Why is the Constellation's nose gear so long? Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What are the advantages of more than 4 propeller blades?Why does landing gear retract with an offset?Is it possible to control an aircraft on the runway if the nose gear collapses?Why is the Eurofighters nose gear door shorter than the bay?Why does landing gear extend backwards and retract forwards?How can I calculate the force on the nose gear at landing?What is the typical weight distribution ratio between nose gear and main gear?Why is the nose landing gear of a Rutan Vari Eze up during parking?Which is the technically correct term: Nose Gear or Nose Landing Gear?What is this item on the nosewheel of the Sukhoi PAK-FA?How long does the gear extension/retraction takes on the ATR-42?

If A makes B more likely then B makes A more likely"

Why does this iterative way of solving of equation work?

Passing functions in C++

Windows 10: How to Lock (not sleep) laptop on lid close?

Blender game recording at the wrong time

When communicating altitude with a '9' in it, should it be pronounced "nine hundred" or "niner hundred"?

I'm having difficulty getting my players to do stuff in a sandbox campaign

How to market an anarchic city as a tourism spot to people living in civilized areas?

How is simplicity better than precision and clarity in prose?

How to rotate it perfectly?

Why use gamma over alpha radiation?

Can smartphones with the same camera sensor have different image quality?

Cauchy Sequence Characterized only By Directly Neighbouring Sequence Members

Who can trigger ship-wide alerts in Star Trek?

Stop battery usage [Ubuntu 18]

New Order #5: where Fibonacci and Beatty meet at Wythoff

Slither Like a Snake

What computer would be fastest for Mathematica Home Edition?

How do you clear the ApexPages.getMessages() collection in a test?

3 doors, three guards, one stone

What is the order of Mitzvot in Rambam's Sefer Hamitzvot?

90's book, teen horror

Need a suitable toxic chemical for a murder plot in my novel

Biased dice probability question



Why is the Constellation's nose gear so long?



Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?What are the advantages of more than 4 propeller blades?Why does landing gear retract with an offset?Is it possible to control an aircraft on the runway if the nose gear collapses?Why is the Eurofighters nose gear door shorter than the bay?Why does landing gear extend backwards and retract forwards?How can I calculate the force on the nose gear at landing?What is the typical weight distribution ratio between nose gear and main gear?Why is the nose landing gear of a Rutan Vari Eze up during parking?Which is the technically correct term: Nose Gear or Nose Landing Gear?What is this item on the nosewheel of the Sukhoi PAK-FA?How long does the gear extension/retraction takes on the ATR-42?










7












$begingroup$


The Lockheed Constellation has an enormously long nose gear, which causes the aircraft to slant appreciably backwards when sitting on the ground:



L-049



enter image description here



(Image by Greg and Cindy at Flickr, modified by Cobatfor at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-649



enter image description here



(Image by the San Diego Air and Space Museum, via Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)



L-749



enter image description here



(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-1049



enter image description here



(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-1649



enter image description here



(Image by Robert Togni at Flickr, via JuergenKlueser at Wikimedia Commons. Note that, due to the gigantic nose gear, the fuselage is approximately level, despite the ground sloping downwards considerably towards the aircraft's nose.)



In contrast, other airliners of the era had a much-less-ridiculous nose gear length, like the DC-7:



enter image description here



(Image by Ted Quackenbush at airliners.net, modified by Fæ at Wikimedia Commons.)



and the Stratocruiser:



enter image description here



(Image by Bill Larkins at Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)



Why is the Constellation's nose gear so much longer?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The Connie is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever IMO, saw several when they came in to the EAA one year, really graceful in the air.
    $endgroup$
    – GdD
    Apr 11 at 9:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The original L-049 prototype had a much stubbier nosegear but test pilots Eddie Allen and Kelly Johnson quickly discovered that it did not reach the ground.
    $endgroup$
    – A. I. Breveleri
    Apr 11 at 18:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    From the picture, it seems like the main gear of the Constellation is also quite a bit taller than the others. Maybe the designers were concerned about prop clearance on rough fields?
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    2 days ago















7












$begingroup$


The Lockheed Constellation has an enormously long nose gear, which causes the aircraft to slant appreciably backwards when sitting on the ground:



L-049



enter image description here



(Image by Greg and Cindy at Flickr, modified by Cobatfor at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-649



enter image description here



(Image by the San Diego Air and Space Museum, via Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)



L-749



enter image description here



(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-1049



enter image description here



(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-1649



enter image description here



(Image by Robert Togni at Flickr, via JuergenKlueser at Wikimedia Commons. Note that, due to the gigantic nose gear, the fuselage is approximately level, despite the ground sloping downwards considerably towards the aircraft's nose.)



In contrast, other airliners of the era had a much-less-ridiculous nose gear length, like the DC-7:



enter image description here



(Image by Ted Quackenbush at airliners.net, modified by Fæ at Wikimedia Commons.)



and the Stratocruiser:



enter image description here



(Image by Bill Larkins at Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)



Why is the Constellation's nose gear so much longer?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The Connie is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever IMO, saw several when they came in to the EAA one year, really graceful in the air.
    $endgroup$
    – GdD
    Apr 11 at 9:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The original L-049 prototype had a much stubbier nosegear but test pilots Eddie Allen and Kelly Johnson quickly discovered that it did not reach the ground.
    $endgroup$
    – A. I. Breveleri
    Apr 11 at 18:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    From the picture, it seems like the main gear of the Constellation is also quite a bit taller than the others. Maybe the designers were concerned about prop clearance on rough fields?
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    2 days ago













7












7








7





$begingroup$


The Lockheed Constellation has an enormously long nose gear, which causes the aircraft to slant appreciably backwards when sitting on the ground:



L-049



enter image description here



(Image by Greg and Cindy at Flickr, modified by Cobatfor at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-649



enter image description here



(Image by the San Diego Air and Space Museum, via Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)



L-749



enter image description here



(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-1049



enter image description here



(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-1649



enter image description here



(Image by Robert Togni at Flickr, via JuergenKlueser at Wikimedia Commons. Note that, due to the gigantic nose gear, the fuselage is approximately level, despite the ground sloping downwards considerably towards the aircraft's nose.)



In contrast, other airliners of the era had a much-less-ridiculous nose gear length, like the DC-7:



enter image description here



(Image by Ted Quackenbush at airliners.net, modified by Fæ at Wikimedia Commons.)



and the Stratocruiser:



enter image description here



(Image by Bill Larkins at Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)



Why is the Constellation's nose gear so much longer?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




The Lockheed Constellation has an enormously long nose gear, which causes the aircraft to slant appreciably backwards when sitting on the ground:



L-049



enter image description here



(Image by Greg and Cindy at Flickr, modified by Cobatfor at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-649



enter image description here



(Image by the San Diego Air and Space Museum, via Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)



L-749



enter image description here



(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-1049



enter image description here



(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)



L-1649



enter image description here



(Image by Robert Togni at Flickr, via JuergenKlueser at Wikimedia Commons. Note that, due to the gigantic nose gear, the fuselage is approximately level, despite the ground sloping downwards considerably towards the aircraft's nose.)



In contrast, other airliners of the era had a much-less-ridiculous nose gear length, like the DC-7:



enter image description here



(Image by Ted Quackenbush at airliners.net, modified by Fæ at Wikimedia Commons.)



and the Stratocruiser:



enter image description here



(Image by Bill Larkins at Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)



Why is the Constellation's nose gear so much longer?







