REPORT No. 485 THE DRAG OF AIRPLANE WHEELS, WHEEL FAIRINGS, AND LANDING GEARS—I By Wiuzaac H, Huaxoren, Jr. and Davi Bremcann ‘SUMMARY Tests were made in the 7- by 10-foot wind tunnel and in the 20-foot tunnel of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics to determine the drag of a number of airplane wheels, wheel airings, and land- ‘ing gears designed or selected for an airplane of 8,000 pounds gross rooight. AIL teats were made on full sized models; those in the 7- by 10-foot tunnel were ‘made at air speeds up to 80 miles per hour and those in the 20-foot tunnel were made at air speeds up to 100 miles per hour. Although most of the landing- gear tests were made in conjunction with a fuselage and at 0° pitoh angle, some of the teste were made in conjunction with the fuselage plus wings and a radial air-cooled engine and at pitch angles from —5° to 6° to obtain an indication of the general effect of these ‘various items on landing-gear drag. AU tests were made in the absence of propeller slipstream, The results of the investigation show that the lowest drag recorded for any landing gear tested was 13 pounds, at 100 miles per hour and 0° pitch, and that it might be possible to reduce this drag approximately 6 pounds by totally encasing the wheels of this gear in fairings, The highest landing-gear drag recorded ‘was 98 pounds. Other pointe of interest Brought out were: Fitting-plus-interference drag of ordinary types of landing gears averages about 44 percent of the drag due to these gears; low-pressure wheels and tires may be used with little or no énorease in landing- gear drag; the proper wheel fairing may reduce the drag due to a landing gear more than any other re- finement; fairing of all struts is of great importance; andl landing gears having a single supporting strat have less drag than any other types of nonretracting gears. Also, the substitution of low-drag or retrac- table landing gears for conventional types on. high- drag airplanes reaults in «negligible increase in. high speed. Low-drag or retractable gears used in place of oonwentional gears on low-drag airplanes result in a substantial increase in high epeed or saving in power at the same speed, the low-drag gear accomplishing wlarge percentage of the gain obtainable from the use of the retraotable ger. INTRODUCTION Although the drag of the landing gear has been known to constitute a large portion of the total drag of an airplane in flight (seo references 1, 2, and 3), practically no systematic research has been done for the express purpose of improving the aerodynamic characteristics of Ianding gears. In recent years de- signers have successfully attacked the problem and in some eases have designed landing gears that can be partly or fully retracted in fight. Little informa tion, however, is available concerning the compara- tive drags of nonretracting landing gears and their component parts, the aerodynamic interference be- tween the parts, or the degree to which attempted refinement of such gears may be successfully carried out, ‘The present investigation was made to obtain data concerning the following: The drag of wheels; the aerodynamic interference between wheels and struts; the drag of a wheel with various wheel frirings; the drag of wheels and gears in yaw; the drag of different types of Iariding gears; the effect of wings and a radial air-cooled engine on landing-gear drag; the of- fect of changes in pitch angle on landing-gear drag; and the effect of various modifications to landing gears on their drag. ‘From these date an analysis of landing-gear drag was made and an indication of the lowest drag obtainable with a nonretracting landing gear obtained. The investigation included tests of 5 types of wheels, 6 types of wheel fairings with 3 modifications, and 22 different Ianding gears with a total of 55 modifications to these gears. All the landing gears tested were attached to an ‘open-cockpit fuselage and the tests were made without propeller slipstream. Most of the tests were made at 0° pitch angle and without wings or an engine attached to the fuselage. However, the effects of ‘wings, of a radial air-cooled engine with and without 193,194 cowling, and of pitch angle on a number of different landing’ gears were measured. ‘The landing-gear program has been extended to in- clude tests on other types of landing gears, the results of which will be presented in subsequent reports. APPARATUS AND METHODS ‘Tho 7- by 10-foot wind tunel, in which « part of the landing-gear drag investigation was made, is fully described in reference 4. The standard force-test model support was used. ‘Tests were made in this tunnel to determine the drag of wheels, the acrody- namic interfereneo between wheels and struts, the drag of the 8.50-10 wheel with various wheel fairings, the drag of half of landing gear 2a with various modifications, and the drag of the 8.60-10 wheel and half of landing gear 2a in yaw. ‘Tho 20-foot propeller-research wind tunnel, in which tho remainder of tho tests were made, is deseribed in ‘REPORT NATIONAL ADVISOBY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTIOS reference 5. ‘The method of supporting the test sct- ups on the balance is shown in figure 1. ‘Tests woro made in this tunnel to determine the drag due to land- ing goars used in conjunction with a fuselage, wings, and a radial air-cooled engine. All models tested were designed for an airplane of 3,000 pounds gross weight because full-scale models corresponding to this weight were tho Inrgest that could be conveniently accommodated in the tunnels used for the testing. Wheels—The five different wheels ond tires used in the tests were: An 860-10 low-pressure wheel and tire; a 27-inch streamline wheel and tire; a 25 by 1-4 extra-low-pressure wheel and tire; a 80 by & disk ‘wheel with a 30 by 8 high-pressure tire; and a 30 by 6 disk wheel with a 32 by 6 high-pressure tire. (See fig.2) ‘The 2 wheels with the high-pressure tires were tuken from service; the other 8 were wooden models Figo 1—Landlng gear 3b rth whos fatrng A mounted on tot fuse,‘THD DRAG. OF AIRPLANE WHBELS, WHEL FAIBINGS, AND LANDING GEARS—I made to a tolerance of 1/82 inch. All tires had smooth treads. ‘Wheel fairings—The wheel fairings were designated. by letters -A to F, inolusive, with numerals added when necessary to indicate modifications to the basic form. (Seo figs. 4 to 9.) Fairings A, B, and