In addition to the high wing config, the wings themselves tend to slope downwards in an "Anhedral" on the largest of the military and cargo transport planes. Without getting into physics details, having the wings sloped that way helps with flying characteristics and maneuverability of the planes when carrying such heavy loads.
If you look at the wings of an A380 when it's not flying, you can see, that they are slightly sloped downwards as well. The rise a little at the root of the wings and then gently slope down.
@@CerberusTenshi low wing aircraft especially airliners, tend to have their wings slope upwards (Dihedral). Makes the plane more laterally stable. More comfortable for the passengers.
@@triple777seven taridean said it helped with maneuverability when carrying heavy loads. I want to know why anhedral helps when carrying heavy loads, which implies that it is not needed when not carrying heavy loads. As I said, the purpose of anhedral is to reduce lateral stability, usually to bring it into better balance with directional stability. I see no relationship to the weight of the load carried and want to know if there is one.
High wing is required to accommodate propeller engines unless the aircraft be very high off the ground like some 1950s designs. A less obvious constraint is that the wing needs a continuous internal strut or 'box' to transfer its strength across the fuselage. In passenger aircraft this can exist right under the middle section of the cabin floor, resulting in separate fore and aft holds. For cargo it's much more practical to build this structure straddling the top of the fuselage, which is why the wing often appears to go on top rather than flush with the fuselage.
If the Boeing 737 is a high wing configuration it would be easier to place the engines under the wings such as the MAX which needs the MCAS. The Airbus A320 may also benefit from the high wing configuration. The passengers would have a better view from the windows. There is just one problem. The overwing exits.
More important than the increased visibility or added protection from FOD (foreign object debris) is that the COG (center of gravity) is below the wings. This is a big deal when transporting objects like tanks and helicopters
Compare the process of loading a low-wing C-124 Globemaster II to loading basically any high wing military transport. The C-124 had huge nose loading doors, but the fuselage was positioned so high up that the ramps had to be very long and steep compared to a high-wing aircraft with its low fuselage. It also had an elevator to lift things straight up into the cargo bay, but it was not very big.
I thought it might also have something to do with the typically larger landing gear on military planes. If you have a low wing, the designers need do design the wing around the gear. With larger or more complex gear, there is less room for the structure of the wing. When the wing is high-mounted, it does not interfere with the gear.
If high-bypass turbofan engines keep increasing in diameter, high-wing passenger planes might get more common. Or they might not: too much of a change in design? Then there’s that new wing design meant for high efficiency:that’s high-wing.
I thought you were going to say that low wings make it easier for maintenance people if they can work closer to the ground. Or is that more of a factor for low engines under the wings?
@@erich930 "They can put larger flaps on a high wing than a low wing, which helps TO and landing performance." Why can't a low wing have flaps as large as a high wing? In fact, if the flaps of low wing extend under the fuselage there is even more room for flap area.
@@erich930 So now you are talking angle rather than size of the flaps. Even so, I have yet to see a low wing transport aircraft that would come close to dragging its flaps before it would drag its tail, and that with 50 degrees of flaps. If you need more lift than that you make them double slotted fowler flaps to increase the area rather than deflect to a more extreme angle which just adds drag. I don't doubt that a high wing is better for rough field operations, but I'm not buying the argument that they can have larger flaps.
