jadedmonkeys
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:51 am

Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:07 am

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?
 
Tasha
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:34 pm

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:11 am

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
 
jadedmonkeys
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:51 am

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 7:13 am

oh, lol that's very simple but very true.
 
Sean-SAN-
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:02 pm

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 12:24 pm

Military airplanes also fly from unimproved or poor runways, so the high wing comes in handy to avoid ingesting foreign objects and debris.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 12:34 pm

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.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 pm

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
 
jadedmonkeys
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:51 am

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:46 pm

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.
 
SonOfACaptain
Posts: 1695
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:36 am

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:02 pm

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
 
transPac
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:59 pm

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:09 pm

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17077
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:17 pm

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." - John Ringo
 
ei a330-200
Posts: 336
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 8:22 am

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 5:09 pm

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.
 
QantasA332
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 5:47 pm

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 5:25 pm

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
 
kalakaua
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:23 pm

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:50 pm

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 avatar
Starlionblue
Posts: 17077
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:54 pm

RE: Airliners Vs Military, High Wing Vs Low Wing

Sat Jun 26, 2004 3:26 am

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." - John Ringo

Who is online