C dif- fer only in cross section; fairing D differs in cross section and has a cut-out in the side equal to the tire diameter (8.60-10 wheel and tiro) ; fairing E consists of a short tail and a small fairing that partly covers tho inside of the wheel; and fairing F covers only a small portion of tho inside of the wheel. All the fairings were made from sheet aluminum, Fuselage, wings, and engine—In order to conform with the other models, the fuselage used in conjune- tion with the landing-gear tests was constructed to the average fuselage dimensions of an open-cockpit firplane of 3,000 pounds gross weight. (See fig. 17.) ‘Two rectangular wings of Clark Y section were attached to the fuselage for part of the tests. A 414- by 16-foot wing was used to simulate the lower wing of a biplane cellule and a 6- by 18-foot wing was used to represent the wing of a low-wing monoplane. A ‘Wasp radial air-cooled engine, cowled and uncowled, ‘was used during some of the tests to determine its effect on the landing-gear drag. The relative loca- tion of tho fuselage, the engine, the wings, and the Innding gears is shown in figures 17 and 40. Landing gears—The landing gears numbered 1a to tb (see figs. 18 to 84) were attached directly to the fuselage. Gears 12 to Le (figs. 35 to 99) were at- tached to the fuselage and the 6- by 18-fo0t wing. All landing gears were designed to comply with the requirements ofthe Aeronautics Branch, Department ‘of Commerce. Design outside dimensions wero strictly adhered to in the fabrication of the various parts. Although information concerning the relative weights of the landing gears would be of considerable interest, ‘any attempt at weight analysis would be too involved to come within the seope of this report. ‘The standard dimension chosen for the vertical travel of the wheel ‘was 5 inches, and for the wheel tread, 6 feet 6 inches. All round struts were encased in faitings of Navy 1 strut section, fineness ratio 8. In cases where stream- lined tubing was used, the tubing was of “standard” section, which is a modification of Navy 1 strut sec- tion. In some instances tandem struts were faired together, this being done in accordance with the rec- ‘ommendations of reference 6. A few of the landing gears incorporated wire bracing in their structures. ‘Tho type of wire used was, in all eases, that commonly roforred to as “streamlined” wire, although it is really lenticular in eross section. ‘Tho oleo action ‘of all gears’ was strictly conven- tional with the following exceptions: Gears 1b, 1c, 195 2b, 26, 1a, and 11b, as tested, would have to use an oleo shock absorber in the fusolage with a suitable linkage to givo the required wheel travel or have one incorporated in the-wheel. Gear10 would-have the ‘leo shock absorber in the wheel or inside the wheel fairing, Gears 3b, 8c, 13, and 14a would require splined oleo shock absorber or its equivalent. Gear ® could have a conventionel oleo strut but the wheal would swing about a point directly in its rear. esta ‘The only measurements taken during the tests were air speed and drag. The maximum air speed used in the 7- by 10-foot tunnel was 80 miles per hour, that being the maximum obtainable; the maximum speed used in the 20-foot tunnel was 100 miles per hour. ‘Wheel tests—Tho drag of the wheel-and-tiro units was measured at air speeds up to 80 miles per hour. ‘Throughout the entire investigation the 8.50-10 wheal and tire was taken as the standard unit because it appeared to be the most commonly used in service. ‘The selection was made solely for comparative pur- poses. Acrodynamio interference between "wheels and a strut—The interferenco drag created by having wheel and a length of strut in close proximity was de- termined for all wheels used in the Janding-gear inves- tigation. Two different strut sections were used sep- aretely for this work; one was of Navy 1 section, 2% by 6% inches, and the other was of circular section with # diameter of 2%4 inches. Bach strut was hinged at the wheel axle and the angle between the wheel and the strut was varied in successive steps from 0° to 90° during the test., ‘The interference drag was obtained by deducting the sum of the wheel drag and the strut drag from the drag of the combination. Figure 3 shows the arrangement of a wheel and strut. ‘Wheel-fairing tests —The 8.50-10 wheel and tire was tested with wheel fairings A, B,C, D, and E at air speeds up to 80 miles per hour. "All modifications to theso wheel airings as tested alone are shown in fig- ures 4 to 8, inclusive. Check tests were made on most of these models in the 20-foot tunnel at air speeds up to 100 miles per hour. ‘The 8.5010 wheel in yew.—Tho drag of the 8.50-10 wheel was measured at air speeds up to 80 miles per hour with the wheel yawed in successive steps from 15° to —15°, ‘Tests on half of landing gear 2a with 8.50-10 wlicel— ‘Tests were made on a completo half of landing gear 2a with the 8.50-10 wheel and wheel feirings A.B, ©, D, E, and F with various modifications. Details of all modifications ‘are shown in figures 11 to 16, inclusive. Most of these tests were made in the T- by 10-foot tunnel at air speeds up to 80 miles per196 hour, but a few tests were checked in the 20-foot tun- nel at air speeds up to 100 miles per hour. ‘Half of landing gear 2a in yew.—One-helf of landing ‘gear 2a, equipped with the 8.50-10 wheel, was tested for drag at various angles of yaw at air speeds up to 80 miles per hour. ‘The half gear was yewed in successive steps from 15° to —15°. ‘Tests at 0° pitch of landing gears mounted on fuselage or fuselage and wing—Gears 1e to 11b, inclusive, with various modifications, were tested for drag in con- junetion with the fuselage alone. Gears 1ds, 14, and ‘de were tested in conjunction with the fuselage and 6- by 18-foot wing. All theso tests were made at air speeds up to 100 miles por hour. ‘The gears were ‘mounted in the inverted position (ig. 1) to facilitate testing and to remove the gears as fer as possible from the influence of the model-supporting structure. ‘Whenever wings were used during the tests, they were set at 0° incidence. ‘The drag of the fuselage, or fuselage and wing, was measured with and without the landing gears attached. ‘Tho difference between the results was the drag due to the landing gear under test. TTeats at O° pitoh on several landing gears equipped with various types of wheels.