Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Low Vs High Wing Aircraft  
User currently offlineTrent_800 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 136 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 15577 times:

Is there any aerodynamic reason why nearly all airliners adopt the low wing design instead of the high wing C17 type design. I may be wrong but it seems to me that most of the heavy lifting transport aircraft have the high wing design (C17, Hercules, Anotov)

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineErj-145mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 306 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 15562 times:

Loading cargo is easier and needs less ground equipment on a high wing/low floor heighth type aircraft. Also easier to roll on/roll off wheeled and tracked vehicles, ie, military operations.

User currently offlineJetguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15537 times:

Why no high-wing airliners? In a few cases, it wasn't for the lack of trying. I'm not sure about the Russian airplanes, but Lockheed either certified or had civilian versions of the C130, C141, and C5 on the drawing board. Boeing is trying to lease a fleet of C17's to a 121 freight/cargo operator as we speak. Civilian operations have evolved to use a jetway, military operations favor "drive on, drive off" loading. (Hmmm... That's the way they load ferry boats. Maybe some startup airline will... Naw dumb idea, very dumb.)

I believe that Lockheed has made a few civilian C130's - as I remember, they were known as L100's. I don't believe that any civilian C141's were ever built, nor were there ever any civilian C5's. However, I had an instructor at FlightSafety, who in a former life flew C5's in the Air Force. This guy got a "civilian" C5 type rating and it was on his ATP certificate. I believe it was listed as a "L500", but it's been a long time, so I'm not positive. It seemed that at one point, Lockheed was real serious about selling them on the civil market and the FAA (or who ever does things like that) assigned the civilian type designator to it in anticipation. He was simply at the right place and at the right time and got the type-rating added to his license by way of his military competency. Shortly there after Lockheed dropped the program and the FAA quit giving C5 type-ratings.

User currently offlineExitRow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 15516 times:

It would seem to me that low-wing aircraft would also be at risk of FOD when landing on the poor runways most airlift a/c frequent. High wings keep the engine intakes higher of the ground.

Then again, it could be coincidental...

User currently offlineTop Gun From Canada, joined May 1999, 101 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (13 years 10 months 20 hours ago) and read 15421 times:

The only thing I can think of is the posistion of the Wing Spar.

In a Semi Cantilever wing (high wing) the spar would run over head and still give you ample room to put cargo. In a Full Canitlever wing (you guessed it, a low wing) there is a space on the "floor" that the spar goes through. You could either have a bug bump in the floor or have two cargo "holds" (or three if you think about it) instead one one giant one.

User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1380 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 15336 times:

As has been pointed out, military airlifters use the high wing layout because of the low load floor it provides. But now, if you look at those airlifters, you will see large sponsons sticking out of the lower fuselage to contain the landing gear. These cause drag. The low wing layout allows the landing gear to be tucked into the wing and wing-fuselage junction, economizing on frontal area. The gear is attached to the wing, which is already strong to hold up the fuselage; with the high wing, both the upper and lower fuselage must be strengthened.

User currently offlineKFRG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 15305 times:

Look at the Bae146/Avro/and i'll fated RJX

User currently offlineMeister808 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 974 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 15271 times:

Quite frankly, after viewing pix of the 146/ARJ, it seems to me as if the landing gear problem is not really as bad as Areopagus sees it to be. These aircraft do have landing gear bumps, but not any worse than low-winged airliners do.

Have a looksie:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Ferguson

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Ferguson

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Ferguson

Of course, I had to throw this pic in, because it's just cool.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Sheldon


Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 15263 times:

There are pro's and con's to high- and low-wing designs. Here are some significant ones off the top of my head.

Wing spar:
For pax a/c, having a wing spar through the top part of the cabin is unwanted. It will reduce space in the cabin. A wing spar below the floow won't. Having the wing spar above the fuselage (ATR) sacrifices aerodynamics to get around this problem.