My thoughts : 1) it's not that high wing makes loading easier, that's just one byproduct of the desired outcome from the design process. The mission is to move equipments in any condition (prepared/unprepared airfield), you need a design that eases the task : a floor close to the ground is mandatory, for a low wing to allow that, you need engines ABOVE the wings, or elsewhere in/beside the fuselage. That won't do for the massive amount of maintenance issues and safety concerns. 2) wings aren't just attached to the fuselage, there is a centerbox in the middle to strengthen structure, and the more the desired operational payload, the bigger that structure. Since military ops often deals with big sized equipments, ie a wider and higher cargo size, a big center box will SPLIT the cargo in two (raised floor between the wings). That just won't do if you don't want a front side cargo door and lifting equipments on the ground everywhere. At this point, the topic is warped up : not because high wings has benefits, but from the start as per the "mission", these are requirements, you simply have no choice. However... 3) The larger the transport, especially for heavy machinery of several dozen of meters such as missile launchers and turbines, that fuselage tube becomes VERY WEAK and can't bear the load. You need something to straighten it. How convenient with a high wing design where you raise the centerbox even higher for cargo room, and blend in an upper deck (or empty space) all along the fuselage by merging a second tube above the main cargo. This also strengthen tail surfaces root, gives height clearance for aft cargo ramp, and allows even longer ramps with less slope designs. Isn't that wonderful.. Since you had to add that extra weight anyway, on a low wing design, you gain nothing having an upper deck that won't be that useful, with a high wing you can further enhance the design to meet the expected mission requirements flawlessly. Also, with a T-Tail, you can increase vertical stabilizer moving surface and make it fatter if you have that upper deck tube up to the tailcone, enhances yaw stability and responsiveness at low speed maneuvers, because a high wing high engine blast disrupts airflow a lot (an example of design improvement) 4) Maintenance wise, high wing puts the engines far above, you need lifters to get ground crew there for inspection. Since we are talking about dedicated military bases with ramps, hangers and everything, not a mere airline struggling with scarce equipments for so much crowded hubs, it's just fine, military speaking. On the commercial aviation side, you need those engines as close as possible to the ground for fast maintenance as time is money. For efficiency, you don't put hangers everywhere on a civilian airport, instead, you try to squeeze as much aircraft spots as possible, and the facilities to manage, control, embark and disembark passengers; no much room for maintenance bataillon and their tools to show off. 5) Clearance, indeed. For foreign object debris on unprepared airfields (and in case of scramble in the heat of war, you don't waste on personnel to inspect the facility every time). Also, high wings are less likely to suffer wintip and engine strikes, in bad weather or low visibility condition (land in the desert in strong winds and impeded vis due to dust). Clearance also for jets, for personnel and vehicles to move around fast and tighten safety as much as possible to be efficient. We are trained military personnel, not "mentally weak" civilians who break for the slight safety issue.. (I don't mean military world is that crazy, but you don't nitpick for small matters) 6) On the better ground visibility matter for high wing, pilots don't care, they will look towards that wing once in a month because the first time they try to look there, they only see the wintips, nothing of a "bad visibility" to get a concern. However, for survey and paratroops, it's of use for cabin personnel, those that have to look below from the side and if possible, behind. If you don't have high wing, you use cameras, like on drones and the various maritime patrols from various countries. Also, if you want to drop paratroop fast, add a front exit and get the wingroot out of the way (but that's the ultimate edge case scenario). 7) STOL ability is due to anhedral aspect of the wings with enhanced ground effect for better trapping high pressure below the wings near the ground. Only if you can put engines above the wings you can add the Coanda effect, but that complicates engine maintenance and wear flaps faster. Roll/level stability is SLIGHTLY better for high wing, but not that much, actually, low wing with high wing flexibility such as the 777 and 787 are BETTER and build up LESS drag. Note : why the DHC6 is so good despite not being anhedral? It's LIGHT, with a HUGE wing span and good engines, basically a fat glider on steroids. 