Strength of high-wing versus low-wing single piston aircraft

[Plasmech]

I have been told that the strength of low-wing, "strutless" aircraft is signigicantly higher than that of high-winged "strutted" aircraft, most obvious example being the Cessna 152 / 172 trainers that many of us fly. The opinion given to me was that many more wings have come off Cessna's than high winged aircraft (example given was Mooney, who are I believe known for very strong wings). Another statement was "that is the strut breaks, you die". I'm not really sure what the significance of this statement is however, because perhaps it's the same thing as saying "that if the main spar in a Mooney wing breaks, you die..."

Even if this is true...if say the Mooney is a lot stronger, how often is a wing-loss accident reported? Isn't this incredibly rare?

I am not trying to make a ridiculous post or cause any trouble, just trying to see what the forum's opinion is of wings that require strut bracing as opposed to those that don't, and trying to get an idea of how many if any wing losses we've had on Cessna aircraft.

[Ultra long hauler]

I am not trying to make a ridiculous post or cause any trouble, just trying to see what the forum's opinion is of wings that require strut bracing as opposed to those that don't, and trying to get an idea of how many if any wing losses we've had on Cessna aircraft.

Not ridiculous at all………..I´m curious too, (now!).
If the strut brakes on my Baby, will I die?

###Ultra Long Hauler###

[Pilot DAR]

If the strut breaks on your strut braced Cessna, well, it's not going to end well. That said, it is widely accepted that there has never been the failure of a strut braced Cessna in flight. I am aware of a 185 which was so badly overstressed recovering from a spin through cloud, that the wings were bent outboard of the strut. It still landed safely, and the wings were rebuilt.

I'm not knocking low wing aircraft, but their wing spar structure will be heavier as it concentrates all the load path through the thickness of the spar, rather than spreading it out higer and lower along the fuselage.

I believe that the only Cessna singles which have suffered an inflight strutural failure were the 177, and 210 strutless (though I have no details). Though the structure of these types is as strong as their strutted and low wing competitors, they are very sleek, and more prone to overspeed if upset, or mishandled. Overspeed will easily equate to overstress with unfortunate pilot technique. These two type, as others, but these in particular, should not be "fooled around" in!

I was recently involved in the approval of a repair scheme for the wing attachment of a Piper Seneca. As I came to understand the structure of that aircraft, and the criticality of one left and right pair of parts, I was very alarmed to know that they are not only corrosion sensative single point failure, but some were known by the factory to be cracked across, and allowed to remain so, with no further need for inspection. After all that, heaven help you if you want to replace them, as Piper no longer sells them!

All certified "normal" category aircraft pass the same structural requirements at certification. Have faith, they're safe. They will withstand at least 5.7G and still be landable. Just fly and maintain them well.

Though losing a wing, would be a very very big hazard, it is incredibly unlikely. There are many more common, simpler hazards, which are going to catch you first, watch for those!

[Tarq57]

You'd have to actually read the stats to know how many wings have come of aircraft, high vs low mounted, and then eliminate from that statistic those accidents that were caused by the pilot yanking them off by, say, getting disoriented in IMC, exceeding the design or safe operating speed, and pulling back on the pole.

In my experience, wing failures on a normally maintained light aircraft almost always occur because the pilot exceeded the design load. I've looked into this a bit, because I was quite interested in the nature of the various structures that insulate the body from a 1000ft plunge.

Certain types developed a bit of a reputation for shedding parts. Invariably, this was not because they were less strong than their counterparts, it was usually because they had "slippery" airframes that gained speed rapidly in a spiral dive. They include the Cessna 210, and the Beech Bonanza. (Resp. Hi wing/lo wing.)

The only accidents involving structural failure I know of (my awareness will, of course, be far from complete) where the pilot was not the causative factor involve fatigue/inadequate maintenance. There was one P28R accident in the UK some time ago, where I believe the definitive cause could not be determined (what was the event that caused the outer wing panel to start unraveling) but generally, it's because the pilot, VFR rated, operated the aircraft into an area of reduced visibility/IMC, became spatially disoriented, allowed the aircraft to enter a spiral dive.

