Are taller landing gear bad for aircraft, particulary large airliners?












6












$begingroup$


Buiding larger engines for larger aircraft as opposed to smaller but many engines has proved to result in more fuel efficiency.
Having established one of the main drawbacks or impediments to building larger engines are ground clearance for engines in light of aircraft/airliners in their current under wing configuration. This configuration in light of current technological advancements seems to offer the greatest advantage in terms of control of the aircraft, stability and weight closest to the center of gravity when flying among other things.



If space to store the retracted gear were not a problem due to some new design, are taller gear for airliners necessarily undesirable for landing and take off? Do they present some technical problem if for example they were strengthened, the extra length would present some problematic leverage problems as they get closer to the pivot and "load"?










share|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    6












    $begingroup$


    Buiding larger engines for larger aircraft as opposed to smaller but many engines has proved to result in more fuel efficiency.
    Having established one of the main drawbacks or impediments to building larger engines are ground clearance for engines in light of aircraft/airliners in their current under wing configuration. This configuration in light of current technological advancements seems to offer the greatest advantage in terms of control of the aircraft, stability and weight closest to the center of gravity when flying among other things.



    If space to store the retracted gear were not a problem due to some new design, are taller gear for airliners necessarily undesirable for landing and take off? Do they present some technical problem if for example they were strengthened, the extra length would present some problematic leverage problems as they get closer to the pivot and "load"?










    share|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$


      Buiding larger engines for larger aircraft as opposed to smaller but many engines has proved to result in more fuel efficiency.
      Having established one of the main drawbacks or impediments to building larger engines are ground clearance for engines in light of aircraft/airliners in their current under wing configuration. This configuration in light of current technological advancements seems to offer the greatest advantage in terms of control of the aircraft, stability and weight closest to the center of gravity when flying among other things.



      If space to store the retracted gear were not a problem due to some new design, are taller gear for airliners necessarily undesirable for landing and take off? Do they present some technical problem if for example they were strengthened, the extra length would present some problematic leverage problems as they get closer to the pivot and "load"?










      share|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Buiding larger engines for larger aircraft as opposed to smaller but many engines has proved to result in more fuel efficiency.
      Having established one of the main drawbacks or impediments to building larger engines are ground clearance for engines in light of aircraft/airliners in their current under wing configuration. This configuration in light of current technological advancements seems to offer the greatest advantage in terms of control of the aircraft, stability and weight closest to the center of gravity when flying among other things.



      If space to store the retracted gear were not a problem due to some new design, are taller gear for airliners necessarily undesirable for landing and take off? Do they present some technical problem if for example they were strengthened, the extra length would present some problematic leverage problems as they get closer to the pivot and "load"?







      aircraft-design jet-engine airliner landing-gear






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 21 hours ago









      Taegost

      1034




      1034










      asked yesterday









      securitydude5securitydude5

      3,46042458




      3,46042458






















          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          8












          $begingroup$

          Tall landing gear has been used in the past:



          enter image description here



          The Tu-114 needed really tall gear to clear the really big props. The drawbacks are extra weight and volume, as described in the other answers.



          The Tu-114 was so tall, on its first flight to the US (the prototype was used to ferry Nikita Kruschev to the UN for some shoe banging) the available boarding stairs weren't tall enough. That arrival raised some eyebrows in the West because they'd done a nonstop flight from Moscow (the Tu-114 was the first aircraft that made that possible).



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 3




            $begingroup$
            How did they eventually get him down?
            $endgroup$
            – securitydude5
            21 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            You can see that in the second photo. They placed a smaller set of stairs on top of the large one.
            $endgroup$
            – Hobbes
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            OK otherwise great answer and thanks, much appreciated
            $endgroup$
            – securitydude5
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            The Tu-114, itself, was a case of lowering what was a high wing on the original Tu-95. Also the Tu-114 sorely needs a 4-pack of Progress D-27 engines; that would make it the coolest thing to ever fly.
            $endgroup$
            – Harper
            19 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @AzorAhai en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
            $endgroup$
            – Bob
            17 hours ago



















          6












          $begingroup$

          It's just more weight and volume.



          The problem really arises when you modify an existing airplane with a new engine that requires more clearance. Changing the engine is not that big a deal (relatively speaking) when it is slung below the wing as its physical interface is through the pylon. It is an appendage.



          The landing gear are smack, dab in the middle of the fuselage, and changes in that will ripple through far more systems. It is literally right in the middle of things.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          MikeY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @CrossRoads It's the flat bottom on the nacelle that led to the pitch-up moment at high AoA. Having the weight of the engines farther forward would result in a pitch down moment.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @CrossRoads The engines on the 737 MAX aren't that much farther forward than on the NGs. They are higher, but not much farther forward at all. This is an NG (-800) and this is a MAX 8. There's currently a lot of misinformation and speculation spreading around in regards to the MAX, though. That's why we ban accident speculation here and wait for the official reports.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            Changing the engine can be a very big deal if it affects the wing's flutter stability margin. Boeing had a terrible time trying the design the original B747 wing to be compatible with engines from the three manufacturers, with maximum commonality of parts.
            $endgroup$
            – alephzero
            20 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @reirab if the flat bottom of the nacelles leads to pitch up at high AOA this can be solved by adding area to the H stab, just like they did with the canarded Ascender years ago. I cringed when the MD-11 downsized theirs. A big one adds safety, and offers an option other than trying to fly the plane with a rapidly pitching trim function.
            $endgroup$
            – Robert DiGiovanni
            17 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @RobertDiGiovanni The system isn't designed to fly the plane with it. It's designed to activate as the AoA nears critical to prevent stall, just like the almost identical system on every Airbus since the A320.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            14 hours ago





















          4












          $begingroup$

          Taller landing gear do present challenges due to increases in leverage and greater amount of space, but this has already been dealt with in large delta designs such as the XB-70 and is certainly not insurmountable.