landing-gear lockheed-constellation






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 11 at 16:17









ymb1

70.4k7226373




70.4k7226373










asked Apr 10 at 23:12









SeanSean

6,12532977




6,12532977







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The Connie is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever IMO, saw several when they came in to the EAA one year, really graceful in the air.
    $endgroup$
    – GdD
    Apr 11 at 9:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The original L-049 prototype had a much stubbier nosegear but test pilots Eddie Allen and Kelly Johnson quickly discovered that it did not reach the ground.
    $endgroup$
    – A. I. Breveleri
    Apr 11 at 18:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    From the picture, it seems like the main gear of the Constellation is also quite a bit taller than the others. Maybe the designers were concerned about prop clearance on rough fields?
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    2 days ago












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The Connie is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever IMO, saw several when they came in to the EAA one year, really graceful in the air.
    $endgroup$
    – GdD
    Apr 11 at 9:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The original L-049 prototype had a much stubbier nosegear but test pilots Eddie Allen and Kelly Johnson quickly discovered that it did not reach the ground.
    $endgroup$
    – A. I. Breveleri
    Apr 11 at 18:45






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    From the picture, it seems like the main gear of the Constellation is also quite a bit taller than the others. Maybe the designers were concerned about prop clearance on rough fields?
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    2 days ago







2




2




$begingroup$
The Connie is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever IMO, saw several when they came in to the EAA one year, really graceful in the air.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Apr 11 at 9:51




$begingroup$
The Connie is one of the most beautiful airplanes ever IMO, saw several when they came in to the EAA one year, really graceful in the air.
$endgroup$
– GdD
Apr 11 at 9:51




1




1




$begingroup$
The original L-049 prototype had a much stubbier nosegear but test pilots Eddie Allen and Kelly Johnson quickly discovered that it did not reach the ground.
$endgroup$
– A. I. Breveleri
Apr 11 at 18:45




$begingroup$
The original L-049 prototype had a much stubbier nosegear but test pilots Eddie Allen and Kelly Johnson quickly discovered that it did not reach the ground.
$endgroup$
– A. I. Breveleri
Apr 11 at 18:45




1




1




$begingroup$
From the picture, it seems like the main gear of the Constellation is also quite a bit taller than the others. Maybe the designers were concerned about prop clearance on rough fields?
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago




$begingroup$
From the picture, it seems like the main gear of the Constellation is also quite a bit taller than the others. Maybe the designers were concerned about prop clearance on rough fields?
$endgroup$
– jamesqf
2 days ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















11












$begingroup$

The Connie's fuselage has a subtle S shaped contour which was intended to conform somewhat to the upwash ahead of the wing and downwash aft of the wing, with a final upturn at the end to place the horizontal tail at the desired vertical location.



enter image description here



They also tapered the fuselage to the smallest cross sectional area possible at the nose, to part the air gently you might say, so the bottom ends up sloping up toward the nose.



Then you have main gear legs that are fairly long because the R3350's propellers are quite large.



The wing incidence is set to optimize the fuselage curvature's presentation into the airflow in cruise.



At the same time, you want to have wing chord in a certain desirable AOA range sitting on the ground, and you want to keep the tail from sitting too high (the Connie has the 3 surfaces to keep the vertical height of the tail low enough to fit the common hangars of the day).



Combine all those factors together and you end up having to the make the strut really long, and ending up with the most graceful airliner ever designed.



enter image description here






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
    $endgroup$
    – Sean
    Apr 11 at 2:49










  • $begingroup$
    Could you expand on having the wing at a desirable AOA on the ground?
    $endgroup$
    – fooot
    Apr 11 at 14:27






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The wing's angle-of-attack while rolling on all three wheels. You want to be close to zero or minimal lift with the nosewheel down but not have to rotate too far to get AOA for lift off.
    $endgroup$
    – John K
    2 days ago


















4












$begingroup$

enter image description here

(Top, bottom)



The Connie and DC-7 have the same engine (Wright R-3350), low-wing mounting, and main landing gear configuration (retraction into the inboard cowls).



If you visually remove the nose landing gear (NLG) bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.