This general accident classification sometimes includes pilots operating an aircraft in IMC, too. Commonly they venture into an area of adverse weather (Cb/Ts, for example) and lose control of the steed.

The Bonanza sometimes has the nickname "fork-tailed doctor killer". It's a (somewhat complex) high performance type often favoured (or was often favoured) by those with spare money, who wanted something a bit perkier than a 172 or PA28.

I've never heard of a 172/152 wing coming off. They are unusually robust. (As are most light aircraft.)

[AdamFrisch]

The utility category has a 3.8G design load, as compared to the normal category.

There have been some main wing spar failures, especially on bigger aircraft where the loads are higher:

There's the famous firefighter Hercules clip.

And Swedish Customs had a catastrophic wing spar failure on one of their CASA C-212 killing all aboard a couple of years ago.

2006 Falsterbo Swedish Coast Guard crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Falsterbo_Swedish_Coast_Guard_crash)

And the later models of the aircraft I own, the Aero Commander, have had a couple due to galvanic corrosion. The main spar was a stainless steel/aluminum sandwich, which proved to be prone to corrosion. It's subject to a permanent AD and have to be inspected or replaced with a new brace. Thankfully my old 520 doesn't have that as it was before they did the sandwich. Mine is all aluminum, so I'm in the clear. I do have a one time front spar inspection at 6000hrs, which is coming up in a few years, but it's a pretty cheap one off.

There was also a recent Robin R400 in the UK that had one wing come off after having hit a hay bale on a previous landing that had given undetectable wing box cracks. The Robin has a wooden main spar. This is however not something to fear in itself. Bellanca Vikings, Mooney M20A's, Extra 300 aerobatic and hundreds more have had and still have wooden main spars and they haven't had more failures than metal ones, if any.

It's of course every pilots nightmare to have a main spar failure, but thankfully they're very rare.

[BobM2]

There have been about 45,000 Cessna 172's built over more than 55 yrs.

They have been flown millions of hours in all kinds of weather by mostly low-time amateur pilots.

Some airframes have flown in excess of 30,000 hrs.

They have all been built to utility category standards.

There have been two cases of structural failure resulting in fatalities.

Both of these were caused by abrupt pushovers, in good weather, to the inverted, for unknown reasons.

No other airplane ever built can match that record for structural integrity.

And don't forget, the 172 is the only airplane ever to successfully penetrate Soviet air defenses all the way to Moscow.:D

[Old Akro]

Maybe we should go back to biplanes? This sounds like a debate of the thirties & forties. Show me a high wing strut braced monoplane competition aerobatic aeroplane. Think about it. Its about the design, not the configuration.

[IO540]

There are very few GA aircraft types which have never had a wing failure.

I am pretty sure everything from Cessna and definitely everything from Piper has lost wings.

But it's bound to happen if you fly into bad enough weather at a high enough speed.

I fly a TB20 which has had only one known wing failure and that was in a CB in Sweden, reportedly. That's across 2000 airframes. The TBM700/850 has never had an in flight structural failure but one would jolly well hope so since it has radar so should not just casually pop into a CB :)

I don't see a fundamental difference between low wing and high wing ability to carry + or - G. It's just that every airframe will have been designed for the max certified G plus a margin, and not a lot more otherwise you just end up carrying unnecessary weight. You could easily build a plane which can take +/-20G but it would have a small payload :) If you built it out of composites it would cost too much. So a plane with a wing strut will in general have a weaker wing than one without, because of the strut being there.

Personally I far prefer low wing for far superior visibility in turns, much easier refuelling and the ability to easily visually inspect the fuel level, but it has disadvantages too: not so good for taking photos looking down, entry is harder for old/stiff people because they have to step up onto the wing.

Retractable gear design is a lot harder with a high wing, and high wing planes are very susceptible to being chucked around by surface wind (which is a problem for both parking where strapdowns are necessary a lot of the time whereas if you have a 1400kg low wing plane it would take a hurricane to shift it, and for crosswind performance).