          However, in the vast database of aeronautical endeavor there are solutions worth reviewing (wing? ah, review wing). Yes, many high wing designs would comfortably fit the larger engines.



          Secondly, the trend towards fewer wing mounted engines has deprived air craft designers of a key safety feature from the tri-jet, using thrust to push the nose down. Nose tractors (prop) have it as down thrust, rear pushers (prop or jet) have it as tail up thrust. Add power nose down.



          So let's look at the A-10 Warthog. Why not put the two large fan jets back there with future airliners!



          Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262.
          Every time I see one, I think this is the first jet airliner ever. A great plane indeed.



          But, with the development of more efficient and larger fan jets, designs such as the Ba-146 and many high winged transport aircraft can be brought into consideration to keep the thrust line in a manageable, safe, and even helpful configuration for wing mounts, if we wish to keep them there.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Engines on the tail have the disadvantage of longer fuel lines. Fuel needs to be transported from the tanks to the engines and when those are not mounted below the wings, fuel actually needs to be pumped to the back and up to the engines instead of more or less straight down from the tanks. Under wing engines have the shortest fuel lines from almost anywhere on the plane.
            $endgroup$
            – Adwaenyth
            yesterday












          • $begingroup$
            Why is thrust pushing the nose down a safety feature? My intuition from model aircraft would be that you'd want the nose to drop if the engines cut out, not under thrust.
            $endgroup$
            – Skyler
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            You have it both ways. If you cut power the aircraft slows, sinks, and (properly designed) H stab pushes nose down. Thrust pushing nose down would also help, as does forward set CG! But with tractor props, torque makes this a questionable option at low airspeed. Rear jet thrust, at an angle, not only pushes nose down to help gain air speed, it also reduces trim needs at cruise.
            $endgroup$
            – Robert DiGiovanni
            yesterday








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            "Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262." That really seems like quite a stretch. The Me-262 is a fighter and has little resemblance to airliners of any sort, aside from wing-mounted turbine engines.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Adwaenyth that ignores the fact that many airlines already have fuel pipes to the rear of the aircraft, because many airlines take advantage of using fuel as trim ballast by pumping it to tanks in the tail. The real disadvantage to engines at the rear is weight - the entire tail structure had to be strengthened significantly, while the wings and centre wing box are already a strengthened structure for bearing the weight of the aircraft, so additional strengthening for bearing the engine weight and thrust adds little extra weight.
            $endgroup$
            – Moo
            18 hours ago



















          3












          $begingroup$

          I have no experience in aviation but just from physics, longer landing gear "legs" (I don't know the terminology) would mean that as the aircraft lands and experiences a force perpendicular to the landing gear, the torque on the landing gear would be higher. This could present a challenge in that the structural stability of the landing gear "leg" may be compromised from increased torque, especially if we're talking about a heavier aircraft.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Kayra Ilkbahar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            You should add figures to illustrate your answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Manu H
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Another way to explain this is: a longer lever sticking out from the plane means it has to be stronger to not snap off in a crabbed landing, or during braking, or any other sources of non-vertical force. So yes, the landing gear has to scale up in thickness as well as length, so the weight required might scale as length^3 or at least length^2, not just linearly with length. (The question does already guess that this might be a problem, but still +1.)
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Cordes
            12 hours ago













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          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%2f61593%2fare-taller-landing-gear-bad-for-aircraft-particulary-large-airliners%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes








          4 Answers
          4






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          8












          $begingroup$

          Tall landing gear has been used in the past:



          enter image description here



          The Tu-114 needed really tall gear to clear the really big props. The drawbacks are extra weight and volume, as described in the other answers.



          The Tu-114 was so tall, on its first flight to the US (the prototype was used to ferry Nikita Kruschev to the UN for some shoe banging) the available boarding stairs weren't tall enough. That arrival raised some eyebrows in the West because they'd done a nonstop flight from Moscow (the Tu-114 was the first aircraft that made that possible).



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 3




            $begingroup$
            How did they eventually get him down?
            $endgroup$
            – securitydude5
            21 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            You can see that in the second photo. They placed a smaller set of stairs on top of the large one.
            $endgroup$
            – Hobbes
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            OK otherwise great answer and thanks, much appreciated
            $endgroup$
            – securitydude5
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            The Tu-114, itself, was a case of lowering what was a high wing on the original Tu-95. Also the Tu-114 sorely needs a 4-pack of Progress D-27 engines; that would make it the coolest thing to ever fly.
            $endgroup$
            – Harper
            19 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @AzorAhai en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
            $endgroup$
            – Bob
            17 hours ago
















          8












          $begingroup$

          Tall landing gear has been used in the past:



          enter image description here



          The Tu-114 needed really tall gear to clear the really big props. The drawbacks are extra weight and volume, as described in the other answers.



          The Tu-114 was so tall, on its first flight to the US (the prototype was used to ferry Nikita Kruschev to the UN for some shoe banging) the available boarding stairs weren't tall enough. That arrival raised some eyebrows in the West because they'd done a nonstop flight from Moscow (the Tu-114 was the first aircraft that made that possible).