8) having the engines near the cabin is of no concern for noise reduction equipped military personnel. On the commercial side, you have a bunch of Karens willing to sue the airline for "having a bad noisy flight that crippled their peaceful sleep.." That's why you avoid designing passenger airliners with engines close to the cabin, and have ramps and stairs and lifters for loading, just to make plebs and rich people at ease. 9) Wing mounted loads. Not that big of a breakthrough, but mounting external tanks isn't really feasible on a P8.... The C130 however.. 10) for the very few TRANSPORT designed to operate on an aircraft carrier, they are all high wings if I'm not mistaken, for the reasons above. In summary, it all started from the target requirements, what the aircraft was made for to fulfill each mission without breaking the pace with costy and time consuming repairs. Then, the design is modified to further enhance features while remaining cost effective. For airliners, it's generally the same, the industry prioritize people and goods travel in a competitive way (quality/cost), in a very crowded and diverse environment abiding to the same rules, high safety standards to counter cultural habits and environment variables around the world, it's a lot more complex than the closed and tight rules of the military philosophy of a given country. You design high wing for airlines because you need one or several of the following : - fast loading/unloading on unprepared/remote airfields - propellers : high diameter, needs ground clearance (most midsized turboprop airliners) BTW, everything involving bare fans means stronger caution/safety measures. - small cabin diameter and weight saving, requiring the wings centerbox to be raised ABOVE the fuselage (ATR, F27/50, Dash 8, Dornier 328...) You don't w1nt the Jetstream 31/32 syndrome where the wingbox protrude inside the cabin floor. Though, many aircraft such as the Beech 1900D managed to raise the cabin enough (but you don't go with a cylinder cabin)
@@cwg73160 haha. As if I care you don't read. I don't care either the audience. Video asked for thoughts, it's not your place to ask me to fuck off. Instead, have valid arguments as per the topic, I would be glad to hear what you say. 😁
@@StephenKarl_Integral Well, I gave you my thoughts, but, since you were probably one of those “special” people in school, I wouldn’t mind telling you again. “equipments” No. No one has the time to read your three-page comment. Know your audience. Be better.
@@cwg73160 I told you : "equipments, no". So what? Are you implying we build planes for fun with no purpose? 😏 That's what you say suggest, you deny everything because you're annoyed there are too much, but you failed to provide any couter argument... 🙃 who's the schoolboyish one with a childish behavior? The rest, TLDR, I'm not happy to get a daring answer, etc.. learn to cope with internet : nobody cares if you (or I) don't feel at ease, so get over it already and move on, even if it's criticism. 😴 Criticism like "yes, it's too long", I'm fully aware of that, it won't have that much readers, that's very very true, you're not the first and certainly not the last to complain, but that changes nothing about the fact I've put it there, readers or not, I don't mind, really 😉. What matters is : something's wrong in what I wrote? let's discuss that instead, shall we? No? Til then, you're pretty much irrelevant to me, because, wasting time saying nothing or insisting on the post length or my age... that's off topic, the entire world doesn't deserve to read the both of us argueing shit, are we stupid? My last word if you have nothing much to say of interest, you can repeat all you want the very few you've already told, and any you want alike, even insult me, it's fine I and the entire world just don't care. 😁
In addition to the high wing config, the wings themselves tend to slope downwards in an "Anhedral" on the largest of the military and cargo transport planes. Without getting into physics details, having the wings sloped that way helps with flying characteristics and maneuverability of the planes when carrying such heavy loads.
Anhedral is used to reduce excess lateral stability. How does the weight of the load carried matter?
@@gort8203 I'm guessing maneuverability?
If you look at the wings of an A380 when it's not flying, you can see, that they are slightly sloped downwards as well. The rise a little at the root of the wings and then gently slope down.
@@CerberusTenshi low wing aircraft especially airliners, tend to have their wings slope upwards (Dihedral). Makes the plane more laterally stable. More comfortable for the passengers.
@@triple777seven taridean said it helped with maneuverability when carrying heavy loads. I want to know why anhedral helps when carrying heavy loads, which implies that it is not needed when not carrying heavy loads.
As I said, the purpose of anhedral is to reduce lateral stability, usually to bring it into better balance with directional stability. I see no relationship to the weight of the load carried and want to know if there is one.
Great video.
I have always liked flying BAE 146, one of few high wing passenger jets. Cool with 4 engines!