But high wing planes are easier to land due to having much less ground effect so if you come in too fast it doesn't glide all the way down the runway :)

[jxk]

If you look inside the headlining of a Cessna 177 Cardinal (strut-less) you will what is effectively a low wing stricture mounted on the top of the fuselage instead of on the bottom. And of course the wheels are mounted on the fuselage as well which reduces the stresses on the wing.

[IO540]

And of course the wheels are mounted on the fuselage as well which reduces the stresses on the wing.

I doubt that helps because you now need a strong hull, whereas with a low wing you just need a strong spar (which you need anyway) and a hull strong enough to hang together while sitting on top of it.

GA hulls are normally pretty flimsy.

[jxk]

IO540
It's swings and roundabouts if you put the wheels on the wing then you have have a stronger spar if you put the wheels on the fuselage you have to have a stronger frames. Probably has little difference in weight.
High wing aircraft make a good shelter when it's raining:-)

[waldopepper42]

"Show me a high wing strut braced monoplane competition aerobatic aeroplane."



The Bellanca Super Decathlon was doing quite well at standard level a couple of years ago......

[Genghis the Engineer]

The strength requirements are identical regardless of configuration.

In an unstrutted wing, the strength will be identical therefore.

A strutted wing will clearly not be as strong as an unstrutted wing, because much of the load is taken by the struts.

The strut itself is usually much stronger in tension than compression, because a long slender strut is very hard to make strong enough against buckling loads.

Even if it is strutted, the strength needs to be the same outboard of the strut attachments.

So, outboard of any strut attachment, I'd expect high and low wings to be the same. And if there are no struts, I'd expect high and low wings to be the same.

I'd expect the section of the wing inboard of the strut of a strutted wing to be less strong than the same part of an unstrutted wing, because the strut is doing a lot of the work.

It is possible, because of the mechanics of the strut, that a strutted wing designed just strong enough in negative g, is slightly stronger than it needs to be, in positive g.


I don't do that sort of work at present, but am still a CAA design signatory for small aeroplanes. Interestingly, I just worked out that of the 15 designs that are flying on my signature, every single one was high wing and either cable braced or strutted. I wonder why I never got a low wing to do?

G

[VOD80]

I'd expect the section of the wing inboard of the strut of a strutted wing to be less strong than the same part of an unstrutted wing, because the strut is doing a lot of the work.

Hello Genghis,

Why do you say this? I would think that the wing is equally strong along its whole length, given that the ones I know (C172 and Auster) have spars that don't change.

As I see it, the struts are only there because the bottom of the spar stops at the cabin - the struts just stop the wing rotating relative to the fuselage.

I don't see that there would be extra strength for positive g operations but could see the struts putting in discontinuities during overload cases.

Don't you think?

[IO540]

It may also be true that most or all of the strutted high wing designs were done in days before there were any formal structural requirements for GA aircraft.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I would think that the wing is equally strong along its whole length, given that the ones I know (C172 and Auster) have spars that don't change.

Except that it needs to be stronger near the root, where the bending moments are at a maximum. A uniform wing section is structurally wasteful and overweight.

s I see it, the struts are only there because the bottom of the spar stops at the cabin - the struts just stop the wing rotating relative to the fuselage.
No, most of those loads are taken by the leading edge D-box, not the struts. The struts are there to take bending and buckling loads primarily.

It may also be true that most or all of the strutted high wing designs were done in days before there were any formal structural requirements for GA aircraft.

Definitely not true. I'm only 40, and all but one of such designs I've worked on are younger then me - and the other dated from the 1950s.

Anything post 1950 definitely had to meet formal structural requirements, and most stuff post 1930.

G

[VOD80]

It may also be true that most or all of the strutted high wing designs were done in days before there were any formal structural requirements for GA aircraft.

:)

You may be right but then again... when you look at the structure inside a C172, it's all pretty well engineered!

[BobM2]

I believe there has only ever been one recorded wing loss accident involving a C172.

ASN Aircraft accident 21-MAR-2003 Cessna 172S N219ME (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=45260)



I recall this being discussed in the past.

There were two. Here is the other one:

MIA03FA043 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20030123X00096&key=1)

[Tarq57]

@AdamFrisch,

It is my understanding that normal category is +3.8, and utility category +4.4/-1.7.

