Landing Gear Length On The 787-10 Inadequate? — Tech Ops Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Landing Gear Length On The 787-10 Inadequate?

Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 19
Posted (7 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

The 787-8 sits pretty low to the ground, one of the reasons it looks deceptively small.

The landing gear is not overly tall looking to me leading me to wonder if Boeing plans on extending it for the -9 series and especially the planned -10.

I would think that tail clearance on rotation would be a real problem on the -10 in particular.

Thoughts, opinions ?

The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.

13 replies: All unread, jump to last

Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26956 posts, RR: 83
Reply 1, posted (7 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
The landing gear is not overly tall looking to me leading me to wonder if Boeing plans on extending it for the -9 series and especially the planned -10.

The 787-10 will use the same undercarriage as the 787-9 to the best of my knowledge. I imagine it will have re-calibrated anti-tailstrike software to account for the extra aft length.

tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 2, posted (7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):
I would think that tail clearance on rotation would be a real problem on the -10 in particular.

The extra fuselage length isn't going to help, but the 787 tailstrike law is *very* good. It can reliably plant the tail a foot from the runway so you can safely and repeatedly get the full rotation angle.

Tom.

fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4346 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (7 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

I'll suggest that any aircraft that has a tail-skid has landing gear that is too short. But, that's a trade-off in design.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
anti-tailstrike software

Aren't new aircraft grand? If you trust the system (and I don't see a reason why you shouldn't) you don't need the tai-skid anymore, do you?

When seconds count...the police are minutes away!

tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 4, posted (7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 3):
If you trust the system (and I don't see a reason why you shouldn't) you don't need the tai-skid anymore, do you?

On the 787 they actually refer to the system as an "electronic tailskid"...there is no physical skid.

Tom.

fr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 4346 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (7 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 4):
On the 787 they actually refer to the system as an "electronic tailskid"...there is no physical skid.

I found the MMEL on MBF and found that the aircraft has a "Tail Strike Detection System". I thought that was the role the pilot filled with a Mark-10 Mechanic Eyeball as a back-up.

When seconds count...the police are minutes away!

imiakhtar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
I thought that was the role the pilot filled with a Mark-10 Mechanic Eyeball as a back-up.

More often than not, pilots are the last people to know when a tail strike occurs. They're usually first informed by cabin crew or ATC.

Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (7 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

That's fine, but software and flight control laws can only get you so far. If you start to have take off performance penalties because you have to run up the v speeds to provide adequate tail clearance on rotation (like the B764) you are sacrificing performance and marketability.

I suspect the 787-10 will need a longer gear (like the 764 has)

The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.

sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3998 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (7 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 7):
I suspect the 787-10 will need a longer gear (like the 764 has)

How about storage? Boeing has already had to play around with the upper surface of the bay to accomodate the 10" thicker gear of the 789.

Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (7 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

The 787-10 may have semilevered gear so that the airplane rotated off the rear axle ( like the 77w). That gives an extra degree of rotation.

If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!

AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5383 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (7 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 5):
I found the MMEL on MBF and found that the aircraft has a "Tail Strike Detection System". I thought that was the role the pilot filled with a Mark-10 Mechanic Eyeball as a back-up.

Did you click past the dialog box on MBF that says, "Information contained herein is Boeing proprietary, and by clicking 'continue', you agree to NOT SHARE IT WITH ANYBODY?" Cuz I think "anybody" would include a.net...

Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 19
Reply 11, posted (7 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 8):

How about storage? Boeing has already had to play around with the upper surface of the bay to accomodate the 10" thicker gear of the 789.

What do you mean 10'' thicker ?

Don't understand your statement.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 9):

The 787-10 may have semilevered gear so that the airplane rotated off the rear axle ( like the 77w). That gives an extra degree of rotation.

That would make a lot of sense, although they wouldn't get as big an advantage as the 7W with its very long six wheel bogie it would still help.

Its still not unprecedented for Boeing to put a taller gear on a stretch model though. They made the necessary modifications to extend the main landing gear by 18'' on the B767-400.

A side effect of that taller gear IMHO was that it made the 764 by far the best looking of all the 767 models !

The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.

sunrisevalley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3998 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (7 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting Max Q (Reply 11):
Don't understand your statement.

A poor choice of words, wider would be better. The outside of bogey to outside of bogey on the 789 is 10" more on the 788 The wheel spacing is wider around the centre line of the strut probably because of the bigger tire size.

Go to the Boeing ACAP sheets , find the 787 Brochure and look at P18.

Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26956 posts, RR: 83
Reply 13, posted (7 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2117 times:

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 8):
How about storage? Boeing has already had to play around with the upper surface of the bay to accomodate the 10" thicker gear of the 789.

They might be able to mount the strut farther out on the wing.

Honestly, though, I have the feeling Boeing always considered a longer 787 than the -9 and took that into account when designing the undercarriage. Also, the 787-10X's latest dimensions are a 5m stretch as opposed to the original 6m stretch so that might be a concession to rotation issues (stretch it 3m front and 2m aft).

Top Of Page

Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Landing Gear Length On The 787-10 Inadequate?

Username:	No username? Sign up now!
Password:	Forgot Password? Be reminded. Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)

Tech/Ops related posts only!
Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
No hostile language or criticizing of others.
Do not post copyright protected material.
Use relevant and describing topics.
Check if your post already been discussed.
Check your spelling!
DETAILED RULES

Check Spelling

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics: