Why is the Constellation's nose gear so long? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results...
How come people say “Would of”?
The difference between dialogue marks
Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"
What is the closest word meaning "respect for time / mindful"
Protecting Dualbooting Windows from dangerous code (like rm -rf)
Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)
Origin of "cooter" meaning "vagina"
How to save as into a customized destination on macOS?
Did Section 31 appear in Star Trek: The Next Generation?
Deal with toxic manager when you can't quit
Falsification in Math vs Science
FPGA - DIY Programming
How to type this arrow in math mode?
Shouldn't "much" here be used instead of "more"?
What to do when moving next to a bird sanctuary with a loosely-domesticated cat?
A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky
Why can Shazam fly?
Why isn't the circumferential light around the M87 black hole's event horizon symmetric?
Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?
Does a dangling wire really electrocute me if I'm standing in water?
Geography at the pixel level
Delete all lines which don't have n characters before delimiter
Why did Acorn's A3000 have red function keys?
Did 3000BC Egyptians use meteoric iron weapons?
Why is the Constellation's nose gear so long?
The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InWhat are the advantages of more than 4 propeller blades?Why does landing gear retract with an offset?Is it possible to control an aircraft on the runway if the nose gear collapses?Why is the Eurofighters nose gear door shorter than the bay?Why does landing gear extend backwards and retract forwards?How can I calculate the force on the nose gear at landing?What is the typical weight distribution ratio between nose gear and main gear?Why is the nose landing gear of a Rutan Vari Eze up during parking?Which is the technically correct term: Nose Gear or Nose Landing Gear?What is this item on the nosewheel of the Sukhoi PAK-FA?How long does the gear extension/retraction takes on the ATR-42?
$begingroup$
The Lockheed Constellation has an enormously long nose gear, which causes the aircraft to slant appreciably backwards when sitting on the ground:
L-049
(Image by Greg and Cindy at Flickr, modified by Cobatfor at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-649
(Image by the San Diego Air and Space Museum, via Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)
L-749
(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-1049
(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-1649
(Image by Robert Togni at Flickr, via JuergenKlueser at Wikimedia Commons. Note that, due to the gigantic nose gear, the fuselage is approximately level, despite the ground sloping downwards considerably towards the aircraft's nose.)
In contrast, other airliners of the era had a much-less-ridiculous nose gear length, like the DC-7:
(Image by Ted Quackenbush at airliners.net, modified by Fæ at Wikimedia Commons.)
and the Stratocruiser:
(Image by Bill Larkins at Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)
Why is the Constellation's nose gear so much longer?
landing-gear lockheed-constellation
asked 4 hours ago
SeanSean
5,94532874
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Lockheed Constellation has an enormously long nose gear, which causes the aircraft to slant appreciably backwards when sitting on the ground:
L-049
(Image by Greg and Cindy at Flickr, modified by Cobatfor at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-649
(Image by the San Diego Air and Space Museum, via Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)
L-749
(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-1049
(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-1649
(Image by Robert Togni at Flickr, via JuergenKlueser at Wikimedia Commons. Note that, due to the gigantic nose gear, the fuselage is approximately level, despite the ground sloping downwards considerably towards the aircraft's nose.)
In contrast, other airliners of the era had a much-less-ridiculous nose gear length, like the DC-7:
(Image by Ted Quackenbush at airliners.net, modified by Fæ at Wikimedia Commons.)
and the Stratocruiser:
(Image by Bill Larkins at Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)
Why is the Constellation's nose gear so much longer?
landing-gear lockheed-constellation
asked 4 hours ago
SeanSean
5,94532874
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Lockheed Constellation has an enormously long nose gear, which causes the aircraft to slant appreciably backwards when sitting on the ground:
L-049
(Image by Greg and Cindy at Flickr, modified by Cobatfor at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-649
(Image by the San Diego Air and Space Museum, via Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)
L-749
(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-1049
(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-1649
(Image by Robert Togni at Flickr, via JuergenKlueser at Wikimedia Commons. Note that, due to the gigantic nose gear, the fuselage is approximately level, despite the ground sloping downwards considerably towards the aircraft's nose.)