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 3




            $begingroup$
            How did they eventually get him down?
            $endgroup$
            – securitydude5
            21 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            You can see that in the second photo. They placed a smaller set of stairs on top of the large one.
            $endgroup$
            – Hobbes
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            OK otherwise great answer and thanks, much appreciated
            $endgroup$
            – securitydude5
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            The Tu-114, itself, was a case of lowering what was a high wing on the original Tu-95. Also the Tu-114 sorely needs a 4-pack of Progress D-27 engines; that would make it the coolest thing to ever fly.
            $endgroup$
            – Harper
            19 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @AzorAhai en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
            $endgroup$
            – Bob
            17 hours ago














          8












          8








          8





          $begingroup$

          Tall landing gear has been used in the past:



          enter image description here



          The Tu-114 needed really tall gear to clear the really big props. The drawbacks are extra weight and volume, as described in the other answers.



          The Tu-114 was so tall, on its first flight to the US (the prototype was used to ferry Nikita Kruschev to the UN for some shoe banging) the available boarding stairs weren't tall enough. That arrival raised some eyebrows in the West because they'd done a nonstop flight from Moscow (the Tu-114 was the first aircraft that made that possible).



          enter image description here






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Tall landing gear has been used in the past:



          enter image description here



          The Tu-114 needed really tall gear to clear the really big props. The drawbacks are extra weight and volume, as described in the other answers.



          The Tu-114 was so tall, on its first flight to the US (the prototype was used to ferry Nikita Kruschev to the UN for some shoe banging) the available boarding stairs weren't tall enough. That arrival raised some eyebrows in the West because they'd done a nonstop flight from Moscow (the Tu-114 was the first aircraft that made that possible).



          enter image description here







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 21 hours ago

























          answered yesterday









          HobbesHobbes

          3,7871016




          3,7871016








          • 3




            $begingroup$
            How did they eventually get him down?
            $endgroup$
            – securitydude5
            21 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            You can see that in the second photo. They placed a smaller set of stairs on top of the large one.
            $endgroup$
            – Hobbes
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            OK otherwise great answer and thanks, much appreciated
            $endgroup$
            – securitydude5
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            The Tu-114, itself, was a case of lowering what was a high wing on the original Tu-95. Also the Tu-114 sorely needs a 4-pack of Progress D-27 engines; that would make it the coolest thing to ever fly.
            $endgroup$
            – Harper
            19 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @AzorAhai en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
            $endgroup$
            – Bob
            17 hours ago














          • 3




            $begingroup$
            How did they eventually get him down?
            $endgroup$
            – securitydude5
            21 hours ago






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            You can see that in the second photo. They placed a smaller set of stairs on top of the large one.
            $endgroup$
            – Hobbes
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            OK otherwise great answer and thanks, much appreciated
            $endgroup$
            – securitydude5
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            The Tu-114, itself, was a case of lowering what was a high wing on the original Tu-95. Also the Tu-114 sorely needs a 4-pack of Progress D-27 engines; that would make it the coolest thing to ever fly.
            $endgroup$
            – Harper
            19 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @AzorAhai en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
            $endgroup$
            – Bob
            17 hours ago








          3




          3




          $begingroup$
          How did they eventually get him down?
          $endgroup$
          – securitydude5
          21 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          How did they eventually get him down?
          $endgroup$
          – securitydude5
          21 hours ago




          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          You can see that in the second photo. They placed a smaller set of stairs on top of the large one.
          $endgroup$
          – Hobbes
          21 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          You can see that in the second photo. They placed a smaller set of stairs on top of the large one.
          $endgroup$
          – Hobbes
          21 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          OK otherwise great answer and thanks, much appreciated
          $endgroup$
          – securitydude5
          21 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          OK otherwise great answer and thanks, much appreciated
          $endgroup$
          – securitydude5
          21 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          The Tu-114, itself, was a case of lowering what was a high wing on the original Tu-95. Also the Tu-114 sorely needs a 4-pack of Progress D-27 engines; that would make it the coolest thing to ever fly.
          $endgroup$
          – Harper
          19 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          The Tu-114, itself, was a case of lowering what was a high wing on the original Tu-95. Also the Tu-114 sorely needs a 4-pack of Progress D-27 engines; that would make it the coolest thing to ever fly.
          $endgroup$
          – Harper
          19 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @AzorAhai en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
          $endgroup$
          – Bob
          17 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @AzorAhai en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe-banging_incident
          $endgroup$
          – Bob
          17 hours ago











          6












          $begingroup$

          It's just more weight and volume.



          The problem really arises when you modify an existing airplane with a new engine that requires more clearance. Changing the engine is not that big a deal (relatively speaking) when it is slung below the wing as its physical interface is through the pylon. It is an appendage.



          The landing gear are smack, dab in the middle of the fuselage, and changes in that will ripple through far more systems. It is literally right in the middle of things.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          MikeY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @CrossRoads It's the flat bottom on the nacelle that led to the pitch-up moment at high AoA. Having the weight of the engines farther forward would result in a pitch down moment.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @CrossRoads The engines on the 737 MAX aren't that much farther forward than on the NGs. They are higher, but not much farther forward at all. This is an NG (-800) and this is a MAX 8. There's currently a lot of misinformation and speculation spreading around in regards to the MAX, though. That's why we ban accident speculation here and wait for the official reports.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            Changing the engine can be a very big deal if it affects the wing's flutter stability margin. Boeing had a terrible time trying the design the original B747 wing to be compatible with engines from the three manufacturers, with maximum commonality of parts.
            $endgroup$
            – alephzero
            20 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @reirab if the flat bottom of the nacelles leads to pitch up at high AOA this can be solved by adding area to the H stab, just like they did with the canarded Ascender years ago. I cringed when the MD-11 downsized theirs. A big one adds safety, and offers an option other than trying to fly the plane with a rapidly pitching trim function.
            $endgroup$
            – Robert DiGiovanni
            17 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @RobertDiGiovanni The system isn't designed to fly the plane with it. It's designed to activate as the AoA nears critical to prevent stall, just like the almost identical system on every Airbus since the A320.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            14 hours ago


















          6












          $begingroup$

          It's just more weight and volume.



