Boeing Stratocruiser Landing Attitude

I believe the B-29s also landed nosewheel first. As do B-52s for that matter.
I’m sure others here can address that better than I can. If you’d like to get a firm authoritative answer, you could post over on the Warbird Information Exchange, as crew members of the CAF’s sole flying B-29 have been known to post there.

As far as the type commonality goes…
The B-29 was the base aircraft.
The Stratocruiser/C-97s (except for the three prototypes) took advantage of improvements to the 29 that came about for the post-war B-50 production.
Briefly the differences between the B-29 and B-50/C-97/Stratocruiser were: different engines (and the “chin” coolers), a taller vertical stabilizer and redesigned structures with improved materials (with 75ST aluminum instead of 24ST..IIRC, I don’t have my book at hand).
The transports used the basic B-29 fuselage and wing carry through structure for the lower lobe of their “double bubble” or “figure 8” fuselage structure.
The tankers were the KC-97s with fuel tanks in the main fuselage. To give you an idea of the commonality between the types, later in their lives, some KC-97s were retrofitted with the auxillary jets removed from tanker modifications of B-50s, the KB-50s. It was a straighforward procedure by all accounts.

The Guppies were rebuilt and stretched C-97s or civil Straocruisers with enlarged fuselages…some also had turbine power. How their flying characteristics differed from stock aircraft, I won’t guess.

Was not the preferred landing approach configuration for the Britannia to be in a 3 degree nose-down attitude? Don’t know the details!
HTH
Resmoroh

IIRC the film “Out of the Clouds” has some nice footage of a Stratocruiser landing at Heathrow (someone may be able to confirm).:)

Good excuse to buy it IMO!:D

Thanks for the replies guys.

So – not as dangerous or rare as I had thought, it seems.

Mind you, I had already wondered about the B52 but I don’t think you can compare the nose wheel of one of those to one on a normal tricycle undercart. More like a main gear really from the strength point of view surely.

I didn’t realise about the Britannia though. Any others?

Rod.

I believe the B-29s also landed nosewheel first. As do B-52s for that matter.
I’m sure others here can address that better than I can. If you’d like to get a firm authoritative answer, you could post over on the Warbird Information Exchange, as crew members of the CAF’s sole flying B-29 have been known to post there.

As far as the type commonality goes…
The B-29 was the base aircraft.
The Stratocruiser/C-97s (except for the three prototypes) took advantage of improvements to the 29 that came about for the post-war B-50 production.
Briefly the differences between the B-29 and B-50/C-97/Stratocruiser were: different engines (and the “chin” coolers), a taller vertical stabilizer and redesigned structures with improved materials (with 75ST aluminum instead of 24ST..IIRC, I don’t have my book at hand).
The transports used the basic B-29 fuselage and wing carry through structure for the lower lobe of their “double bubble” or “figure 8” fuselage structure.
The tankers were the KC-97s with fuel tanks in the main fuselage. To give you an idea of the commonality between the types, later in their lives, some KC-97s were retrofitted with the auxillary jets removed from tanker modifications of B-50s, the KB-50s. It was a straighforward procedure by all accounts.

The Guppies were rebuilt and stretched C-97s or civil Straocruisers with enlarged fuselages…some also had turbine power. How their flying characteristics differed from stock aircraft, I won’t guess.

There’s a direct connection between the Russian Tu-95 Bear and the Guppy 😮

The Tu-95 is a lineal descendant of the Tu-4 – via the Tu-80 & 85.

They both (Tu-4 & Tu-95) have the same fuselage cross-section – and the Tu-4 was, of course, a reverse-engineered B-29 !!

Ken

Was not the preferred landing approach configuration for the Britannia to be in a 3 degree nose-down attitude? Don’t know the details!
HTH
Resmoroh

To be followed by a (fairly shallow) flare (more of a round out to be honest), as shown HERE

If you’re ever around Brize Norton when a VC10’s bashing the circuit, you may be lucky enough to see one doing a slatless landing. For a big jet, that appears very nose down.:)

Thanks, Hot Charlie, for the link to the video.