In contrast, other airliners of the era had a much-less-ridiculous nose gear length, like the DC-7:
(Image by Ted Quackenbush at airliners.net, modified by Fæ at Wikimedia Commons.)
and the Stratocruiser:
(Image by Bill Larkins at Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)
Why is the Constellation's nose gear so much longer?
landing-gear lockheed-constellation
asked 4 hours ago
SeanSean
5,94532874
$endgroup$
The Lockheed Constellation has an enormously long nose gear, which causes the aircraft to slant appreciably backwards when sitting on the ground:
L-049
(Image by Greg and Cindy at Flickr, modified by Cobatfor at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-649
(Image by the San Diego Air and Space Museum, via Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)
L-749
(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-1049
(Image by RuthAS at Wikimedia Commons.)
L-1649
(Image by Robert Togni at Flickr, via JuergenKlueser at Wikimedia Commons. Note that, due to the gigantic nose gear, the fuselage is approximately level, despite the ground sloping downwards considerably towards the aircraft's nose.)
In contrast, other airliners of the era had a much-less-ridiculous nose gear length, like the DC-7:
(Image by Ted Quackenbush at airliners.net, modified by Fæ at Wikimedia Commons.)
and the Stratocruiser:
(Image by Bill Larkins at Flickr, via Wikimedia Commons.)
Why is the Constellation's nose gear so much longer?
landing-gear lockheed-constellation
landing-gear lockheed-constellation
asked 4 hours ago
SeanSean
5,94532874
asked 4 hours ago
SeanSean
5,94532874
asked 4 hours ago
SeanSean
5,94532874
asked 4 hours ago
SeanSean
5,94532874
asked 4 hours ago
SeanSean
5,94532874
5,94532874
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The Connie's fuselage has a subtle S shaped contour which was intended to conform somewhat to the upwash ahead of the wing and downwash aft of the wing, with a final upturn at the end to place the horizontal tail at the desired vertical location.
They also tapered the fuselage to the smallest cross sectional area possible at the nose, to part the air gently you might say, so the bottom ends up sloping up toward the nose.
Then you have main gear legs that are fairly long because the R3350's propellers are quite large.
The wing incidence is set to optimize the fuselage curvature's presentation into the airflow in cruise.
At the same time, you want to have wing chord in a certain desirable AOA range sitting on the ground, and you want to keep the tail from sitting too high (the Connie has the 3 surfaces to keep the vertical height of the tail low enough to fit the common hangars of the day).
Combine all those factors together and you end up having to the make the strut really long, and ending up with the most graceful airliner ever designed.
answered 2 hours ago
John KJohn K
24.9k13675
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
$endgroup$
– Sean
47 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can see that the underside of the Connie's fuselage ahead of the wing root is contoured upwards to begin the taper which ends at the tip of the plane's nose. The other planes had constant-section fuselages ahead of the wing root, in which the nose does not begin to taper down until just aft of the cockpit.
To maintain the same propeller tip ground clearance, the Lockheed design then required a longer nose gear strut because the attach point for the nose wheel was higher in the air.
(In the case of the Douglas aircraft, maintaining a constant fuselage cross-section forward and aft of the wing reduced tooling costs and enabled fuselage stretches in future revisions of the airframe.)
answered 2 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,5691515
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(Top, bottom)
Despite having the same engine (Wright R-3350), low-wing mounting, and that the main landing gear of both the DC-7 and the Connie retracted into the cowls of the inboard engines, those alone would not count for the taller nose landing gear of the Connie.
What does is the propeller diameter. Lockheed went with three bladed propellers, compared to the DC-7's four bladed propellers, resulting in a difference of 5.5 ft (1.7 m) in diameter (19 ft$^1$ vs 13.5 ft$^2$ propellers). The Connie also sat with a higher pitch angle, as evident by the 3-view drawing.