I seem to recall the minus value in the normal cat is about 1.4?

[AdamFrisch]

Tarq57 - you could very well be right.

[Tarq57]

Plus, if memory serves correctly, there is a 50% safety margin built in to these maximum loadings.
So an aircraft certified to withstand, say, 3.8g has to actually withstand the equivalent of 5.7g before things start to bend or break.

Practically, most light aircraft do not have "g" meters, unless aerobatic.
So the idea of approaching the limit loading has to be with the knowledge that the pilots interpretation of such loading is subjective and may be wildly inaccurate, especially when turbulence is involved.

It is quite possible to be loading the aircraft (in a semi-aerobatic or max. rate turn - type manoeuver) to below the maximum rated loading, but because of a gust or violent control action "spot" load part of the structure to above the limit.

I've always been a bit conservative when flying through turbulence. Anything more than light turbulence and I won't enter the yellow arc. Anything moderate or severe, (severe is rare) and I'll stay at or below Va. This, of course, is a subjective assessment, too. One mans' light is another mans' moderate, sometimes.

[Mark1234]

Interestingly, despite being strutted, the aforementioned decathlon is certified for +6/-5 - that being considerably more negative than most aerobatic aircraft of similar performance (including many pitts flavours) which tend to be +6/-3.

There's also at least one strutted low wing aircraft I can think of.. just to really confuse the issue!

Oh, and the 50% margin bit is for a defined period of time (3 sec IIRC), it is allowed to bend the aircraft and break stuff; Although it has to be capable of continuing flight, you may not be able to use it again.

[AdamFrisch]

Yes, they have a 1.5x safety factor for wood and aluminium construction. Carbon fiber or any composite however has to have a safety factor of 2x, which is the reason composite airplanes rarely are much lighter.

[Tarq57]

Is the extra safety factor required for composites due to the fact that (compared with aluminium or wood) they have a relatively short aircraft usage period? I imagine this will change over time if that's the case.
(Unless it proves to be not so durable, of course.)

[AdamFrisch]

I think it's just because the materials are unproven still.

Also, much of the construction is hand lay-up and I have a feeling this is a factor as well. In essence; people gluing mats of carbon/kevlar/glass fibre into a mold and whetting it with epoxy. The thicknesses can be uneven and there's no automated way of creating the exact same uniform part each time. It also cures differently depending on if you bake it or let it dry at normal temps.

I'm sure this factor will come down in the future.

As a side - I'm just reading the Seneca POH for a checkride tomorrow and there it says that design load factor is 3.8G, but with the flaps out it's only 2.2G. I didn't know there was a different number for that, but it's worth keeping in mind. Obviously, on most aircraft you are well below Maneuvering Speed (Va) when flaps are out, so it's not a factor. But if you for some reason should have an aircraft that can deploy flaps at high speeds, this would probably not be a good idea to do in turbulence going fast.

[Mark1234]

Different failure modes perhaps? Wood and Ally can permanently deform (bend), splinter, etc. Composites tend to be in one piece, or several..

[Crash one]

Also, much of the construction is hand lay-up and I have a feeling this is a factor as well. In essence; people gluing mats of carbon/kevlar/glass fibre into a mold and whetting it with epoxy. The thicknesses can be uneven and there's no automated way of creating the exact same uniform part each time. It also cures differently depending on if you bake it or let it dry at normal temps.



I'm curious to know how many trees are laid up by computer guided machinery?

[AdamFrisch]

Well, wood has a proven tensile strength that isn't uniform by any means, but they use very conservative numbers. They use the lowest of tested values as a design maximum. Also, one doesn't construct wood airplanes in the same way normally, although you sure could. Having thin sheets of veneer in a mold with epoxy - that's how all those 70's fruit bowls were made and they were sturdy as hell. Or the old cedar strip canoes that people still build. They last forever.

Soap box warning: People forget how strong wood is. Birch has 1.7x more tensile strength per weight compared to aluminium. Nobody believes that. It doesn't corrode and it doesn't fatigue. It's a great construction material if it gets sealed properly (to protect from water).

