Seversky BT-8

[Sopwith]

I have a question about the undercarriage on this dumpy looking bird.
In the image of the flying prototype the wheels are neatly in the cutaways in the trousers but in the flying group image all wheels are hanging well below the trousers looking odd. On the ground under load the wheels go slightly into the trousers.
Any explanations would be appreciated?

Yes they do seem to dangle quite a bit, only thing I can think of is as the weight is off them in flight gravity takes them to the fullest extension and as a training aircraft it looks like it would need a lot of travel to flatter the trainees landing attempts

[mike furline]

I have a question about the undercarriage on this dumpy looking bird.
In the image of the flying prototype the wheels are neatly in the cutaways in the trousers but in the flying group image all wheels are hanging well below the trousers looking odd. On the ground under load the wheels go slightly into the trousers.
Any explanations would be appreciated?

The front lower fairing was removed.

Attachments

[Rick65]

Thanks for the responses. The removal of the trouser section is clear on a bigger screen and may indeed relate to the training role.
It is easy to envisage hard landings causing issues with clearance etc with bad outcomes.
In Europe where grass fields were used more spats/trousers were removed to simplify maintenance and to stop grass and mud build up. Am I correct that in the US most military training was on hard fields where this would not be such an issue?

[JohnB]

Yes, most American military training was done on hard fields.

However, there are examples of U.S. aircraft being operated without gear fairings to simplify maintenance.
The few extra kts of speed they might deliver is irrelevant in training whereas ease of maintenance is important.