747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4696 times:
I see that HS-121 had 10 wheels and the TU-154 has 14 wheels, both these a/c seems to have more wheels then their weight needs, so why do, or in the HS-121 case, did these jets need so many wheels?
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4692 times:
It could be that there is a space constraint on the wheel wells, and thus small wheels in a long array work better than large wheels that would take more space in another direction.
Also, more wheels are good for landing on less than perfect runways, for example gravel.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80 Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4657 times:
Quoting 747400sp (Thread starter): I see that HS-121 had 10 wheels and the TU-154 has 14 wheels, both these a/c seems to have more wheels then their weight needs, so why do, or in the HS-121 case, did these jets need so many wheels?
In the case of the TU-154, Russia has some funky runways. Many Western-built airliners pick up landing gear limitations operating in some Russian airports. So they may have been lowering the wheel loading to accomodate the lower load capability of the runways. I'm not sure what the original airport spec for the HS-121 was, but that may also be at work on that aircraft.
Well not really. The Trident had a two wheel nose gear, that retracted sideways, and 8 mainwheel tyres, but these tyres were mounted on 4 mainwheel hubs. Each hub had two tyres mounted on it, and they came off as one piece. I believe the reason was space. The main gears actually rotated as they retracted. The strut retracted normally, but inside it was another strut that rotated about a big bolt as it extended. Difficult to explain really, you have to see it, but it got the wheels into the bay sideways.
And the mainwheels were a pig to change. Took a lot of kicking to get them off, and then after you had fitted the new one, the Maxaret (mechanical antiskid) needed adjusting so it sat tight against the rim.
Legoguy From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3301 posts, RR: 44 Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4495 times:
Is it just me or was there ever a twin bogey A320 or 737 built for use on less than perfect runways. For some reason I seem to recall a picture of one of these aircraft with 4 wheels on each main undercarriage strut. Is it just me maing things up?
Can you say 'Beer Can' without sounding like a Jamaican saying 'Bacon'?
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2804 posts, RR: 40 Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4487 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting Legoguy (Reply 4): Is it just me or was there ever a twin bogey A320 or 737 built for use on less than perfect runways. For some reason I seem to recall a picture of one of these aircraft with 4 wheels on each main undercarriage strut. Is it just me maing things up?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, RR: 24 Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4423 times:
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 1): It could be that there is a space constraint on the wheel wells, and thus small wheels in a long array work better than large wheels that would take more space in another direction.
That probably explains why the 727's two-wheel main gear uses some of the largest wheels/tires of any commercial aircraft, narrow or widebody, larger than any other Boeing narrowbody.
I believe the only significant US-built commercial types that use slightly larger main gear tires than the 727 are the 747-400, DC-10-30/40 and MD-11. I think the 49x17 main gear tires on many 727s is the same size as on the 747-100/200/300/SP. Some heavier 727 models use 50x20 tires. Both sizes are much larger than the Trident's tires. I can't find the tire size for the Tu-154 (Goodyear and Michelin have detailed tire specifications for most aircraft models on their websites.)
Wingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 835 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4340 times:
Braking/tyre wear are the trade offs with rubber footprint size... If you add more tyres or use a larger tyre you're more likely to skid with a given weight, but your tyre wear will be reduced (assuming you don't lock wheels on every rollout) a bit like big rig trucks - often many will raise a set of wheels clear of the road when not laden due to the reduced load on the wheel and increased skidding risk, but on the other hand more surface area means more available braking surface...
Alternatively less rubber on the road for a given weight usually means more load on the tyre affording better braking but causing higher wear, reducing tyre life.
In addition, tyre pressure and rotational weight comes into play too, a bigger heavier wheel takes more energy to spin-up on touchdown and will scrub more rubber off.
In short, landing gear design is a balancing act between available stowage when retracted, braking force required, tyre longevity required and the intended landing surfaces.
Personally I love the odd look of a bush plane wearing tundra tyres
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3290 posts, RR: 19 Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4308 times:
The 727 landing gear arrangement resulted in it having a higher pavement loading per wheel than the 747.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4197 times:
Quoting Legoguy (Reply 4): Is it just me or was there ever a twin bogey A320 or 737 built for use on less than perfect runways. For some reason I seem to recall a picture of one of these aircraft with 4 wheels on each main undercarriage strut. Is it just me maing things up?
Since the early B737 had gravelkits availble I think their undercarriage was pretty good.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3694 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2006, 3301 posts, 
From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2781 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21495 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 835 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
