Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No Upper Wings On Wide-bodies?  
User currently offlineKLMCedric From Belgium, joined Dec 2003, 813 posts, RR: 21
Posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4855 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?

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4139 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4788 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  Big grin

User currently offlineBENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 9181 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4770 times:

I think that maintenance could be more difficult, also the walk round would be more difficult.

User currently offlineMighluss From Spain, joined Oct 2001, 988 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4712 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?

User currently offlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17658 posts, RR: 65
Reply 4, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4530 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  Big grin

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."
User currently offlineAuae From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 296 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4437 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".  Smile


Air transport is just a glorified bus operation. -Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's chief executive
User currently offlineFredT From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2002, 2185 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (11 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4288 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.


I thought I was doing good trying to avoid those airport hotels... and look at me now.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Why No Upper Wings On Wide-bodies?
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...
Fuel Selectors: Why No Both Position On Low Wings? posted Sat Nov 19 2005 22:35:45 by FLY2HMO
Why No Retractable Gear On Aerobatics Planes? posted Thu Nov 2 2006 20:54:17 by QFA380
Why No Tail Antenna On 707-100B Originals? posted Sun Apr 3 2005 23:26:38 by Thrust
Why No Logo Lights On Most Flights? posted Sun Mar 20 2005 14:40:18 by Skywatch
Why No Wing Let On 744 Domestic? posted Thu Oct 31 2002 07:24:47 by Tsufang@ci
Why No US. Reg Numbers On Wings? posted Fri Apr 28 2006 16:45:00 by Access-Air
Why No Paint On Wings? posted Wed May 5 2004 12:55:05 by A380900
Why No Tabs On Wings? posted Fri Dec 14 2001 06:11:02 by David B.
Why No Papi On W/B Rwys At LAX? posted Wed Oct 18 2006 06:58:06 by Adipasqu
Why No Landings On posted Mon Sep 12 2005 11:29:01 by TheSonntag

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format