—The drag due to landing gears 1b, 82, 8, and 11b, each equipped with various types of wheel-and-tire units, was measured at air speeds up to 100 miles per hour. ‘These landing gears ‘were chosen because they had a wide diversity of strut arrangement, particularly around the wheel hub. It twas hoped that the results would show more gener- ally the effect on Ianding-gear drag of substituting different wheels of equal weight-carrying capacity. ‘Tests at various angles of pitch of landing gears mounted on fuselage with and without the 4%- by 15-foot wing and engine—Landing gears 1a and 11a were tested for drag at various pitch angles from 6° to , on. the fuselage alone, on the fuselage with the 4%4- by 15-foot wing, on the fuselage with the engine (cowled and uncowled), and on the fuselage with the wing and the engine. ‘Theso tests were made to as- certain the effects of the different combinations on the drag, duo to the Innding gears, at air speeds up to 1100 miles per hour. ‘Tests at various angles of pitch of landing gears mounted on fuselage and €- by 18-foot wing —Gears 12, 18, 14a, 14b, and Ie, which were designed for use on low-wing monoplanes, were tested for drag in con- junetion with the fuselage and the 6- by 18-foot wing ‘at various pitch angles from 6° to —5° at air speeds up to 100 miles per hour. Gear de was Inter tested in conjunction with the fuselage, the 6- by 18-foot wing, and the engine (cowled and uncowled) to get the added effect of the engine upon the drag duo to this gear. BRPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AHRONAUZIOS Tt is estimated that the drag of wheels alone, wheel fairings, and onehalf of gear 2a with its various modifications, was measured with a precision of #0. pound. Landing-gear tests made in conjunction with the fuselage alone are estimated to be precise within pound, while tests made in conjunction with the fuselage, wing, and engine at various angles of pitch are estimated to be precise within 21.0 pound, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION All drag values presented in this report were token from faired curves of drag plotted against dynamic pressure. In cases where check tests were mado in the 20-foot tunnel on the results obtained in the 7- by 410-foot tunnel, drag values are given for both 80 miles per hour and 100 miles per hour. In all othor cases the values are given for only one air speed. For con- venience, all the drag date presented in tabular form are included on the figures illustrating the correspond- ing test models. Results of interference tests, yaw tests, and landing-gear tests made in conjunction with wings and engine at various pitch angles, are pre- sonted in curve form for ease of comparison. ‘The results of tests made in the 7- by 10-foot tun- el were corrected for horizontal pressure gradient in the usual manner. Tt was not necessary to apply any corrections to results obtained in the 20-foot tunnel because the pressure gradiont was negligible. An agreement of +0. pound drag at 80 miles per hour was obtained between the results of check tests made in tho two wind tunnels after the horizontal pressure- gradient correction had been applied. ‘Wheel tests.—Table I and figure 2 show the compara- tive drags of all the wheols tested alone. Tt is of in- terest to note that the 27-inch streamline wheel and tire has appreciably less drag than any other type tested, and that the 25 by 11-4 extra-low-pressuro wheal and tire has the highest drag recorded. ‘The effect of all these wheels upon the drag due to several different landing gears will be shown later in tho report. ‘Aerodynamic interference between # wheel and strut— ‘Figure 3 shows the variation of interference drag be- ‘tween the different wheels and a single strut (stream- ine and round) alongside the wheel, as the angle be- ‘tween the two is varied from 0° to 90°. ‘The inter- ference drag generally increases as the wheel and strut are brought together. ‘The 27-inch streamline wheel and tire is affected the most by the proximity of the strut, Wheelairing tests—The drags of the 8.50-10 low- pressure wheel and tire with various types of wheel fairings are given in tablo TT and figures 4 to 9, From(THE DRAG OF AIRPLANE WHEDLS, WHEEL FAIRINGS, AND LANDING GRARE—I theso results it appears that a wheel fairing such as A, which covers both sides of the wheel and has a mini- mum of cross-sectional area, is the best basic type. It is also apparent from tests of modifications of this fairing (A, and As) that the portion of the wheel or tiro that protrudes from the bottom of the fairing is responsible for most of the drag. As much as 72 percent of the drag of the 8.50-10 wheel and tire may be saved by totally encasing it in a fairing such as modification A, of wheel fairing A. Tt is also inter- esting to note from the tests of wheel fairing D, which has a cut-out in the side as large as the tire diameter, that no saving in drag will be effected unless the side of the cut-out nearest the tail of the fairing is turned in so as to present no open edge to the air stream (modifieation D,). In fact, the drag of the wheel was inerensed by the use of the unmodified fairing D. No tests were made on ordinary mud guards be- cause provious tests made in Great Britain showed that they have high drag (reference 7). ‘The 8.5010 wheel in yaw.—Figure 10 shows how the drag of the 8.50-10 wheel changes with variations in angles of yaw. The drag of this wheel is almost doubled when it is yawed 16°, Such data are of prac- tical interest because many ordinary types of nonre- tracting landing gears have the wheels in yaw when the oleo strut is extended. Also, there are some types of partially retracting gears that have the wheel yawed, when in the retracted position, and as much as half of it exposed to the air stream. ‘Tests of one-half landing gear 2a with 8.60-10 wheel and various wheel fairings—The results of the tests of half of landing gear 2a are given in table IIT and on the figures 11 to 16, inclusive. The purpose of this part of the investigation was to determine whether the relative merits of the fairings as tested alone were affected by the combination of the fairings with landing-gear struts. For theso tests all the fair- ings except A (modifications A, and A,), which were not believed to be practicable, were used. Reforence to the table and figures will show that fairing A, which had lower drag than fairing G when