KLMCedric From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 800 posts, RR: 24 Posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2629 times:
I was wondering, when you look at some massive upperwing planes like the C-5, and the antonov planes , why there are no big pax-jets with upperwings.
What would be the disadvantage if, 747,777,340 would 've been build with upperwings?
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4015 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2562 times:
On those big cargo jets, the nose door opens so that the entire fuselage can be used for cargo. The wing would be in the way if it were mounted in the "standard" position, so it was remounted above the cargo hold, out of the way. Pax jets don't require this, and, IMO, except for the 146, overhead wings are sort of unappealing. You get that big bump on the top of the fuselage
Mighluss From Spain, joined Oct 2001, 931 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2486 times:
Correct me if I'm wrong, just a guess...
Upper wing have better STOL performance, in detriment of comfort... For example, when landing standard wing gives more comfort due to a greater ground effect. Also, Upper wing planes tend to be slower, no?
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, RR: 66 Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2304 times:
High winged aircraft, as they are called, can avoid FOD damage easier. This is important for military jets but not for airliners.
High wing gives:
- Harder engine maintenance.
- Wing box goes through the cabin instead of the lower fuse.
- Better engine ground clearance.
- Tricky undercarriage construction. Either in the fuse or on long legs on the wing. Neither method is optimal unless you want the fuse sitting very close to the ground. This is ok if you have a sloping rear fuse due to a cargo door, but that kind of rear fuse makes it hard to install seats all the way back.
- Closer to the ground is good if you are loading outsize cargo. For pax and normal cargo it's less of an issue.
- I will leave the aerodynamics to the experts
One of the 747 concepts was mid winged and double decked btw.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
Auae From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 296 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2211 times:
Just to expand on what Starlionblue is saying, in the end, you have a heavier aircraft. The extra weight results from either the complex structure around the undercarriage (ie C5, all the weight of the wing must pass through the fuselage to the landing gear) or in a very long main landing gear. In the end, it is just cheaper and less complex to build commercial airplanes with the standard "cookie cutter".
Shawn
Air transport is just a glorified bus operation. -Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's chief executive
FredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2184 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 2062 times:
Auae, Starlionblue,
good points raised.
I’d like to chime in with a major structural concern. With a high wing, you have to transfer all the forces of flight flight up to the wing through the central part of the fuselage. Major weight concern there.
Furthermore, should there be an accident... you better have paid very close attention to what Auae said about reinforcing the central fuselage to take up the forces of landing or you will have the wing spar and wing (full of fuel) come crashing down through the passenger compartment.
Regards,
Fred
I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
Sponsor Message: 
From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 800 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4015 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 6392 posts, 
From Spain, joined Oct 2001, 931 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15904 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