Does rather bear out my point though doesn’t it? Touching down with the main gear first would seem to be the the more normal procedure.

Unfortunately Brize Norton is a bit out of my territory (NW Kent) so I’ll have to take your word for it about the VC10s. The last time I saw one of those, it was circling low over Bromley one Saturday afternoon last summer, for some unknown reason (nothing to do with Biggin Hill though as far as I could make out).

Rod.

VC-10s do appear nose down on landing, but they definately touch down on their main gears first.
Must admit I thought Britannias did aswel.

I have often wondered about the Strats landing attitude, which seems more pronounced than the ’29 and ’50.

I´ve nothing to add to the question about landing attitude of these beasts, but here is what I found with a quick search of youtube. Pan Am Clippers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2Waf72ajvY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGtc8GelfM4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fwp9Vheh8E&NR=1

“………….Left to its own devices a B-29’s nosewheel will remain on the ground, resulting in the mains levitating first, especially if 25º flaps is used instead of the normal 15º. ……….”

“………….The aircraft has more of a tendency to land nosewheel first with full flaps and in fact, the first landing at Harlingen occurred this way. We used to do our short field landings this way with the C-97s, touching down precisely where we desired, although the USAF certainly viewed it with a jaundiced eye. With 25O of flaps as normally used in a crosswind it’s fairly easy to strike the tailskid bumper. Any scrape marks on this heavy iron forging requires a round of beer for the crew! Threshold speed varies with weight but a good average is 120 MPH. Some like to use two hands for landing, relying on the engineer to promptly set the manifold pressure called for by the pilot. Others prefer controlling the throttles themselves. The really important thing is to make the airplane assume the attitude the pilot wants for landing, regardless of the control forces required. A moderate amount of elevator trim applied prior to the roundout is helpful. ……….”

The above quotes are extracted from a report about flying B-29 FIFI and also makes the above reference to landing C-97s (military equivalent of the Stratocruiser) nose wheel first.

See: http://www.warmkessel.com/jr/flying/td/jd/56a.jsp

Hope this helps
Tim

VC-10s do appear nose down on landing, but they definately touch down on their main gears first.
Must admit I thought Britannias did aswel.

I have often wondered about the Strats landing attitude, which seems more pronounced than the ’29 and ’50.

As the VC10 sit quite nose down on the ground they will land mains first even if the aircraft is horizontal so I guess the reason they land normally is to take advantage of aerodynamic braking. Let’s face it with something that size you need all the help you can get, well I certainly would anyway.

stratocruiser

Heres a picture of one I took while on a school visit,probaly1956!!

Most a/c touch down on the main u/c first because they are stressed for the landing loads,most a/c nosewheels/structure are relatively weak and are not really built to take landing loads.
I remember a student at Abingdon (UAS) who landed a bulldog a little heavy on the nose gear,including a prop strike !!
He decided to do a roller (ie took off again) where he discovered that he had shoved the noseleg up the firewall far enough to jam the rudder/nosewheel steering rods :D.He did manage to get down safely 😀

Wow! I knew that this was the place to go to get answers!

Consul

Many thanks. Chapter and verse.

The next sentence also bears out a feeling I had about the take off:-

After takeoff the most immediate requirement is to get as much airspeed for cylinder head cooling as possible right now by holding it down. This is done at the expense of altitude acquisition and is the exact opposite of everything we teach and hold sacred in today’s turbine air carrier operations.

Galdri

Loads of good stuff there. That’s what I dreamed it would be like to be an air passenger, compare with the reality of cattle class to Dusseldorf or Geneva etc. I wonder if they could get away with a service called “The Brazilian Clipper” today 😉

wl746

Nice pic. 9 year olds didn’t have cameras when I went! I still prefer the white tail BOAC livery.

bazv

That’s exactly what I thought and the reason that I asked the question in the first place. I once knew a guy who partially trashed a Cessna by walloping the nose wheel into the runway. I don’t think he was allowed to finish the course of lessons.

Many thanks.

Rod.

I liked the animated “Sovereign Airways” vids.