The above answers the geometric reason.
As for the design choice, fewer blades are more efficient, albeit bigger. As for the nose pitch on ground, it could mean the wing is attached at a lower angle of incidence, permitting a more level floor in cruise.
$^1$ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/l-049-specs.htm
$^2$ http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dc-7_review_booklet_1954.pdf (page 4; PDF page 6)
answered 14 mins ago
ymb1ymb1
70.2k7225372
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "528"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62261%2fwhy-is-the-constellations-nose-gear-so-long%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The Connie's fuselage has a subtle S shaped contour which was intended to conform somewhat to the upwash ahead of the wing and downwash aft of the wing, with a final upturn at the end to place the horizontal tail at the desired vertical location.
They also tapered the fuselage to the smallest cross sectional area possible at the nose, to part the air gently you might say, so the bottom ends up sloping up toward the nose.
Then you have main gear legs that are fairly long because the R3350's propellers are quite large.
The wing incidence is set to optimize the fuselage curvature's presentation into the airflow in cruise.
At the same time, you want to have wing chord in a certain desirable AOA range sitting on the ground, and you want to keep the tail from sitting too high (the Connie has the 3 surfaces to keep the vertical height of the tail low enough to fit the common hangars of the day).
Combine all those factors together and you end up having to the make the strut really long, and ending up with the most graceful airliner ever designed.
answered 2 hours ago
John KJohn K
24.9k13675
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
$endgroup$
– Sean
47 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Connie's fuselage has a subtle S shaped contour which was intended to conform somewhat to the upwash ahead of the wing and downwash aft of the wing, with a final upturn at the end to place the horizontal tail at the desired vertical location.
They also tapered the fuselage to the smallest cross sectional area possible at the nose, to part the air gently you might say, so the bottom ends up sloping up toward the nose.
Then you have main gear legs that are fairly long because the R3350's propellers are quite large.
The wing incidence is set to optimize the fuselage curvature's presentation into the airflow in cruise.
At the same time, you want to have wing chord in a certain desirable AOA range sitting on the ground, and you want to keep the tail from sitting too high (the Connie has the 3 surfaces to keep the vertical height of the tail low enough to fit the common hangars of the day).
Combine all those factors together and you end up having to the make the strut really long, and ending up with the most graceful airliner ever designed.
answered 2 hours ago
John KJohn K
24.9k13675
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
$endgroup$
– Sean
47 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Connie's fuselage has a subtle S shaped contour which was intended to conform somewhat to the upwash ahead of the wing and downwash aft of the wing, with a final upturn at the end to place the horizontal tail at the desired vertical location.
They also tapered the fuselage to the smallest cross sectional area possible at the nose, to part the air gently you might say, so the bottom ends up sloping up toward the nose.
Then you have main gear legs that are fairly long because the R3350's propellers are quite large.
The wing incidence is set to optimize the fuselage curvature's presentation into the airflow in cruise.
At the same time, you want to have wing chord in a certain desirable AOA range sitting on the ground, and you want to keep the tail from sitting too high (the Connie has the 3 surfaces to keep the vertical height of the tail low enough to fit the common hangars of the day).
Combine all those factors together and you end up having to the make the strut really long, and ending up with the most graceful airliner ever designed.
answered 2 hours ago
John KJohn K
24.9k13675
$endgroup$
The Connie's fuselage has a subtle S shaped contour which was intended to conform somewhat to the upwash ahead of the wing and downwash aft of the wing, with a final upturn at the end to place the horizontal tail at the desired vertical location.
They also tapered the fuselage to the smallest cross sectional area possible at the nose, to part the air gently you might say, so the bottom ends up sloping up toward the nose.
Then you have main gear legs that are fairly long because the R3350's propellers are quite large.
The wing incidence is set to optimize the fuselage curvature's presentation into the airflow in cruise.
