Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing  
User currently offlineJadedmonkeys From United States of America, joined May 2004, 67 posts, RR: 3
Posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3753 times:

Does anyone know why practically all the airliner AC manufacturers build their aircrafts with a low wing configuration and why big military ACs like the C-130 or the C-5 galaxy is built with the high wing config. That and why russian built like Antonovs are high wings as well. Does it have better lift or maneuverability?

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTasha From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3746 times:

High wing aircraft (C-5, C-130), have advantages in off loading cargo. You simply drop the ramp in the back and out it comes. You can have the ramp much lower to the ground because you don't have a clearance problem with the engines.

Tasha


User currently offlineJadedmonkeys From United States of America, joined May 2004, 67 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3740 times:

oh, lol that's very simple but very true.

User currently offlineSean-SAN- From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 770 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3664 times:

Military airplanes also fly from unimproved or poor runways, so the high wing comes in handy to avoid ingesting foreign objects and debris.

User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 989 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3650 times:

From what I understand, is that high wings generate lift more efficently but a low-wing allows for stable and comfortable cruise at high speeds. Obviously a military cargo plane needs field performance than it does crew comfort. For airliners, there is more deman for comfortable, turbulent-free cruise at Mach .85 across the Pacific. Also, some RJs like the Arvo's feature a high wing as do Cessna's.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 19
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3626 times:

but then the ARJ was originally designed as a military tactical STOL transport for supplying Harrier bases in Germany  Laugh out loud

Cessna built a lot of observation aircraft for the military, many of their civilian designs are offshoots of that.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineJadedmonkeys From United States of America, joined May 2004, 67 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

hey sean-SAN, Im from SD too, I go to SDFTI based at KMYF. Do you know a Jason Andrews in Pinnacle? He used to be my flight instructor until he moved to pinnacle in Carlsbad.

User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3598 times:

I was also told that high-wing aircraft offers more cargo capacity that low-wing planes bacause you don't have the wing going through the plane.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
User currently offlineTransPac From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3592 times:

another reason i've heard of is that high wings are more prone to stress cracking around the wingbox. they are ideal for military due to the cargo loading reasons stated above but couldnt handle the cycles necessary for civil transport duties. apparently lockheed came across this fact when they were looking into making an airliner based on the C5. anyway, i'm no expert but thats what i've read.

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17072 posts, RR: 66
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3557 times:

I was also told that high-wing aircraft offers more cargo capacity that low-wing planes bacause you don't have the wing going through the plane.

Yes and no. High-winged planes still have the wing going through the plane, just not at floor level. So it's a problem for people bumping their heads  Big grin


Low wings give:
- Easier engine maintenance.
- No wing/fuse box in the main cabin.
- Easier fueling (assuming fuel orifices in the wings)
- Generally shorter gear.

High wings give:
- Less risk of FOD.
- More space to hang stuff (bombs, drop tanks, engines, etc) under the wing.
- Trickier landing gear design. Either in the fuse with narrow track, or in the engines with long legs.
- Fuse closer to the ground given engine clearance. Thus easier for cargo.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineEI A330-200 From Sweden, joined Apr 2001, 409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3511 times:

Starlion,

While I generally agree with what you said, I have to disagree about low wing aircraft having shorter gears. Take a look through the database, and you'll see that most all of the high wing aircraft have their gears simply fold down from the belly. Not much longer than enough for the gear to clear the underbelly.



Long live Aer Lingus, the Flying Shamrock!
User currently offlineQantasA332 From Australia, joined Dec 2003, 1500 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3496 times:

For the aerodynamical aspects of high versus low wings, look for some tech/ops thread having to do with dihedral or wing sweep or something like that from among my past posts, once the search function is working again. I'm currently on holiday so I don't have time to weed through my posts to find it, but rather than repeating it all again here (which again, I don't have time for anyway!) take a look for that...

Cheers,
QantasA332


User currently offlineKalakaua From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1516 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3465 times:

High and dihedral wings are much more stable, considering the cargo which it has to carry.


Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion.
User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17072 posts, RR: 66
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3365 times:

EI A330-200, I see your point, but you will also find pax high-winged craft with rather long gear (Dash-8, F50). Also, the fairing to encase the gear in the lower fuse tends to add quite a bit of drag.


"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
High Wing Airliners A Dead End? posted Thu Nov 17 2005 09:06:26 by Hawker
High Wing Airliner posted Mon Apr 10 2006 06:12:32 by BigJimFX
L1011 Original High Wing Twin Jet Design. posted Sat Feb 12 2005 22:40:15 by 747400sp
High Wing Or Low Wing posted Fri Nov 30 2001 12:05:55 by Dragogoalie
Tail Mounted Jets And High Wing Props: Safer? posted Tue Nov 28 2000 14:59:05 by Sonic
High Wing/Low Wing Cruise posted Sun Nov 12 2000 21:23:43 by Widebody
High Wing Widebody Passenger posted Tue Mar 23 1999 12:59:28 by Il76
Airliners With Very High Cycles And Hours? posted Thu Oct 26 2006 03:47:03 by JAM747
High Loads, But Low Yield posted Fri Sep 3 2004 02:20:04 by OB1783P
Airliners.net Content Sinks To New Low posted Fri Nov 16 2001 07:47:37 by JETPILOT