It's just not as tall because the big difference is the propeller diameters. Lockheed went with three bladed propellers, compared to the DC-7's four bladed propellers, resulting in a difference of 5.5 ft (1.7 m) in diameter (19 ft$^[1]$ vs 13.5 ft$^[2]$ propellers). The Connie also sat with a higher pitch angle, as evident by the 3-view drawing.



The Stratocruiser on the other hand had a higher wing, and a taller two-level cross section, permitting the short NLG.



The above answers the geometric reason.



As for the design choice, fewer blades are more efficient, albeit bigger. As for the nose pitch on ground, it could mean the wing is attached at a lower angle of incidence, permitting a more level floor in cruise.




$^1$ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/l-049-specs.htm
$^2$ http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dc-7_review_booklet_1954.pdf (page 4; PDF page 6)






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 7




    $begingroup$
    Maybe it's just an optical illusion, but there seems to be a huge amount of ground clearance under the Constellation's propeller, compared to the DC-7.
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    Apr 11 at 12:59






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidRicherby: That's down to the pitch angle on ground. Lower the nose angle (see the 3-view drawing) and the clearance will go down. What is interesting, is if you visually remove the bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.
    $endgroup$
    – ymb1
    Apr 11 at 15:01






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The nose of the DC-7 is also a lot fatter. Give it the same diameter as the Constellation, and you'd wind up with a nose gear almost as long.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Apr 12 at 1:45


















3












$begingroup$

You can see that the underside of the Connie's fuselage ahead of the wing root is contoured upwards to begin the taper which ends at the tip of the plane's nose. The other planes had constant-section fuselages ahead of the wing root, in which the nose does not begin to taper down until just aft of the cockpit.



To maintain the same propeller tip ground clearance, the Lockheed design then required a longer nose gear strut because the attach point for the nose wheel was higher in the air.



(In the case of the Douglas aircraft, maintaining a constant fuselage cross-section forward and aft of the wing reduced tooling costs and enabled fuselage stretches in future revisions of the airframe.)






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "528"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62261%2fwhy-is-the-constellations-nose-gear-so-long%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    11












    $begingroup$

    The Connie's fuselage has a subtle S shaped contour which was intended to conform somewhat to the upwash ahead of the wing and downwash aft of the wing, with a final upturn at the end to place the horizontal tail at the desired vertical location.



    enter image description here



    They also tapered the fuselage to the smallest cross sectional area possible at the nose, to part the air gently you might say, so the bottom ends up sloping up toward the nose.



    Then you have main gear legs that are fairly long because the R3350's propellers are quite large.



    The wing incidence is set to optimize the fuselage curvature's presentation into the airflow in cruise.



    At the same time, you want to have wing chord in a certain desirable AOA range sitting on the ground, and you want to keep the tail from sitting too high (the Connie has the 3 surfaces to keep the vertical height of the tail low enough to fit the common hangars of the day).



    Combine all those factors together and you end up having to the make the strut really long, and ending up with the most graceful airliner ever designed.



    enter image description here






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
      $endgroup$
      – Sean
      Apr 11 at 2:49










    • $begingroup$
      Could you expand on having the wing at a desirable AOA on the ground?
      $endgroup$
      – fooot
      Apr 11 at 14:27






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The wing's angle-of-attack while rolling on all three wheels. You want to be close to zero or minimal lift with the nosewheel down but not have to rotate too far to get AOA for lift off.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      2 days ago















    11












    $begingroup$

    The Connie's fuselage has a subtle S shaped contour which was intended to conform somewhat to the upwash ahead of the wing and downwash aft of the wing, with a final upturn at the end to place the horizontal tail at the desired vertical location.



    enter image description here



    They also tapered the fuselage to the smallest cross sectional area possible at the nose, to part the air gently you might say, so the bottom ends up sloping up toward the nose.



    Then you have main gear legs that are fairly long because the R3350's propellers are quite large.



    The wing incidence is set to optimize the fuselage curvature's presentation into the airflow in cruise.



