Tango Foxtrot Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Just wondering. It is so painfully obvious, that the wing of an aircraft should be, and belongs on top of an aircraft. So why does almost everybody put the wing on the bottom, when it obviously does not belong there? Just wondering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 38 minutes ago, Tango Foxtrot said: Just wondering. It is so painfully obvious, that the wing of an aircraft should be, and belongs on top of an aircraft. So why does almost everybody put the wing on the bottom, when it obviously does not belong there? Just wondering Thank you Mr./Mrs./Ms Google The main purpose of an airliner is to move a lot of people a long distance, in acceptable (if not always the best possible) comfort, and do so in the most profitable way for the airline. A low-mounted wing does this particular job best in most cases. A mid-mounted wing’s main spars would intrude into the cabin, reducing the space available for passengers. A high-mounted wing would expose the passengers to a greater amount of engine noise, and require a more complicated undercarriage arrangement. It would also move the engines higher up off the ground making maintenance less straightforward. In some designs such drawbacks might be worthwhile for other benefits, such as the ability to allow for a much higher-lift slow speed wing, giving short take off and landing. That’s the case for the high-wing airliner BAe 146. High-wing transports like the C-141, C-17, C-130 and C-5 are not airliners, so the high wing is a better option for the roles they’re designed for. A big consideration there is the ability to operate from rough strips, so the higher engines reduce intake of dirt from the ground. Airliners always operate between paved airports. Cargo aircraft usually need a loading ramp for cargo, so having the fuselage slung under the wing makes that much more practical while keeping the engines up high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 ok Kip. So with regards to engine noise. What about aircraft without that consideration. Tail mounted engines like the DC-9, 727 etc. Wing position would have little effect on the overall engine noise in the cabin (they are noisy anyway). Raising the wing above the fuselage would not necessarily infringe on the cabin volume depending on wing box design but could slightly reduce headroom in the area. Landing gear like the C-130 and C-17 pose no challenges for the internal volume. So whats the downside here besides the fact it would deviate from the "Norm" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 aircraft with a canard are also shunned despite the obvious stability gains and stall characteristics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 1 hour ago, boestar said: ok Kip. So with regards to engine noise. What about aircraft without that consideration. Tail mounted engines like the DC-9, 727 etc. Wing position would have little effect on the overall engine noise in the cabin (they are noisy anyway). Raising the wing above the fuselage would not necessarily infringe on the cabin volume depending on wing box design but could slightly reduce headroom in the area. Landing gear like the C-130 and C-17 pose no challenges for the internal volume. So whats the downside here besides the fact it would deviate from the "Norm" C'mon boestar...... The Google family found the "answer" not me..... I just fly them, not build them .... However, you used the C-130 and C -17 landing gear as no problem for "internal volume" and you are correct.....but aerodynamically, the landing gear storage certainly does not enhance either aircraft.( see profile of either aircraft in flight)....and does not pose a serious problem with regard to the "cost-effectiveness" of their operation. (Thank you tax payers) The only answer I can think of with respect to the DC-9 and 727 is that they were the initial jet entrants into commercial aviation and as technology moved forward engineers discovered that low wing aircraft would be more cost effective...for example just fixing or changing a low wing engine would certainly be cheaper and less time consuming than a high wing aircraft....( so sayth the bean counters) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted May 2, 2019 Share Posted May 2, 2019 just playing devils advocate here. They look better with the low wing. Thats all that needs saying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango Foxtrot Posted May 3, 2019 Author Share Posted May 3, 2019 Seems to me that on most large low wing aircraft, the landing gear stows into the fuselage anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 Versions of Boeing planes which didn’t make it off of the drawing board. The 757 was almost a T-tail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted May 3, 2019 Share Posted May 3, 2019 8 hours ago, Tango Foxtrot said: Seems to me that on most large low wing aircraft, the landing gear stows into the fuselage anyway? but the mechanism and support structure is contained in the wing. With a fully fuselage gear there needs to be a large fairing to house everything. Unless you go like the Dash-8 and put everything in the nacelle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.