Terence Lynock Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 We see aircraft with high wing or shoulder wing and mid mounted or low mounted wings but what is the advantage or otherwise of each mounting configuration?. Is it just down to ease of design or are there other considerations? I can understand cargo aircraft needing a high wing mount so that the hold is uncluttered by wing spars but you see all types in warplanes. The Me 410 had a low wing but the Ta 154 was a high wing, the Mosquito had a mid wing and all three were fast twin engined heavy fighters, so why the differences if one is superior to another?. After a couple of hundred million years Mother Nature settled for a high wing for birds and everything else that flies including flies, if a low wing is better how come we never see a Seagull flying upside down?, regards, Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Ireland Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 There are probably any number of reasons why. High-wing monoplanes (full-size and model) are easier to fly and land as they are not subject to the same "ground effect" that low wingers are. Notice how long your low wing model "floats" before touchdown if you get the approach speed a bit too high! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Undercarriage length, available propeller swing, munitions access and manufacturing considerations come to mind. For instance, I believe the Corsair had a gull wing so that the U/C could be short and sturdy, yet the engine could still swing a large diameter prop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemma Jane Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Birds can fly upside down: clicky High wing has plenty stability, lower CofG hence why so many training planes have it, low wing, fly better, hence why I didn't train in a high wing. Floating in ground effect is fun! A low wing plane is inherently less stable, hence why manoeuvrable fighters don't tend to have high wings (some notable ones did though). Other than that I think mainly structural, the mossie had a bomb bay, it wasn't built as a fighter (though it made a successful one) so low wing was out of the question to allow for the bay. At that time they were moving away form bi-planes to low wing aircraft, hence why we got the mid and shoulder aircraft which compromised between the two extremes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Bob and doug have it in one or a few more. Full size aircraft have a large number of constraints which influence and often control design. It is generally believed by many, that a mid wing is a very good position. Of course even for us modellers that can be an issue, particularly if we want the wing and body seperable. It is also generally believed that the wing making a 90 degree junction is very good aerodynamically, definatly no cutting in at an angle of less than 90, or else very generouus fillets can be required. If there is no need to land, a fin and rudder equally above and below, causes the least aerodynamic issues. Therfore seldom done, in entirety, can only think of a few of the Schneider Tropy aircraft, Air macci, Bristol, Gloster, Curtiss types etc. Ohh and the Dornier 355 Arrow The problem is now the tailplane, needs to be out of the way of the wing downwash, often placed slightly higher, this then creates a drag couple which may require some down thrust, but if UC is needed and is fixed, they may pretty much cancel each other out. Engine is straight along the axis of aircraft, in line with wing. With no pilot to worry about the aircraft is pretty much finished. Unless that is acrobatics is needed, then providing side area needs to be considered. In the world of models, some FAI shedule models pretty much conform to the above. In the real world, I can only think of the Red Bull type airobats which come close, and a racing plane called "time flies", which was not good from a pilot vision standpoint. All the commercial and military aircraft have so many constraints in there operational requirements, it takes a several hundred page document, to get to grips with the "Operational and Functional Requirements" . These range from ground services, maintenance philoshies, operational requirements and then the cost etc. If you get the job, has more to do with politics, that most would believe or admit. Erfolg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Terence Over the countless millennia nature has developed a wonderful engine - muscle, but it only works in one direction - pulling and intermittently at that, so flapping high mounted wings are really the only workable solution. Humans have to have a machine to fly so the wing location can be set by many other factors as the others pointed out, but note some wing positions are now virtually the "norm" i.e. a low wing for big jet air liners for instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Lynock Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 I can see why passenger aircraft have a low wing for ease of maintainance of engines, shorter undercarriage, etc but there are still the oddities like the HS 146, big cargo aircraft are better off with a high wing like the C5, C17 and the massive Tupolevs. When it comes to combat aircraft though the Phantom had a low wing but the Tornado had a shoulder wing, the Lightning was mid wing as were the early Migs but Sabres were all low wing so much of it I suppose comes down to designers preference. In Germany the 110, 210 and 410 along with the Ju 88 were all low wing but Kurt Tank went for a shoulder wing on the Ta 154 which to me was a bad move because the engine nacelles blocked the view to the side. None of the V bombers were low wing to allow for a big bomb bay but I did see a preliminary drawing somewhere for the Concordeairframe converted to a supersonic nuclear bomber, this was years ahead of the Rockwell B1 so you can see which way they were going and why the developement of Concorde was so important. I suppose its horses for courses, American WW2 fighters liked radial engines whereas we liked large water cooled inline and big sleeve valve radials which the Americans never developed, regards, Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Lynock Posted July 8, 2009 Author Share Posted July 