Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: MK-84 on November 16, 2011, 07:50:36 PM
-
Pretend for example we have three identical aircraft with the exception of the mounting location of the wing. High mid, and low. What are the advantages/disadvantages of each type? :headscratch:
-
Pretend for example we have three identical aircraft with the exception of the mounting location of the wing. High mid, and low. What are the advantages/disadvantages of each type? :headscratch:
In a grossly simplistic aerodynamic explanation you'll see differences in stability and drag. Generally speaking, a high wing is more stable than mid-wing which is more stable than low wing. This is why you'll see differences in dihedral angle (wings angled up on low wing planes) and anhedral angle (wings angled down on high wing planes). Mid wing planes typically have neither anhedral or dihedral. The designer can either increase stability (dihedral) or decrease stability (anhedral) to achieve the balance he wants. Regarding drag, the high and low wing tend to have a little bit less drag than the mid wing which has two roughly 90deg intersections between the wing and fuselage while the high and low wing designs have only one. These intersections create drag.
From a practical engineering standpoint, there are other reasons to select high, mid or low wings. Mid wing planes mean the spar passes directly through the fuselage creating issues with interior space (for the cockpit for instance) while making construction and repair more difficult. High and low wings can often be built as a single piece and overall construction is usually simpler. Also, you have to consider external stores and the size and location of the prop(s). A low wing plane needs shorter landing gear and can mount them in the wing while a mid or high wing plane means either very long landing gear in the wing or shorter gear mounted in the fuselage which makes for potentially narrow and less stable landing configuration. On the other hand, a bomber with engines in the wings may benefit from a mid or high mounted wing to provide the necessary prop clearance while having the benefit of good natural stability.
You can see strange results as designers attempt to mix and match these requirements. The F4U started out with a low wing with a bit of dihedral but this required very long and weak landing gear due to the large prop so the designer cranked the wing with lots of anhedral on the inboard portions of the wing and lots of dihedral on the outer portions. This mean shorter, stronger landing gear and the anhedral and dihedral "balanced" each other out. The A4 Skyhawk is an unusual arraignment also. It's a small, low wing jet that didn't have to worry about prop clearance yet it had extremely long and spindly landing gear. This was done so the aircraft could carry a large external load including a nuclear bomb.
-
I don't think it's fair that the first reply pretty much answered the question perfectly. Now there won't be three pages of speculation.
-
It's not that mysterious a question to begin with. Heck even rudimentary google searches could have answered it for MK84.
No need for 3 pages when 1 well typed response will do the job well enough.
-
I don't think it's fair that the first reply pretty much answered the question perfectly. Now there won't be three pages of speculation.
Nah, I'll add a few more things.
With high wing the visibility really sucks in the turns (if the wing is over the cockpit), before starting a turn you need to bank in the other direction for SA. It is harder to spot traffic above you as a large portion of the visibility is blocked. If you have to make an off field landing a high wing airplane would require much less space (ex: thinner road). High wing have to be lower to get into ground effects. Also I have yet to see a high wing aircraft without pillars around the cockpit, and those really reduce your visibility.
Low wing generally provides much better air-to-air visibility, but makes it harder to search for things on the ground. It's easier to refuel the plane and inspect the wing, however it's harder to inspect the gear.
Personally I'll take low wing over high wing any day.
-
Personally I'll take low wing over high wing any day.
Ever see a low-wing bird?
- oldman (thinking back to Cessna's ads of the early 1960s)
-
The best of both worlds.
(http://www.bruksflyg.se/wp-content/themes/awake/lib/scripts/thumb.php?src=http://www.bruksflyg.se/wp-content/themes/awake/styles/_shared/sliders/default_partial_staged_slide.jpg&w=567&h=334&zc=1&q=100)
-
Ever see a low-wing bird?
- oldman (thinking back to Cessna's ads of the early 1960s)
Ah, the classic answer. :old:
-
The best of both worlds.
(http://www.bruksflyg.se/wp-content/themes/awake/lib/scripts/thumb.php?src=http://www.bruksflyg.se/wp-content/themes/awake/styles/_shared/sliders/default_partial_staged_slide.jpg&w=567&h=334&zc=1&q=100)
The center frame needs to be removed :aok
-
Ever see a low-wing bird?
