Warbird Information Exchange

T-28's looked like a good aircraft to train with on carriers.


Overhead view of the aircraft carrier Lexington (CVT 16) underway with T-28 Trojans being spotted on her flight deck, circa 1963.




A T-28 Trojan assigned to Naval Air Test Center (NATC) Patuxent River, Maryland, prepares to launch from the flight deck of the carrier Tarawa (CVA 40) 1955

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

Nice selection of photos.

To give my opinion on the semi-rhetoical question posed in your subject, I think tricycle gear wins over conventional for one real reason - suspension. The way that the arresting hook works, you're having to substantially over-build the tail structure and because of the limited space and operation of the tailwheel, you "slam" the tail onto the deck, which isn't a great thing. With tricycle gear, you don't have to compromise anything because you don't have to worry about making space for the tailwheel which simplifies the structure and the nosewheel because of its larger height and thus stroke, does a better job of absorbing that "slam" of the airplane to the deck, so you theoretically get a longer life out of the structures and thus the airplane.

ah but alas, it wasn't a semi-rhetorical question at all, I did indeed mean to ask the question. My ole man used both types of gear in his experiences in carrier operations. Although tricycle gear is usually preferred by most pilots over tail draggers (depending on whom your discussing it with of course) And I've flown both types land based. I'm not sure if I would prefer tricycle over taildragger in carrier landings. This is only regarding pilot preferences as opposed to wear and tear on the aircraft.

_________________
“Knowing what’s right, doesn’t mean much unless you do what’s right.”

Such a cute little aircraft carrier.

Its like having a Yacht and a private airport.

_________________
remember the Oogahonk!
old school enthusiast of Civiltary Warbirds and Air Racers

I'm certainly not Navy, and carrier-rated, but for me the prime characteristics would be slow-speed handling, and over-the-nose visibility.

Operating from a carrier would be much easier I suspect if you can actually see it while at final approach speed, and if the aircraft is unlikely to drop a wing as it nudges the stall.

NW vs TW not quite as important.

I agree with Dave there. From a pilot's perspective, I would think that TW-v-NW makes little difference because neither informs how the airplane flies, only how it is on the ground. If anything, a TW would actually limit how much pitch you can have on approach (don't want the TW to hit first), but that might end up with some pretty nasty vision restrictions if the plane actually made the approach with that high of a nose angle. McDonnell Douglas spent a lot of time thinking about this when updating the Northrop YF-17 for the F/A-18 program and is why they chose to put flapperons on the airplane, to slow down the airplane as much as possible without resulting in a high pitch on approach. This also allows for its extreme "high alpha" capabilities as the fully FBW leading edge extensions and trailing edge flaperons can be modulated to maximize lift through varying air conditions.

The other factor that renders the TW aspect pretty much redundant is the arrestor cable. Once you hook it, you are slowed from astern. That backward pull keeps you straight. The airplane does not display typical tailwheel directional instability on the ground.

Our Corsair gives clear evidence of that. It's designed for a carrier. When our guys land it, on pavement, they say that they are on the brakes to keep it straight during the roll-out every time. It doesn't have tailwheel steering, and once the tail comes down and the rudder and fin are less effective, there's no other way to make an effective input.

It was designed to be landed hooking a cable.

I suspect that if it had been designed as a land-based fighter, it would have had more aft fin surface and/or tailwheel steering. You can certainly land it without a cable of course, as we do and the Marines did, but the brakes have to work smoothly.

Anyway, the point is, TW vs NW doesn't matter so much on a carrier. Visibility and slow-speed handling is more important. And of course the Corsair was initially refused for carrier work because of it's stall (and bounce, to a lesser extent). (Which the Brits sorted out.)

But if someone with actual Avenger or Skyraider carrier time wants to chime in, I'm all ears.

Dave

My vote is for the nosewheel. BTW, the prototype for the T-28 was a tail dragger. In the taildragger, you are increasingly pulling back on the stick, reducing airspeed and increasing the angle of attack towards the stall AOA . You also, at a constant power setting will have an increasing sink rate. Remember when flying clubs used to have spot landing contests? Very tricky, almost impossible to put the aircraft down on a precise spot on the runway.
The nose wheel aircraft is easier; power setting , gear down, flap down, canopy open, landing configuration. A set power setting will give you a reliable airspeed and sink rate. Pilot simply releases a little back pressure on the stick, releasing the high angle of attack, raising the stall speed and presto, you’re on the ground.
In recurrency training, a commercial pilot is expected to put the jet on the painted ILS threshold lines, aka “the captains bars.” That’s why airline flights routinely end in a thunderous crunch. The pilot flying is pushing the stick forward and slamming it onto the “captains bars.”

"That’s why airline flights routinely end in a thunderous crunch."

Not me. Not always, at any rate

The prototype T-28 had a nosewheel. It was designed as a trainer to lead into post-war jets, all of which had nosewheels.

As to the AOA thing, my understanding is that if you're landing on a carrier, you're aiming for a stabilized approach with constant airspeed, AOA, and sink rate. That isn't driven by where the little wheel is.

The XSN2J was a tail dragger, but was not ordered into production. The similar T-28 came a little later. I've always wondered why the T-28 didn't get a Navy designation (should have been SN3J).

Richard

_________________
I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw.

I think it depends on what you mean by prototype. NA made 2 of an earlier type, the XSN2J-1, which is obviously similar to a T-28, and would have influenced the design, but had the company designator NA-142. The actual XT-28 was a NA-159, and had a nosewheel.



However I speak under correction -- not my area of expertise.

Here's a good thread about it. https://www.pprune.org/aviation-history ... rojan.html

NAA had change #s and and any time they changes a design it got a new change #

_________________
GOOD MORNING, WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Press "1" for English.
Press "2" to disconnect until you have learned to speak English.

True. T-28C's can be either a NA-226 or NA-252 depending on the production change.

That does look a whole lot like a T-28. I'll go with the idea that it is/was effectively a prototype.