At the same time, you want to have wing chord in a certain desirable AOA range sitting on the ground, and you want to keep the tail from sitting too high (the Connie has the 3 surfaces to keep the vertical height of the tail low enough to fit the common hangars of the day).
Combine all those factors together and you end up having to the make the strut really long, and ending up with the most graceful airliner ever designed.
answered 2 hours ago
John KJohn K
24.9k13675
answered 2 hours ago
John KJohn K
24.9k13675
answered 2 hours ago
John KJohn K
24.9k13675
answered 2 hours ago
John KJohn K
24.9k13675
24.9k13675
$begingroup$
I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
$endgroup$
– Sean
47 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
$endgroup$
– Sean
47 mins ago
$begingroup$
I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
$endgroup$
– Sean
47 mins ago
$begingroup$
I already knew about the streamlining and the tail-height restrictions, but now I see how that necessitates tilting the fuselage back slightly!
$endgroup$
– Sean
47 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can see that the underside of the Connie's fuselage ahead of the wing root is contoured upwards to begin the taper which ends at the tip of the plane's nose. The other planes had constant-section fuselages ahead of the wing root, in which the nose does not begin to taper down until just aft of the cockpit.
To maintain the same propeller tip ground clearance, the Lockheed design then required a longer nose gear strut because the attach point for the nose wheel was higher in the air.
(In the case of the Douglas aircraft, maintaining a constant fuselage cross-section forward and aft of the wing reduced tooling costs and enabled fuselage stretches in future revisions of the airframe.)
answered 2 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,5691515
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can see that the underside of the Connie's fuselage ahead of the wing root is contoured upwards to begin the taper which ends at the tip of the plane's nose. The other planes had constant-section fuselages ahead of the wing root, in which the nose does not begin to taper down until just aft of the cockpit.
To maintain the same propeller tip ground clearance, the Lockheed design then required a longer nose gear strut because the attach point for the nose wheel was higher in the air.
(In the case of the Douglas aircraft, maintaining a constant fuselage cross-section forward and aft of the wing reduced tooling costs and enabled fuselage stretches in future revisions of the airframe.)
answered 2 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,5691515
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can see that the underside of the Connie's fuselage ahead of the wing root is contoured upwards to begin the taper which ends at the tip of the plane's nose. The other planes had constant-section fuselages ahead of the wing root, in which the nose does not begin to taper down until just aft of the cockpit.
To maintain the same propeller tip ground clearance, the Lockheed design then required a longer nose gear strut because the attach point for the nose wheel was higher in the air.
(In the case of the Douglas aircraft, maintaining a constant fuselage cross-section forward and aft of the wing reduced tooling costs and enabled fuselage stretches in future revisions of the airframe.)
answered 2 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,5691515
$endgroup$
You can see that the underside of the Connie's fuselage ahead of the wing root is contoured upwards to begin the taper which ends at the tip of the plane's nose. The other planes had constant-section fuselages ahead of the wing root, in which the nose does not begin to taper down until just aft of the cockpit.
To maintain the same propeller tip ground clearance, the Lockheed design then required a longer nose gear strut because the attach point for the nose wheel was higher in the air.
(In the case of the Douglas aircraft, maintaining a constant fuselage cross-section forward and aft of the wing reduced tooling costs and enabled fuselage stretches in future revisions of the airframe.)
answered 2 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,5691515
answered 2 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,5691515
answered 2 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,5691515
answered 2 hours ago
niels nielsenniels nielsen
2,5691515
2,5691515
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(Top, bottom)
Despite having the same engine (Wright R-3350), low-wing mounting, and that the main landing gear of both the DC-7 and the Connie retracted into the cowls of the inboard engines, those alone would not count for the taller nose landing gear of the Connie.
What does is the propeller diameter. Lockheed went with three bladed propellers, compared to the DC-7's four bladed propellers, resulting in a difference of 5.5 ft (1.7 m) in diameter (19 ft$^1$ vs 13.5 ft$^2$ propellers). The Connie also sat with a higher pitch angle, as evident by the 3-view drawing.