tested alone, had to be modified considerably around the strut intersec- tion to give as low drag as fairing C when both were combined with the landing-gear struts. It is also interesting to note in the case of fairing I (fig. 15) that modifications E, and E, were the most effective in reducing the drag. ‘Yaw tests of onehalf landing gear 2a with 8.50-10 wheel —Figure 10 shows how the drag of one-half gear 2a varies with angle of yaw. A comparison of these data with those for the 8.50-10 wheel lone, will show that with changes in yaw, most of the drag incresse of half gear 2a is due to the increase in drag of the wheol. ‘Tho fact that the struts are at angles of 197 attack other than 0° accounts for very little of the increase in drag. ‘Measurement of drag due to various types of landing gears with 8.50-10 wheels, 0° pitch—Teble TY and figures 18 to 31, 84, and 37 to 89 contain the results of tests of various Innding-gear types, all of which were mado in conjunction with the fuselage. Reference to the figures will show the differences in strut arrange- ments. Tt should be pointed out that although all struts were of streamline section the fittings were left exposed. When wires were used the fittings were also left exposed. It is interesting to note that the substitution of streamline wires for streamline struts in the cases of gears 1b and le (fig. 19) and gears 2b and 2¢ (fg. 21) had little effect on the drag. The results obtained with gears Bb and 8¢ (figs. 24 and 25) indicate that little is saved when struts in tandem, close to the sido of a wheel, are faired together. ‘The relatively high drag duo to landing gear 7 (fig. 29) shows that it is not. good practice to place a length of strut close to the side of a fuselage. ‘The results for landing gear 11b (fig. 84) indicate that this type has small interference drag. ‘The drag of the wheels alone is approximately 19.5 pounds at 100 tiles per hour, which leaves but 4 pounds interference and strut drag. ‘Effect of various wheels of equal load-oanying capacity on the drag due to landing gears—The results of these wheel tests are given in table V and the figures illus- trating gears 1b, 8a, 8, and 11b. Gears 1b, 8a, 8, and 1b (figs. 19, 98, 30, and 34) wero chosen for this part of tho investigation because they covered a representa tive range of gear structure on which the effects of the various types of wheels could be generally shown. It is important to note that low-pressure or extra-low- pressure wheels and tires may be used on ordinary types of landing gears with little or no increase in drag. Also, the 27-inch streamline wheel and tire, which had tho Iowest drag when testod alone, gave higher lending-goar drag values then the 850-10 wheel and tire, except in the case of gear 1b. The 27- inch streamline wheel and tire is distinctly superior on this latter type of gear. ‘The results indicate that the 27-inch wheel and tire will not decrease Ianding- gear drag unless the aerodynamic interferenes between it and adjacent members is very small. ‘This size of streamline wheel and tire was used because, at the time this investigation was started, the manufacturers recommended it for use on commercial types of air- planes. However, the 24-inch and the 2i-inch may be used for airplanes of 8,000 pounds gross weight if the inflation pressure is increased sufficiently. Tf tests hhad been made with the smaller wheel-and-tire units they undoubtedly would have shown up more favor- ably than the 27-inch in all cases. An extension of198 the entire landing.gear research progrem is contem- plated in which tests will be included of the 24-inch ‘and the 21-inch streamline wheel-and-tire units. Effect of wings, engine, and angle of pitch on the drag due to lending gears.—Figure 41 shows the elects of the 4%4- by 15-foot wing, the engine (cowled and uncowled), the combination of both, and changes of pitch anglo upon the drag due to landing gears 1a and La, ‘The effect of the engine alone on both gears was to generally increase the drag with increases in angle of pitch. ‘The wing alone had an opposite ef- fect. ‘Tho effect of the combination of wing and en- gine was to cancel generally the individual effects ‘Te made little difference whether or not the engine was cowled. ‘The engine-and-wing combinations low- ered the drag of the high-drag gear (gear 1a) notice- ably over the result obtained with the fuselage alone. ‘This difference was negligible in the case of the low- drag gear (gear 11a). The curves on figure 41 indi- cate that no specific conclusions may be drawn from these data since no definite trends were evidenced. ‘Tho data are presented to show the factors that may affect landing-gear drag but do not include propeller- slipstream effect. ‘Figure 49 illustrates how the drag due to landing gear 19, which was mounted on the fuselage and the 6- by 18-foot wing, varies with angle of pitch: This type of gear has been commonly used in recent yeurs on airplanes that have the landing gear incorporated in the wing truss. ‘The results show that the drag due to this gear and its component parts decreases with increases of pitch angle. ‘The effect of changes in pitch angle on the drag due to gear 18, with its various modifications, is shown in fgure 43. ‘This gear was mounted on the fuselage and the 6- by 18-foot wing. Tho general effect of i creasing the pitch angle was to decrease the drag due to the gear. Modification 2 gave # much steeper slope to the eurve of drag against angle of pitch than did modification 1. Figure 44 shows the variation of the drag due to gears 14a, 14b, and Ide with changes in pitch angle. ‘The effects of the radial eng’ne, cowled and uncowled, ‘on gear Ie and of wheel fairing C on gear 14a are also shown on this figure. Again the drag due to the gears decreased with increases of pitch angle. This decrease was probably due to the decrease in air velocity around the under surfaes of the 6- by'18-foot wing that occurred as its angle of attack was increased. ‘The effect of the cowled and uncowled engine upon gear 14e was to increase appreciably the drag due to ik. The reason for the increasé is not readily urider- stood, especially since the engine did not have a simi- Jar effect upon the drag due to gears 1a and 1a. Al- though the latter two gears were tested in conjunc- tion with the 4%4- by 15-foot wing and engine and REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR