Strength of high-wing versus low-wing single piston aircraft
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)?
Or is this a rare case of sarcasm (a concept that seems to be virtually unheard of in the US)?
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Plasmech should save the sarcasm on threads which he starts with a post displaying such a level of ignorance..........
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think the A model is not much of an improvement over the bread-and-butter 152 or 152 II?
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.
'd die to get a right-seat ride in a 150 HP Cessna 152.
Could you explain is meant by this sarcasm accusation that I read in a couple of the replies?
Moderator
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
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...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes
on
11 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I simply think it is a cool aircraft.
Moderator
C150/152 defense thread drift....
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....
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....
