Low Wing Trend vs. High Wing

L

LJS1993

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
584
Location
Riverside, California
Display Name
Display name:
LJ Savala
Why do the major aircraft manufacturers go to a low wing design in their higher performance single engine planes? For instance when it came to a higher performance plane Cessna ditched the classic high wing and went with a low wing design in the Corvallis. Is it purely due to the wants of the buyer or is there a legit physical need for the low instead of high wing design?
 
Last edited:
LJS1993 said:
Why do the major aircraft manufacturers go to a low wing design in their higher performance single engine planes? For instance when it came to a higher performance plane Cessna ditched the classic high wing and went with a low wing design in the Corvallis. Is it purely due to the wants of the buyer or is there a legit physical need for the low instead of high wing design?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure in the case of other airplanes, but Cessna bought the ailing Columbia company, which had already been producing the Columbia 400 (and 350) for a while. Cessna saw an opportunity for profit and went for it, so it's not like they ditched their high-wing heritage and designed a new low-wing plane. They bought a design they thought they could make profitable without looking at where the wing was.
 
this is just an amatureish guess but i would think a low wing plane would have less drag since there's no wing struts. there could be other reasons but to my untrained eye, a low wing plane just looks faster
 
patmike said:
this is just an amatureish guess but i would think a low wing plane would have less drag since there's no wing struts. there could be other reasons but to my untrained eye, a low wing plane just looks faster
Click to expand...

C 195 and 210 have no struts yet the C 188, a low wing Ag plane has struts that attach to the top. Struts are an engineering issue WRT spar style, not wing placement.
 
Packaging of the necessary structure(s) favors low-wing designs, resulting in less frontal area.
 
Henning said:
C 195 and 210 have no struts yet the C 188, a low wing Ag plane has struts that attach to the top. Struts are an engineering issue WRT spar style, not wing placement.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the Call-Air series ...

Callaira3.jpg
 
It is easier and simpler to design a low wing retract.
 
Henning said:
C 195 and 210 have no struts yet the C 188, a low wing Ag plane has struts that attach to the top. Struts are an engineering issue WRT spar style, not wing placement.
Click to expand...

From an engineering perspective, strutted wings favor a high wing design since the struts are in tension.
 
Clark1961 said:
Has anyone ever previously used the C-130 to counter a "go faster" claim???:D
Click to expand...

I will flat out bet it wouldn't happen on a military aviation forum!!!! There was a pix in the O club at Hickam AFB of the old ANG F-106s that used to be based there with the caption: "Higher, Faster, Deadlier" Next to it was a pix of a 130, and someone had penciled in: "Lower, Slower, Longer" :yesnod:
 
Sac Arrow said:
From an engineering perspective, strutted wings favor a high wing design since the struts are in tension.
Click to expand...
That, and a cantilever spar carry-through would interfere with front seat passengers' headroom.

That's why Cessna forsook their tried-and-true 2412 airfoil for a less-than-optimal "laminar" airfoil for the strutless C-177 and C-210G. They needed an airfoil with max thickness (and spar) further aft so the carry-through would go in the cabin ceiling behind the pilot's head. And they mounted those wings as far aft as possible, putting the CG further forward relative to the wing, resulting in the need for more pitch authority, thus larger tail surfaces on the 210 and a stabilator on the Cardinal.

Low wing designs have the luxury of putting the spar carry-through under the seats. It's under the front seats in a Bonanza; Cherokees, Comanches and Mooneys use the "laminar" airfoils so they could put the spar out of the way under the back seats.
 
Modern Mil Trash Haulers are hi wing to get the biggest unobstructed cargo box with the added advantage of keeping the nacelles higher up out of the dirt to help minimize FOD.

Cheers
 
Sac Arrow said:
From an engineering perspective, strutted wings favor a high wing design since the struts are in tension.
Click to expand...

I would have guessed struts are in compression on a high wing.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
I will flat out bet it wouldn't happen on a military aviation forum!!!! There was a pix in the O club at Hickam AFB of the old ANG F-106s that used to be based there with the caption: "Higher, Faster, Deadlier" Next to it was a pix of a 130, and someone had penciled in: "Lower, Slower, Longer" :yesnod:
Click to expand...

Those C-130's are so slow I even passed one in a skyhawk. Okay, so the 130 was parked in the run-up area trying to get their sat-phone to work (NOAA aircraft) when I passed it. Maybe that's cheating, I don't know. It did have all four engines turning and the tower cautioned them not to blow the little airplanes around.

Of course I did have a C-130 pass me in flight. It was meat-bombing the Air Force Academy and I was northbound over Colorado Springs. This big green airplane pulls up beside me so I had to ask Springs Approach what was going on...I couldn't hear them talking but the controller said the 130 crew saw me after I asked about the aircraft. I did see them lift the wing to look for me so at least they knew how to look like they were looking out the window.
 
Sexy fast high-wing:
500-2.jpg
 
Everskyward said:
Lots of wheels on this high-wing retract. :D[/IMG]
Click to expand...