Ever see a bird with 750lbs of thrust strapped to its butt? :devil
-
Ever see a bird with 750lbs of thrust strapped to its butt? :devil
:D
(http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Humor/April_Fools_2011/jet-bird_400.jpg)
-
ROFL!!!! :rofl
-
It's not that mysterious a question to begin with. Heck even rudimentary google searches could have answered it for MK84.
No need for 3 pages when 1 well typed response will do the job well enough.
Any special reason to act like a Jerk, or is this a typical response of yours?
-
Thank you Mace2004 that was EXACTLY the answer I was looking for, summed up perfectly :)
-
Any special reason to act like a Jerk, or is this a typical response of yours?
Meh. It's just typical Krusty. You'll get use to it.
-
Keep the insults to yourself Dolby.
Mk84, I was NOT being a jerk. Trust me on that. You asked a basic intro-level question that can easily be answered with even cursory internet searching or reading any book that comments on aviation design.
Mace went far above and beyond the call of duty to really spell it out like that. Kudos to him, but he shouldn't have to for the really basic questions.
You'd have got the same response had you asked "How do I start my engine?" in the Aces High chat buffer.
-
Keep the insults to yourself Dolby.
Mk84, I was NOT being a jerk. Trust me on that. You asked a basic intro-level question that can easily be answered with even cursory internet searching or reading any book that comments on aviation design.
Mace went far above and beyond the call of duty to really spell it out like that. Kudos to him, but he shouldn't have to for the really basic questions.
You'd have got the same response had you asked "How do I start my engine?" in the Aces High chat buffer.
Which is just as ridiculous. It takes very little to just answer the question.
-
Keep the insults to yourself Dolby.
Mk84, I was NOT being a jerk. Trust me on that. You asked a basic intro-level question that can easily be answered with even cursory internet searching or reading any book that comments on aviation design.
Mace went far above and beyond the call of duty to really spell it out like that. Kudos to him, but he shouldn't have to for the really basic questions.
You'd have got the same response had you asked "How do I start my engine?" in the Aces High chat buffer.
For the record I dont know you from Adam but your 1st post was kinda jerkish. Yes I'm sure that the info is out on the nets and if the op had looked for it, the info may not have been in such easy to understand and well written language. Just because you feel like this thread should not have been posted doesnt mean everyone on the bbs agrees with you or your need to point out that yes you can find pretty much any info on the web but yes it may actually be quicker and simpler to just asking someone who know that info off the top of thier head. Now stop trying to ebully people for asking questions on a forum (even tho thats what a forum is for, discussions and such)
Mace thank you for a well written post. I actually enjoyed reading it.
-
Fine. So be it. You're right I could have been softer in tone, even though my point was valid.
I'm sorry if I came off as a jerk.
-
Fine. So be it. You're right I could have been softer in tone, even though my point was valid.
I'm sorry if I came off as a jerk.
just saying sometimes it's quicker to ask. Some info is very simple and should be common knowledge in your opinion but the fact of the matter is some of us that play this game(yes its a game) dont know as much as others about aerodynamic principles. Like me I just play the game.Granted not knowing every principle and in and out of each plane puts me at disadvantage but I still have fun, but thats neither here nor there, point is not everybody that play's AH knows where to begin looking for info or can fully comprehend what they do find(like me). Im not dumb as a rock but I know I aint the sharpest marble so I can appreciate when someone like Mace comes along and posts something I could understand without me having to go find a book on the subject then having to read that book with a thesaurus and dictionary near by.
-
You're right. Sorry MK84.
-
You're right. Sorry MK84.
Thats a rare sight on this BBS. +100 Krusty
-
You're right. Sorry MK84.
No prob at all :salute
I do very much value your posts, which is why I guess I was a bit miffed by your response.
I also should have explained what I was looking for better, But I really did get the answer I was looking for, I just didn't know how to ask the question.
-
Keep the insults to yourself Dolby.
Sorry to offend you. But you do come across a particular way on this BBS.
-
Sorry to offend you. But you do come across a particular way on this BBS.
Would you say a little Krusty?!?!? :bolt: Not trying to stir anything up just couldnt resist the ForumVulch