Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I don't think I can recall any high wing single seat fighters. I assume the low wing was used to keep the main spar low, so to allow the pilot, fuel and radio to go above the spar. Here's the Spitfire, would a high wing spar location be possible?Generally speaking, monoplane fighters of the WWII era had low-mounted wings, rather than high-mounted. I imagine that that's for keeping landing-gear closer to the ground.
But was there any aerodynamic reason to favor low- over high-mounted wings?
I don't think I can recall any high wing single seat fighters.
I assume the low wing was used to keep the main spar low, so to allow the pilot, fuel and radio to go above the spar. Here's the Spitfire, would a high wing spar location be possible?
View attachment 693861
Focke Wulf offered the Fw 159 against the Bf 109 and He 112:
Mid or Low wing aircraft could incorporate a much stronger main wing spar configuration which was needed in fighter and attack aircraft.
I really wonder how an engineer with foresight like Kurt Tank came up with such a design.Focke Wulf offered the Fw 159 against the Bf 109 and He 112:
The wiki page offers some considerations: "The plane had an enclosed cockpit and a rearward-retracting lever-action suspension main undercarriage which retracted completely into the lower fuselage. This mechanism was complicated, fragile and endlessly troublesome. The first prototype, the Fw-159 V1, was ready in the spring of 1935 but was destroyed when it crash-landed following the failure of the main undercarriage to deploy properly. The second prototype, the V2, had a reinforced undercarriage. The general flight characteristics were good but the rate of climb and rate of turn were unsatisfactory, and the aircraft suffered greater drag than its competitors in the contest, the Arado Ar 80, Heinkel He 112 and Messerschmitt Bf 109. The competition was won by the Bf 109.
Even the best have their Google Glass moment.I really wonder how an engineer with foresight like Kurt Tank came up with such a design.
I really wonder how an engineer with foresight like Kurt Tank came up with such a design.
Perhaps he was trying to stretch the basic Fw 56 idea beyond what was practical? Reasons of time and money were (are) valid considerations.
OTOH, there was a lot of well-known designers and engineers who managed to make one or two flops in their career. Mitchel with Type 224 comes to the mind, Berlin with P-75. Polikarpov with I-180 and I-185.
Some were too defensive against the inovations and preferred conservative ideas and executions of the ideas, and some were trying to jump too many steps at once.
I thought the I-185 was a high-performing plane at least on par with the Lavochkin and Yakovlev fighters?
I-185 was sorta Bf 109 with R-2800 or Centaurus in the nose - ie. a huge engine on a tiny airframe. Very fast and very good climber - certainly, but even more of a handful for the pilots than it were the late marque Bf 109s.
Then the Yak-3U must have been a handful, too, as it had an Ash-82. The Yak-3U went the reverse path by accommodating a larger engine.
Both the Yak-3 and I-185 were similar to the Fw 190V1 k (small wings of 14.0 sqm) in weight and dimensions which had to be fitted with the known 18.3 sqm wing for handling reasons.
I wonder what they did to keep it superlative while the others would have to get larger airframes from keep balance.