Low wing aeroplanes - the differences

[Chris Anthony]

Hi all,

Can someone explain to me what is different in the performance of a low-wing plane to a high-wing?

I'm getting competent with my high-wing, and considering moving onto my first low-wing (trainer perhaps). It will be the stepping stone between either a Spitfire or my first 3D-capable model.

Thanks,

Chris

[The Wright Stuff]

Hi Chris,

Well, there are now so many different types of low wing and high wing planes out there that the distinction probably isn't as great as it used to be, but in general, low wing planes tend to be a bit less stable, less self-correcting, and fly where you point them. Once you have got the hang of a basic trainer, all of these points are positives, not negatives!

Moving on to a low wing plane was the best thing I ever did for my learning curve. I got myself a Black Horse Speed Air and absolutely loved it.

Cheers,

Ian

[eflightray]

It could depend on whether one had dihedral and rudder, and the other no dihedral and ailerons, or both had no dihedral and ailerons.

Dihedral has a stablizing function, even the Spitfire as some dihedral if scale(ish). Most 3D models will generally have a flat wing.

The two types of models are chalk and cheese, you wouldn't want to try 3D with a Spit, (unless a hooligan), or paint a 3D model in camouflage and roundels, (unless a hooligan), plus their flight characteristics are different.

If you have flown a high or shoulder wing no dihedral aileron model, trying a low wing shouldn't really be a problem.

[Old Geezer]

As the other two said, but if you're feeling confident flying a high wing trainer, I would go for a more responsive high winger - a Wot4 ticks all the boxes.

Once you're happy flying a high wing sports model - then you're likely to be able to manage a low wing trainer, something like a Spacewalker might be a nice choice, in fact you'll be spoiled for choice after that. I think the most important criterion when you're learning is predictable handling when taking off and even more importantly - when landing.

[Chris Anthony]

Well guys, thanks for the tips.

So, low wing trainers are generally less stable, as in they do not return to level flight on their own as much as high-wingers. I need to ask:

1. Is this just in roll? What about pitch/yaw?
2. Why are low-wingers more like this? Is it just because low-wingers are likely to have less dihedral? Or is there some other physics behind it.

Gurth, I've picked up on what you say about "responsiveness". Response, simply, is modified by rates, no? So if I flew a WOT4 on low rates, so that responses were similar to those of my high-wing trainer, what other differences would I notice with that aircraft?

I am testing this subject as I have heard many people in the past say that moving to a low-wing plane should be done cautiously. Your experience is good to hear though Ian, it's given me more confidence to move on.

Thanks,

Chris

[Rob Jones 2]

Well, High winged aircraft let you see the ground, keep you dry in the rain, and easy access to the fuel tank sumps generally.

Low winged aircraft, get into ground effect faster(great for soft field T/O's), don't block the upward view and don't require a ladder for fueling.

There is a pendulum effect with a high wing aircraft that helps stabilize it. All pilots realize that C/G and C/L can be measured down the length of the aircraft. Most know that both can be measured left to right. Fewer realize that it can also be Measured on a vertical plane. With the C/G below the C/L it does act as a pendulum to level the plane out. The Dihedral helps the aircraft return to straight and level. With the cabin below, there is less need for the aerodynamic "assist" to return it to level fight.

On large high winged transports you tend to see Anhedral.  This is done to counter the "pendulum effect" (somebody got a proper name for this?). Picture a C-5 of a C-17 with a 60 ton M-1 Abrams main battle tank in the hold.

The C/G of the airplane with that tank is pretty far below the C/L of the wing. The Anhedral, which causes a tendency for a bank to steepened, is used to give enough, "oomph" to get that airplane banked into the corner. This is because of the amount of weight sitting below the C/L has a great effect on the aircraft.

More here

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 18/04/2014 12:03:29

[john melia 1]

Chris dont worry too much about it, I flew a black horse sedona trainer , a huge basically un responsive flying shoe box , I flew it for around 3mth or so , then bought an irvine wildcard and flew that . The irvine wildcard is a low wind 3d capable model , but it also flies like its on rails , and can fly very slow .

I would recommend a spacewalker , I have one andits an absolute joy to fly , if you can fly a trainer comfortably , then you can fly a spacewalker .

[john melia 1]

Chris look here **LINK**

[Peter Miller]

I still remember my first low winger. A Cambria Instructor which was a low wing trainer. Quite aerobatic.

