Talk:Landing gear

message: It would be interesting to see more information on the requirements for pressurization of the tires.  For the Concorde, the inflation pressure was at something around 225 psi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by  130.132.179.160 (talk) 
:Close - Concorde's tyre pressures were actually 232 lb/sq in. for the main wheels, and 191 lb/sq in. for the nose wheels. The tyres themselves were rated to 250 mph, although the final Michelin NZG ones introduced after the Paris crash were rated to 280 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Inflation

message: Hey folks, I replaced the photo of the Airbus wheels with that of some Junkers Ju 87s, to illustrate fixed(and taildragging) landing gear. Two different shots of airliner wheels seemed kinda redundant too. Hope nobody minds.
Gooberliberation 10:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I do mind because there was no reason to remove a good quality useful pic. Just add your own pic but please don't remove existing material unless it's low quality or doesn't illustrate the subject. There's more than one airliner undercarriage configuration! Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 12:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well, looks like just adding the extra picture fixed the problem of having a big chunk of whitespace near the bottom of the page! Sorry about that. Gooberliberation 17:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, thanks for your understanding, and I'm sorry if I sounded a little unfriendly above, I didn't intend to  - Adrian Pingstone 18:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed gear 

message: The info under this heading was literally the Stowaway article cut-and-pasted in, so I cut out what didn't apply to aircraft landing gear and cleaned up what was left over.  Did the stowaways from the May 9th event use the landing gear or ride in the cargo bay?  I'm not familiar with the event, but the paragraph should be removed if it doesn't apply to landing gear. --Maxrandom777 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stowaways 

message: I added 0-2 skid data based on my experience at Cessna factory - I witnessed the test (wheels-up landing on the grassy area alongside the factory's Pawnee Plant airstrip).  I added stowaway picture information based on seeing the picture in a newspaper (I don't have the newspaper now, so I cannot reference it).  I added other factoids based on my knowledge of the aircraft involved.  Hope everybody is OK with this entry.Raymondwinn 12:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because no one has yet drawn one! If you have some talent in technical illustration you can give it a try! Also to identify yourself when leaving a talk page message just put ~~~~ (four tildes) and the software will sign it for you. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 19 Oct 2007 Edit

message: This type of landing is very unique and could be classified as another type of landing gear.  There are various types of gear systems both civil and military.  I think including this on the page would be beneficial.--The Founders Intent 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helicopter Landing Gear 

message: I thought undercarriage could also mean the chassis of a car, but Im not sure. If so, we should add a link to that article. Velle (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the term originates in the railways, referring to the bogies and other equipment 'under the carriage' but it later came to refer to any set of wheels underneath a vehicle. In the early days of aviation it was sometimes also referred to as 'alighting gear'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.88.98 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

text: * Would "bogie" be the term for a single set of wheels with strut, then? (e.g. the picture of the Airbus A330 undercarriage in the "Retractable gear" section of the article shows three bogies). If so, that term should be included in the article somewhere, for that's the term I came here looking for. 212.84.96.241 (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the term 'bogey' refers to at least four or more wheels on a common leg, so, strictly speaking a single (or twin wheel) nosewheel assembly wouldn't be a proper bogey. A bogey is a complete set of multiple wheels on a single leg, usually pivoted about the centre of the assembly to allow the rear-most wheels to contact the ground first on landing. IIARC, the first civil aircraft to use these was the de Havilland Comet, although the prototype had single large main wheels as the bogey units were still being designed at the time and were not ready. Dowty was one of the pioneers of the design. IIARC, the B-36 also had a bogey undercarriage in production versions, although, again, the prototypes had single large mainwheels. Unusually, the Avro Vulcan had eight-wheel main bogies, whereas the Vickers Valiant had two-wheels in tandem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.66.177 (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about a car? 