ABRONAUTTOS gear Ide was tested with tho 6- by 18-foot wing and engine, the most significant difference between the test set-ups was in the wheel treads. It so happened that gears 14a, 14b, and Ide wore designed with 1 trend of 7 feet 8% inches instead of the standard trend of 6 feet 6 inches used for all other Innding gears. ‘This divergence from the standard was caused by struc- tural difficulties encountered in tho design of tho test set-ups. Inasmuch as the wheels of gear 14e were 1 foot 244 inches farther apart than those of gears 10 and 1a, it is thought that perhaps the air flow in this outer region could have been influenced by the engin in such a manner as to have higher velocity at that point than at the location of the wheels of gears 1 and 1a, If this be true, the drag due to any gear of tho chosen standard tread and height would not neces- sarily be increased by the presence of an engino ‘mounted as in this investigation. However, the rea- son for the increase in drag due to landing gear 1de when the engine was present should be found and the problem will receive attention in tho proposed pro- gram for future Ianding-gear research. ‘Bffect of various modifications on the drag due to landing gears, 0° pitch—The effect of modifying each of a number of different landing gears is shown in table VI and figures 23 to 25, 29, 30, and 32 to 37. In order to have a better iinderstanding of the various modifications made, it is necessary to refer to the figures. Tnasmuch as the table and the figures con- tain all the pertinent facts and a summary of results, little need be said here in discussion of the modifica- tions. ‘Tho addition of wheel fairing C to landing gear n resulted in a decrease in the drag due to that gear of approximately 28 percent, which is a very substantial saving. Attention is called to landing ‘gears 3b and 8c, which are structurally identical, dif- fering only in the manner in which the side struts wre faired. Gear 3b, which had the side members faired together, hed a drag of 44 pounds at 100 miles per hour in its original condition. By successive modifi- cations this drag was reduced to 97 pounds. ‘The big gest saving was effected by the use of wheel fairings. ‘The strut fairing on gear 3c was stripped from each individual member until nothing but round struts and the wheels were exposed to tho air stream. In this condition the drag due to the gear was 98 pounds ‘at 100 miles per hour. ‘The results of theso tests clearly show that the drag may vary from 27 pounds to 98 pounids at 100 miles per hour for a gear of this type, and indicate the importance of fairing struts as well as wheels. Modifications to landing gears 8 and 14a also show the importance of wheel faitings for reducing drag. ‘Tests on gears 10 and 12 show the importance of fairing the wire terminals. By so doing, 2.5 pounds drag out of 27.0 pounds were saved on gear 10. InTHE DNAG OF AIRPLANE WHEELS, WHEEL FAIRINGS, AND LANDING GEARE—I the case of gear 12, where the wires helped form a combination wing and landing-gear truss, 6 pounds diag were saved by fairing the wire fittings. Tt should be noted that on this seme gear the wires and wing-brace struts accounted for more than half the rag due to the complete Ianding-gear unit, ‘Tests of gears 11a and 1b, which have singlo canti- lever struts from the fuselage to the wheel, indicate the superiority of these types as far as drag is con- cerned. ‘There is little to choose between the lowest drag figures of these two landing gears. ‘The lowest drag recorded for gear Ha was 18.5 pounds at 100 miles per hour, while the lowest for gear 11b was 17.5 pounds at 100 miles per hour. If modifications Ay and Az were applied to wheel fairing A as used on ‘gear 1b, it is probable that the drag due to that gear could be reduced to approximately 14 pounds and 11 pounds, respectively, at 100 miles per hour. Tt is pos- sible to use such modifications to a service-type land- ing gear provided that suitable mechanical arrange- ments are made on the wheel fairings to give the ground clearance necessary for wheel operation. ‘Tests made on these two gears with the 8.50-10 low-pressure ‘wheels and 27-inch streamline wheels without wheel inivings indieate that the lowest drag was obtained by using the latter wheels, However, it is also clear that even though a low-drag landing ‘gear might be bad without wheel fairings, the drag may be further reduced by an appreciable amount if the proper wheel ‘aivings are used. Landing gear 13 was attached to the 6- by 18-foot wing and had a single strut extending from the wing to a fork over the wheel. ‘The strut was streamlined ‘nd the wheel encased in wheel fairing A, with no fillet around the wheel-fairing and strut intersection. ‘The results show a drag of 20 pounds at 100 miles per hour with the gear in this condition. Modifica- tion 1, which was an expanding fillet, was made at the strut and wheel-fairing intersection, and the drag due to the gear dropped to 18 pounds. Modification 2, which was a continuation of the wheel fairing to the wing, was made and the drag was again reduced to 13 pounds at 100 miles per hour, despite the large in- erease in cross-sectional area. ‘The drag due to this gear might be further reduced to approximately 7 or 8 pounds at 100 miles per hour if the wheets were entirely encased in a fairing such as modification A, of wheel fairing A. Analysis of landing-gear drag.—Tho results of the analysis of Ianding-gear drag are presented in tables VI-A and VI-B, in which all the Innding gears tested are classified according to structural types. ‘Tablo VII-A deals with gears designed for attach- ment to the fuselage; table VIL-B deals with gears designed for attachment to the wing or wing and fuse- lage. An attempt was made under each classification 6013514 199 to isolate the drag due to the wheels or wheels with wheel faitings, to struts, and to fittings plus interfer- ence. ‘The drag duo to these parts and to fittings plus interference is also presented in percentage of the total measured drag. A ratio of measured drag to com- puted drag is included for use by designers in evaluat- ing the drag of any type of gear, having given the drag of the component parts. ‘The entire analysis is based on gear drag at 0° pitch angle and excludes the effects due to the engine and the 444- by 15-foot wing. Roforence to the tables will show that for all