My reaction after the first flight was "What was all the fuss about"

If you can fly your high wing trainer and do basic loops and rolls you have nothing to worry about.

Fun flys on full throws are NOT reccomeneded but the average low wing model will be fine. Get someone with more experience to trim it out for you just to be on the safe side.

[Bob Cotsford]

and don't set it up with too much control movement, especially for the first few flights!

[ken anderson.]

in days of old(not so long ago).....you learned with a high winger(3 channel)...and then changed the wing for a aileron one to get you used to more quicker response......and then moved on to a low winger.......the choice of aircraft then wasn't as great as it is now (high wing/low wing) now you have all shapes and size's/types..(shockie's,wings .....indoor/outdoor) etc.....so the old advice might be just that- old advice.....people (model pilot's) are more up to date with the type's so adapt more easy with the different models......and most have a go on simulator's...so to conclude.....I wouldn't get to worried about the difference...high/low wing's.....my opinion anyway.....

ken Anderson ne..1 ......low/high wing dept.

[Simon Chaddock]

I would agree with Ken. Any difference between high wing and low is more to do with the type of plane than the position of its wing.

A powerful plane with a high ish wing loading is likely to be more of a handful regardless of where the wing is.

If you had a plane that could have the same wing mounted either high or low you might be hard put to tell the difference in handling. The change in the thrust line is likely to have the biggest effect and of course a low wing will be more likely to touch a wing tip on landing!

[Ross Clarkson]

The fundamental differences have been explained well i think and i agree with Peter that you will likely find not too much fuss at all. A little cautious maybe but no more so than setting up and trying out any new model i think.

I think (like i found) that your main problem will be actually choosing a suitable low winged model as the choices are endless. I ended up going for a Kyosho Calmato 60 Sport, was a superb transitional model.

Good luck.

[Cliff Bastow]

Hi Chris.

I went from my boomerang trainer to a black horse Travel Air and can honestly say I also wondered what all the fuss was about. I agree dont go for anything fun fly or 3d to start and not to excessive rates and you will be fine.

I would recommend the Travel Air as A good first low winger. Only real weak point is UC mounting and a great flier and pretty aerobatic if you want it to be.

Cheers Cliff

[Ron Harrison]

An Acro Wot is as good as anything. The 'Build it' not the ARTF.

Ron

[Chris Anthony]

Great news, I'll start looking into a low-winger.

Ron, you've brought up another concern of mine. I've read into WOT's quite a bit, what exactly is wrong with the ARTF versions? I've heard the same things said about the Acro Wot, Wot 4, and Wot Trainer. Are the differences enough to put me off? I'm really not keen on spending all the extra hours building a plane from that kind of level at the moment, I'd rather be out there flying them.

Edited By Chris Anthony on 21/04/2014 22:16:27

[Concorde Speedbird]

We have lots of ARTF Wot 4's (Foam-e, wooden e but converted to four stroke power and XL) and they are very good, as is the Acro Wot ARTF which I have not had experience with. The kits are better- you can build them lighter and they are very very strong, but the ARTFs are pretty much as good in air. If you do not want to commit to building then get the ARTF, you will love it, but if you want something that will keep going and going then the kit may be the better bet.

CS

[GrahamC]

There is nothing wrong with the ARTF's....

I've got a WOT4 ARTF and it has hours and hours and hours of airtime on it. It's covered in sticky backed plastic, and the hardware isn't the best - but mine is all original - and its not as strong as a kit built one - but if you don't want to build there is nothing wrong with the ARTF versions.

I tend to fly mainly electric now - but took mine out yesterday because it was a bit breezy in Lincolnshire. It was a bit like getting reacquainted with an old friend! Good to be reminded how well they fly when set up right!

If I stuffed the ARTF in - I'd probably buy a kit to build, but to restate my point - if you just want a well sorted design to fly, there is nothing wrong with the ARTF kit.... and to get a kit built one in the air is probably going to cost nearly twice as much

 

Edited By GrahamC on 22/04/2014 09:10:16

[cymaz]

The .46 size Seagull Spacewalker was my first low winger after the trainer.....great plane. No vices.

