremely strong gear for aircraft carrier landings.
__________________
1999 SL500 1969 280SE 2023 Ram 1500 2007 Tiara 3200 |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
I meant the wheels and tires more than strut beefiness and length. I was thinking of the load. Wouldn't a dirt or gravel runway have more give than a concrete runway? The A-26 looks to have flotation tires compared to the 737. I'd expect to see curb rash on the 737's wheels after a hard landing. A C-130 will land in places I'd hesitate to take a W461 and it doesn't have higher profile tires than the A-26 with respect to the landing load, granted only a small bit of the C-130 gear is exposed.
Sixto 87 300D |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Anyone agree that the supper constellation was one of the prettiest prop planes ever?
__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
It has a certain charm - I'm still pretty nuts about virtually any prop boat plane though...
__________________
1992 W201 190E 1.8 171,000 km - Daily driver 1981 W123 300D ~ 100,000 miles / 160,000 km - project car stripped to the bone 1965 Land Rover Series 2a Station Wagon CIS recovery therapy! 1961 Volvo PV544 Bare metal rat rod-ish thing I'm here to chat about cars and to help others - I'm not here "to always be right" like an internet warrior Don't leave that there - I'll take it to bits! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The bigger the wheel, the lower the rolling resistance (not the same as drag) but the greater the centripetal force that tries to pull the tyre off the rim. Modern aircraft have higher take-off and landing speeds than older, slower machines, necessitating wheels that can reach higher angular velocities - hence, smaller diameters. Not having to provide clearance for a prop helps as well.
To reduce contact pressure on the tyres, add more tyres: Just one reason, maybe not the reason. It would also be cheaper to manufacture more smaller tyres than fewer larger ones. BTW, hyia. New guy here.
__________________
1995 W202 C250 Diesel, OM605 NA engine, 5-speed manual 1986 W123 200, OM617 NA engine, 5-speed manual, rev counter 1989 W126 300SE, 5-speed manual |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Welcome aboard PC.
__________________
Jim |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
That's for taking off / landing in mud / wet grass.
__________________
Remember, Safety Third! '99 E300 Turbodiesel, '82 300TD, 1996 12V Cummins Turbo, '94 Neoplan - Detroit 6V92TA |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Sixto 87 300D |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|