          The problem really arises when you modify an existing airplane with a new engine that requires more clearance. Changing the engine is not that big a deal (relatively speaking) when it is slung below the wing as its physical interface is through the pylon. It is an appendage.



          The landing gear are smack, dab in the middle of the fuselage, and changes in that will ripple through far more systems. It is literally right in the middle of things.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          MikeY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$









          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @CrossRoads It's the flat bottom on the nacelle that led to the pitch-up moment at high AoA. Having the weight of the engines farther forward would result in a pitch down moment.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @CrossRoads The engines on the 737 MAX aren't that much farther forward than on the NGs. They are higher, but not much farther forward at all. This is an NG (-800) and this is a MAX 8. There's currently a lot of misinformation and speculation spreading around in regards to the MAX, though. That's why we ban accident speculation here and wait for the official reports.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            Changing the engine can be a very big deal if it affects the wing's flutter stability margin. Boeing had a terrible time trying the design the original B747 wing to be compatible with engines from the three manufacturers, with maximum commonality of parts.
            $endgroup$
            – alephzero
            20 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @reirab if the flat bottom of the nacelles leads to pitch up at high AOA this can be solved by adding area to the H stab, just like they did with the canarded Ascender years ago. I cringed when the MD-11 downsized theirs. A big one adds safety, and offers an option other than trying to fly the plane with a rapidly pitching trim function.
            $endgroup$
            – Robert DiGiovanni
            17 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @RobertDiGiovanni The system isn't designed to fly the plane with it. It's designed to activate as the AoA nears critical to prevent stall, just like the almost identical system on every Airbus since the A320.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            14 hours ago
















          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          It's just more weight and volume.



          The problem really arises when you modify an existing airplane with a new engine that requires more clearance. Changing the engine is not that big a deal (relatively speaking) when it is slung below the wing as its physical interface is through the pylon. It is an appendage.



          The landing gear are smack, dab in the middle of the fuselage, and changes in that will ripple through far more systems. It is literally right in the middle of things.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          MikeY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$



          It's just more weight and volume.



          The problem really arises when you modify an existing airplane with a new engine that requires more clearance. Changing the engine is not that big a deal (relatively speaking) when it is slung below the wing as its physical interface is through the pylon. It is an appendage.



          The landing gear are smack, dab in the middle of the fuselage, and changes in that will ripple through far more systems. It is literally right in the middle of things.







          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          MikeY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer






          New contributor




          MikeY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered yesterday









          MikeYMikeY

          2365




          2365




          New contributor




          MikeY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          MikeY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          MikeY is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.








          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @CrossRoads It's the flat bottom on the nacelle that led to the pitch-up moment at high AoA. Having the weight of the engines farther forward would result in a pitch down moment.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @CrossRoads The engines on the 737 MAX aren't that much farther forward than on the NGs. They are higher, but not much farther forward at all. This is an NG (-800) and this is a MAX 8. There's currently a lot of misinformation and speculation spreading around in regards to the MAX, though. That's why we ban accident speculation here and wait for the official reports.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            Changing the engine can be a very big deal if it affects the wing's flutter stability margin. Boeing had a terrible time trying the design the original B747 wing to be compatible with engines from the three manufacturers, with maximum commonality of parts.
            $endgroup$
            – alephzero
            20 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @reirab if the flat bottom of the nacelles leads to pitch up at high AOA this can be solved by adding area to the H stab, just like they did with the canarded Ascender years ago. I cringed when the MD-11 downsized theirs. A big one adds safety, and offers an option other than trying to fly the plane with a rapidly pitching trim function.
            $endgroup$
            – Robert DiGiovanni
            17 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @RobertDiGiovanni The system isn't designed to fly the plane with it. It's designed to activate as the AoA nears critical to prevent stall, just like the almost identical system on every Airbus since the A320.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            14 hours ago
















          • 2




            $begingroup$
            @CrossRoads It's the flat bottom on the nacelle that led to the pitch-up moment at high AoA. Having the weight of the engines farther forward would result in a pitch down moment.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @CrossRoads The engines on the 737 MAX aren't that much farther forward than on the NGs. They are higher, but not much farther forward at all. This is an NG (-800) and this is a MAX 8. There's currently a lot of misinformation and speculation spreading around in regards to the MAX, though. That's why we ban accident speculation here and wait for the official reports.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            Changing the engine can be a very big deal if it affects the wing's flutter stability margin. Boeing had a terrible time trying the design the original B747 wing to be compatible with engines from the three manufacturers, with maximum commonality of parts.
            $endgroup$
            – alephzero
            20 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @reirab if the flat bottom of the nacelles leads to pitch up at high AOA this can be solved by adding area to the H stab, just like they did with the canarded Ascender years ago. I cringed when the MD-11 downsized theirs. A big one adds safety, and offers an option other than trying to fly the plane with a rapidly pitching trim function.
            $endgroup$
            – Robert DiGiovanni
            17 hours ago












