Interesting remarks -
A2C wrote:
Nice picture. The T/W is in an odd place. A rough landing might rough it up.
gary1954 wrote:
The tail boom's look quite fragile. I imagine a hard landing kinda totals one of these.
Perhaps this is a reaction to the odd look of the type. The Uhu was actually designed for, and successful at army co-op operations operating from rough forward fields. The construction of the booms was effective, basic engineering 'beam' theory, and simply stronger than a single fuselage boom would be, as covered by that beam (and the box /cell) concept. The central tailwheel is vital, an offset one with offset loads or two (which would have the same effect over rough ground as an offset) would be counter productive. With mass on either side, like a dumbell, or a high-wire walker's bar, it adds stability to the rear.
The Uhu design was also better for mitigating combat damage, and the overall layout was excellent for view, forward, aft, up and down.
Not saying that was the views expressed above, but I personally find the 'if it looks right it'll fly right' axiom one of the most asinine in aviation; and probably the biggest brake on aviation progress. Plenty of very successful aircraft have looked odd - sometimes later being regarded as 'right' later after they'd proved themselves, from the F-4 Phantom II, the Warthog, the work of Rutan, and less unconventional types such as the Fw 189 and it's competitor the Blohm & Voss Bv 141 - which flew very well, but was too difficult to believe for the visual conservatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_&_Voss_BV_141
(Designer Dr. Vogt used his brain instead of his fashion sense, and used the engine torque to balance the asymmetry.)
The 'Cross of Lorraine' layout is just one of the possible plan views from aircraft, and while often the best answer for a requirement, isn't
always.
As they say, discuss.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
