What would it take for the Lancaster and the Halifax to have tricycle landing gear rather than tail wheel landing gear and would this change any of their operations?
Need to shift main gear aft of COG, thus moving wings. Would be a total redesign. The basic concept is there, but not used by British aviation.
We need wider acceptance and use of the Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle, first flown in early 1940. The mock-up was shown to the Air Ministry in 1938, well in time to influence the Lancaster and Halifax designs. I suppose the tricycle setup makes for easier torpedo and bomb loading.What would it take for the Lancaster and the Halifax to have tricycle landing gear rather than tail wheel landing gear?
This was the NAA XB-21 from 1937Maybe Armstrong influenced the later Mitchell B-25 design.
That’s what got me thinking. The RAF has the first tricycle undercarriage twin tail bomber in mock-up form in 1938, and then two years later North American has the same config, seemingly out of nowhere. According to Wikipedia, the B-25 was first intended for export to Britain and France, so presumably North American checked out what was then being developed for RAF service.This was the NAA XB-21 from 1937
This was a competitor to the B-18 Bolo, turbocharged Hornets, and a 5 ton bombload with two powered turrets.
But it cost around twice of what Douglas was selling the B-18, but still half of what Boeing was getting for the B-17A
Only one built.
Quite a change from this to the B-25
True that, beating the V-bombers by some years. That said, I believe the Shackleton, albeit with Coastal, not Bomber Command, is the RAF’s next tricycle-equipped level bomber after the Albermarle.Erm, Canberra?
Question on undercarriage type and the Avro Tudor. and initial versions of the Shackleton.
Avro’s bid for B1.39 had a tricycle undercarriage which suggests that they thought they could use this undercarriage.
The Tudor used as many components of the Lincoln as possible but used a new fuselage where the wing location could be chosen, so why did they choose a tailwheel undercarriage for this aircraft?
Same goes for the initial version of the Shackleton....a new fuselage where wing location could be chosen, so why did they choose a tailwheel undercarriage for initial versions of this aircraft?
This reminds me of the transition from taildragger Handley Page Hastings to tricycle Hermes. There’s no reason that both aircraft couldn’t be in service in 1940, albeit with different engines.For the Tudor - and I imagine the Shatipuss too - they were designed that way as that's what the customers (BOAC, even though they fucked Avro about royally and the RAF) wanted. I have seen reference to, but have yet to see any official drawings, of a nosegear Tudor for freight transport - I *think* it's the Type 711 Trader. I'd imagine that it'd be based somewhat on the work done on converting the extant Tudor airframes into the Ashton research aircraft and utilising the revised wing and u'c arrangement of the Shackleton MR3. I've been toying with doing one in 72nd by crosskitting a Magna Ashton with the wings and u/c of a Frog Shackleton.
Info on Avro Tudor here:
I found this drawing for the Trader during a google search but have yet to see anything official for it to be based on, so best treated as speculative.
Interestingly, the same search turned up a page with some info on possible Australian production of the Tudor for the RAAF.
they were designed that way as that's what the customers (BOAC, even though they fucked Avro about royally
It was just overall weight. Otherwise you got very heavy single wheels, like the XB-36 had.I wasn't challenging anyone to find the exceptions. I'm only observing that most have single main wheels