    At the same time, you want to have wing chord in a certain desirable AOA range sitting on the ground, and you want to keep the tail from sitting too high (the Connie has the 3 surfaces to keep the vertical height of the tail low enough to fit the common hangars of the day).



    Combine all those factors together and you end up having to the make the strut really long, and ending up with the most graceful airliner ever designed.



    enter image description here






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
      $endgroup$
      – Sean
      Apr 11 at 2:49










    • $begingroup$
      Could you expand on having the wing at a desirable AOA on the ground?
      $endgroup$
      – fooot
      Apr 11 at 14:27






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The wing's angle-of-attack while rolling on all three wheels. You want to be close to zero or minimal lift with the nosewheel down but not have to rotate too far to get AOA for lift off.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      2 days ago













    11












    11








    11





    $begingroup$

    The Connie's fuselage has a subtle S shaped contour which was intended to conform somewhat to the upwash ahead of the wing and downwash aft of the wing, with a final upturn at the end to place the horizontal tail at the desired vertical location.



    enter image description here



    They also tapered the fuselage to the smallest cross sectional area possible at the nose, to part the air gently you might say, so the bottom ends up sloping up toward the nose.



    Then you have main gear legs that are fairly long because the R3350's propellers are quite large.



    The wing incidence is set to optimize the fuselage curvature's presentation into the airflow in cruise.



    At the same time, you want to have wing chord in a certain desirable AOA range sitting on the ground, and you want to keep the tail from sitting too high (the Connie has the 3 surfaces to keep the vertical height of the tail low enough to fit the common hangars of the day).



    Combine all those factors together and you end up having to the make the strut really long, and ending up with the most graceful airliner ever designed.



    enter image description here






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    The Connie's fuselage has a subtle S shaped contour which was intended to conform somewhat to the upwash ahead of the wing and downwash aft of the wing, with a final upturn at the end to place the horizontal tail at the desired vertical location.



    enter image description here



    They also tapered the fuselage to the smallest cross sectional area possible at the nose, to part the air gently you might say, so the bottom ends up sloping up toward the nose.



    Then you have main gear legs that are fairly long because the R3350's propellers are quite large.



    The wing incidence is set to optimize the fuselage curvature's presentation into the airflow in cruise.



    At the same time, you want to have wing chord in a certain desirable AOA range sitting on the ground, and you want to keep the tail from sitting too high (the Connie has the 3 surfaces to keep the vertical height of the tail low enough to fit the common hangars of the day).



    Combine all those factors together and you end up having to the make the strut really long, and ending up with the most graceful airliner ever designed.



    enter image description here







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Apr 11 at 0:50









    John KJohn K

    25.3k13677




    25.3k13677











    • $begingroup$
      I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
      $endgroup$
      – Sean
      Apr 11 at 2:49










    • $begingroup$
      Could you expand on having the wing at a desirable AOA on the ground?
      $endgroup$
      – fooot
      Apr 11 at 14:27






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The wing's angle-of-attack while rolling on all three wheels. You want to be close to zero or minimal lift with the nosewheel down but not have to rotate too far to get AOA for lift off.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      2 days ago
















    • $begingroup$
      I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
      $endgroup$
      – Sean
      Apr 11 at 2:49










    • $begingroup$
      Could you expand on having the wing at a desirable AOA on the ground?
      $endgroup$
      – fooot
      Apr 11 at 14:27






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The wing's angle-of-attack while rolling on all three wheels. You want to be close to zero or minimal lift with the nosewheel down but not have to rotate too far to get AOA for lift off.
      $endgroup$
      – John K
      2 days ago















    $begingroup$
    I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
    $endgroup$
    – Sean
    Apr 11 at 2:49




    $begingroup$
    I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
    $endgroup$
    – Sean
    Apr 11 at 2:49












    $begingroup$
    Could you expand on having the wing at a desirable AOA on the ground?
    $endgroup$
    – fooot
    Apr 11 at 14:27