types of gears the computed strut drag constitutes from 12 pereent to 20 percent of the total measured drag due to the gears, “The wheels or wheels with wheel fair- ings, as tested alone, constitute from 40 percent of the drag due to the gears for the multistrut types to about ‘10 percent for the single-strut types. Fitting-plus- interforence drag varies from about 44 percent of the total measured drag due to gears of the multistrut types to negative or favorable interference drag for the single-strut types. Some calculations showing the effect of 2 types of landing gears on the performance of 2 classes of air- planes—A comparison is mado in table VIII of the high speeds of 2 hypothetical airplanes, 1 of low drag and the other of high drag, each with and with- out a low-drag and a high-drag landing gear (gear 18, modifeation 1, and gear 14e. ‘The table shows that even though landing gear 4e were made to retract fully into the high-drag airplane the gain in high speed would be only 3 miles per hour. However, retracting the same gear on the low-drag airplane ‘would result in an increase in speed of 18.9 miles per hour, or a saving of 23.4 percent of the thrust horse- power at the same speed. Retracting gear 18 (modi- fication 1) used on the low-drag airplane would result in an increase in speed of only &6 miles per hour. ‘Whether or not the 8.6 miles per hour increase in speed due to a retractable gear over gear 13 is worth the design and structural complications in all cases is a question that ean be solved only by the designers of airplanes. Attention is called to the fact that all land- ing-gear drag data used in these comparisons were sealed up from results at, 100 miles per hour with no allowance for the effect of Reynolds Number. Some caleulations comparing e wire-braced wing and Iending-gear unit with a cantilever wing and landing: gear unit—Figure 45 shows the results of this compari. son, The calculations are based on wing data talren from reference 8, and on landing-gear drag data sealed from results at 100 miles per hour with no allowance for the effect of Reynolds Number. Inasmuch as the wire bracing on landing gear 12 also constitutes » part of the wing bracing, any rational comparison of this gear with any other gear must take into account the200 swing system. It was considered of suflicient interest: to compare gear 12 mounted on a conventional Clark Y rectangular wing with gear 13 (modification 1) mounted on a cantilever Clark ¥ wing, tapered in plan form and section. Although the selection of the types of wings as well as the wing areas may affect the re- sults somewhat, it is believed thet the wings selected ‘will show in a general way the relative merits of the two units. In the figure the drag of each wing and landing gear is plotted against velocity, the angle of attack being determined by the wing loading. Curves are also given for the complete Ianding-gear and wing units. Itshould be noted that the drag of the wires on gear 12 was computed instead of taken from the tests on that gear because the wire truss used on the test setup had insufficient span for the purposes of this comparison. Brace struts were not used on this gear and all wire fittings were assumed to be hidden. ‘The figuro shows the superiority of the cantilever wing and landing-gear unit over the wire-braced unit, although tho difference is not great, ‘A. general relationship applicable to landing gears, showing the effect of parasite drag on the high speed of airplanes —Tigure 46, which is a convenient chart for showing the relationship between @ change in para- site drag and the resulting change in the high speed of an aixplane, is included to simplify the calculation of the high-speed change of an airplane duo to a change in Ianding-gear drag. ‘The chart is appli- cable to any conventional airplane and is considered to be fairly accurate, the assumptions being that the thrust horsepower and drag coeflicient of the airplane ae constant for small changes in angle of attack at the high-speed condition. ‘The chart shows that land- gear drag must be appreciably reduced to result in much gain in the high speed of an airplane. Of ‘course, percentage change in high speed shows more gain in miles per hour for a high-speed airplane than for a low-speed airplane. Furthermore, the landing gear of a high-speed airplane is likely to constitute a greater percentage of the total drag than that of a low-speed airplane because high-speed air- planes necessarily have low drag. ‘This point is also illustrated in the example given in table VIEL. “Application to design. —In using the results presented in this report for air speeds greater than 100 miles ‘por hour tho question may arise concerning the effect ‘of Reynolds Number on the drag values. Since the drag, in general, varied closely as the ratio of the squares of the air speeds for speeds less than 100 miles per hour, it can only be assumed that this relation holds for higher speeds. Until tests at higher Rey- nolds Number can be made the values of drag at 100 miles per hour should be used, whenever possible, as 1 basis for computing the values at higher speeds. REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS ‘This matter is of most importance as regards quan- titative estimates of the drag of landing gers at high speeds, there being only a small likelihood that the order of merit of the different, gears will be changed appreciably at high speeds. CONCLUSIONS From the date presented in this report the follow- ing conclusions are made: 1. The interference drag between a single strut alongside a wheel and the wheel generally increases 1s the angle between them is decreased. 2, The interference drag between a single strut and a low-drag wheel is markedly higher than the intor- ference drag between # strut and a high-drag wheel. If low-drag wheels aro used to reduce Ianding-gear drag, it is necessary that the aerodynamic interference between the wheels and adjacent members be small, otherwise there will be no reduetion in drag. 8. The drag of the combination of a wheel and ‘wheal fairing is due, in a large measure, to that portion of tho wheel which protrudes from the fairing, ‘4. Wheel fairings with cut-outs in the side should haye all free edges that face the wind turned in. 5. The increaso in drag of a tripod landing gear in yaw is due mostly to the increase in drag of the yawed wheels. 