Why design a passenger aircraft with a high wing?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Safety Pee (post 31)
Thread drift here - sorry - but you're a bit off-beam about any A300/BAC311 link.In the "original" Airbus studies, British participation was largely from Rolls, with Hawker Siddeley to do the wing. Vickers/BAC were not involved in the least, but later came up with the rival 311 which got nowhere when the government of the day would only support (tepidly?) one big civil airliner project, plus the RB211 for the 1011.
Rolls were offering fantastic thrust levels (for the day) from their big 3-shaft fan engines, to match the then A300's DC-10-width fuselage ("Grosse Julie"). When Rolls turned their attention to the lower power needs for the Lockheed 1011, they left the A300 as it then was, powerless.
Airbus, under Roger Beteille, then turned to GE whose CF6 was being developed to a thrust level suitable for a higher AUW version of the DC10, and at the same time reduced the fuselage diameter to the 222-inches which became the "standard" Airbus wide-body size, and thus the "old" A300 became the A300B, with HSA's wing.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I believe the biggest advantage is big props with a high wing mean fewer RPM's which means quite for Turbo Props. It also means way more acceleration or deceleration at low speed. Those of you who flew a Dash 8 or similar know what I mean. You just put it in Discing after touch down no brakes or reverse. Also even with jets it helps prevent FOD and prop damage on turboprops.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Where it's Too Cold
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High wing / Low wing, is really the discussion of antiquated designs.
Designers trying to squeeze speed/range/efficiency...doing the most with the least amount of engine and fuel, will end up with a Piaggio Avanti type of design.
I'd get writers cramp discussing all the advantages, but the rear wing being higher then your typical low wing has the advantage of gravity feed, more ground strike clearance, engines getting better inflow and FOD protection.
When they start slinging Williams on the Avanti, about the time that fuel hits $9 a gallon, I suspect even the airlines will start pushing Boeing to reconsider where they put the wings...
Most of the supersonic designs on tap, looks like a Delta with a canard.
Designers trying to squeeze speed/range/efficiency...doing the most with the least amount of engine and fuel, will end up with a Piaggio Avanti type of design.
I'd get writers cramp discussing all the advantages, but the rear wing being higher then your typical low wing has the advantage of gravity feed, more ground strike clearance, engines getting better inflow and FOD protection.
When they start slinging Williams on the Avanti, about the time that fuel hits $9 a gallon, I suspect even the airlines will start pushing Boeing to reconsider where they put the wings...
Most of the supersonic designs on tap, looks like a Delta with a canard.
WH, that may be because the power-plant for a bird has to be underneath the propulsion/lifting surfaces, since muscles only produce power by contracting.