    $begingroup$
    Could you expand on having the wing at a desirable AOA on the ground?
    $endgroup$
    – fooot
    Apr 11 at 14:27




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    The wing's angle-of-attack while rolling on all three wheels. You want to be close to zero or minimal lift with the nosewheel down but not have to rotate too far to get AOA for lift off.
    $endgroup$
    – John K
    2 days ago




    $begingroup$
    The wing's angle-of-attack while rolling on all three wheels. You want to be close to zero or minimal lift with the nosewheel down but not have to rotate too far to get AOA for lift off.
    $endgroup$
    – John K
    2 days ago











    4












    $begingroup$

    enter image description here

    (Top, bottom)



    The Connie and DC-7 have the same engine (Wright R-3350), low-wing mounting, and main landing gear configuration (retraction into the inboard cowls).



    If you visually remove the nose landing gear (NLG) bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.



    It's just not as tall because the big difference is the propeller diameters. Lockheed went with three bladed propellers, compared to the DC-7's four bladed propellers, resulting in a difference of 5.5 ft (1.7 m) in diameter (19 ft$^[1]$ vs 13.5 ft$^[2]$ propellers). The Connie also sat with a higher pitch angle, as evident by the 3-view drawing.



    The Stratocruiser on the other hand had a higher wing, and a taller two-level cross section, permitting the short NLG.



    The above answers the geometric reason.



    As for the design choice, fewer blades are more efficient, albeit bigger. As for the nose pitch on ground, it could mean the wing is attached at a lower angle of incidence, permitting a more level floor in cruise.




    $^1$ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/l-049-specs.htm
    $^2$ http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dc-7_review_booklet_1954.pdf (page 4; PDF page 6)






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 7




      $begingroup$
      Maybe it's just an optical illusion, but there seems to be a huge amount of ground clearance under the Constellation's propeller, compared to the DC-7.
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      Apr 11 at 12:59






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DavidRicherby: That's down to the pitch angle on ground. Lower the nose angle (see the 3-view drawing) and the clearance will go down. What is interesting, is if you visually remove the bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.
      $endgroup$
      – ymb1
      Apr 11 at 15:01






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The nose of the DC-7 is also a lot fatter. Give it the same diameter as the Constellation, and you'd wind up with a nose gear almost as long.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Apr 12 at 1:45















    4












    $begingroup$

    enter image description here

    (Top, bottom)



    The Connie and DC-7 have the same engine (Wright R-3350), low-wing mounting, and main landing gear configuration (retraction into the inboard cowls).



    If you visually remove the nose landing gear (NLG) bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.



    It's just not as tall because the big difference is the propeller diameters. Lockheed went with three bladed propellers, compared to the DC-7's four bladed propellers, resulting in a difference of 5.5 ft (1.7 m) in diameter (19 ft$^[1]$ vs 13.5 ft$^[2]$ propellers). The Connie also sat with a higher pitch angle, as evident by the 3-view drawing.



    The Stratocruiser on the other hand had a higher wing, and a taller two-level cross section, permitting the short NLG.



    The above answers the geometric reason.



    As for the design choice, fewer blades are more efficient, albeit bigger. As for the nose pitch on ground, it could mean the wing is attached at a lower angle of incidence, permitting a more level floor in cruise.




    $^1$ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/l-049-specs.htm
    $^2$ http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dc-7_review_booklet_1954.pdf (page 4; PDF page 6)






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 7




      $begingroup$
      Maybe it's just an optical illusion, but there seems to be a huge amount of ground clearance under the Constellation's propeller, compared to the DC-7.
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      Apr 11 at 12:59






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DavidRicherby: That's down to the pitch angle on ground. Lower the nose angle (see the 3-view drawing) and the clearance will go down. What is interesting, is if you visually remove the bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.
      $endgroup$
      – ymb1
      Apr 11 at 15:01






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The nose of the DC-7 is also a lot fatter. Give it the same diameter as the Constellation, and you'd wind up with a nose gear almost as long.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Apr 12 at 1:45













    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    enter image description here

    (Top, bottom)



    The Connie and DC-7 have the same engine (Wright R-3350), low-wing mounting, and main landing gear configuration (retraction into the inboard cowls).



