The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think cost and drag is an issue. Even a cruising speed of 122knots (Cessna 172) is fast in automotive terms, get up to 120MPH and stick an arm out of your car window, oh and then check out your cars consumption.I saw an airplane and I was thinking why isn't that a biplane?
So why do all modern general aviation have single wings?
The top speed of these aircraft are negligible so drag isn't an issue.
But better STOL and stalling speed would be a great boon.
I saw an airplane and I was thinking why isn't that a biplane?
So why do all modern general aviation have single wings?
The top speed of these aircraft are negligible so drag isn't an issue.
But better STOL and stalling speed would be a great boon.
I saw an airplane and I was thinking why isn't that a biplane?
So why do all modern general aviation have single wings?
The top speed of these aircraft are negligible so drag isn't an issue.
But better STOL and stalling speed would be a great boon.
Drag is an issue even at low speeds. If you have an engine failure in a bi-plane, you'd better be pretty quick getting the nose down to maintain speed, and your glide profile is pretty steep.I saw an airplane and I was thinking why isn't that a biplane?
So why do all modern general aviation have single wings?
The top speed of these aircraft are negligible so drag isn't an issue.
But better STOL and stalling speed would be a great boon.
I would have thought with all that extra wing area that biplanes would have more lift and a better glide profile. Curious why this would not be the case.Drag is an issue even at low speeds. If you have an engine failure in a bi-plane, you'd better be pretty quick getting the nose down to maintain speed, and your glide profile is pretty steep.
Cost of manufacture also enters the equation; building another set of wings would significantly increase the manufacture costs. Rigging the aircraft wings and control surfaces is more complicated as well.
I'd say that the Beech Staggerwing, even though it is 1930's vintage, would be the most modern biplane with comparable (or even better) performance.There is no biplane that I am aware of that had a comparable performance/HP/cost ratio.
Yes, the increased lift is more than offset by the drag increase, particularly at high angles of attack.I would have thought with all that extra wing area that biplanes would have more lift and a better glide profile. Curious why this would not be the case.
Because the increased drag outweighs the increased lift maybe?
I guess that if you were to design a new bi-plane, it'd look something like this:I'd say that the Beech Staggerwing, even though it is 1930's vintage, would be the most modern biplane with comparable (or even better) performance.
I'd say that the Beech Staggerwing, even though it is 1930's vintage, would be the most modern biplane with comparable (or even better) performance.
I would have thought with all that extra wing area that biplanes would have more lift and a better glide profile. Curious why this would not be the case.
Because the increased drag outweighs the increased lift maybe?
But....you don't have to about recovering the wings.Well, of course part of the reason is advancement in materials and construction methods. There have not been many aluminum stressed skin cantilever wing biplanes built. And before those construction methods were developed there were not many monoplanes built using biplane wood and tube construction methods.
It is interesting that the Ercoupe and Luscombe were built with all aluminum structures but still had fabric covered wings. The fabric was not needed for structure but just to keep the wind from going somewhere it should not. And those were good designs, too, even by today's standards. My Ercoupe was 30 lb lighter and had less drag when then wings were fabric covered; I wish they still were.
View attachment 560864