11
$\begingroup$

The rear of the plane is nearer to the ground, while the front part of the plane is away from the ground (see image below).

Other planes are more flat.

I think it was for high AoA but these planes are carrier operated so I don't think there is much sense for that.

enter image description here
(wikimedia.org)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not sure what you’re asking. Are you commenting that it dits nose high in its landing gear? $\endgroup$ – Carlo Felicione Jun 22 at 14:49
  • $\begingroup$ The landing gears arent the same height which gives the plane a "taildragger posture". Why? $\endgroup$ – Delta Oscar Uniform Jun 22 at 14:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think most of what you are seeing is just perspective. I think the "flat A4" in the upper right corner may be parked on a hill or something. I'm not sure how the F4 is relevant to the A4 question though? $\endgroup$ – Ron Beyer Jun 22 at 15:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RonBeyer as an example for an "non tilted" plane $\endgroup$ – Delta Oscar Uniform Jun 22 at 15:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The A-4 had a mechanically-simple but effective high-lift system that relied on gravity and air pressure to automatically deploy. Not sure about the actual mechanism, but I remember reading somewhere that the high pitch angle helped the deployment. $\endgroup$ – aerobot Jun 22 at 16:20
21
$\begingroup$

This was pretty common on naval aircraft from that era which used the launch bridle catapult interface. It gave the aircraft a high angle of attack during launch and helped the aircraft get clear of the bridle at the end of the launch stroke. It's noticeable on a wide variety of aircraft, including the F7U-3, F4D, A-5, F9F, F8, Super Etendard, Buccaneer, F3H, just to name a few.

Even the F-4 did. The nose landing gear oleo strut could be extended to give a nose high squat for cat shots:

enter image description here
(theaviationgeekclub.com)

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I like this answer better than mine. As a side note you could note that the A-4 gear was designed to be tall overall to give sufficient ground clearance to carry a nuclear weapon. Sources: For corroboration, "The long landing-gear struts were dictated by clearance requirements for large stores carried beneath the wings on either side and between the main landing-gear legs." history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch12-7.htm (thanks ymb1), f16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=27254 . $\endgroup$ – quiet flyer Jun 23 at 0:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The latter suggests that there were issues with the nose dipping too low during catapult launches and less-than-optimal landings but it's still not clear whether the tall nose gear was actually intended to help prevent that in any way. $\endgroup$ – quiet flyer Jun 23 at 0:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If I were the op I would change my "accept" to this answer. (If Stack Exch allows that which I think it does.) $\endgroup$ – quiet flyer Jun 23 at 0:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Article of peripheral interest on "bridle catchers" and launch bridles: thedrive.com/the-war-zone/7099/__trashed-9 . Also patriotspoint.org/news-and-events/… . Google "launch bridle" for more. $\endgroup$ – quiet flyer Jun 23 at 0:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ah but the F4 did. The nose landing gear oleo strut could be extended to give a nose high squat for cat shots theaviationgeekclub.com/… $\endgroup$ – Carlo Felicione Jun 23 at 11:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.