High or low wing?

"Ray" wrote in message
...

Okay, so all kidding aside, what are the issues between high and low
wings? I know that in terms of flying, there are very few differences
between your average Cessna and Piper, but for higher performance
aircraft, what are the aerodynamic/design tradeoffs?

For example:

Why are most of the more expensive private aircraft (cirrus,
pilatus, pretty much all multi engine and jet) low wings?


In high-performance aircraft a low wing makes a convenient place to stow the
landing gear and also makes engine inspection easier. But there are
high-performance aircraft with high wings; Mitsubishi MU-2, Extra 400,
Cessna 210, etc.



Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?


Ever heard of the McDonnell F-15?



Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings,


It allows the fuselage to be closer to the ground for easier
loading/unloading.



but all airliners have low wings?


BAe 146, ATR 72, Dornier 328, etc.



Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?


Aerodynamic superiority.

"Bob Fry" wrote in message
...

Training in a high wing is OK, just like when you were 5 years old,
you used training wheels on your bicycle, or water wings in the wading
pool.

But at some point the boy must grow into the man, and in aviation,
that means graduating to a manly, hairy-chested Low Wing
aircraft...like an Aircoupe, for instance.


Why do so many Cherokee drivers extol the "manliness" of low wing airplanes.
Come on, a Cherokee?

tony wrote:

This is gonna sound a lot like a Robert Frost poem.

High wined aircraft usually have two doors, low winged ones have one,

Easy fix to this, get a Beech....

Allen

I also like the fact that, at least in the 172, there is generally no
need to switch tanks (there is a "Both" setting)


But when your'e out of gas, you're out of gas.

JOse

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message How so?

Just ask Mother Nature. Ever see a low-wing bird?

D.

Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?


Ever heard of the McDonnell F-15?


Okay, when I said all I really meant to say most, or a lot. What I was
thinking about in particular were the WWII fighters. I can't think of any
propeller driven fighter with a high wing. Your comment about low wings
being easier for landing gear makes a lot of sense, many of those aircraft
stowed their gear in the wings, but I wonder if there were any other
reasons. The first jet fighters were also mostly low wing (f-80, f-86,
f-100, mig-15, mig-19, etc). Only the latest generation of fighters (f-15,
f-14, f-22, etc) are predominately high wing.



Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings,


It allows the fuselage to be closer to the ground for easier
loading/unloading.


This makes sense. But going back to WWII again, why were the early
transport aircraft (like the C-47) low wing?



but all airliners have low wings?


BAe 146, ATR 72, Dornier 328, etc.


Again I meant most instead of all, and I was referring to the larger
airliners (200+ seats). Basically, if all other things were equal, why
wouldn't they have made the 747 high winged, since some 747s are used for
cargo?



Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?


Aerodynamic superiority.


To clarify here, by high altitude I meant planes that are designed to take
off and land at high altitudes - the pilatus pc-6 for example.

In article , Dan Truesdell
wrote:

High wing planes tend
to be a bit easier to get in and out of.

My initial training was in 172's. Probably 75 hours of
my first 100 were in 172's. But I find it easier to get
in and out of a cherokee than the 172 (I've owned a cherokee
since 1994).

--
Bob Noel

In article ,
"Capt.Doug" wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message How so?

Just ask Mother Nature. Ever see a low-wing bird?

So? Ever seen a piston-powered bird?

--
Bob Noel

"Ray" wrote in message
...

Okay, when I said all I really meant to say most, or a lot. What I was
thinking about in particular were the WWII fighters. I can't think of any
propeller driven fighter with a high wing.


Morane-Saulnier L, Bristol M. 1C, Fokker D VIII, Wibault 72 C 1,
Loire-Gourdou-Leseurre LGL 32 C 1, Dewoitine D 27, Morane-Saulnier MS 225 C
1, Loire 46 C 1, Nakajima Army Type 91, Focke Wulf Fw. 56 A-1, PZL P.7, were
all propeller driven fighters with a high wings.



This makes sense. But going back to WWII again, why were the early
transport aircraft (like the C-47) low wing?


Cargo aircraft of that era were not built for the purpose but adapted from
civil airliners.



Again I meant most instead of all, and I was referring to the larger
airliners (200+ seats). Basically, if all other things were equal, why
wouldn't they have made the 747 high winged, since some 747s are
used for cargo?


Used for cargo but designed for people. A low wing tends to be preferred
for people carriers for several reasons. Using a low wing gives the
passengers a better view, a high wing would have them looking at the engines
and unserside of the wings. The lower portions of the fuselage aren't going
to be used for the passenger deck anyway so it's a good place to put the
wing carry through structure, and the wing-fuselage junction makes a good
place to put the landing gear. A high wing would require the bulbous
appendages you see on the C-17 to stow the gear or giving up baggage/cargo
space.

I prefer high wing aircraft because I like to be able to see and take photos of
objects on the ground.

Yeah, who cares what's happening overhead? All the excitement is
below, and below is where you're inevitably going to land.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org