[flyinkiwi]

Show me a high wing strut braced monoplane competition aerobatic aeroplane.The Bellanca Super Decathlon was doing quite well at standard level a couple of years ago...... Erm... the 152 Aerobat springs to mind... :p

I saw one win an international basic aerobatics competition once.

[Plasmech]

Ahhhh, the 152 Aerobat. I would buy one in a split SECOND if one existed (was for sale) and I had the funds. What an awesome custom Cessna. I'd die to get a right-seat ride in a 150 HP Cessna 152.

Are they stronger than the standard 152? I know they have more effective (longer) ailerons. Did they beef up the frame to take a higher 'posi and 'negi G load?

[Old Akro]

The aerobatic certification is +6/-3. Pitts & Extra's get the same certification as a Decathlon. However, Pitts are regularly used in competition at +8/-8. The weakness in Decathlon wings is not the strut bracing, but the rib to spar attach. Under the torsional load of rolling g, the wing ribs work loose. I have a dim recollection of spar issues at the strut attach point too, but my memory is dim. Both the C152 Aerobat and Decathlon are good training aircraft, but the world has moved on and I'm not sure that either could deal with sportsman level anymore, just as not even Neil Williams wouldn't be competitive in the Cosmic Wind "Ballarina" anymore.

The weaknesses of all these aircraft are well catalogued in the IAC tech papers. But the topic was are strut braced high wing aircraft stronger than unbraced low wing aircraft and there is no definitive answer. It depends on the design.

[Mark1234]

Old Akro - the minimum for aerobatic certification might be +6/-3, I'm not a certification expert. However, the manual and placards on both the vanilla (actually VH-BIK), and super (G-something) that I've played in are for +6/-5

I'm also lead to believe that different marques of pitts have higher limits but the S2A I fly is 6 and 3 (manual and placarding).

And yes Plasmech, the aerobat is modified (strengthened) though I don't know the exact details. Also gets windows in the roof and a jettisonable door.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The minimum positive g limits for a light aeroplane are:

+3.8g - normal category
+4.4g - utility category
+6.0g - aerobatic category
+2.0g - with flaps down.

Designers can use bigger numbers, but seldom do except in the aerobatic category. The negative g limits are normally (-)0.4 times the positive limit, or (-)0.5 times for aerobatic aeroplanes.

Microlights and gliders use slightly larger numbers: +4/-2 for microlights, +5.3/-2.65 for normal gliders, +7/-5 for aerobatic gliders.


These give what are called "limit loads" - which is what the aeroplane must be able to take indefinitely without any permanent damage.

You then start applying safety factors. The minimum safety factor is almost always 1.5 (+50% in other words), but other factors may come in depending upon the type of material.

Compared to metal, or even wood, composites vary both between examples, and through life. So, typically you use an additional 1.2 --> 1.5 factor for composites; 1.2 is the minimum and you can use that where you've got materials data for maximum temperature and humidity conditions, 1.5 is more normal, using "standard condition" data.

Other safety factors may also kick in depending upon what else is in there - there are factors for cables, castings, loaded hinges...


Take the limit loads, multiply by all the safety factors which apply, and you get something called the "ultimate load".

When you certify an aeroplane you have to prove that it will not fail catastrophically if loaded to ultimate loads for at-least 3 seconds.

If you break it, the loads to break it are the "failure loads", and the certification requirement is that the "reserve factor", which is the failure load divided by the ultimate load, is more than 1. Obviously, you want it as near to 1 as possible, to keep the weight down.


So, a typical metal light aeroplane is expected to take +3.8/-1.52 without any damage, but will be designed not to fail catastrophically within +5.7/-2.28g; however if it was made from composites using room temperature and low humidity test data the last numbers would be 8.55g/-3.42g. At-least at the start of the aeroplane's life - you can expect the failure loads to get worse through-life.

One other thing - a big well resourced company like Piper or Cessna will tend to get all their reserve factors as near 1.0 as possible. A smaller company however, say Europa or Vans, will probably use larger factors because they can't afford the high cost of really high quality testing and analysis. So, there's a likelihood that such an aeroplane, whilst probably a little heavier, will also be a bit stronger.