The above answers the geometric reason.
As for the design choice, fewer blades are more efficient, albeit bigger. As for the nose pitch on ground, it could mean the wing is attached at a lower angle of incidence, permitting a more level floor in cruise.
$^1$ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/l-049-specs.htm
$^2$ http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dc-7_review_booklet_1954.pdf (page 4; PDF page 6)
answered 14 mins ago
ymb1ymb1
70.2k7225372
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(Top, bottom)
Despite having the same engine (Wright R-3350), low-wing mounting, and that the main landing gear of both the DC-7 and the Connie retracted into the cowls of the inboard engines, those alone would not count for the taller nose landing gear of the Connie.
What does is the propeller diameter. Lockheed went with three bladed propellers, compared to the DC-7's four bladed propellers, resulting in a difference of 5.5 ft (1.7 m) in diameter (19 ft$^1$ vs 13.5 ft$^2$ propellers). The Connie also sat with a higher pitch angle, as evident by the 3-view drawing.
The above answers the geometric reason.
As for the design choice, fewer blades are more efficient, albeit bigger. As for the nose pitch on ground, it could mean the wing is attached at a lower angle of incidence, permitting a more level floor in cruise.
$^1$ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/l-049-specs.htm
$^2$ http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dc-7_review_booklet_1954.pdf (page 4; PDF page 6)
answered 14 mins ago
ymb1ymb1
70.2k7225372
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(Top, bottom)
Despite having the same engine (Wright R-3350), low-wing mounting, and that the main landing gear of both the DC-7 and the Connie retracted into the cowls of the inboard engines, those alone would not count for the taller nose landing gear of the Connie.
What does is the propeller diameter. Lockheed went with three bladed propellers, compared to the DC-7's four bladed propellers, resulting in a difference of 5.5 ft (1.7 m) in diameter (19 ft$^1$ vs 13.5 ft$^2$ propellers). The Connie also sat with a higher pitch angle, as evident by the 3-view drawing.
The above answers the geometric reason.
As for the design choice, fewer blades are more efficient, albeit bigger. As for the nose pitch on ground, it could mean the wing is attached at a lower angle of incidence, permitting a more level floor in cruise.
$^1$ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/l-049-specs.htm
$^2$ http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dc-7_review_booklet_1954.pdf (page 4; PDF page 6)
answered 14 mins ago
ymb1ymb1
70.2k7225372
$endgroup$
(Top, bottom)
Despite having the same engine (Wright R-3350), low-wing mounting, and that the main landing gear of both the DC-7 and the Connie retracted into the cowls of the inboard engines, those alone would not count for the taller nose landing gear of the Connie.
What does is the propeller diameter. Lockheed went with three bladed propellers, compared to the DC-7's four bladed propellers, resulting in a difference of 5.5 ft (1.7 m) in diameter (19 ft$^1$ vs 13.5 ft$^2$ propellers). The Connie also sat with a higher pitch angle, as evident by the 3-view drawing.
The above answers the geometric reason.
As for the design choice, fewer blades are more efficient, albeit bigger. As for the nose pitch on ground, it could mean the wing is attached at a lower angle of incidence, permitting a more level floor in cruise.
$^1$ https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/l-049-specs.htm
$^2$ http://www.deltamuseum.org/docs/site/aircraft-pages/dc-7_review_booklet_1954.pdf (page 4; PDF page 6)
answered 14 mins ago
ymb1ymb1
70.2k7225372
answered 14 mins ago
ymb1ymb1
70.2k7225372
answered 14 mins ago
ymb1ymb1
70.2k7225372
answered 14 mins ago
ymb1ymb1
70.2k7225372
70.2k7225372
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Aviation Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faviation.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f62261%2fwhy-is-the-constellations-nose-gear-so-long%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
