Another great video. I worked at GD Fort Worth with the guy that desinged the B-58, F-111, and F-16 landing gear designs. He mocked-up all the linkages out of cardboard and thumbtacks to simulate the links and pivots. He also desinged the folding aerial refuling door mechinism for the F-16.
An aircraft I worked on in the UK, the F-111E and EF-111A had a pretty beefy main landing gear originally designed for carrier landings. The mlg door also worked as a speed brake of sorts on landing.
I feel the beginning of a new series: types of.. and how they.. E.g. refueling intakes and how they open and close on the e.g. F-117 E.g. canopies/ crew/passenger access doors The depiction of the retraction of the B-58's nose gear was awesome. That mystery has been solved and another was created: what is the story about the XC-99? I never heard of it and the photo of it in this presentation is the first I've ever seen of it.
How about a video on adjustable intakes? The Convair F-106 I worked on had the "variramp" system, as the plane got up to sonic speed, the inner surface (the ramp) would extend out, making the intake smaller. Other supersonic planes had different approaches.
Interesting to see the two rear hatches missing from that first emergency landing photo of the B-58, and the collapsed drag chute as well. Great video as usual.
The Lindberg kit of the B-58, though an odd scale, had retractable landing gear. So I already knew the answer to the nose gear problem. A unique system but it worked. Thanks for enlightening those who didn't know.
So many interesting details that could be long conversations all by themselves! I did like the look at the F-18 main gear, as they are beefy and complicated, and have to retract and not hit the AIM-7 missile mounted nearby. For a good comparison between naval landing gear and USAF, the YF-17 is a great comparison to the F-18. The slenderness and relative fragility of the YF-17's gear really shows how rugged naval landing gear is. Another topic for examination would be the complexity of the main gear on large cargo aircraft, such as the C-5 or C-17. Fascinating!
Great work! The Lindberg B-58 kit did a very good job modeling both the nose and main gear's novel retraction mechanisms, along with many other moving parts. I always had a soft spot for kits with moving parts and interior details like Airfix's 1/24 scale Harrier, Monogram's 1/32 scale P-51D,, 1/48th scale SBD Dauntless, and Revell's V-2. Fun times! If you haven't done one already, something detailing the weapon carriage, various pods, and maybe even the delivery options and modes available on the B-58 would be a "must-watch"! Not a great deal of detail covering B-58 weapon stuff, even in the old "detail and scale" books.
When I was in tech school at Chanute AFB, Ill., they had many old aircraft on display all around the base. Used to be a strategic bomber base, so lots of room to park them. The B-58 was one of my favorites. A buddy and I were hiking around on our off-time, photographing the planes. I was touching the lower fin of the big weapons pod, when suddenly it rotated down nearly hitting me! I had no idea it was retracted, for landing/takeoff. I tried to lift it back up, but it wouldn't lock in. We quickly walked away.....
I was told by a B-58 EWO that the nose wheel folded in the middle as it retracted. I think I’ll go with your explanation since it explains the length of the nose wheel bay. Enjoying your vids - keep it up!
Thanks Mike, great video as always. The British De Havilland Trident had some pretty unique gear for an airliner. The mains had four wheels on a single axle that rotated 90° on retraction. The nose gear was offset to one side (to make room for all the electronics required for the world’s first auto land system) and retracted sideways.
Thanks again Mr Machat for another informative video. Really neat stuff! Most of the folks I know really don't think about the landing gear much, even though it's an integral part of the aircraft. Always wondered about the B-58, and now I know!! Built a couple if kits of it as a kid, Monogram i think, but never thought about the landing gear. I was too busy with the detachable pod and dropping it on the enemy. 😊😂. Anyway, as always God bless you and yours and thanks again for everything you do! Take care always Sir!
I remember reading somewhere that there were only a few places the original B-36's could land because of the enormous ground pressure of the single main wheels.