6. The lowest-drag wheel fairing tested gave very little reduction in drag when used on landing goars of the tripod type, unless properly modified to reduce aerodynamic interference. 7. Low-pressure and extra-low-pressure wheels and tires may be used on ordinary types of landing gears, with little or no increase in drag. 8. Landing-gear struts should not be placed close to tho side of a fuselage because of the high interference drag created. 8. The drag of landing gears of the more common types may bo greatly reduced by careful fairing of fittings, wheels, and strut intersections. 10. It is possible to design a landing gear of reason- ably low drag without using wheel fairings. IL. The average fitting-plus-interferencs drag of ordinary types of landing gears is approximately 44 percent of the drag due to these gears. 12. The combination of a cantilever wing and canti- lever landing gear appears to have less drag than the combination of a wire-braced wing and gear in which the landing gear is a part of tho wing truss. 18. Tho substitution of low-drag or retractable Innding gears for conventional gears on high-drag air- planes will result in only # sinall increase in high speed. For low-drag airplanes, the substitution of Iow-drag or retractable Ianding gears for conventional gears will result in a substantial inerease in high speed‘(THE DRAG OF AIRPLANE WHEBLS, WHEEL PAIRINGS, AND LANDING GEARS—I or saving in power, the low-drag gear accomplishing a large pereentage of the gain obtainable from the use of the retractable gear. Laxorsr Mantonrar, Asrowatmicat, Lanonsroxy, Narrowan Apvisory Conpmrrer ror Arnowavzics, Lawouey Brno, Va, February 9, 1985, REFERENCES 1, Welek, Wed B.: Bull Seale Drag Tests on Various Parts of Sperry Messenger Alrplane. ‘EIN. No. 271, NA.O.A,, 1023, 2 Herenstetu, Willlam H,, Jr.: oll Scale Drag Tests on ‘Vatlous Parts of Falrehild (PO-2W2) Cabin Monoplanc. EN, No. 340, NACA, 1980, 201 8. De¥rance, Smith J.: The Aerodynomle Ritect of a Retract- able Landing Gear. ‘TN. No, 456, N.A.C.A, 1099, 4. Harris, Thomas A.: The 7- by 10-Foot Wind ‘Tunnel of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. ‘DR. No. 42, NACA, 1031, 5, Wolck Fred B, and Wood, Donsld H.: ‘The ‘Twenty-Foot Propeller Research Tunnel of the National Advisory Com- mittee for Aeronautics, ‘TR. No, 200, NACA, 1928, 6, Blermann, David, and Herrnstein, William H, Jr: ‘The Interference between Strats in’ Various Combinations, IR, No, 488, NACA, 1033. 7, Bradfeld, ¥. B., and attdwvood, @. #: Wheels, Fairings and MMudgards. KR. & MM, No, 1470, British ATG, 1032 & Anderson, Reymond F.: The Aerodynomle Characteristios ‘of Three Tapered Airfolls Tested in the Variable-Deneity ‘Wind Tonnel. "TN. No. 367, NACA, 1951, oH" = 25 £0010, tow-preeure wheel and thre. Beteosal ist 8) mph. 27" BEES Ea Tagan 24! 25 by 11-4 extrwtonpregsure whesl and tre Braga thee 80a 306" 30 by gis men ng Bebaperae ure AG DY § 1a isd da 32S inane te. Bene w. 0 we at 60 mon. Dede Mh 3B By SE SD BBE ‘igom 2—Drag and alimeasions of wheal,202 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS: 4 Siceaniine bir Be $ g : Narcke Henge o 70 20 0 70 3 70 30 36 E Angle of strut with wheal, 8, dagre ‘icons A-—taterference drag between strut and wheel, Nore—Strcamiioe strut of Naey 1 soctlon ani Aeneas ratio 3. Ale apeed, 80 mah.THE DUAG OF AIRPLANE WHESIS, WHEEL PAIRINGS, AND LANDING GEARS—1 arog of whee! (orig st Bmpnaoie olf Foiring A one holt Pairing B yor if i J Lhe cmt ey ee Fiore 6—Drag and dlmensions of wheel tating © an side fo ollow Peavat oe haat ae eats ee oe = en | icons 8—Drog end dlmeasiony of wheel falrng B. Tested only in Ganjunetion with halt gear ea Ficons 9.—Dinenalons of wheel fairing P. 203204 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITEE FOR AERONAUEICS 2 oo lane holt gear 2a a * 4 g — 8 q =e _—_ | 6 “ie =e 4 2 7% 7e Toe out ‘angle of yaw, degree Toe In Fooma 10—Drg of 850-30 wheel end onebalt guar 2a fn yew. Air Weed, 60 mon Medications =e FS ceirevior) of pot of over o7g9,gf holt of geor Ba of 68 mar or 80 mp vithout wheel fairing, Without whee! fairing, 115 ws POOF Mime whee! foiting Tae With wpe! faring 9.7 ™ See OO mod YB « With mee faring Poff ima ars ‘ond flats 8, 9.0% a ceiaed i LY Proces Fiavur 11.—Dmeg of onetalf gear 2a with wheel fairing A.‘THE DRAG OF AIRPLANE WHEELS, WHEEL PAIRINGS, AND LANDING GRARS—I 205 x, Modification E Modification Ex, ‘Gop closed of halt of gear 08 mp Without wheel Foiring 15 la With wheel Feiring ” filers of holt of gear of 80 mpn Without whee! Fairing, hts With wheel fairing 90 = He! Wi estas ve ‘end fillets 9 aa" » Cee: Pe afr ris 1 edt Be ort sage 2 Os ine brane Cover plate > ¥ A ‘hie CC ——_———— en side rag of holf of gear or 60 mph. winout wheel firing, 118 Be G29 of half of gear Win wheel fairing 142 = ‘a of 60 Wen wheel Fairing, Without whee! Fotring, 115 la ‘gop closed 108~ With Te (AJ OY ‘oun 14.—Drag of onehalt gear 2a with wheel folrng D. room 10—Dreg ot onebalt gear 2n with wheel faring F2068 H, Stesgered ll REORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS Standard whee! Jocations 0120s ‘collapsed ced] Fuseloge mounted in inverted postion Fiovns 17.—Sketeh of foslage showing lotions of wings, wheel, and ‘2828 delened for G- by 26-308 wlog save the wheel Jeatlons 25 Seto atadaa ioeadina Ph Tread a pets Fans db end Me ice oon | om igoas 18—Drag and dimensloos of gear 1a. Drag of goar at 100 mp. (oleos extended) : 850-10 wheel, 42.5 pounds. ¥, diag cottgosed 2 Bae SiraSAine tubeHE DRAG OF AIRPLANE WHEELS, WHBEL FAIRINGS, AND LANDING GEARS—1 rise 207 Wy Goer xls tobe ¥ Goer ie, f stPeemiing wire 1% leo oxtencea (oteos extendea) % Geer 26 Wai, oreamine nee Be eireanline wire 860-10 wheels, 40.0 pounds "Bove S—Drag oa owas 0 gee hand 3 resem 18 ar ae REIS wea208 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTIOS loon 22-—Drag and almensons of gear 20. Drug of gear at 100 mpd. (oleae extended): 860-10 whese, 48.0 pous vem 22:—Drag and dimensions of guar 38, rg, of sar a 300 mp. (len extends ¥, Ole0 coyigoved 2 igen tige Erreaitine tube‘THE DRAG OF AIRPLANE WHEELS, WHBEL AIRINGS, AND LANDING GEARS—t 209 ‘iooes 24.—Deag and Almensions of gsne Sb. ne gsr agp nome tae ra rent - oe 7 iH Tiaoee 28.