Structural reasons:
In a low wing aircraft, you will have the aircraft standing on top of the wing. The loads put on the floor of the aircraft can be transmitted through the wing without going through the fuselage structure. This means that the fuselage can be made lighter.

Landing gear:
With a high wing, you either have a landing gear in the lower part of the fuselage (C130, BAe146) or a tall gear in the wings (F50).

With the gear in the fuselage, you get a narrow gear which is less stable and you'll probably have to add bulges on the fuselage which will be less aerodynamically effective. Much of the weight of an aircraft is in the wings and all this weight will have to be transmitted down to the gear while on the ground and especially when landing. This means lots of added weight in the fuselage.

As was mentioned before, a tall gear in the wings means a heavier landing gear and larger pylons to house it while retracted.

Engine placement:
A high wing will enable you to have the engines farther off the ground, reducing the risk of pod strikes and FOD ingestion from the surface. A high wing is especially attractive for a turboprob, as an underslung engine on a low wing isn't possible if you have a propeller. You want a clean upper surface of the wing for maximum aerodynamical efficiency. The junk you hang off the bottom of the wing won't reduce the lift by much, it will just add to drag. Junk on top of the wing (such as engines) will reduce lift.

Wing/stabilizer interaction:
With a high wing, you'll probably be forced to have a T tail to get the stabilizer out of the downwash from the wing. This adds structural weight.


I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
User currently offlineTrent_800 From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 136 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 15191 times:

Thanks People,
Good logical answers like usual. I had my own thoughts on this but i dont work in the industry so i thought i would ask the experts.

User currently offlineBsergonomics From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2002, 462 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (13 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 15116 times:

Sorry I'm a bit late on this one - I've been up to the eyeballs.

I think you hit the nail on the proverbial head when you gave the list of heavylift aircraft. All of them were designed initially for military service. In these cases, they are designed with extremes in mind:

1. Poorly prepared strips - high risk of FOD damage.

2. Outsized loads that have to be loaded/offloaded as quickly as possible.

3. Short runways

4. Risk of Surface to Air Missiles (SAMs) - you want to get down as quickly as possible and then up again as quickly as possible.

If you apply the same principles to the civil world (except maybe for the bit about people shooting at you... normally), you may well end up with a high wing design.

The Avro/BAe 146/RJ series (whatever you want to call them) merely applies these principles. It gets off the ground quickly (see the airfields in Nepal...) and can carry relatively large loads, considering the rest of the design specification.

I'd be interested on the structural engineers view (sorry - I do cockpits) on whether it's easier to fit a high lift wing (thick, higher AoA) to a high wing design, or whether the same problems arise.

As a final curiosity, compare the following pictures:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andrew Brooks

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Derek Ferguson

Any similarities?

The definition of a 'Pessimist': an Optimist with experience...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Low Vs High Wing Aircraft
No username? Sign up now!

Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)

Similar topics:More similar topics...
High Wing Vs. Low Wing Aircraft posted Thu Dec 4 2003 23:19:26 by RockyRacoon
High Wing Vs. Low Wing posted Fri May 23 2008 09:23:20 by Flexo
High/Low Wing Aircraft Advantages/disadvantages posted Mon Mar 27 2006 22:46:21 by Hcpunx99
Standard Vs. High Capacity Steel Brakes - B737 posted Fri May 9 2008 07:54:09 by 2H4
Spoilerons On Swing-Wing Aircraft posted Wed Apr 4 2007 01:08:01 by Blackbird
High Winged Aircraft posted Sun Aug 6 2006 18:18:28 by Captaink
High Mileage Aircraft posted Sat Oct 8 2005 09:38:22 by Bruce
Clean Wing Vs. Cluttered Wing posted Tue Dec 28 2004 15:48:34 by Thrust
Pilot Positions Helicopter Vs Fixed Wing posted Tue Jul 6 2004 17:51:32 by NORTHSEATIGER
737NG Vs Classic Wing Sweep posted Wed Jun 5 2002 20:30:17 by Barney captain

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format