High wing or low wing, which is better in turb?

Bill

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
15,087
Location
Southeast Tennessee
Display Name

Display name:
This page intentionally left blank
I've often wondered if low wing airplanes (in general) ride better in turn than high wing airplanes. Sure seems to to me, any truth to that, or is it more model specific?

Are there any models of GA aircraft known for giving a good ride in turb? Any known to be horrible?
 
Bill Jennings said:
I've often wondered if low wing airplanes (in general) ride better in turn than high wing airplanes. Sure seems to to me, any truth to that, or is it more model specific?

Are there any models of GA aircraft known for giving a good ride in turb? Any known to be horrible?

I think it depends on the wing loading. When I had my Tiger it seemed
to me to be a pretty harsh ride in turbulence. The Warrior I have now
seems a lot mellower .. as did the Sundowner.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I've often wondered if low wing airplanes (in general) ride better in turn than high wing airplanes. Sure seems to to me, any truth to that, or is it more model specific?

Depends on wing loading. Higher wing load is more stable. More mass is more stable. (Think inertia)

Bill Jennings said:
Are there any models of GA aircraft known for giving a good ride in turb? Any known to be horrible?

Cherokee 180 (hershey bar wing) rides relatively well up close and personal with the rocks in turbulence within reason. A warrior in the same turbulence isn't nearly as much fun. CE150 half fuel and no pax/no baggage in the same turbulence is verbotten IMO.
 
RogerT said:
I think it depends on the wing loading. When I had my Tiger it seemed
to me to be a pretty harsh ride in turbulence. The Warrior I have now
seems a lot mellower .. as did the Sundowner.


I think aspect ratio plays a roll in ride comfort also. At the same airspeed a low aspect ratio aircraft such as an F-104 would have a smoother ride in turbulent air than say an A-10. An a/c with variable geometry wings would have a smoother ride with wings swept back. I'm not sure how much difference in aspect ratio exists between wings of most GA aircraft so I suspect wing loading would be a bigger factor in GA.

Ron, what say you?
 
Last edited:
I do believe that most high wing airplanes exhibit less roll-yaw coupling (often misidentified as Dutch roll), which can be uncomfortable for passengers in rear seats. Virtually all high performance low wing airplanes seem to have this problem to some degree with Bonanzas being among the worst (and no it's not due to the V-tail, the straight tailed 33 series is just as bad as the v-tailed 35's).

One other factor is the rigidity of the wing structure. It's plausible that a strutted high wing would be stiffer than a cantilevered low wing and thus ride "harder" in the bumps. Of course there are cantilevered high wings so even if true this wouldn't really be an aspect of high vs low wing.
 
Last edited:
lancefisher said:
Assuming the same wing loading, why?

I was reading somewhere that diamond with their high aspect long wings were not very stable in the turbulence. I'm not sure if this is because they just stick out far enough to get in different kinds of air movement or what (one wing in updraft and one in downdraft?)

I'm thinking a sail plane (long thin wings, high aspect) would be really bad in turbulence because they are designed to harness as much of the updraft wind energy as possible.
 
I've heard it's wing loading as well. As an example, the 152 is I think 10.5 The 172M I fly is I think 13.5 Much more stable. As to why? Here's my guess. Think of the wing as a lever. With a lower wing loading (more wing area/weight to be supported) the air (turbulent in this case) simply has more "leverage", so it takes less energy (ie; air movement or change in same = turbulent air) to upset the wing passing through the air mass (ie: bumps, etc). Just my two peso's worth....
 
Iceman said:
I was reading somewhere that diamond with their high aspect long wings were not very stable in the turbulence. I'm not sure if this is because they just stick out far enough to get in different kinds of air movement or what (one wing in updraft and one in downdraft?)

I'm thinking a sail plane (long thin wings, high aspect) would be really bad in turbulence because they are designed to harness as much of the updraft wind energy as possible.

While it's true that high aspect ratio wings are part of the formula for an efficient glider, AFaIK the reason gliders can give a rough ride is the wing loading. Competition gliders often carry hundreds of pounds of water ballast and when so configured, can give a pretty smooth ride, partially due to the highly flexible wings that pretty much naturally result from high aspect ratios. OTOH, it's pretty easy for a glider pilot to get out of phase with turbulence in pitch control, but that's not really a fault of the glider's design.
 