          • $begingroup$
            @RobertDiGiovanni The system isn't designed to fly the plane with it. It's designed to activate as the AoA nears critical to prevent stall, just like the almost identical system on every Airbus since the A320.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            14 hours ago










          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          @CrossRoads It's the flat bottom on the nacelle that led to the pitch-up moment at high AoA. Having the weight of the engines farther forward would result in a pitch down moment.
          $endgroup$
          – reirab
          22 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          @CrossRoads It's the flat bottom on the nacelle that led to the pitch-up moment at high AoA. Having the weight of the engines farther forward would result in a pitch down moment.
          $endgroup$
          – reirab
          22 hours ago






          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @CrossRoads The engines on the 737 MAX aren't that much farther forward than on the NGs. They are higher, but not much farther forward at all. This is an NG (-800) and this is a MAX 8. There's currently a lot of misinformation and speculation spreading around in regards to the MAX, though. That's why we ban accident speculation here and wait for the official reports.
          $endgroup$
          – reirab
          22 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          @CrossRoads The engines on the 737 MAX aren't that much farther forward than on the NGs. They are higher, but not much farther forward at all. This is an NG (-800) and this is a MAX 8. There's currently a lot of misinformation and speculation spreading around in regards to the MAX, though. That's why we ban accident speculation here and wait for the official reports.
          $endgroup$
          – reirab
          22 hours ago














          $begingroup$
          Changing the engine can be a very big deal if it affects the wing's flutter stability margin. Boeing had a terrible time trying the design the original B747 wing to be compatible with engines from the three manufacturers, with maximum commonality of parts.
          $endgroup$
          – alephzero
          20 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          Changing the engine can be a very big deal if it affects the wing's flutter stability margin. Boeing had a terrible time trying the design the original B747 wing to be compatible with engines from the three manufacturers, with maximum commonality of parts.
          $endgroup$
          – alephzero
          20 hours ago














          $begingroup$
          @reirab if the flat bottom of the nacelles leads to pitch up at high AOA this can be solved by adding area to the H stab, just like they did with the canarded Ascender years ago. I cringed when the MD-11 downsized theirs. A big one adds safety, and offers an option other than trying to fly the plane with a rapidly pitching trim function.
          $endgroup$
          – Robert DiGiovanni
          17 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          @reirab if the flat bottom of the nacelles leads to pitch up at high AOA this can be solved by adding area to the H stab, just like they did with the canarded Ascender years ago. I cringed when the MD-11 downsized theirs. A big one adds safety, and offers an option other than trying to fly the plane with a rapidly pitching trim function.
          $endgroup$
          – Robert DiGiovanni
          17 hours ago














          $begingroup$
          @RobertDiGiovanni The system isn't designed to fly the plane with it. It's designed to activate as the AoA nears critical to prevent stall, just like the almost identical system on every Airbus since the A320.
          $endgroup$
          – reirab
          14 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          @RobertDiGiovanni The system isn't designed to fly the plane with it. It's designed to activate as the AoA nears critical to prevent stall, just like the almost identical system on every Airbus since the A320.
          $endgroup$
          – reirab
          14 hours ago













          4












          $begingroup$

          Taller landing gear do present challenges due to increases in leverage and greater amount of space, but this has already been dealt with in large delta designs such as the XB-70 and is certainly not insurmountable.



          However, in the vast database of aeronautical endeavor there are solutions worth reviewing (wing? ah, review wing). Yes, many high wing designs would comfortably fit the larger engines.



          Secondly, the trend towards fewer wing mounted engines has deprived air craft designers of a key safety feature from the tri-jet, using thrust to push the nose down. Nose tractors (prop) have it as down thrust, rear pushers (prop or jet) have it as tail up thrust. Add power nose down.



          So let's look at the A-10 Warthog. Why not put the two large fan jets back there with future airliners!



          Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262.
          Every time I see one, I think this is the first jet airliner ever. A great plane indeed.



          But, with the development of more efficient and larger fan jets, designs such as the Ba-146 and many high winged transport aircraft can be brought into consideration to keep the thrust line in a manageable, safe, and even helpful configuration for wing mounts, if we wish to keep them there.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Engines on the tail have the disadvantage of longer fuel lines. Fuel needs to be transported from the tanks to the engines and when those are not mounted below the wings, fuel actually needs to be pumped to the back and up to the engines instead of more or less straight down from the tanks. Under wing engines have the shortest fuel lines from almost anywhere on the plane.
            $endgroup$
            – Adwaenyth
            yesterday












          • $begingroup$
            Why is thrust pushing the nose down a safety feature? My intuition from model aircraft would be that you'd want the nose to drop if the engines cut out, not under thrust.
            $endgroup$
            – Skyler
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            You have it both ways. If you cut power the aircraft slows, sinks, and (properly designed) H stab pushes nose down. Thrust pushing nose down would also help, as does forward set CG! But with tractor props, torque makes this a questionable option at low airspeed. Rear jet thrust, at an angle, not only pushes nose down to help gain air speed, it also reduces trim needs at cruise.
            $endgroup$
            – Robert DiGiovanni
            yesterday








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            "Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262." That really seems like quite a stretch. The Me-262 is a fighter and has little resemblance to airliners of any sort, aside from wing-mounted turbine engines.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Adwaenyth that ignores the fact that many airlines already have fuel pipes to the rear of the aircraft, because many airlines take advantage of using fuel as trim ballast by pumping it to tanks in the tail. The real disadvantage to engines at the rear is weight - the entire tail structure had to be strengthened significantly, while the wings and centre wing box are already a strengthened structure for bearing the weight of the aircraft, so additional strengthening for bearing the engine weight and thrust adds little extra weight.
            $endgroup$
            – Moo
            18 hours ago
















          4












          $begingroup$

          Taller landing gear do present challenges due to increases in leverage and greater amount of space, but this has already been dealt with in large delta designs such as the XB-70 and is certainly not insurmountable.



