Quote:
Originally Posted by masraum
Is it just me, or are planes with the wing mounted below the fuselage almost universally more attractive than planes with the wings mounted above? I understand that having the wings above is supposed to make the plane more forgiving or easier to fly, right? But they just generally don't look as cool. Bi-planes are excluded. They're in a class by themselves.
|
I think
attractiveness is a subjective quality. Some guys like fat chicks. Some people think a Prius looks cool. I personally think there are some good looking high wing planes, like the Howard. And there are some good looking low wing planes, like the EMB 314.
As for quantifiable data, a study done in 2010 showed that accidents in low wing planes have a higher fatality percentage. Unfortunately the study only looked at the physical design, and did not correlate the usage of the aircraft, pilot hours, etc... so the data is a little suspect. Ie; most ag planes are low wing, and ag planes have a higher accident & fatality rate compared to the rest of the flying population, therefore there is potential for the data to be badly skewed
As for flying characteristics, a high-wing creates visibility problems in a banked turn. A low wing tends to float more upon landing - especially if your approach is fast.
On small planes, it's easier to design a low wing with retractable gear than a high wing.
Lots of stuff to consider. Just type "high wing vs low wing". You may as well type AK47 vs AR15, or Ginger vs Mary Ann.
I like the biplane because it allows me to not see anything above me or below me when flying, and to not see the damn pavement in front of me when taxiing. It's like riding a really expensive motorcycle with blinders on.
