High wings and structural strength

When I look at pictures of high-wing aircraft, I don't see anything
between the wings that would provide structural strength--in some
aircraft there's even a window in the top of the cockpit between the
wings. What provides rigidity and structural strength in high-wing
aircraft? I somehow expect a sturdy metal beam across the wings on
top to withstand the stresses put upon them, but instead they seem to
be glued onto the skin of the fuselage on either side. How do such
planes hold together?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
When I look at pictures of high-wing aircraft, I don't see anything
between the wings that would provide structural strength--in some
aircraft there's even a window in the top of the cockpit between the
wings. What provides rigidity and structural strength in high-wing
aircraft? I somehow expect a sturdy metal beam across the wings on
top to withstand the stresses put upon them, but instead they seem to
be glued onto the skin of the fuselage on either side. How do such
planes hold together?


Come on Anthony your mister research. Look it up.

On 2006-11-22, Mxsmanic wrote:
When I look at pictures of high-wing aircraft, I don't see anything
between the wings that would provide structural strength--in some
aircraft there's even a window in the top of the cockpit between the
wings. What provides rigidity and structural strength in high-wing
aircraft? I somehow expect a sturdy metal beam across the wings on
top to withstand the stresses put upon them, but instead they seem to
be glued onto the skin of the fuselage on either side. How do such
planes hold together?

Funnily enough, a sturdy metal beam across the fuselage (usually two -
one at the front, where the main spar attaches, and one at the rear).
Windows can still be put in the roof. For a light aircraft 'sturdy'
doesn't mean 'massive'.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith writes:

Funnily enough, a sturdy metal beam across the fuselage (usually two -
one at the front, where the main spar attaches, and one at the rear).
Windows can still be put in the roof. For a light aircraft 'sturdy'
doesn't mean 'massive'.

It sure is hard to see anything in photos.

Are high-wing designs stronger, weaker, or about the same as low-wing
designs? Do they have cost or safety advantages/disadvantages?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:


Are high-wing designs stronger, weaker, or about the same as low-wing
designs?


About the same.

Strut-braced high wing is more weight efficient for the same strength,
however. Withstanding the bending moments in a cantilever wing requires
a pretty massive spar and/or thick skins in the center 1/3 or so of
the wing.

Matt

Matt Whiting writes:

Strut-braced high wing is more weight efficient for the same strength,
however. Withstanding the bending moments in a cantilever wing requires
a pretty massive spar and/or thick skins in the center 1/3 or so of
the wing.

What materials are used for the spar in GA planes? I seem to recall
that large jets use titanium for the most critical structural
elements, but I presume that's too expensive for small planes (?).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

The landing gear springs on my Cessna are titanium.

Karl
N185KG

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Matt Whiting writes:

Strut-braced high wing is more weight efficient for the same strength,
however. Withstanding the bending moments in a cantilever wing requires
a pretty massive spar and/or thick skins in the center 1/3 or so of
the wing.

What materials are used for the spar in GA planes? I seem to recall
that large jets use titanium for the most critical structural
elements, but I presume that's too expensive for small planes (?).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Bolts to the spar carry through structure
BT

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
When I look at pictures of high-wing aircraft, I don't see anything
between the wings that would provide structural strength--in some
aircraft there's even a window in the top of the cockpit between the
wings. What provides rigidity and structural strength in high-wing
aircraft? I somehow expect a sturdy metal beam across the wings on
top to withstand the stresses put upon them, but instead they seem to
be glued onto the skin of the fuselage on either side. How do such
planes hold together?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

karl gruber wrote:
The landing gear springs on my Cessna are titanium.

Holy smokes, I just read that those are over $11,000 a set !! Pardon
my asking, but I just have to know why someone would spend that much on
a set of Cessna legs. Is it a bush pilot kind of thing or do you
cycle landings every few hours or ????

Thanks!
Kev

Kev wrote:

karl gruber wrote:

The landing gear springs on my Cessna are titanium.


Holy smokes, I just read that those are over $11,000 a set !! Pardon
my asking, but I just have to know why someone would spend that much on
a set of Cessna legs.

Nobody does. They buy used. There's lots of them around.



Is it a bush pilot kind of thing or do you
cycle landings every few hours or ????

Cycle landings every few hours?