The B-50B No. 47-118 with a Track Landing Gear, tested in 1949 to 1950

[-]

RugbyEdd@reddit

So it's technically a flying halftrack?

[-]

agha0013@reddit

they tried these on the B-36 as well.

Insanely complex pile of hardware that didn't help tremendously, just way more bits and pieces to break.

[-]

Sha77eredSpiri7@reddit

Believe it or not, the tracked gear were actually LIGHTER compared to traditional tires! The ones on the B-36 were atleast, not sure how similar they are to the ones on the B-50B

[-]

Is the track itself lighter, or the entire system with rollers, levers, and shock absorbers? I highly doubt the latter. Besides, at high speeds, the track tends to form a ring (you can't fool physics), which means it will experience significant tensile stress.

[-]

pumpkinfarts23@reddit

The entire system. B-36 had single giant rubber tires that were very heavy.

Modern multi wheel landing gear, like on a widebody airliner, have a lot more in common with the track gear than the single giant wheel of the B-36.

[-]

Muted_Will_2131@reddit

I specifically Googled it... Yeah, it's a crazy idea with one giant wheel. But it was close to a prototype...

[-]

joeljaeggli@reddit

The b36 had the largest single aircraft tire

[-]

PowerOfEternity@reddit

I wonder how the tracks would have handled a stiff crosswind landing. My brain is telling me it would kick the belt right off.

[-]

critical_patch@reddit

I preferred the original design where the B-36 just had one massive tire 10 feet tall on each main

[-]

agha0013@reddit

That design was the worst though. Looked great but was terrible for operations.

[-]

critical_patch@reddit

Peacemaker-tire, Peacemaker-tire 10 feet tall weighs a fucking ton Runways beware, runways beware He’s landing, he’s landing, he’s landing

[-]

Luknron@reddit

But have you considered that it looks metal as fuck?

[-]

an_older_meme@reddit

There is that.

[-]

agha0013@reddit

yes, and so does the runway when it's got components scattered all over it.

[-]

Quadtbighs@reddit

Is this AI upscaled?

[-]

someguyfromsk@reddit

I can see why you would consider that for less than ideal landing strips, but my god that is a complicated solution.

[-]

Affectionate-Yak5280@reddit

Yeah you'd think skids or skis would spread the load the same with less complexity. Just replace the skids every 1 - 4 landings or something...

[-]

Sentient-burgerV2@reddit

Ai upscale?

[-]

trynared@reddit

Yep. Actual footage is grainy black-and-white.

https://youtu.be/Ef8J5k0O0WU

[-]

Ote-Kringralnick@reddit

That's not even bad resolution, they should have just kept the original

[-]

neat_klingon@reddit

But the original doesn't have that bitchin' music under it!

[-]

ryanidsteel@reddit

I felt that too. The close up video of the tracks sure looks upscaled

[-]

TeddyBinks@reddit

Kinda looks like it was upscaled to me, yes.

[-]

Evening-Ad5765@reddit

What’s the benefit of tracks v tires on an airplane?

[-]

Ornery_Year_9870@reddit

Just post the original footage instead of this AI slop.

[-]

ElvisDumbledore@reddit

Seems like more and bigger wheels would be just as effective and alot simpler. imo.

[-]

RandoDude124@reddit

I didn’t complete an engineering beyond freshman year of community college, but that looks like a mechanical nightmare

[-]

wthulhu@reddit

Im shocked it worked as well as it did. Half expected it to tear itself apart

[-]

ElvisDumbledore@reddit

Same. 100% would have expected it to explode on impact.

[-]

Strygan@reddit

Tracks at these speeds… maintenance should be no joke

[-]

alaskafish@reddit

So what was the reasoning behind this?

It just seems needlessly complicated, for what? Being able to land softer runways with heavier planes?