G

[BackPacker]

Ahhhh, the 152 Aerobat. I would buy one in a split SECOND if one existed (was for sale) and I had the funds. What an awesome custom Cessna. I'd die to get a right-seat ride in a 150 HP Cessna 152.

Plasmech, what the @#$% are you flying right now that you'd die for a flight in an Aerobat?

Or is this a rare case of sarcasm (a concept that seems to be virtually unheard of in the US)?

:ok:

[Tarq57]

Nothing wrong with the 150hp aerobat.
Nothing wrong with the standard one, either. I did my aerobatic rating in one.
Not something the average pilot would choose for competition work, for sure! A tad underpowered, but (perhaps partly because of that) a pretty good trainer.

I believe the engine mounts are stronger than standard. I've heard that some of the wing and tailplane skins are thicker. And, of course, they have the double shoulder straps.

[sunday driver]

As mentioned earlier

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_025533.pdf

SD

[david viewing]

In purely practical terms, I'm sure that in the UK far more high wing Cessnas suffer wing buckling than ever do PA-28's.

That's because of what happens when they get blown upside down. I've seen several personally so it can't be a rare phenomenon. Of course it is an almost uniquely UK phenomenon as well because we seem to have some sort of religious objection to tying aircraft down here. Walk away from a Cessna in the US without tying it down and someone will come running after you.. (Or you wake up in the hotel in the middle of the night with palpitations and have to drive to the airport to check ... guess how I know that).

Quite why we have an attitude of bravado toward tie downs in a country that supposedly has the worst weather in the world is a total mystery to me. I've never seen a PA-28 blown over, but I have had mine twizzled round and tie it down much to the amusement of flying club members opposite whenever strong winds are forecast.

[gasax]

I think Plasmech should save the sarcasm on threads which he starts with a post displaying such a level of ignorance..........

[Pilot DAR]

A few random thoughts...

The 150 Aerobat is what it is; an affordable and safe aerobatic trainer. Sure it's not the best aerobatic trainer ever, but it is an excellent stepping stone to learning, and if you choose to go on, them you find an aircraft even more capable - and expensive!

The aerobat has a number of different structural and system changes (and has a greater empty weight). A few of the improvements include changes to the structure of the horizontal stabilizer, and it's attachment to the airframe, this was a weak point of older 150's. Some of the Aerobat refinements were carried over to 150M's and 152's. It is, however, the same to fly as a 150, other than increased capability.

I have read remarks here about wings buckling. We have pointed out that 5.7G is the value at which the airframe might suffer really bad failure. How often does an aircraft of this type encounter 5.7G? Remind yourself of the concept on maneuvering speed. Below that speed, it is not possible for the wing to create enough lift to damage the airframe, it will stall first - and that's for 3.8G. If you were to attampt to subject the airframe to 5.7G, you'd have to be going much faster! Very few of us will ever blunder into that realm while flying safely.

Yes, if you blow the plane over on the ground, you're going to wrinkle it. That is a reaction fo the airframe to the ground, which has little "give". You could never get that sudden stop while reacting the airframe to the air - the air will move, and get out of the way, the ground won't. It's comparing apples to oranges.

Though we should be aware of stresses on the airframe, and avoid careless flying which can get you into a bad corner, we don't need to worry about the airframe and wings. They'll hold on!

[Genghis the Engineer]

In purely practical terms, I'm sure that in the UK far more high wing Cessnas suffer wing buckling than ever do PA-28's.

That's because of what happens when they get blown upside down. I've seen several personally so it can't be a rare phenomenon. Of course it is an almost uniquely UK phenomenon as well because we seem to have some sort of religious objection to tying aircraft down here. Walk away from a Cessna in the US without tying it down and someone will come running after you.. (Or you wake up in the hotel in the middle of the night with palpitations and have to drive to the airport to check ... guess how I know that).

Quite why we have an attitude of bravado toward tie downs in a country that supposedly has the worst weather in the world is a total mystery to me. I've never seen a PA-28 blown over, but I have had mine twizzled round and tie it down much to the amusement of flying club members opposite whenever strong winds are forecast.

Nor, given our enormous insect population and moderate rainfall, can I understand why the same objection exists to use of pitot covers on so many aeroplanes left parked outside.