8, 2009 Naaahhh, Penguins are shoulder wing its just that they have been at the cookie jar too much so they are so fat they just look mid wing......FAR too many sticky buns also has that effect,,,, regards, Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Hi Terence In your examples you point out that the Phantom had a low wing but the Lightning and early Migs were mid wing. The Lightning had two engines one above the other in a small fuselage so a mid wing made sense. The mid wing on the early Migs probably had more to do with aerodynamic efficiency (wing at right angles to a circular fuselage) given the low power then available. In reality I doubt if the wing position is ever simply "chosen" but rather dictated by requirements. For instance The HS146 high wing, low fuselage layout is to allow passengers to get on and off without needing external stairs. I think Bristol might have had somethig to say about the use of conventional radial engines (not all their engines were sleeve valve) and Allison about the 70,000 water cooled V12 ones they made! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Lynock Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 Alison were the oddity in the American engine manufacturing industry to be sure but all the big names like Wright and P&W went for the standard overhead valve air cooled radial. Bristol did do simular engines with the Hercules and other engines of simular size but for sheer power went with the sleeve valve for some reason, must admit the Centaurus is a beautiful piece of engineering and a pity there are none flying today as they had a sound all of their own a bit like a Merlin which you can always recognise when you here it. All the American owned Sea Furies have been re engined with American radials as far as I know, Dreadnaught if she is still flying had a 28 cylinder 'corncob' in an extended nose, over 4000 horsepower on tap, regards, Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Clarkson Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 What differentiates high wing and shoulder wing? If the Tornado is shoulder wing, what type of wing does the Harrier, Jaguar and F111 have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I think the original question related to the ideal position for the placement of a wing. The correct answer has been provided by many contributers. That is it all depends what you consider to be important from the perspective of sucess. If aerodynamics is the main criteria, mid winged tends to be favoured, as reflected in designs such as the Bell X1, most modern gliders, Mig 15, with a tendency to have a circular fuz. If internal space usage is the primary issue, such as for passenger accomodation, loading and off-loading loads, free bomb bay, space for ducting and jet type engines. Either shoulder or low wing, as the wing attachment frames are generally simplified. If military the criteria again is as per contributers views. Which of these options is favoured, low or high wing, is again much influenced by, the wish to hove the wing tips out of harms way as much as possible, or it is not a major issue, ease of installing UC, maintenance, potential view from cockpit etc. So it appears the aerodynamic case is the easiest to make, mid winged. All the rest are worthy of a few books of pros and cons. Erfolg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Chaddock Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Drifting a bit of topic but at least Bristol sleeve valve engines are to do with aeroplanes! On paper at least sleeve valve gear makes an ideal radial engine layout. 1. There is nothing above the cylinder head so the engine is smaller in diameter (or bigger capacity for the same diameter) 2 The cylinder head is easier to cool. 3 The inlet and exhaust ports can be made big for good breathing (a bit like a 2 stroke). 4 The sleeve, which controls the ports, moves continuously, unlike poppet valves that have to come to rest for a part of each cycle. 5 The sleeve is moved mechanically in both directions so no springs are required. Unfortunately the down side is the complex engineering required to make the sleeve move appropriately and the advanced metallurgy to ensure it does not distort and seize. (it is very hot on the exhaust side and cold on the inlet) It took Bristol took years to arrive at a reliable solution. It is interesting to note that the "Corn Cob" R4360 engine had 7 smaller capacity cylinders in each bank yet it was only 0.3 inches less in overall diameter than the 9 bigger cylinders in each bank of the Centaurus. The RNAS historic flight still fly a Centaurus Sea Fury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Lynock Posted July 18, 2009 Author Share Posted July 18, 2009 On the subject of wings what was the advantage of a parasol apart from downward visibility? did it allow for cleaner aerodynamics or just look pretty?. regards, Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Terrance Most parasol wings, if not all, are very dirty, due to the supporting struts etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terence Lynock Posted July 19, 2009 Author Share Posted July 19, 2009 Parasols always look like a bipe and the bottom wing fell off to me, ungainly and fragile to say the least I think if I was flying one I would be continually checking those cabanes and struts for damage because if ever the wing went adrift you would have an excellent king sized lawn dart, regards, Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clark Ross Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 something i think is very important in relationship to wing position is center of gravity, everything revolves around it .it is a point not a line someware in the airplanes structure. with a high wing the cg is under the wing giving a pendelum effect which contributes to stability with a low wing the cg is above the wing requiring more dihedral to compensate for the instability caused by the high cg. the areobatic airplane usually has the cg in the center of the wing with no dihedral to make it delibertly unstable so it will respond quicker. regards, clark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted September 3, 2009 Share Posted September 3, 2009 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.