Nice video Mr. Machat. So many different configurations of gears and wheels. I have never thought much about gear assemblies and how they worked. i was just interested in the number of wheels the aircraft had. Lots and lots of wheels on many of those big cargo aircraft.
My first model kit was the Revell SR-71. My aunt built it, with the gear down. I promptly tore them off, so I could fly it around the backyard. The next ten-fifteen years always found the landing gear left behind in the box. I favored the sleek, in-flight look for my planes. I still have anxiety from my experience with the Revell F-111's retractable mains. However, I grew from a junior bird man, and fell in love with the beefy main gear of the Monogram B-1. Since that day, I'm always enchanted by the beauty of a plane on approach; gear down, full-flaps, and every part barely bolted on fluttering in the wind. I think they look like big, graceful birds-of-prey, aiming for a telephone line to alight upon.
At 65, I still build scale models. Always, if given the choice, I do the landing gear retracted. I like the "flying mode" look, the aircraft in it's element. Simplifies building too, though it often means cutting, trimming and filling to get the doors flush. I am just finishing the 1/72 Sword kit of the Grumman Avenger TBM-3S2, postwar ASW variant. Had to trim the doors, putty fill some areas, and modify the tailgear retracted.
During my time at Tyndall AFB, Fl. in the late 1970s, I saw a few landing gear problems. First, an F-106A was taxiing out for takeoff, and the left main strut collapsed outward, but kept from complete collapse by the underwing tank. It taxied back to the parking area. Next, a T33A trainer had a mainwheel literally come off, again thankfully on the ground before takeoff. The mechanic had forgotten to safetywire the center nut, which gradually spun itself off. Big oops! Third wasn't a failure, just a messy incident. An F-106A landed at night. Tyndall was known for the deer grazing the grass between runways at night. One luckless deer tried to cross the runway while the Six landed. I suspect the bright landing light fixated him. He was cut in half by the nose gear! I was in the hangar working when the crewchief came in with a trashbag full of bloody meat, and told me what happened. We had a heck of a time cleaning the gore from the nosewheel well. My CADC Computer was heavily splattered! Very messy!
The F8F Bearcat's main gear retracted somewhat like the B-58's nose gear, but rotated 90°. When the gear were fully extended, the top of the strut was in the middle of the landing gear bay, side to side. When they retracted, the top of the strut moved outboard toward the wingtip as the wheels retracted in towards the centerline. That allowed for long struts to clear the giant propeller from hitting the ground, but allowed the forces of landing to be closer to the centerline, reducing the stress on the wing and the weight of the whole system.
Same with the Messerschmitt Me-323 Gigant. The Arado had standard underwing main struts, that could "kneel", then the aircraft was partly supported by the nonretracting "millipede" wheels. WIKI has a good article on how it works. The Ar-232 was way ahead of it's time, the rear clamshell doors speeding loading/unloading time.
Great video Mike👍👍 Should you decide to do a series on undercarriage oddities, it would be great to see examples like the Feisler Storch, Avro Canada CF-105, Vought Corsair, BAC TSR2, F-111, etc. and the pros/cons of inward and outward retracting main gear of WW2 fighters (Spitfire/Bf-109 v. Hurricane/FW190/Mustang). etc., etc. So many unique designs that we 'gearheads' love. -Cheers
The Concorde that Braniff Airlines flew had electric pre rotator motors on the main wheels to spin the small tires to the relative rpm that matched the landing speed of the jet to minimize tread wear on landings.
One note about the F4F Wildcat of WWII, the landing gear was manually hand cranked up and down by the pilot! If you ever get to see a Wildcat take off zoom in on the pilots head as it bobs up and down while he cranks the gear up. On take- off it was critical to get the gear up before your air speed got to high making it very difficult or impossible.
Same with early Mk's of Spitfires. Experienced pilots could tell a less experienced pilot on take off if the plane bobbed up and down due to cranking the hydraulic pump handle back and forth and inadvertently moving the yoke at the same time.