          However, in the vast database of aeronautical endeavor there are solutions worth reviewing (wing? ah, review wing). Yes, many high wing designs would comfortably fit the larger engines.



          Secondly, the trend towards fewer wing mounted engines has deprived air craft designers of a key safety feature from the tri-jet, using thrust to push the nose down. Nose tractors (prop) have it as down thrust, rear pushers (prop or jet) have it as tail up thrust. Add power nose down.



          So let's look at the A-10 Warthog. Why not put the two large fan jets back there with future airliners!



          Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262.
          Every time I see one, I think this is the first jet airliner ever. A great plane indeed.



          But, with the development of more efficient and larger fan jets, designs such as the Ba-146 and many high winged transport aircraft can be brought into consideration to keep the thrust line in a manageable, safe, and even helpful configuration for wing mounts, if we wish to keep them there.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Engines on the tail have the disadvantage of longer fuel lines. Fuel needs to be transported from the tanks to the engines and when those are not mounted below the wings, fuel actually needs to be pumped to the back and up to the engines instead of more or less straight down from the tanks. Under wing engines have the shortest fuel lines from almost anywhere on the plane.
            $endgroup$
            – Adwaenyth
            yesterday












          • $begingroup$
            Why is thrust pushing the nose down a safety feature? My intuition from model aircraft would be that you'd want the nose to drop if the engines cut out, not under thrust.
            $endgroup$
            – Skyler
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            You have it both ways. If you cut power the aircraft slows, sinks, and (properly designed) H stab pushes nose down. Thrust pushing nose down would also help, as does forward set CG! But with tractor props, torque makes this a questionable option at low airspeed. Rear jet thrust, at an angle, not only pushes nose down to help gain air speed, it also reduces trim needs at cruise.
            $endgroup$
            – Robert DiGiovanni
            yesterday








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            "Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262." That really seems like quite a stretch. The Me-262 is a fighter and has little resemblance to airliners of any sort, aside from wing-mounted turbine engines.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Adwaenyth that ignores the fact that many airlines already have fuel pipes to the rear of the aircraft, because many airlines take advantage of using fuel as trim ballast by pumping it to tanks in the tail. The real disadvantage to engines at the rear is weight - the entire tail structure had to be strengthened significantly, while the wings and centre wing box are already a strengthened structure for bearing the weight of the aircraft, so additional strengthening for bearing the engine weight and thrust adds little extra weight.
            $endgroup$
            – Moo
            18 hours ago














          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          Taller landing gear do present challenges due to increases in leverage and greater amount of space, but this has already been dealt with in large delta designs such as the XB-70 and is certainly not insurmountable.



          However, in the vast database of aeronautical endeavor there are solutions worth reviewing (wing? ah, review wing). Yes, many high wing designs would comfortably fit the larger engines.



          Secondly, the trend towards fewer wing mounted engines has deprived air craft designers of a key safety feature from the tri-jet, using thrust to push the nose down. Nose tractors (prop) have it as down thrust, rear pushers (prop or jet) have it as tail up thrust. Add power nose down.



          So let's look at the A-10 Warthog. Why not put the two large fan jets back there with future airliners!



          Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262.
          Every time I see one, I think this is the first jet airliner ever. A great plane indeed.



          But, with the development of more efficient and larger fan jets, designs such as the Ba-146 and many high winged transport aircraft can be brought into consideration to keep the thrust line in a manageable, safe, and even helpful configuration for wing mounts, if we wish to keep them there.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Taller landing gear do present challenges due to increases in leverage and greater amount of space, but this has already been dealt with in large delta designs such as the XB-70 and is certainly not insurmountable.



          However, in the vast database of aeronautical endeavor there are solutions worth reviewing (wing? ah, review wing). Yes, many high wing designs would comfortably fit the larger engines.



          Secondly, the trend towards fewer wing mounted engines has deprived air craft designers of a key safety feature from the tri-jet, using thrust to push the nose down. Nose tractors (prop) have it as down thrust, rear pushers (prop or jet) have it as tail up thrust. Add power nose down.



          So let's look at the A-10 Warthog. Why not put the two large fan jets back there with future airliners!



          Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262.
          Every time I see one, I think this is the first jet airliner ever. A great plane indeed.