    If you visually remove the nose landing gear (NLG) bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.



    It's just not as tall because the big difference is the propeller diameters. Lockheed went with three bladed propellers, compared to the DC-7's four bladed propellers, resulting in a difference of 5.5 ft (1.7 m) in diameter (19 ft$^[1]$ vs 13.5 ft$^[2]$ propellers). The Connie also sat with a higher pitch angle, as evident by the 3-view drawing.



    The Stratocruiser on the other hand had a higher wing, and a taller two-level cross section, permitting the short NLG.



    The above answers the geometric reason.



    As for the design choice, fewer blades are more efficient, albeit bigger. As for the nose pitch on ground, it could mean the wing is attached at a lower angle of incidence, permitting a more level floor in cruise.




    $^1$ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/l-049-specs.htm
    $^2$ http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dc-7_review_booklet_1954.pdf (page 4; PDF page 6)






    share|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    enter image description here

    (Top, bottom)



    The Connie and DC-7 have the same engine (Wright R-3350), low-wing mounting, and main landing gear configuration (retraction into the inboard cowls).



    If you visually remove the nose landing gear (NLG) bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.



    It's just not as tall because the big difference is the propeller diameters. Lockheed went with three bladed propellers, compared to the DC-7's four bladed propellers, resulting in a difference of 5.5 ft (1.7 m) in diameter (19 ft$^[1]$ vs 13.5 ft$^[2]$ propellers). The Connie also sat with a higher pitch angle, as evident by the 3-view drawing.



    The Stratocruiser on the other hand had a higher wing, and a taller two-level cross section, permitting the short NLG.



    The above answers the geometric reason.



    As for the design choice, fewer blades are more efficient, albeit bigger. As for the nose pitch on ground, it could mean the wing is attached at a lower angle of incidence, permitting a more level floor in cruise.




    $^1$ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/l-049-specs.htm
    $^2$ http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dc-7_review_booklet_1954.pdf (page 4; PDF page 6)







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Apr 11 at 15:17

























    answered Apr 11 at 3:22









    ymb1ymb1

    70.4k7226373




    70.4k7226373







    • 7




      $begingroup$
      Maybe it's just an optical illusion, but there seems to be a huge amount of ground clearance under the Constellation's propeller, compared to the DC-7.
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      Apr 11 at 12:59






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DavidRicherby: That's down to the pitch angle on ground. Lower the nose angle (see the 3-view drawing) and the clearance will go down. What is interesting, is if you visually remove the bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.
      $endgroup$
      – ymb1
      Apr 11 at 15:01






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The nose of the DC-7 is also a lot fatter. Give it the same diameter as the Constellation, and you'd wind up with a nose gear almost as long.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Apr 12 at 1:45












    • 7




      $begingroup$
      Maybe it's just an optical illusion, but there seems to be a huge amount of ground clearance under the Constellation's propeller, compared to the DC-7.
      $endgroup$
      – David Richerby
      Apr 11 at 12:59






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @DavidRicherby: That's down to the pitch angle on ground. Lower the nose angle (see the 3-view drawing) and the clearance will go down. What is interesting, is if you visually remove the bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.
      $endgroup$
      – ymb1
      Apr 11 at 15:01






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      The nose of the DC-7 is also a lot fatter. Give it the same diameter as the Constellation, and you'd wind up with a nose gear almost as long.
      $endgroup$
      – jamesqf
      Apr 12 at 1:45







    7




    7




    $begingroup$
    Maybe it's just an optical illusion, but there seems to be a huge amount of ground clearance under the Constellation's propeller, compared to the DC-7.
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    Apr 11 at 12:59




    $begingroup$
    Maybe it's just an optical illusion, but there seems to be a huge amount of ground clearance under the Constellation's propeller, compared to the DC-7.
    $endgroup$
    – David Richerby
    Apr 11 at 12:59




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    @DavidRicherby: That's down to the pitch angle on ground. Lower the nose angle (see the 3-view drawing) and the clearance will go down. What is interesting, is if you visually remove the bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.
    $endgroup$
    – ymb1
    Apr 11 at 15:01




    $begingroup$
    @DavidRicherby: That's down to the pitch angle on ground. Lower the nose angle (see the 3-view drawing) and the clearance will go down. What is interesting, is if you visually remove the bay door on the DC-7, it too has a tall NLG.
    $endgroup$
    – ymb1
    Apr 11 at 15:01




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    The nose of the DC-7 is also a lot fatter. Give it the same diameter as the Constellation, and you'd wind up with a nose gear almost as long.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Apr 12 at 1:45




    $begingroup$
    The nose of the DC-7 is also a lot fatter. Give it the same diameter as the Constellation, and you'd wind up with a nose gear almost as long.
    $endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    Apr 12 at 1:45











    3












    $begingroup$

    You can see that the underside of the Connie's fuselage ahead of the wing root is contoured upwards to begin the taper which ends at the tip of the plane's nose. The other planes had constant-section fuselages ahead of the wing root, in which the nose does not begin to taper down until just aft of the cockpit.



    To maintain the same propeller tip ground clearance, the Lockheed design then required a longer nose gear strut because the attach point for the nose wheel was higher in the air.



    (In the case of the Douglas aircraft, maintaining a constant fuselage cross-section forward and aft of the wing reduced tooling costs and enabled fuselage stretches in future revisions of the airframe.)






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      3












      $begingroup$

      You can see that the underside of the Connie's fuselage ahead of the wing root is contoured upwards to begin the taper which ends at the tip of the plane's nose. The other planes had constant-section fuselages ahead of the wing root, in which the nose does not begin to taper down until just aft of the cockpit.



      To maintain the same propeller tip ground clearance, the Lockheed design then required a longer nose gear strut because the attach point for the nose wheel was higher in the air.



      (In the case of the Douglas aircraft, maintaining a constant fuselage cross-section forward and aft of the wing reduced tooling costs and enabled fuselage stretches in future revisions of the airframe.)






      share|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        3












        3








        3





        $begingroup$

        You can see that the underside of the Connie's fuselage ahead of the wing root is contoured upwards to begin the taper which ends at the tip of the plane's nose. The other planes had constant-section fuselages ahead of the wing root, in which the nose does not begin to taper down until just aft of the cockpit.



        To maintain the same propeller tip ground clearance, the Lockheed design then required a longer nose gear strut because the attach point for the nose wheel was higher in the air.



        (In the case of the Douglas aircraft, maintaining a constant fuselage cross-section forward and aft of the wing reduced tooling costs and enabled fuselage stretches in future revisions of the airframe.)






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        You can see that the underside of the Connie's fuselage ahead of the wing root is contoured upwards to begin the taper which ends at the tip of the plane's nose. The other planes had constant-section fuselages ahead of the wing root, in which the nose does not begin to taper down until just aft of the cockpit.



        To maintain the same propeller tip ground clearance, the Lockheed design then required a longer nose gear strut because the attach point for the nose wheel was higher in the air.



        (In the case of the Douglas aircraft, maintaining a constant fuselage cross-section forward and aft of the wing reduced tooling costs and enabled fuselage stretches in future revisions of the airframe.)







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Apr 11 at 0:42









        niels nielsenniels nielsen

        2,5891515




        2,5891515



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62261%2fwhy-is-the-constellations-nose-gear-so-long%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

            三茅街道4182Guuntc Dn precexpngmageondP