An aeroacoustic study was conducted on a 26%-scale Boeing 777 main landing gear in the Virginia Tech (VT) Anechoic Stability Wind Tunnel. The VT Anechoic Stability Wind Tunnel allowed noise measurements to be carried out using both a 63-elements microphone phased array and a linear array of 15 microphones. The noise sources were identified from the flyover view under various flow speeds and the phased array positioned in both the near and far-field. The directivity pattern of the landing gear was determined using the linear array of microphones. The effectiveness of 4 passive noise control devices was evaluated. The 26%-scale model tested was a faithful reproduction of the full-scale landing gear and included most of the full-scale details with accuracy down to 3 mm. The same landing gear model was previously tested in the original hardwalled configuration of the VT tunnel with the same phased array mounted on the wall of the test section, i.e. near-field position. Thus, the new anechoic configuration of the VT wind tunnel offered a unique opportunity to directly compare, using the same gear model and phased array instrumentation, data collected in hard-walled and semi-anechoic test sections. The main objectives of the present work were (i) to evaluate the validity of conducting aeroacoustic studies in non-acoustically treated, hard-walled wind tunnels, (ii) to test the effectiveness of various streamlining devices (passive noise control) at different flyover locations, and (iii) to assess if phased array measurements can be used to estimate noise reduction. As expected, the results from this work show that a reduction of the background noise (e.g. anechoic configuration) leads to significantly cleaner beamforming maps and allows one to locate noise sources that would not be identified otherwise. By using the integrated spectra for the baseline landing gear, it was found that in the hard-walled test section the levels of the landing gear noise were overestimated. Phased array measurements in the near and far-field positions were also compared in the anechoic configuration. The results showed that straight under the gear, near-field measurements located only the lower-truck noise sources, i.e. noise components located behind the truck were shielded. It was thus demonstrated that near-field, phased-array measurements of the landing gear noise straight under the gear are not suitable. The array was also placed in the far-field, on the rear-arc of the landing gear. From this position, other noise sources such as the strut could be identified. This result demonstrated that noise from the landing gear on the flyover path cannot be characterized by only taking phased array measurement right under the gear. The noise reduction potential of various streamlining devices was estimated from phased array measurements (by integrating the beamforming maps) and using the linear array of individually calibrated microphones. Comparison of the two approaches showed that the reductions estimated from the phased array and a single microphone were in good agreement in the far-field. However, it was found that in the near-field, straight under the gear, phased array measurements greatly overestimate the attenuation.