          But, with the development of more efficient and larger fan jets, designs such as the Ba-146 and many high winged transport aircraft can be brought into consideration to keep the thrust line in a manageable, safe, and even helpful configuration for wing mounts, if we wish to keep them there.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered yesterday









          Robert DiGiovanniRobert DiGiovanni

          2,5911316




          2,5911316












          • $begingroup$
            Engines on the tail have the disadvantage of longer fuel lines. Fuel needs to be transported from the tanks to the engines and when those are not mounted below the wings, fuel actually needs to be pumped to the back and up to the engines instead of more or less straight down from the tanks. Under wing engines have the shortest fuel lines from almost anywhere on the plane.
            $endgroup$
            – Adwaenyth
            yesterday












          • $begingroup$
            Why is thrust pushing the nose down a safety feature? My intuition from model aircraft would be that you'd want the nose to drop if the engines cut out, not under thrust.
            $endgroup$
            – Skyler
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            You have it both ways. If you cut power the aircraft slows, sinks, and (properly designed) H stab pushes nose down. Thrust pushing nose down would also help, as does forward set CG! But with tractor props, torque makes this a questionable option at low airspeed. Rear jet thrust, at an angle, not only pushes nose down to help gain air speed, it also reduces trim needs at cruise.
            $endgroup$
            – Robert DiGiovanni
            yesterday








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            "Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262." That really seems like quite a stretch. The Me-262 is a fighter and has little resemblance to airliners of any sort, aside from wing-mounted turbine engines.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Adwaenyth that ignores the fact that many airlines already have fuel pipes to the rear of the aircraft, because many airlines take advantage of using fuel as trim ballast by pumping it to tanks in the tail. The real disadvantage to engines at the rear is weight - the entire tail structure had to be strengthened significantly, while the wings and centre wing box are already a strengthened structure for bearing the weight of the aircraft, so additional strengthening for bearing the engine weight and thrust adds little extra weight.
            $endgroup$
            – Moo
            18 hours ago


















          • $begingroup$
            Engines on the tail have the disadvantage of longer fuel lines. Fuel needs to be transported from the tanks to the engines and when those are not mounted below the wings, fuel actually needs to be pumped to the back and up to the engines instead of more or less straight down from the tanks. Under wing engines have the shortest fuel lines from almost anywhere on the plane.
            $endgroup$
            – Adwaenyth
            yesterday












          • $begingroup$
            Why is thrust pushing the nose down a safety feature? My intuition from model aircraft would be that you'd want the nose to drop if the engines cut out, not under thrust.
            $endgroup$
            – Skyler
            yesterday










          • $begingroup$
            You have it both ways. If you cut power the aircraft slows, sinks, and (properly designed) H stab pushes nose down. Thrust pushing nose down would also help, as does forward set CG! But with tractor props, torque makes this a questionable option at low airspeed. Rear jet thrust, at an angle, not only pushes nose down to help gain air speed, it also reduces trim needs at cruise.
            $endgroup$
            – Robert DiGiovanni
            yesterday








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            "Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262." That really seems like quite a stretch. The Me-262 is a fighter and has little resemblance to airliners of any sort, aside from wing-mounted turbine engines.
            $endgroup$
            – reirab
            22 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Adwaenyth that ignores the fact that many airlines already have fuel pipes to the rear of the aircraft, because many airlines take advantage of using fuel as trim ballast by pumping it to tanks in the tail. The real disadvantage to engines at the rear is weight - the entire tail structure had to be strengthened significantly, while the wings and centre wing box are already a strengthened structure for bearing the weight of the aircraft, so additional strengthening for bearing the engine weight and thrust adds little extra weight.
            $endgroup$
            – Moo
            18 hours ago
















          $begingroup$
          Engines on the tail have the disadvantage of longer fuel lines. Fuel needs to be transported from the tanks to the engines and when those are not mounted below the wings, fuel actually needs to be pumped to the back and up to the engines instead of more or less straight down from the tanks. Under wing engines have the shortest fuel lines from almost anywhere on the plane.
          $endgroup$
          – Adwaenyth
          yesterday






          $begingroup$
          Engines on the tail have the disadvantage of longer fuel lines. Fuel needs to be transported from the tanks to the engines and when those are not mounted below the wings, fuel actually needs to be pumped to the back and up to the engines instead of more or less straight down from the tanks. Under wing engines have the shortest fuel lines from almost anywhere on the plane.
          $endgroup$
          – Adwaenyth
          yesterday














          $begingroup$
          Why is thrust pushing the nose down a safety feature? My intuition from model aircraft would be that you'd want the nose to drop if the engines cut out, not under thrust.
          $endgroup$
          – Skyler
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          Why is thrust pushing the nose down a safety feature? My intuition from model aircraft would be that you'd want the nose to drop if the engines cut out, not under thrust.
          $endgroup$
          – Skyler
          yesterday












          $begingroup$
          You have it both ways. If you cut power the aircraft slows, sinks, and (properly designed) H stab pushes nose down. Thrust pushing nose down would also help, as does forward set CG! But with tractor props, torque makes this a questionable option at low airspeed. Rear jet thrust, at an angle, not only pushes nose down to help gain air speed, it also reduces trim needs at cruise.
          $endgroup$
          – Robert DiGiovanni
          yesterday






          $begingroup$
          You have it both ways. If you cut power the aircraft slows, sinks, and (properly designed) H stab pushes nose down. Thrust pushing nose down would also help, as does forward set CG! But with tractor props, torque makes this a questionable option at low airspeed. Rear jet thrust, at an angle, not only pushes nose down to help gain air speed, it also reduces trim needs at cruise.
          $endgroup$
          – Robert DiGiovanni
          yesterday