[Engine Doctor]

Hi Chris . I would say that if your confident with a high wing model then a low wing type should be fine . Just my opinion but the main difference is the profile presented in the air which can confuse the newcomer and disorientate them . Ask a experienced club mate to stand with you for a couple of flights and you should be fine . An Acro-Wot kit built or ARTF or something very similar should be an excellent choice for a first low winger with no vices. Beware of pattern ships or aerobatic types like Kyoshos Caps or Majestic as these can catch out the low wing novice by suddenly dropping a wing on landing if flown too slowly. Similarly some scale types can be difficult at times . The Acrow-Wot was sold as " for intermediate to expert pilots " so should get you there. Good luck and let us know what you decide on.

E.D.

[Chris Anthony]

Thanks chaps, it's good to hear that the ARTF will be fine. So as soon as I get paid at midnight tonight I'll be ordering a Ripmax Acrowot Mk2 ARTF. I have a few more questions related to this plane:

1. Can anyone advise a decent engine manufacturer/model for me? I am planning on running a .55 2-stroke in it, or the highest power rating advisable. My thinking is that I don't always need to use full power, especially when starting out, but it would be nice to have the power and speed available for when I do become confident.

2. Can anyone tell me roughly what kind of prop I would need to make this flyable? Perhaps it would be worth me getting 2 props, one for slower flying/learning, then one for faster flying, if this is something that is ever done (equivalent to rate changes)?

3. The Ripmax write-up for the plane states that it needs 5 servos. I can only imagine that this is because there is a servo for each aileron, can someone confirm? I presume further that this is the norm for all mid-wing stuff because the wings are separate?

4. Any final advice on flying the thing for the first time? Are there any behaviours it may have that are likely to catch me out based on my current high-winger experience? Currently all I can think of is to use low rates, pick a fine day, and once taken off, do a few low-speed practice approaches to assess it's behaviour before actually attempting the landing!

Thanks,

Chris

[cymaz]

1. I have one of THESE in a WOT 4. Great engine. Or an ASP 70 four stroke (I have used one)...up to you

2. See 1.

3. 2xaileron, 1xrudder, 1xthrottle, 1xelevator........enlarge the right hand pictures HERE. Download the manual at the bottom of the page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

4. If you want, get an experienced club flier to over look it thoroughly and check everything and the engine and take it for a test flight for you. Take the manual to the club site on the day, useful to double check c.o.g. and throws. Ask your man a day or two before hand - to get a good calm day...be in NO rush to fly it on a less than good day. You can always fly it another day, be patient..

 

Edited By cymaz on 27/04/2014 15:56:37

Edited By cymaz on 27/04/2014 15:59:24

[Mark a]

Hi Chris

The Acrowot is a good choice I have one fitted with an SC.61 two stroke and it fly's very well indeed with that up front. Many on here will tell you to fit a four stoke motor which is fine but they do cost. If your on a budget go for a ASP .52 or the like, you can pick one up for about £60 and they are a good motor as I fly one in my Wot 4 with no problems. The Acrowot does indeed need 5 servo's Aileron x2, rudder, elevator, throttle and again just go for basic servo's ( Futaba 3003s) as the Acro is not a 3D machine and you don't need high power servo's. When setting up make sure she is slightly nose heavy and use low rates and double check everything and if you can get some one who has flown one before to test fly it for you.

Enjoy

Mark.

[Old Geezer]

Chris, the AcrotWot i/c could in no way be described as a follw-on low wing trainer. Yes, a nice aerobatic plane for someone with a bit of experience, but nothing like as user friendly as your high wing trainer(s). The AcroWot needs flying all the time, especially landing, it needs flying all the way on to the ground, so find out at height how she glides and how she stalls. Until you have got to know your new baby don't slow her down turning onto finals and aim for a roller, rather than a cool 3-pointer.

It's late in the day, but I still would favour a Wot4 or a Spacewalker at your stage in the game. If you want them a bit more lively go for 50-60% expo' and as much control throw as you can manage.

Someone at the club is campaigning a big Calmato, with a two stroke 75 - that might suit you too.

[Chris Anthony]

Thanks cymaz and Mark, I think I'll go for an SC 2-stroke, I have an SC25 in my current plane. I'll see what my LMS has on the shelf.

Gurth, it is late but not too late. Whilst I feel pretty set on my decision, I am still able to consider advice against it, especially when worded so strongly. Forgive my ignorance, what exactly does "aim for a roller, rather than a cool 3-pointer mean"? And when you say "it needs flying all the way onto the ground", can you expand on this a little?

Thanks,

Chris