High wing is required to accommodate propeller engines unless the aircraft be very high off the ground like some 1950s designs. A less obvious constraint is that the wing needs a continuous internal strut or 'box' to transfer its strength across the fuselage. In passenger aircraft this can exist right under the middle section of the cabin floor, resulting in separate fore and aft holds. For cargo it's much more practical to build this structure straddling the top of the fuselage, which is why the wing often appears to go on top rather than flush with the fuselage.
If the Boeing 737 is a high wing configuration it would be easier to place the engines under the wings such as the MAX which needs the MCAS. The Airbus A320 may also benefit from the high wing configuration. The passengers would have a better view from the windows. There is just one problem. The overwing exits.
More important than the increased visibility or added protection from FOD (foreign object debris) is that the COG (center of gravity) is below the wings. This is a big deal when transporting objects like tanks and helicopters
Compare the process of loading a low-wing C-124 Globemaster II to loading basically any high wing military transport. The C-124 had huge nose loading doors, but the fuselage was positioned so high up that the ramps had to be very long and steep compared to a high-wing aircraft with its low fuselage. It also had an elevator to lift things straight up into the cargo bay, but it was not very big.
simple flying 🤝 quote on quote
Wow 2 videos in one minute
Most Military aircraft ate quite different from commercial ones.
Military are very interesting! 😊
The short landing and takeoff is caused by the T tail and best advantage for high wing if you have to land on water no cartwheels at end of the flight
How does a T-tail "cause" short takeoff and landing?
Crickets, eh?
All popular turboprop airliners (DHC-6, DHC-8, ATR 42/72, An-24/26, L-410) also have high-wing designs.
I thought it might also have something to do with the typically larger landing gear on military planes. If you have a low wing, the designers need do design the wing around the gear. With larger or more complex gear, there is less room for the structure of the wing. When the wing is high-mounted, it does not interfere with the gear.
So much missed, I wanted more military content but accurate info.
Excellent interesting video.
I love the C17 Globemaster tho 💯💯💯💯💙💙💙
If high-bypass turbofan engines keep increasing in diameter, high-wing passenger planes might get more common. Or they might not: too much of a change in design?
Then there’s that new wing design meant for high efficiency:that’s high-wing.
alternatively, engines will go to the back of the fuselage, à la VC10
I thought you were going to say that low wings make it easier for maintenance people if they can work closer to the ground. Or is that more of a factor for low engines under the wings?
I think comparing take off distance of a 4 engined plane vs a 2 engined plane regardless of the weight being the same is a bit unfair
All i know is that when i see a B52 146 C17 or Dash 8 landing the all come down nose first
Couldn’t cargo airlines like UPS or FedEx use the C17 high wing?
high wing designs simply allow for bigger engines pretty sure
It's so they can land on unimproved runway's
Ground clearance for landing gear???????
That's complete nonsense. I generally like SimpleFlying, but sometimes they simplify things a little too much...
Imagine an Airbus A380 as a high-wing! 😂
Next step is to make them stealthy 🤓
Didnt quite understand why high wing helps aircraft to/land using shorter distances
They can put larger flaps on a high wing than a low wing, which helps TO and landing performance.
@@erich930 thanks
@@erich930 "They can put larger flaps on a high wing than a low wing, which helps TO and landing performance."
Why can't a low wing have flaps as large as a high wing? In fact, if the flaps of low wing extend under the fuselage there is even more room for flap area.
@@gort8203 Ground clearance. If you want the flaps on a low-wing to go down more, you need longer landing gear.
@@erich930 So now you are talking angle rather than size of the flaps. Even so, I have yet to see a low wing transport aircraft that would come close to dragging its flaps before it would drag its tail, and that with 50 degrees of flaps. If you need more lift than that you make them double slotted fowler flaps to increase the area rather than deflect to a more extreme angle which just adds drag.
I don't doubt that a high wing is better for rough field operations, but I'm not buying the argument that they can have larger flaps.
