yes .. but having two smaller wheels side by side instead of that single large one would possibly free up lots of valuable space - like for fuel or avionics ..Jemiba said:Wheelsize is a function of the weight carried by this wheel. In the case
of the Ho/Go 229 it was the nose wheel, which carried the larges part of
the aircrafts weight, contrary to most other nose wheel aircraft. I think,
its more a centerwheel landing gear, á la Lockheed U2, than a conventional
nose wheel landing gear.
agricola64 said:yes .. but having two smaller wheels side by side instead of that single large one would possibly free up lots of valuable space - like for fuel or avionics ..
Strange, in David Myhra's book "The Horten Brothers and their all-wing aircraft", 1998, this project is labelled Junkers EF140, a counter-proposal made by a Junkers-led team to the original Horten XVIII proposal.borovik said:
It was intended as additional cushioning so that the HoIX could be flown from substandard, muddy runwaysagricola64 said:can anyone explain the logic behing this humungous nosewheel?
especially as rubber was a scarce material in ww2 germany
That is interesting information. The drawings show that bombs or drop tanks could be carried, but if the ETC-500 racks can't be installed, then that is not possible?!?Avimimus said:I remember that Gibbage argued that the internal structure of the Go-229 had no provisions for the ETC-500 racks (which means that the 3x1000 version was truly speculative pitch). This may apply to droptanks as well (as the wing tanks were quite expansive).
Tried to download it, but got an error message that the file was damaged.Johnbr said:Here is a file that I have had for 30yr's.Hope you all like it.