True, but those are just a bit outside of my price range :) I believe the AN-225 is also a high wing retract... I think Henning has a few hours in those :D

Mostly, I remember reading about Cessna's initial retract design as being a complex engineering task because typical retracts have the wing to put the wheels into. The Cessna design is certainly complex and a major downside is that the main gear takes up room in the cargo area. I supposed in most cases the low wing retracts lose potential fuel volume in the space the wheels retract (the Dash 8 has a neat design that always looks weird to me).

However, especially since I think I read this story about Cessna's early engineering attempts at high wing retract singles on the Internet, perhaps this was apocryphal. My renewed Google search finds *this thread* which is somewhat creepy and not a good sign!
 
Pilawt said:
That, and a cantilever spar carry-through would interfere with front seat passengers' headroom.

That's why Cessna forsook their tried-and-true 2412 airfoil for a less-than-optimal "laminar" airfoil for the strutless C-177 and C-210G. They needed an airfoil with max thickness (and spar) further aft so the carry-through would go in the cabin ceiling behind the pilot's head. And they mounted those wings as far aft as possible, putting the CG further forward relative to the wing, resulting in the need for more pitch authority, thus larger tail surfaces on the 210 and a stabilator on the Cardinal.

Low wing designs have the luxury of putting the spar carry-through under the seats. It's under the front seats in a Bonanza; Cherokees, Comanches and Mooneys use the "laminar" airfoils so they could put the spar out of the way under the back seats.
Click to expand...

Yep, and a high wing gets a flat floor. That has been more useful to me than the extra speed loosing the struts would give me. Pick what you need:wink2:
 
I'm a high-wing slut. Ha. Plenty of fast military stuff with high wings and shoulder wings.
 
spinfire said:
Mostly, I remember reading about Cessna's initial retract design as being a complex engineering task because typical retracts have the wing to put the wheels into. The Cessna design is certainly complex and a major downside is that the main gear takes up room in the cargo area.
Click to expand...

I have worked on the 182RG and 210 gears. They're no more complex than a low-winger's gear, and the 182 has significantly fewer moving parts than many others. The spring-rod mains are on a single, angled pivot, swung by a hydraulic rack-and-pinion arrangement. Hydraulic pressure keeps the gear up, a spring-loaded hook keeps it down and is released by a small hydraulic cylinder. No main gear doors, and the wheels go under the aft baggage shelf without hurting the main baggage capacity. Rather elegant, all of it. The nose strut is operated by a hydraulic cylinder that has a nifty downlock integrated into it.

Low-wing airplanes typically have the pivoted leg, a hydraulic oleo in the leg, torque scissors, a two-piece retraction linkage, a hydraulic cylinder to work the linkage, and some means of locking it down and sometimes up.
And doors, on many. Many more parts to wear out.

But jacking the 182RG or 210 for a gear swing is a pain. It has to be raised at least 23" or so for clearance for the gear to swing. Takes some tall, long-travel jacks. Low-wings are easier that way.

Dan
 
I always hated having to climb up into the RG Cessna singles on jacks....
 
Dan Thomas said:
I have worked on the 182RG and 210 gears. They're no more complex than a low-winger's gear, and the 182 has significantly fewer moving parts than many others.
Click to expand...
True enough for the later 210s, but the gear systems on those built before the 1970 C-210K, as well as on the 337 series, were quite a bit more complex.
 
In 27 years of 210 ownership nobody ever needed to do so. Nothing was out of reach from the stool.

Henning said:
I always hated having to climb up into the RG Cessna singles on jacks....
Click to expand...
 
cheap weenie said:
From what I've read it's something like 80 knots slower than a TBM 850. 225 knots vs 300.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

It uses a RR/Allison 250 I believe, the TBM 850 has a PT-6, so that speed reduction comes with about a 50% fuel savings.
 
This is the most polite low wing vs high wing thread I have ever read. You guys must be taking your meds. Or just coming off the euphoria of having been to Osh.
OK I will start:
I hate not being able to see above me in a high wing. Also feels like I'm dangling from a tree branch. The manufacturers have wised up!
Let the games begin!!!!!!
 
andybean said:
This is the most polite low wing vs high wing thread I have ever read. You guys must be taking your meds. Or just coming off the euphoria of having been to Osh.
OK I will start:
I hate not being able to see above me in a high wing. Also feels like I'm dangling from a tree branch. The manufacturers have wised up!
Let the games begin!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I hate not seeing the ground from above! What's the point if you can't look down?

I hate having to climb up on the wing to get in.

I hate having to ask my passengers to do the same, especially sweet elderly passengers.

I hate having to step on the passenger seat to get in or over to the pilot seat

I hate the gymnastics to get in the back seats!

I hate they don't have a pilot door to open on hot days.

I hate that I can't sit in a chair or stand under the wing to get out of the hot sun or pouring rain.

When I look down I want to see the Earth below me and NOT an ugly rivetted wing!! If you want to see the sky, look out the front window, there's plenty of sky there.

The only benefit to a low wing is fueling, and I let the fuel boys handle that.

Gene
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top