My thoughts :
1) it's not that high wing makes loading easier, that's just one byproduct of the desired outcome from the design process. The mission is to move equipments in any condition (prepared/unprepared airfield), you need a design that eases the task : a floor close to the ground is mandatory, for a low wing to allow that, you need engines ABOVE the wings, or elsewhere in/beside the fuselage. That won't do for the massive amount of maintenance issues and safety concerns.
2) wings aren't just attached to the fuselage, there is a centerbox in the middle to strengthen structure, and the more the desired operational payload, the bigger that structure. Since military ops often deals with big sized equipments, ie a wider and higher cargo size, a big center box will SPLIT the cargo in two (raised floor between the wings). That just won't do if you don't want a front side cargo door and lifting equipments on the ground everywhere.
At this point, the topic is warped up : not because high wings has benefits, but from the start as per the "mission", these are requirements, you simply have no choice. However...
3) The larger the transport, especially for heavy machinery of several dozen of meters such as missile launchers and turbines, that fuselage tube becomes VERY WEAK and can't bear the load. You need something to straighten it. How convenient with a high wing design where you raise the centerbox even higher for cargo room, and blend in an upper deck (or empty space) all along the fuselage by merging a second tube above the main cargo. This also strengthen tail surfaces root, gives height clearance for aft cargo ramp, and allows even longer ramps with less slope designs. Isn't that wonderful.. Since you had to add that extra weight anyway, on a low wing design, you gain nothing having an upper deck that won't be that useful, with a high wing you can further enhance the design to meet the expected mission requirements flawlessly. Also, with a T-Tail, you can increase vertical stabilizer moving surface and make it fatter if you have that upper deck tube up to the tailcone, enhances yaw stability and responsiveness at low speed maneuvers, because a high wing high engine blast disrupts airflow a lot (an example of design improvement)
4) Maintenance wise, high wing puts the engines far above, you need lifters to get ground crew there for inspection. Since we are talking about dedicated military bases with ramps, hangers and everything, not a mere airline struggling with scarce equipments for so much crowded hubs, it's just fine, military speaking. On the commercial aviation side, you need those engines as close as possible to the ground for fast maintenance as time is money. For efficiency, you don't put hangers everywhere on a civilian airport, instead, you try to squeeze as much aircraft spots as possible, and the facilities to manage, control, embark and disembark passengers; no much room for maintenance bataillon and their tools to show off.
5) Clearance, indeed. For foreign object debris on unprepared airfields (and in case of scramble in the heat of war, you don't waste on personnel to inspect the facility every time). Also, high wings are less likely to suffer wintip and engine strikes, in bad weather or low visibility condition (land in the desert in strong winds and impeded vis due to dust). Clearance also for jets, for personnel and vehicles to move around fast and tighten safety as much as possible to be efficient. We are trained military personnel, not "mentally weak" civilians who break for the slight safety issue.. (I don't mean military world is that crazy, but you don't nitpick for small matters)
6) On the better ground visibility matter for high wing, pilots don't care, they will look towards that wing once in a month because the first time they try to look there, they only see the wintips, nothing of a "bad visibility" to get a concern. However, for survey and paratroops, it's of use for cabin personnel, those that have to look below from the side and if possible, behind. If you don't have high wing, you use cameras, like on drones and the various maritime patrols from various countries. Also, if you want to drop paratroop fast, add a front exit and get the wingroot out of the way (but that's the ultimate edge case scenario).
7) STOL ability is due to anhedral aspect of the wings with enhanced ground effect for better trapping high pressure below the wings near the ground. Only if you can put engines above the wings you can add the Coanda effect, but that complicates engine maintenance and wear flaps faster. Roll/level stability is SLIGHTLY better for high wing, but not that much, actually, low wing with high wing flexibility such as the 777 and 787 are BETTER and build up LESS drag. Note : why the DHC6 is so good despite not being anhedral? It's LIGHT, with a HUGE wing span and good engines, basically a fat glider on steroids.