          4




          4




          $begingroup$
          "Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262." That really seems like quite a stretch. The Me-262 is a fighter and has little resemblance to airliners of any sort, aside from wing-mounted turbine engines.
          $endgroup$
          – reirab
          22 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          "Notice many major airliner designs trace unbroken lineage all the way back to the Me-262." That really seems like quite a stretch. The Me-262 is a fighter and has little resemblance to airliners of any sort, aside from wing-mounted turbine engines.
          $endgroup$
          – reirab
          22 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @Adwaenyth that ignores the fact that many airlines already have fuel pipes to the rear of the aircraft, because many airlines take advantage of using fuel as trim ballast by pumping it to tanks in the tail. The real disadvantage to engines at the rear is weight - the entire tail structure had to be strengthened significantly, while the wings and centre wing box are already a strengthened structure for bearing the weight of the aircraft, so additional strengthening for bearing the engine weight and thrust adds little extra weight.
          $endgroup$
          – Moo
          18 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @Adwaenyth that ignores the fact that many airlines already have fuel pipes to the rear of the aircraft, because many airlines take advantage of using fuel as trim ballast by pumping it to tanks in the tail. The real disadvantage to engines at the rear is weight - the entire tail structure had to be strengthened significantly, while the wings and centre wing box are already a strengthened structure for bearing the weight of the aircraft, so additional strengthening for bearing the engine weight and thrust adds little extra weight.
          $endgroup$
          – Moo
          18 hours ago











          3












          $begingroup$

          I have no experience in aviation but just from physics, longer landing gear "legs" (I don't know the terminology) would mean that as the aircraft lands and experiences a force perpendicular to the landing gear, the torque on the landing gear would be higher. This could present a challenge in that the structural stability of the landing gear "leg" may be compromised from increased torque, especially if we're talking about a heavier aircraft.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Kayra Ilkbahar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            You should add figures to illustrate your answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Manu H
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Another way to explain this is: a longer lever sticking out from the plane means it has to be stronger to not snap off in a crabbed landing, or during braking, or any other sources of non-vertical force. So yes, the landing gear has to scale up in thickness as well as length, so the weight required might scale as length^3 or at least length^2, not just linearly with length. (The question does already guess that this might be a problem, but still +1.)
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Cordes
            12 hours ago


















          3












          $begingroup$

          I have no experience in aviation but just from physics, longer landing gear "legs" (I don't know the terminology) would mean that as the aircraft lands and experiences a force perpendicular to the landing gear, the torque on the landing gear would be higher. This could present a challenge in that the structural stability of the landing gear "leg" may be compromised from increased torque, especially if we're talking about a heavier aircraft.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Kayra Ilkbahar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            You should add figures to illustrate your answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Manu H
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Another way to explain this is: a longer lever sticking out from the plane means it has to be stronger to not snap off in a crabbed landing, or during braking, or any other sources of non-vertical force. So yes, the landing gear has to scale up in thickness as well as length, so the weight required might scale as length^3 or at least length^2, not just linearly with length. (The question does already guess that this might be a problem, but still +1.)
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Cordes
            12 hours ago
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          I have no experience in aviation but just from physics, longer landing gear "legs" (I don't know the terminology) would mean that as the aircraft lands and experiences a force perpendicular to the landing gear, the torque on the landing gear would be higher. This could present a challenge in that the structural stability of the landing gear "leg" may be compromised from increased torque, especially if we're talking about a heavier aircraft.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Kayra Ilkbahar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          $endgroup$



          I have no experience in aviation but just from physics, longer landing gear "legs" (I don't know the terminology) would mean that as the aircraft lands and experiences a force perpendicular to the landing gear, the torque on the landing gear would be higher. This could present a challenge in that the structural stability of the landing gear "leg" may be compromised from increased torque, especially if we're talking about a heavier aircraft.







          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Kayra Ilkbahar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer






          New contributor




          Kayra Ilkbahar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 22 hours ago









          Kayra IlkbaharKayra Ilkbahar

          391




          391




          New contributor




          Kayra Ilkbahar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          Kayra Ilkbahar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          Kayra Ilkbahar is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.












          • $begingroup$
            You should add figures to illustrate your answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Manu H
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Another way to explain this is: a longer lever sticking out from the plane means it has to be stronger to not snap off in a crabbed landing, or during braking, or any other sources of non-vertical force. So yes, the landing gear has to scale up in thickness as well as length, so the weight required might scale as length^3 or at least length^2, not just linearly with length. (The question does already guess that this might be a problem, but still +1.)
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Cordes
            12 hours ago




















          • $begingroup$
            You should add figures to illustrate your answer.
            $endgroup$
            – Manu H
            21 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            Another way to explain this is: a longer lever sticking out from the plane means it has to be stronger to not snap off in a crabbed landing, or during braking, or any other sources of non-vertical force. So yes, the landing gear has to scale up in thickness as well as length, so the weight required might scale as length^3 or at least length^2, not just linearly with length. (The question does already guess that this might be a problem, but still +1.)
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Cordes
            12 hours ago


















          $begingroup$
          You should add figures to illustrate your answer.
          $endgroup$
          – Manu H
          21 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          You should add figures to illustrate your answer.
          $endgroup$
          – Manu H
          21 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          Another way to explain this is: a longer lever sticking out from the plane means it has to be stronger to not snap off in a crabbed landing, or during braking, or any other sources of non-vertical force. So yes, the landing gear has to scale up in thickness as well as length, so the weight required might scale as length^3 or at least length^2, not just linearly with length. (The question does already guess that this might be a problem, but still +1.)
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Cordes
          12 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          Another way to explain this is: a longer lever sticking out from the plane means it has to be stronger to not snap off in a crabbed landing, or during braking, or any other sources of non-vertical force. So yes, the landing gear has to scale up in thickness as well as length, so the weight required might scale as length^3 or at least length^2, not just linearly with length. (The question does already guess that this might be a problem, but still +1.)
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Cordes
          12 hours ago




















          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%2f61593%2fare-taller-landing-gear-bad-for-aircraft-particulary-large-airliners%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

          Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

          He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

          Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029