message: I just created a section stub for Launch vehicle landing gear.  Recent technology advances, and the commitment of private capital to experiment with first-stage booster rocket return to Earth landings, has changed the landscape where landing gear are no longer the exclusive province of aviation.  I would be most interested in improving that little stub section, and also in receiving feedback from other editors on whether it might be better to have only a very brief summary of the subject here in this article, with perhaps a link to a new article on landing gear as used on space launch vehicles.  I'm okay either way, and certainly don't know that the limited work on such technology to date would warrant a separate article.  So please, do comment here, and see how we might improve this.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Aviation" = "Aerospace"; a launch vehicle that is coming in to land is very much aviation and in fact an aircraft (the Space Shuttle is an aircraft, for instance - both a spaceplane and the world's fastest glider...) - The Bushranger One ping only 03:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Bushranger, I very much agree with your comments on "Aviation" = "Aerospace" and that a launch vehicle that is coming in to land definitely fits the broad definition of aerospace.  However, if launch vehicle landing gear are "in scope" for this article, then its only natural that the lede section will need to be modified a bit to reflect the wider scope, and I don't want to be doing that until after a consensus is achieved, just so other editors who have been working this article for a long time are not unduly bothered by the scope widening.  Thanks for your comment.  N2e (talk) 09:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The lede needs to act as a summary of the article taking in appropriate weight for the elements covered. If the legs on a space vehicle (under development) contribute a very small part of the article then they don't need to be mentioned much, if at all, in the lede compared to say wheels, skids and floats. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, landing gear is landing gear whatever vehicle it is fitted to. And don't worry too much about others' sensibilities in the first instance, only if we squawk - let WP:BRD be your guide. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Bushranger, GraemeLeggett and Steelpillow for weighing in.  Looks like we are all quite fine then with just a brief section on the use of landing gear on launch vehicles in this article.  And since no one has changed my initial draft section stub too much, will assume that is about the right amount of narrative on the matter.  I agree with Graeme, the lede should not make too big a deal of what is a very small part of the article, but it probably does need a very brief summary mention, just to illustrate that scope is beyond aircraft, and beyond rolling-wheeled landing gear.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a small change to the lede, in order to reflect the newly agreed to article scope, while endeavoring to keep the spacecraft usage a very light/small amount of the lede, per Graeme's good point.  Please feel free to improve as you see fit.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch vehicle landing gear 

message: It's been three weeks, and we seem to have an emerging consensus, perhaps with one question remaining on whether we have any sources that show "undercarriage" is the definitive technical term, as one commenter asserted.  Are we getting close to ready to close?  How much longer do folks want to wait to allow more input?  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This was never a formal proposal, just my own informal request for objections to the idea. There seems no clear consensus. Several comments suggest that "landing gear" is the more common term. This is not borne out by Google, which records over 20% more hits for "undercarriage". The term "undercarriage" is also used for other types of vehicle: it seems to me that this makes it the more general term in greater need of an article. Also, I just came across Wragg, D.; Historical dictionary of aviation, The History Press, 2008, where we find that (in an aviation context) undercarriage is: 'sometimes referred to as "landing gear"' and that 'strictly the term refers to any form of aircraft landing gear, including skids, skis, floats and wheels....' So all in all, I see no convincing mandate for change. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment Steelpillow.  I see that perspective you articulate.  Although it might seem that Landing gear is more inclusive of the overall scope of the diverse types of landing gear represented in the article as it exists today; Undercarriage is quite likely to win any google search research as large fixed-wing aircraft rather vastly outnumber the other sorts of aricraft and spacecraft covered by this article, so it seems we might expect to see the term undercarriage win the search results presence question.  But as this is Wikipedia, consensus will rule the day on article naming; and I can live with that, even if it doesn't seem to make as much sense to me logically.  N2e (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Where are we on this discussion?

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see talk:undercarriage (disambiguation) -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "{{noredirect|undercarriage}}"

message: All looks a bit messy to me. Why is there a DAB link in the lead, one choice is this article, would be neater with a hatnote. We seem to have missed a fairly fundamental point that landing gear is the US equivalent term for undercarriage (or undercarriage is the Commonwealth term for landing gear, whichever way you want to look at it).
Should be noted in the lead at the very least.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Undercarriage is the term for a very large number of things, in the Commonwealth, not just that of an aeroplane. That is why "undercarriage" is inapproprriate. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ENGVAR?

message: The picture of the Schleicher ASK 21 glider clearly shows two wheels.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eur (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: - Ahunt (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monowheel 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Landing gear. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151218164738/https://yanksair.com/Products/127/110/North-American-NA-141-Fury-FJ-1/ to https://yanksair.com/Products/127/110/North-American-NA-141-Fury-FJ-1/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324001250/http://www.biggles-software.com/software/757_tech/landing_gear/landing_gear.htm to http://www.biggles-software.com/software/757_tech/landing_gear/landing_gear.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From Landing gear#Retractable gear Is this really retractable? It does not look like it is. 14:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the Ju-87 is a fixed gear aircraft. I am not sure why that image was there, as the text gives no context, so I have removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it really retractable? 

message: The link to Philae in this article leads to a city in Egypt, not the spacecraft. I tried to correct but couldn't. Please correct it. 117.195.59.221 (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for mentioning that!  - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link for Philae