Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle

[Admiral Beez]

Did the specification require tricycle undercarriage on the Armstrong Whitworth Albemarle? Did the AM reject it in part due to undercarriage? I think it would be a benefit for loading bombs.

Did the unconventional layout influence the later, and similar looking B-25?

 

[Shortround6]

Try using at least Wiki, it may not always be right but gives a good starting point.

"Air Ministry Specification B.9/38 required a twin-engine medium bomber of wood and metal construction, that could be built by manufacturers outside the aircraft industry and without using light alloys. "
first flight 20 March 1940 for the Albemarle.

for the B-25
"The Air Corps issued a specification for a medium bomber in March 1939 that was capable of carrying a payload of 2,400 lb (1,100 kg) over 1,200 mi (1,900 km) at 300 mph (480 km/h)[3] North American Aviation used its NA-40B design to develop the NA-62, which competed for the medium bomber contract. No YB-25 was available for prototype service tests. In September 1939, the Air Corps ordered the NA-62 into production as the B-25, along with the other new Air Corps medium bomber, the Martin B-26 Marauder "off the drawing board".
first flight 19 August 1940

The planes were actually concurrent except that the North American NA-40A first flew Jan 31st 1939 and the NA-40B first flew March 1st 1939

The Albemarle was rejected because it came out overweight (see part about wood and no light alloys, steel was used) and underperforming. The rejection had nothing to do with landing gear configuration.

 

[Crimea_River]

Who rejected it? Hundreds were built and served.

 

[Shortround6]

Very few served as bombers and the few that did didn't stay as bombers for very long.

 

[GrumpyOldCrewChief]

Albemarles served as glider tugs, and paratroop drop aircraft, among other uses. The production program placed behind the design allowed many to be built, without hindering the production of first-line airframes, so many were produced to fill out the needs for second- or third-line aircraft. Targets still needed towing, for gunnery training, and agents still needed dropping behind the lines. The list is long, and this is not all-inclusive. The point of this is that while they were rejected as bombers, they found uses that freed up better aircraft for other duties.

 

[Admiral Beez]

IIRC, the next RAF bomber that had tricycle landing gear was the Canberra, introduced in 1951, ten years after the Albemarle. By the end of WW2, in addition to the B-25 you have tricycle gear bombers in the other forces, such as the Douglas A-20, Consolidated B-24, Martin A/B-26, Arado Ar-234, Nakajima G5N, etc...

Perhaps the RAF were more focused on rough and grass strip ops?