G

[Plasmech]

Plasmech, what the @#$% are you flying right now that you'd die for a flight in an Aerobat?

Or is this a rare case of sarcasm (a concept that seems to be virtually unheard of in the US)?

Backpacker, I rent a Cessna 152 II. I love that plane so far! Just think an Aerobat would be really cool. More performance, but still not too much for a low-time PPL student. Plus, I just think that A152's are really cool.

Do you think the A model is not much of an improvement over the bread-and-butter 152 or 152 II?

by the way, the "II" doesn't mean much, if anything.

[Plasmech]

I think Plasmech should save the sarcasm on threads which he starts with a post displaying such a level of ignorance..........

Gasax, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. My comment about the Aerobat was made with 100% good intentions. I never meant for it to offend anybody or make me seem sarcastic. Could you explain is meant by this sarcasm accusation that I read in a couple of the replies?

[BackPacker]

Do you think the A model is not much of an improvement over the bread-and-butter 152 or 152 II?

I think you should finish your PPL in a 152 if that works for you (too cramped for me though). Then you should try out a few other aircraft, including ones with more performance and better aerobatics capability.

And only then make a decision as to whether you'd
buy one in a split SECOND if one existed (was for sale) and I had the funds. And whether you'd die to get a right-seat ride in a 150 HP Cessna 152.

Because you probably won't.

Could you explain is meant by this sarcasm accusation that I read in a couple of the replies?

Man, that is just so funny I don't know where to begin. But don't worry. You didn't offend anybody.

[Pilot DAR]

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Me either...

I would not worry about it. Perhaps some people are just sensative when it comes to the simplicity, durability, and economy of these wonderful little planes. My 150 was paid for 24 years ago, and has served me with 100% reliability for 2700 hours since. Sure it's not the fastest, or heaviest hauling, but it gets my job done nearly all the time, and I can rent bigger if I need it, having saved on the regular economy of the 150 for my normal use.

To each their own, but the 150/152 is not worthy of being knocked...

[EGBM]

I have to agree - the Reims-Cessna FRA150M Aerobat being the real choice of champions ;)

[Jim59]

The Piper Pawnee seems to be a bit of an odd-ball being low wing with multiple struts in compression. I wonder why they went down that route?

[ChrisVJ]

I only understand engineering as far as rule of thumb goes however I do know that in a strutted high wing monoplane most of the lift force is carried in the strut, at the wing root most of the force is compression.

If you look at the wing from the front the lift is generally spread evenly over the length of the wing. That means that the lift forces between the root and strut are largely balanced by those from the strut to the tip. The force on the strut is some order of magnitude greater than the lift, depending on the angle between the two. Probably nearly double, maybe more, in tension. As the strut is in tension the resulting force on the wing acts along the plane of the wing in compression at the root.

When you think that you might pull 3G, in Jemima that's 4.500 lbs, half for each wing, double for carrying the force at about 60 deg. Say 4,500 lbs on each side. Fair whack of force on an Al strut held by one bolt at each end. (Jemima has two struts but they meet at a bracket with only one bolt to the bulkhead.)

Sorry to those who already knew this.

[Plasmech]

Nowhere did I say that the 152 Aerobat is the best, latest-and-greatest aerobatic aircraft that's going to blow away the competition in its mere 150 HP prop wash. Only a complete (aviation) idiot would think that. But you knew that I knew that, yet insinuated that I was naive.

I simply think it is a cool aircraft.

[Pilot DAR]

Don't let 'em wind you up Plas.... The 150/152 will bear the brunt of riducule for some time to come. However, it is a fine choice of aircraft for a number of roles, many of which are very common. There are few jobs it does "best", other than being safe and economical, but it does an adequate job of so many jobs, it'll have an important place in GA for a long time to come. Some people are offended by that. Too bad for them....

Check your data on the HP. Though I have flown several STC'd 150 HP 150's, and a delightful STC'd 130 (or so) "Sparrowhawk", I'm not aware that Cessna USA delivered any 150 HP 152's. I'm not sure about the French ones....

Peronally, I'm not keen on the 150 HP 150's. Best left as designed in my opinion....