—Deag and dimensions of gear 8 ‘Drag, of gear at 100 mp. (oleos extande) Pounds Sohal a nue aereutinad ‘$0000 hee etrcamle Slay Pemoecd Fro aemuaey 81: 50-10 whoo eunliae fneitg removed oom mesibes 9210 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS 1 Myx strcomtine Olea eaiensee om 2 gageree’ Wioune 20—Dmog and dimensions of gear 4. Deng of gear at 100 mp. (ol extended) : 850-10 wheels, 9.0 pounds ¥ Sategontne re Rae S ie fre [er Awe (ice In ‘nis plone TPS» ote coleooes EWA 2 adie" oz r —— i A igus 27-—Drag and clmenrlons of gear 6. Drag of guar at 100 mp. (olen extended) : §.60-20 wheels, 88.0 pounds‘THE DRAG OF AIRPLANE WHEELS, WHEEL PAIRINGS, AND LANDING GEARS—t 211 % leo extended 5 ae cote Leen ‘Fiounr 28—Drag and dlmenslons of gone 0. Drag of gear at 100 mp. (oleoe extended) + 8.50-10 wheels, 60.5 pounds. % Gee eoepoea ls reer) me ffl | TI Taw che ; a rom 20—Drag and dlmensone of geae rng, at 100 mp (olen extended) S808 tac wadidenton I212 RBPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTIOS Noa atreanlina fering oer ‘anda tabow 5, Hoop fitting covered tock whl fairing A, mith z ‘Sindomina faring over eat intersection 2054. Pe ose Wig Ups stroom 4 ee Lig sEP em, a gone 30-—Dmag end Gimeastons of gar 8 g te Sica Lineal lew = 7 vo 4 ‘rovne Si—Drag aod dlmensions of gear 8. Drag of gear at 100 mph. (oles extended) : 250-10 wheels, 40.0 pounds,(THE DRAG OF AIRPLANE WHEELS, WHEEL ¥AIRINGS, AND LANDING GEARS—t 213 ! ‘Fioven 2—Drag and aimencons of gear 10 rag of 8 94 309 po. Wheel fiends 3, oat aad wire tts fined at faa Y, Strut ection 2 ictal section Aictoll section. ot Ee a 8 be ‘Figvmn $8.—Drag and dlmencions of ear 1a a ee a214 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS Y, seo! foiring b, 2, BF Sicwoniite whoo! ie rt 30% — one 8t—Drag and Snen of gar 8 neo gh 1 a 4 igs etregnine tobe E inode BE Be toa 8 creatine wre Bees 6°% 18° Clark ¥ wing 8.5010 wheel: 39 Pocen $¢—Dreg and dhnnins of grr 22 Drag,of ear a 300 12 Pouae SeGo$0" vice) rival ttrings A, wire ftings expetedy ong ‘800-10 whedia, Wied airings A, wires aad brace strats off 38.8THE DRAG OF AIRPLANE WHEELS, WHEEL FATRINGS, AND LANDING GEARS: YM. 2, hee! fairing extended to ning. Zhe. axsonding Fiieh — LE 3M x 18" Crk ¥ wing 33 Pwo $6.—Drag and dimeasions of gear 13. Pounds ‘elboAT0 Witcla: wheel atsiuge A. 80-10 Wheat "wen tauaes BOAO ieee, whe! ‘atrioge Ar molltestinn %,0leo extended we nee! toiring © a : -Figoms $7—Drag and clmencions o¢ gear 14. rs, of ete at 200 mint oles extent) SEC) Wc, Woe216 MBPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS tx 18 Clerk ¥ wing 1a" _——— Ficus 28—Drag and dlimensions of gor 140, Drag of gear at 100 mph. (eos extended): &60-10 wheels, 4.0 pound X,0le0 extended Engen ei i ‘ireamline tube 6° 18" Clerk ¥ wing Ca Bioone 2.—Ding and dimensions of pear Ie, Drag of gear at 100 mph (olen extended). 850-10 wheels, 1.0 poundpap DRAG OF AIRPLANE WHERUS, WARE wAMRINGS, AND LANDING GEARS—T 27 ee pal 5 3 caudtng gent 22 mounted om218 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTIOS = 'leouted engine plus, win ole 118; conled engine p 9. si 8S = by ~ vo) a = eT ae o 4 2 0 ee. Angle of pitch, degrees sce of ich, dearece Nicene ;-Drag ot 100 mand. of lanting eur te end 128 Prove 42—Drag at 100 mph, of gear 12 mounted on te Bees Be prttnce Ge ale BENG SB oe 2 Pasags ad the 8s Sehank Mad‘THE DRAG OF AIRPLANE WHEELS, WHEEL PAIRINGS, AND LANDING GEARS—1 219 a sx sad ze fo a Arale of pch grees wes sag at 300 mh of ei gmt o2 Be Tags 202 GO 8 DBE i Drag, Ib. engine, uf ‘moditi~ ee 15 | 9 a 80 80 208 a fe ‘Air speed, m.p.ii- g ~ ‘Tiguan 4-=Drag comparison of «wie braced ping and gear with cant e nighal aie bara ti bad 2 Ae Ove et [_- Me in presence 2 da with wi Tb one fe" —i40 4 6 3 2 Angle OF pitch, degrees age at, 100, mph, of gears da, 14h, and Ie ied Sa Rindge ‘aud he oy 18 foe wih 5 roone220 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISOBY COMMITTEE FOR ARRONAUIICS TABLE NI—DRAG OF HALF OF LANDING GEAR 20 ‘WITH 850-10 WHBEL AND WHBEL FAIRINGS se ee caciee oe Rei ‘TABLE I¥—DRAG DUB TO VARIOUS LANDING GHARS. MOUNTED ON TEST FUSELAGE, 0” PITCH, 860-10 WHEELS, Wimp | Gear fade, 7 se o (og 20 asa 20 es 40 IE Percentage of airplane drag due to lending gear igam 40-—A. general reluonahip applet tg ene gre, ow he eee eae z Si Sorina ana PABLD DRAG OF VARIOUS WHEELS AND TIRES i Bip ie vlogs wos SOY SARE ERS ded BO Whine SERDRSESEEE SeaMRRE RY 1 Grae sonled on fsiage ead & By Ifo! wing ‘TABLE V—BEFECT OF VARIOUS WHBBLS UPON THD ‘DRAG DUB TO SHVBRAL LANDING GBARS MOUNTED ON THST FUSELAGE, 0” PITCH ‘TARLB IL—DRAG OF 850-10 WHERL, WITH VARIOUS WHEL PAIRINGS 5 2a 7 &THE DNAG OF AIRPLANE WHESLS, WHEEL EAIRINGS, AND LANDING GEARS—1 TABLE VI—BFFBOY OF VARIOUS MODUPCATIONS ‘UPON THE DRAG DUB TO LANDING GBARS MOUNTED ON THST FUSELAGE, 0° PITCH 221 ‘TABLE YL—BFFRCT OF VARIOUS MODIFIOATIONS ‘UPON TH DRAG DUE TO LANDING GEARS MOUNIDD ON TRST FUSHLAGE, 0° PITOH—Continued. ‘Condition of gar ae mph. = itd Doge errs sae LANDING GEAR ta YUSELAGE WITH 6 DY 1$FOOT WING LANDING OZAR 16 FUSELAGE WIDH & BY 18FOOT WING LANDING OFAR 1 ob hd og, wi ese HE ae # £ TABI VIGA-ANALTEIS OF TANDING.ORAR DRAG LANDRIG GBARS DRATGNMD FoR ArtAomaNT 70 POSELAGR, Att SYORDCIO) MPs © POR Bat tlie a alk Salsas rasatopenr | £ | B/E) 2 [Fy / 88 ney E i ue HEB oe Lilt atl LANE LEE UE IE HRY RY ae gee ———— Sia) a) Ba) ag TANDING GRAR 10 re Bs] to| ia] tes | a2 | 43] see wea: sears] bey | a2}ina|xe] ace] mol meer | aca rte x ES ees,| BS sea B08 bey a l,i tnd Os | [_—_—_————————————— —_ valasleslasles PUSRLAGE WITH 6 DY 1&FOOT WING LANDING ORAR 13 Ke) ste] aa] 83] be ‘A mils wet oe 7 eit ptgn slender. 5 RitaSetion ospeide whe,222 REPORT NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTES FOR AERONAUTICS . TABLH VII-B—ANALYSIS OF LANDING-GRAR DRAG | TABLE VUL—BFFEOP OF TWO TYPES OF LANDING GHARS ON THE PERFORMANCH OF TWO CLASSHS OF LANDING GEARS DESIGNED FoR arracmmmyr To wiNa | STRPEANIES! Co tates Ua LOW.WING CANTILEVER MONOPLANES 2)le |, |2 He ear | ger swoaseone | £ | #188) 2 | Ey] BE) EE 7 ae t Ele | faite 7 7 HEPTUA ELE ales a 2 2 PE Bil elas AIRPLANRS EQUIPPED WITH LOW-DRAG AND IIGH-DRAG AVR B]aslet ico] a2]aar ecgec.| to |r qmet.| 0 na | ns] so | amo 142] s01] 50] co] mo] ser WIRE BRAGED GNCLUDING WING BRACING) 13, Grttnout a1 | ao] 6 | sso td | aa |aa1| sus]sxo| a7|as|aus| a7] .10 erates |e ied a ba ‘afaeh | 2.0] 321] 361] 480) 20 | ms | m0] 07] 101 cele | ast leet CANTILEVER (WITH WHEEL PAIRINGS) Ta pens of wing ond aaa, eafo, ‘wdiigeitee| 20/100] 20] 2.0) a1|ss2|s10] as] zor | Retspted os tet of wel rings A and As.