Article navigation

THE undercarriage, with some justification, has been referred to as one of the more challenging and technically satisfying areas in the realm of aircraft design, since it demands of its practitioners an expertise in mechanical and structural engineering, hydraulics and kinematics, and a highly developed understanding of good detail. However, the satisfaction, let it be said, is not always unalloyed by a degree of frustration, as the designer finds himself obliged, by the limitations of a predetermined landing gear envelope, to devise an undercarriage structure which he may find in time to prove unreliable in service, and not particularly good in the performance of its duty as a shock absorber. He may then be inclined to brood upon the possibilities of creating a perfect undercarriage and having the aeroplane designed around it, while the stark realities of his situation confront him with the age‐old problem of the quart in the pint pot. This however, is no ordinary quart‐and‐pint, since not only may the volume ratio be wrong, but so, too often, is the shape of the volume at his disposal. If the relationship between the wheels and the points of attachment of the gear to the airframe is one that lends itself to the evolution of a straightforward and mechanically satisfactory unit, the designer should count himself fortunate to have a project director with some appreciation of the niceties of the undercarriage business.

This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.
Don't already have an account? Register

Purchased this content as a guest? Enter your email address to restore access.

Pay-Per-View Access
$39.00
Rental

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options