Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
as i mentioned aerodynamic benefits are difficult to prove - you barely able to said if it is actual benefit of wing location, or just better detailed design, or your manufacturing had better day - of course you may call miracles of CFD and prove this numerically - than just wait as more experienced part of staff will stop laughing...high winged airplanes actually have lower interference drag and better span efficiency than low winged monoplanes. But along with shorter landing gear, i suspect better visibility for the pilot is another strong reason for low wing monoplanes, at least for those aircraft where the cockpit sits over/under the wing.
great summary - all i can add is truism that in aircraft design silver bullet not exist and never existed - this is always trade between performance as a flying machine and meeting specific requirements of the user and of course level of technological development - something was bad idea 5 years ago suddenly may become quite reasonable solution.Supposedly wing configuration makes a substantial difference in drag. Long story short, mid-wing aircraft were regarded as having lower interference drag given certain angles of attack. But the reason is more complex than I remember.
I wouldn't normally link to Quora for a WW2 discussion, but the summary in this post is so good I can't help myself.
Low-wing and high-wing had the highest amounts of interference drag because the interaction between the fuselage and the wing position exerts extra drag on the fuselag in high and low-wing configurations. The mid-wing position has the lowest amount of induced drag.
According to this Stackexchange post, there are a lot of other reasons for why a midwing configuration is used on fighter aircraft. The differences relate to production, performance, and structural integrity. Some of the most salient differences include:
I always assumed that Grumman used a midwing (or somewhat midwing) configuration on their aircraft for this reason. Although considering that the Hellcat was the slowest Allied fighter of its generation, a midwing configuration couldn't have contributed much in terms of total speed. Although the Hellcat also had a big wing, large profile, and used a non-"laminar" airfoil, so that's probably a big reason why the dash five probably only barely made 400 MPH even with insanely good fuel and a powerful engine.
- Lighter weight of the bulkheads that attach to the wing spar.
- Heavier weight on the carry-through spar in the fuselage
- Weaker ground effect (negated on a carrier aircraft)
- Better performance in a roll
- Poorer visibility while maneuvering
- Heavier landing gear (unless an inverted gull wing is used)
A high-wing aircraft, on the other hand, is probably more suited for lightweight recon aircraft. The high-wing makes for great downward visibility. But its landing characteristics and interference drag make it a worse candidate for a high performance fighter aircraft.
Low-wing and high-wing had the highest amounts of interference drag because the interaction between the fuselage and the wing position exerts extra drag on the fuselag in high and low-wing configurations. The mid-wing position has the lowest amount of induced drag.
There's one big problem with mid-wing transports: the wing spar goes right through where the passengers and cargo would be carried.Off hand the only planes I can think off where the differences in wing location were the Lockheed Vega and kin.
Of course these were 5-6 seat transports and were from the 1920s and early 30s..
View attachment 693895
View attachment 693896
View attachment 693897
This was given retractable landing gear and became the Orion.
View attachment 693898
No mid wing version
There were some high wing or parasol wing fighters in the 20s and/or early 30s
For pilots having the wing low put the wing further away from the pilot and improved the view or his ability to see around it, unless the wing was almost in the line of sight (gull wing) and he could look over or under it by tilting/moving his head. A wing 4 feet away is going to cover about 1/2 the arc (or 1/4 of the area) of the same wing only 2 feet away.
Supposedly wing configuration makes a substantial difference in drag. Long story short, mid-wing aircraft were regarded as having lower interference drag given certain angles of attack. But the reason is more complex than I remember.
I wouldn't normally link to Quora for a WW2 discussion, but the summary in this post is so good I can't help myself.
Low-wing and high-wing had the highest amounts of interference drag because the interaction between the fuselage and the wing position exerts extra drag on the fuselag in high and low-wing configurations. The mid-wing position has the lowest amount of induced drag.
According to this Stackexchange post, there are a lot of other reasons for why a midwing configuration is used on fighter aircraft. The differences relate to production, performance, and structural integrity. Some of the most salient differences include:
I always assumed that Grumman used a midwing (or somewhat midwing) configuration on their aircraft for this reason. Although considering that the Hellcat was the slowest Allied fighter of its generation, a midwing configuration couldn't have contributed much in terms of total speed. Although the Hellcat also had a big wing, large profile, and used a non-"laminar" airfoil, so that's probably a big reason why the dash five probably only barely made 400 MPH even with insanely good fuel and a powerful engine.
- Lighter weight of the bulkheads that attach to the wing spar.
- Heavier weight on the carry-through spar in the fuselage
- Weaker ground effect (negated on a carrier aircraft)
- Better performance in a roll
- Poorer visibility while maneuvering
- Heavier landing gear (unless an inverted gull wing is used)
A high-wing aircraft, on the other hand, is probably more suited for lightweight recon aircraft. The high-wing makes for great downward visibility. But its landing characteristics and interference drag make it a worse candidate for a high performance fighter aircraft.
Sorry, typing on phone while tired - I meant to type high-wing....I feel I must disagree as a flying modeller and amateur aerodynamitist, the high wing is more stable in flight. The parasol wing layout, more so. The basic pendulum effect is in play. That's one reason why an inverted spin in a low wing plane is more difficult to recover. The center of gravity wants to stay below the mainplane. Allegedly, why biplanes are better trainers for spin recovery. Very few modern civil basic flying school planes are low wing. Some on this forum have negative comments about Cherokee types for training.
A high-wing aircraft is inherently more stable, which isn't always a good thing for a fighter. Look at the Harrier, and the amount of anhedral it has to make it less stable, and more manoeuvrable.
(edited to change the reference to high-wing)
And this is based on your keen eye or do you have documented stress analysis to show this?The ideal wing joint is at 90 to the hull - strongest, lowest drag, see the F4U Corsair.
Many naval types (or attack types) were designed mid-wing:Did Grumman maybe go for mid-wing because the fuselage-mounted landing gear they used on the previous FF,F2F and F3F was something they knew how to do? Nearly all other WW2 single-engine fighters went with low wings. Hellcat was barely -mid, F2A mid but spread the gear out over wing and fuselage, what else? Komet? Well, that's a special case.
Many naval types (or attack types) were designed mid-wing:
Fairy Barracuda, Brewster SB2A, Curtiss SB2C, Yokasuka D4Y, Vultee A-31, Douglas BTD, Aichi B7A, etc.
The ideal wing joint is at 90 to the hull - strongest, lowest drag, see the F4U Corsair.
Actually P.1 and P.7 had so strong wing (around 20 g), that the following models didn't need to increase strength as their weight was growing up.it is matter of design standards - in those days PZL design team have used 1.4 safety factor vs.1.5 being used in germany
It is simply not true. High wing allows to use struts that save a lot of weight.Major factor for preference low wing layout is huge weight saving over high wing layout (i mean single engine, propeller driven and high performance airplanes in other cases trade may looks different).
No contemporary fighter had them. In case of P.1-P.24 line the opposite is true: the main fuel tank was detachable in emergency situations, so they were the safest fighters of the era in the case of fire. Greece P.24 got armored windshield and armored plate behind pilot.next thing is that Polish designs lacked all necessary safety features - no inertial gas installation, no armour, no fire extinguishing system, no self sealing fuel tanks