Warbird Information Exchange

People,

I note that by September 1942, US aircraft manufacturers had launched five prototypes of multi-engined war planes with tricycle undercarts: B25, B24, B26, A20, A26 and B29. Until the prototype of the Gloster Meteor in March 1943, British manufacturers had launched none (if I'm wrong on that, please let me know). Lancaster, Halifax, Hampden, Beaufighter, Beaufort, Blenheim, Wellington and Stirling were all taildraggers.

Why did the Brits not adopt the new configuration? Did they feel that it had no merit, or were they just stubborn (not a 'real' aeroplane)?

Most of the specs for the British bombers were laid down in the mid to late 1930s. But the B24, B25 and B26 were all in the air by 1940, with the B24 up and going on 30/12/39. The specs for these aircraft must also have been issued about the same time as their counterparts across the Atlantic. The technology was obviously known but not adopted in Britain.

Any thoughts as to why?

Walrus

_________________
One crowded hour of glorious life
Is worth an age without a name

If I remember rightly they had a tri-gear light bomber, the Albermale (something like that) but it was only really used as a glider tug.

Even though the Brits were revolutionary in some respects they stuck with the tried and true in others.

To put it into perspective the Beech 18 (all ali, retract u/c) was put into production at the same time as the DH-89 (biplane, fabric covered, fixed u/c) with the same use in mind.

Hairy,

Good call, I had forgotten about the Albemarle. I have found references to the Fairy Albemarle and the Armstrong-Whitworth Albemarle. I presume that they are the same aircraft, with two different manufacturers as was common in those days. I haven't located a prototype date, but I suspect that it was much later than the others.

Walrus

_________________
One crowded hour of glorious life
Is worth an age without a name

Maybe the American doctrine expected that hard surfaced runways would be built as required in forward areas while the Brits expected to move from grass strip to grass strip. The Americans really had no nearby enemies (Canada?) so a long range force was created while the Brits created their specifications based upon their WW1 and WW2 European experiences which were shorter range in nature. Look at the range of British and German aircraft compared to American aircraft. I think the American aircraft generally had much more range than their counterparts.

I remember reading somewhere that US designers took into consideration more "pilot" specific information than the Brits. I guess therefore if a US test pilot made the suggestion that forward visibility was poor, good or needed changing there was more of a chance this would be considered into the overall design ie tricycle undercarriage negates the zig zag required by most tail draggers so the pilot can get good forward vision. Or it could simply be that both nations developed their own strengths with each particular design. Other than the later German jets used in WW2 did the Germans have many tricycle undercarrige types? This could support the regional preference argument?????

cheers

Digger

BDK,

Thanks, runway surface is something I could look at more closely. I would have thought that the British wouldn't have wanted to operate their heavies from grass too often: the increased TODR would have had an adverse affect given their already high take-off weights.

Further research suggested from New Zealand has revealed the AW Albemarle: a tricycle undercart twin-engined bomber that first flew in 1940. Even after the tricycle undercart had proven very viable, it appears that development in Britain still favoured the taildragger.

Walrus

_________________
One crowded hour of glorious life
Is worth an age without a name

Digger,

Another good point. Other than the Albemarle, the Meteor and the Vampire were the only other two trikes I could find that first flew during the war. Obviously, the British designers were forced that way by the advent of the jet fighter, but even had a go at a jet taildragger in the form of the Supermarine F.1 Attacker.

Walrus

_________________
One crowded hour of glorious life
Is worth an age without a name

The Luftwaffe initially tried the Me-262 with a taildragger configuration, but proved dangerous during take-offs. Production versions soon changed to the tricycle u/c arrangement.

Regards,

Paul

Yes, burning the field everytime one "scrambled" for a sortie...would tend
to make the "help" nervous!!

_________________
He bowls overhand...He is the most interesting man in the world.
"In Peace Japan Breeds War", Eckstein, Harper and Bros., 3rd ed. 1943(1927, 1928,1942)
"Leave it to ol' Slim. I got ideas...and they're all vile, baby." South Dakota Slim
"Ahh..."The Deuce", 28,000 pounds of motherly love." quote from some Mojave Grunt
DBF

Walrus,

In response to your initial post, your number of American-built, multi-engined, nose-geared warbird prototypes seems a little slight. Off the top of my head I can think of Grumman's XP-50 and the Bell YFM Airacuda as well (which, of course, came in tail-geared and nose-geared versions).

Or were you considering only those types that ultimately went into production?

_________________
It was a good idea, it just didn't work.

P-38!

Okay, heres some more obscure Brit tri-gears from that period;

Miles M.30 X Minor
http://www.miles-aircraft.com/M.30_x_minor.html

Miles M.35 Libellula
http://www.miles-aircraft.com/M.35_and_m.39b_libellula.html

See they were trying.

Here we go again, more British tri-gears:

ARPIN A-1 Mk.2, May 7 1938
Fane F.1/40, March 1941
General Aircraft G.A.L 33 Cagnet, 1939
General Aircraft G.A.L 38, 1940
General Aircraft G.A.L 42 Cygnet, 1939
General Aircraft G.A.L 45 Owlet, 1940
Handley Page HP.75, June 25 1943

and of course;
Gloster E.28/39, May 15 1941-(How did we forget this one )


http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/GLOSTER%20E28%2039.htm

De Havilland DH.100 Spider Crab, September 20 1943 (became the Vampire with the production F Mk.1 in 1945)

Gloster Meteor, March 5 1943


I know, I know, I'm at work nothing is happening and I am bored o.k.

All

Thanks for your input. I am largely interested in the development of medium to heavy bombers and transports that went into production. There were many British prototypes that used nosewheels, but never made it to the factory stage. The HP75 Manx as noted by Hairy is a ripper of an example. There was only one built and the nosewheel didn't retract.

This started me thinking if the Brits prefered not to have to design room for a wheel well in the nose. Retractable tailwheels don't need huge wells. That started me looking at the US fighters with nose wheels. P38, P39 and P63 all didn't have the donk in the nose. Those that did: P40, P47, P51, TBM, F4F, F6F, F7F, F8F and so on, were all taildraggers.

GAL seemed to have been real innovators with their designs, but none of them you could say were widely adopted as front-line aeroplanes.

Walrus

_________________
One crowded hour of glorious life
Is worth an age without a name

The Dornier Do-335 and Messerschmitt Me.309 had engines and a nose wheel in the front.http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW/Me309-1.jpg
http://www.luftwaffepics.com/ldo3351.htm

With both of these a/c the nose wheel rotated 90 degrees upon retraction to avoid the engine wheel interface problem.