8) having the engines near the cabin is of no concern for noise reduction equipped military personnel. On the commercial side, you have a bunch of Karens willing to sue the airline for "having a bad noisy flight that crippled their peaceful sleep.." That's why you avoid designing passenger airliners with engines close to the cabin, and have ramps and stairs and lifters for loading, just to make plebs and rich people at ease.
9) Wing mounted loads. Not that big of a breakthrough, but mounting external tanks isn't really feasible on a P8.... The C130 however..
10) for the very few TRANSPORT designed to operate on an aircraft carrier, they are all high wings if I'm not mistaken, for the reasons above.
In summary, it all started from the target requirements, what the aircraft was made for to fulfill each mission without breaking the pace with costy and time consuming repairs. Then, the design is modified to further enhance features while remaining cost effective.
For airliners, it's generally the same, the industry prioritize people and goods travel in a competitive way (quality/cost), in a very crowded and diverse environment abiding to the same rules, high safety standards to counter cultural habits and environment variables around the world, it's a lot more complex than the closed and tight rules of the military philosophy of a given country.
You design high wing for airlines because you need one or several of the following :
- fast loading/unloading on unprepared/remote airfields
- propellers : high diameter, needs ground clearance (most midsized turboprop airliners) BTW, everything involving bare fans means stronger caution/safety measures.
- small cabin diameter and weight saving, requiring the wings centerbox to be raised ABOVE the fuselage (ATR, F27/50, Dash 8, Dornier 328...) You don't w1nt the Jetstream 31/32 syndrome where the wingbox protrude inside the cabin floor. Though, many aircraft such as the Beech 1900D managed to raise the cabin enough (but you don't go with a cylinder cabin)
“equipments” No.
No one has the time to read your three-page comment. Know your audience. Be better.
@@cwg73160 haha. As if I care you don't read. I don't care either the audience. Video asked for thoughts, it's not your place to ask me to fuck off. Instead, have valid arguments as per the topic, I would be glad to hear what you say. 😁
@@StephenKarl_Integral Well, I gave you my thoughts, but, since you were probably one of those “special” people in school, I wouldn’t mind telling you again.
“equipments” No.
No one has the time to read your three-page comment. Know your audience. Be better.
@@cwg73160 I told you : "equipments, no". So what? Are you implying we build planes for fun with no purpose? 😏 That's what you say suggest, you deny everything because you're annoyed there are too much, but you failed to provide any couter argument... 🙃 who's the schoolboyish one with a childish behavior? The rest, TLDR, I'm not happy to get a daring answer, etc.. learn to cope with internet : nobody cares if you (or I) don't feel at ease, so get over it already and move on, even if it's criticism. 😴 Criticism like "yes, it's too long", I'm fully aware of that, it won't have that much readers, that's very very true, you're not the first and certainly not the last to complain, but that changes nothing about the fact I've put it there, readers or not, I don't mind, really 😉.
What matters is : something's wrong in what I wrote? let's discuss that instead, shall we? No? Til then, you're pretty much irrelevant to me, because, wasting time saying nothing or insisting on the post length or my age... that's off topic, the entire world doesn't deserve to read the both of us argueing shit, are we stupid?
My last word if you have nothing much to say of interest, you can repeat all you want the very few you've already told, and any you want alike, even insult me, it's fine I and the entire world just don't care. 😁
@@StephenKarl_Integral The word “equipments” does not exist. The plural of equipment is equipment. I’ll say it one more time. “Equipments” No.
STOL is pronounces like "stole", not "s-toll".
Two videos in 15 seconds?? The intern that did this mistake - please find a new job 😂
Woukd highwing fixes 737 max engine problem?
In theory, but it would require an expensive redesign to the aircraft, so expensive you might as well design a new aircraft