In my experience, the heavier aircraft ride better through the bumps. I'd suspect that wing loading makes the most sense. When flying a 172 through a 206, they each handled the bumps slightly better than their smaller counterpart. I have noticed that my V35 Bonanza will yaw through the bumps where a 182 would rise or fall through them.

I was getting my insurance checkout in the Bonanza one particularly windy day in CA. As we were coming back in to RHV, things seemed to clear up until we heard the ATIS NOTAM say "Moderate turbulence reported ESE of KRHV." As soon as we hear it, we rode the bumps for the next 10 miles back into RHV. The Bonanza was yawing so violently left and right, that on final that the controller gave us a call.

Tower: Bonanza 37Sierra, Confirm you have the airport in sight.
US: 37Sierra, Affirmative - in sight.
Tower: I just ask because it looks like you made a 90 degree left turn through final.
Us: Roger, that was a nature induced left turn...

Since this was at night, the tower could just see a pair of landing lights swinging left and right.
 
Bill Jennings said:
I've often wondered if low wing airplanes (in general) ride better in turn than high wing airplanes. Sure seems to to me, any truth to that, or is it more model specific?

Are there any models of GA aircraft known for giving a good ride in turb? Any known to be horrible?

It's a factor of wing loading rather than placement.
 
lancefisher said:
Assuming the same wing loading, why?



With a high aspect ratio wing small pitch changes translate into relatively higher changes in vertical speed. Low aspect ratio wings are generally less responsive to pitch changes. Example: F-14 Tomcat in close in dogfight will have wings swept "out" for greater pitch response. In other words the need for greater manueverability will require the wings be placed in the high lift, high drag configuration. In a high speed dash dash the wings will be swept back into the lower lift, lower drag configuation. Discounting fuel usage and ammunition expenditure wing loading doesn't change.
 
lancefisher said:
While it's true that high aspect ratio wings are part of the formula for an efficient glider, AFaIK the reason gliders can give a rough ride is the wing loading. Competition gliders often carry hundreds of pounds of water ballast and when so configured, can give a pretty smooth ride, partially due to the highly flexible wings that pretty much naturally result from high aspect ratios. OTOH, it's pretty easy for a glider pilot to get out of phase with turbulence in pitch control, but that's not really a fault of the glider's design.
Hmm. On the one hand, it might seem intuitive that higher aspect ratio should improve the ride in turbulence, given the same wing area (and so same wing loading) due to the higher polar moment.

But then on a strictly subjective level, I think the hershey bar Piper Lance handles better in turbulence than the higher aspect ratio Saratoga, although the Saratoga handles better in general.

So I'll leave the aerodynamics to people who know what the heck they're talking about. :p
 
T Bone said:
I've heard it's wing loading as well. As an example, the 152 is I think 10.5 The 172M I fly is I think 13.5 Much more stable. As to why? Here's my guess. Think of the wing as a lever. With a lower wing loading (more wing area/weight to be supported) the air (turbulent in this case) simply has more "leverage", so it takes less energy (ie; air movement or change in same = turbulent air) to upset the wing passing through the air mass (ie: bumps, etc). Just my two peso's worth....

Interesting idea, but AFaIK the real reason is the wing's lift vs AOA curve and where you are on it when cruising. When you hit a "bump" the air (for the most part) doesn't actually "push" the wing up or down, it causes the wing to generate more (or less) lift briefly due to a change in the relative wind vector. Anything that increases the AOA or the relative wind velocity will increase the wing's total lift and that accelerates the plane upwards. A heavily loaded wing will be operating further up the AOA/lift curve (at the same speed) and as a result will not see as much lift increase (in percent of nominal lift) for the same gust.
 
Bill Jennings said:
Are there any models of GA aircraft known for giving a good ride in turb? Any known to be horrible?
Rumor has it that those beautiful layers of handcrafted sitka spruce laminate that make up the wings in the Bellanca Viking are wonderful turbulence absorbers...one of these years I'll confirm that rumor...

The Grumman E-2 Hawkeye had the stiffest wings of any plane I've been in - turb would beat you to death - felt like riding on steel wheels. Dr. Bruce, how did the P-3 ride?
 
Last edited:
What about dihedral? Low wings typically have more dihedral than high wings, and more dihedral results in more roll stability. Wouldn't that result in a better ride?
 
Last edited:
Nav8tor said:
What about dihedral? Low wings typically have more dihedral than high wings, and more dihedral results in more roll stability. Wouldn't that result in a better ride?

Low wing aircraft need more dihedral to get the same roll stability that a high wing design has without dihedral.
 
Back
Top