[-]

NF-104@reddit

Lowering runway contact pressure, first tried on the B-36. The original XB-36 main landing gear was a singular huge tire (preserved at the USAF museum), so heavy that only 4 airports in the US could support it. This led to trying a similar tracked MLG and eventually a two-axle MLG bogie.XB-36 track MLG

[-]

LightningFerret04@reddit

Those tires are almost as tall as Bigfoot 5’s which is insane

[-]

Syrdon@reddit

They're all of ten inches short of the Bigfoot 5 tires. They're also a foot narrower. 110 x 36 vs 120 x 48.

You'd notice the width difference even if they weren't side by side, but I honestly don't think you'd notice the height difference if they weren't next to each other.

[-]

bigloser42@reddit

So you are telling me that donks have almost caught up to the rim size of the B-36? What a world we live in.

[-]

LefsaMadMuppet@reddit

Especially for the B-36, the runways had to be extra thick to handle the weight. The original B-36 ha a single tire for each main wheel, they had to switch to four tires to address the issues.

[-]

digger250@reddit

Holy crap! Look at that wheel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKKbCp7ZWBc&t=145s

[-]

DESTRUCTI0NAT0R@reddit

Lol that's hilarious. I've seen one up close in person but this is hilarious how much of a giant blob at that distance they are.

[-]

DrShockola@reddit

It's amazing to see in person how large it truly is

[-]

Legitimate-Sky-6820@reddit

A yes, the famed b36 bomb wheels. Its wild they where even able to build those things.

[-]

kryptopeg@reddit

Precisely, gives you a lot more options on the strips available and where you can taxi/park. The thinking was that if/when a war breaks out, you wouldn't always have the luxury of big, well-prepared airfields with solid ground. It was a trial to see if they could gain more choice/flexibility in combat.

[-]

alaskafish@reddit

Sometimes my genius is almost frightening

[-]

RatherGoodDog@reddit

Or put metal plates under the wheels on the parking stands?

[-]

getdownheavy@reddit

Kind of like tundra tires, but for really big planes.

Imagine how much the US Military would love to be less dependent on airfields

[-]

n1elkyfan@reddit

That was the exact reason for why they tried it.

[-]

NoDoze-@reddit

Im curious how they managed the heat generated?

[-]

Northern_Wyven_63@reddit

ok, maintenance-wise this is a nightmare and likely dosent give too much benefit. but this is cool af

[-]

UmbraPenumbra@reddit

Warhammer tech

[-]

YearPractical5840@reddit

Aren't those stripped Sherman tanks?

[-]

Electrical_Report458@reddit

Is that Boeing Field?

[-]

Uranium-Sandwich657@reddit

r/MortalEngines vibes

[-]

RedditVirumCurialem@reddit

People are too negative, this is actually perfect for those occasions when you need to bring your strategic bomber with you on your camping trip.

[-]

Rooilia@reddit

Ah, the soft ground problem, i see.

[-]

SeeMarkFly@reddit

Trump could have used that last week.

[-]

HKTLE@reddit

Awesome

[-]

killer_marsupial@reddit

What was the purpose of that mini centerline trailing wheel?

[-]

recumbent_mike@reddit

Airspeed indicator for when you're on the ground

[-]

LightningGeek@reddit

It's most likely a ground speed indicator. Air speed indicators will work regardless of whether you are on the ground or not.

[-]

zoinkability@reddit

Maybe helped the tracks pivot if the airplane was landing at an angle? Just spitballing here.

[-]

LightningGeek@reddit

According to one caption on this, it seems like it was part of the test measuring equipment.

Most likely it would be measuring the actual ground speed of the aircraft. If you used the regular aircrafts probes, then you would only get air speed information, which would not be as useful, or as accurate.

[-]

Xeelee1123@reddit (OP)

Source: https://youtu.be/KheAAAV748c

Source: https://www.tinker.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1919691/history-of-aircraft-track-landing-gear/

[-]

Rooilia@reddit

Looks like having less break power too.

[-]

PE1NUT@reddit

Lots of break power, less brake power.