Only Mike can make an interesting and informative video on landing gear. Thank you! I have a dumb question, why are tricycle gear and tail draggers selected? Do design structure makes the decision or is one easier to fly than the other?
Tricycle gear generally gives the pilot a better view forwards, for one thing. I've seen pics of WWII planes taxxing, with a guy sitting on the wing to direct the pilot, as the long nose blocked his view.
On single engine propeller planes, particularly fighters during WWII, I suspect they were tail draggers mainly so as to not take up valuable engine space with nose gear. Plus, tail draggers are less complicated to build and maintain.
Someone took the only surviving b-58 from Fort Worth not too long back, we haven't heard what happened to it since. Is it being restored or is it just abandoned again. They couldn't raise funding in Fort Worth to restore the old girl which I thought was pretty sad and shameful because of Fort Worth history and aircraft production. My mom was a Rosie the riveter there. Maybe you can find out for us?
The Hustlers nose wheel leg is in two sections with a knuckle joint in the middle, like a human knee joint. Lower section with the twin wheel truck folds forwards and up with both tyres straddling the upper section and the whole jacknifed gear is small enough to swing rearwards and clear the fuel bomb pod. Hustler has a titanium skid built on each main gear bogie, enabling a safe landing to be carried out with all eight tyres blown. Look for a cool 1961 video of a Hustler landing at Edwards with no tyres on the left gear.
I have always been interested in landing gear...thanks. BTW I used to live near Northrop's library at the Northrop Institute. It was run by a man named Hatfield, After the school closed down the library and all the goodies wound up in two shipping containers in Seattle. That information is from 10 years ago. Maybe you know someone who is interested. It is a shame if we lose it. One of the goodies I remember was a small scale model of the Flying Wing configured as an airliner with leading edge windows.
You'll find the rear landing gear of the MiG-31 interesting. On each side, the rear of the pair is slightly offset to push in a possible rut in a rough field made by the front tire, and runs on top of it. When retracting, the pair of gear rotates 180°, as viewed from the side, before bei g stowed.
@4:57 Any idea the year that photo was taken? I think that the tail says AFFTC (aka Edwards), but I've never seen those colors on a U-2, or whatever variant that is. Thanks for another great episode Mike.
Mike, maybe you or a fluid dynamics engineer could answer what I’ve always found to be a mystery. Why do most large aircraft hydraulically actuated gear struts retract and extend in unison (reach gear bay or down and locked) at the same time whereas some hydraulic general aviation gear retract out of synchronization? I know the answer with non-synchronized gear has something to do with the strut with the least mechanical resistance moving/retracting/extending first, then followed by the struts with more resistance. But why don’t the larger aircraft gears act out of synchronization also? Surely, a 747 with four (five including the nose gear) massive gear strut assemblies must have widely differing mechanical resistance.
P-38s and P-39s were early fighters with tricicle configurations.... MLG on the B-19 had to be changed to a smaller multiple bogie set because the original mega tire cracked the runways. Then they made the same mistake on the early B-36.
Your thumbnail is either a 10-30 or a MD-11. The 10-10 didn't have a center gear. So max takeoff of a 10-10 is 440k lbs. The 10-30 is about 575k and the MD-11 630k. When the center gear of the MD-11 is MEL'd it must be retracted and its max takeoff weight is 440k lbs. Becomes a very big 10-10. Actually got to fly 1 with the center gear retracted/MELd. If you notice the angle of the center gear it is angled forward. If you chock it when loading or fueling structural damage may occur.
The landing gear is so robust on a carrier aircraft that they can form a significant portion of the overall weight. I've heard a quarter of the empty weight of an F/A-18 is just the landing year. 25%! They must be more-or-less-solid metal castings amongst an airframe which basically the structural equivalent of soda cans.
I've seen a video where an F-18 is dropped from a height of 20 feet, and settles down without damage. That works out to an impact velocity of 36 feet per second.
6:54 "Hey boys, d'you think a gal could get a little help here?" Not that she isn't competent, but I think any wheel that size warrants a few extra pairs of hands.
