All birds are “high wing”

[n2230b]

Other than the convenience and ergonomics of pectoral wing flapping muscle insertion in the anterior chest wall, are there other reasons all birds are “high wing” configured? Forward and downward flight visibility is one advantage. Also birds do not have vertical stabs and true rudders. They modulate heir tails to act as both. Why don't we do that with airplanes?

 

[RyanShort1]

Why don't we do that with airplanes?

Are serious?
Muscles and stomachs are different than engines and gas. Central nervous system and a brain designed for seemingly effortless flight is different than a human inside pushing cables and rods, too. Lots of things have been tried. Mostly what exists today is what has been efficient and effective by trial and error.

 

[RyanShort1]

Birds land on their feet which include claws. Why don’t we make landing gear pointy instead of using wheels. I guess we wouldn’t have the treadmill question as much!

 

[smv]

Helicopters should be designed like hummingbirds...

 

[n2230b]

Are serious?
Muscles and stomachs are different than engines and gas. Central nervous system and a brain designed for seemingly effortless flight is different than a human inside pushing cables and rods, too. Lots of things have been tried. Mostly what exists today is what has been efficient and effective by trial and error.

All good points. I was referring specifically to the design of the empenage. Having 3 control surfaces sticking out at the tail adds drag. The v-tail bo’s tried creating a whole new set of aerodynamic unintended consequences.

Birds land on their feet which include claws. Why don’t we make landing gear pointy instead of using wheels. I guess we wouldn’t have the treadmill question as much!

the navy might be interested in that concept

 

[Craig]

Adding enough structure and systems to modulate a tail to provide all the necessary forces across the flight regime would just about guarantee the aircraft would become a mechanical dodo.

Sometimes, inefficiency in execution turns out to be the most practical way to do things.

 

[texasclouds]

They also only have main landing gear. Why do we have to have the little wheel?

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

They also only have main landing gear. Why do we have to have the little wheel?

It could be like a Segway. No more prop strikes, tail strikes, ground loops, etc. Kind of like a ground version of envelope protection.

 

[Bill]

The closest thing to flying and landing like a bird is hang gliding.

 

[steingar]

I think bird wings are configured the way they are because that's how the vertebrate appendicular evolved.

 

[Pilawt]

(from a 1961 Cessna advertisement)

 

[eman1200]

birds have "high wings".

animals are stupid.



coincidence?

 

[Tantalum]

Forward and downward flight visibility is one advantage

Three things:
1) a bird's head sits way out in front of it's wings, not underneath it cramped in a box hunched over (a la C172). I don't understand why people thing high wings have better visibility. Unless you want to look straight down they have garbage visibility in every other axis
2) I would argue birds are midwing flying wings, or blended wing designs
3) some designs are actually very similar, compare the B2 to an eagle:



Differences in wings are obvious since birds (mostly) all travel <100 knots and planes pretty much all travel well over that, but a few things carry over:
-hawks, owls, etc., have light serrations in the tips of their feathers to help keep sound down. The serrations on the 787 engines have the same goal, and achieve it the same by "mixing" the different velocity air more "gently"
-notice the "winglet" design on birds that require efficiency, IE, spend most of the day soaring, like hawks, they have a gentle upward curve like the A350, 787, etc.
-when birds dive they reduce their wingspan and "sweep" them back, so to speak (look up picture of diving birds, like Peregrine falcon).. B1, TU-160, F14, others, do this also
-birds have "hollow" bones, IE, they're interior design is honeycomb, we do the same in many aircraft structures to save weight but retain strength

I believe you'll find that 1,000s of years of evolution is not too different than what engineers give us when you look at the fundamentals in the design and the limitations and obvious differences in each

 

[Craig]

B-2: King Sized Doritos Chip.....

 

[RyanShort1]

I think bird wings are configured the way they are because that's how the vertebrate appendicular evolved.

After thousands of birds that evolved low wings failed to fly and mate? Sorry, I don’t believe tornados assemble 747s, either.

 

[Tantalum]

After thousands of birds that evolved low wings failed to fly and mate? Sorry, I don’t believe tornados assemble 747s, either.

Is there a suggestion here that divine forces prefer a high wing design..? if that is the case then at least the forces of good and evil in the universe can agree on wing placement as both the angels of heaven and hell share their overall design

..and where does this leave DC-9, 727, etc..?

 

[NordicDave]

 

[steingar]

This discussions really insipid in so many ways. Bird flight evolved based on what was there, feathers and a tetrapod limb system, not to mention the muscles necessary to run thrust producing wings. What is missing in this idiotic discussion is that the wings are a birds motive force, in case any of you haven't noticed birds don't have propellors. That's why they have huge sternal outcroppings and gigantic pectoral muscles. The downstroke is also the power stroke in birds, and needs a lot of muscle behind it.

Most airplanes don't flap their wings for motive power, hence the location of the wings is due to other design constraints.

 

[Tantalum]

You can see some similar design cues in aquatic animals as well.. including squid, which have their own "water jet" of sorts

 

[MooneyDriver78]

They also all retract their landing gear.



Tom

 

[jimhorner]

I would argue that birds are shoulder/mid-wing and not high-wing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[schmookeeg]

I suppose the Raptor cribs some of its design ideas from the Ostrich

 

[RyanShort1]

This discussions really insipid in so many ways. Bird flight evolved based on what was there, feathers and a tetrapod limb system, not to mention the muscles necessary to run thrust producing wings.

Can you imagine the carnage and how many crashes must have taken place as those poor raptors with half-evolved wings must’ve tried to learn how to fly? It’s a miracle wonder they were deemed fit enough to survive.

 

[Shepherd]

Three things:
1) I don't understand why people think high wings have better visibility. Unless you want to look straight down they have garbage visibility in every other axis
each

I'll only talk to this point since I only care if (bird) wings are mild, hot or atomic.

When I had an engine out in the Warrior, I couldn't see anything below the wing on both sides and I had to do a lot of wing wobbling to find where I was going to put the plane.
Wing wobbling causes loss of speed and altitude, both of which were in short supply.
No sweat, it all turned out fine, but the unnecessary loss of altitude made for additional concern.

When I had an engine out in the P-92, I could see (almost) completely around the plane without any wing wobbling until I found my spot.
As a result, I had so much altitude and time on my hands I could have read "War and Peace". OK, the Cliff Notes version.
No sweat, it all turned out fine, with one less thing to stress about.

 

[eman1200]

....When I had an engine out in the Warrior, I couldn't see anything below the wing on both sides and I had to do a lot of wing wobbling to find where I was going to put the plane.
Wing wobbling causes loss of speed and altitude, both of which were in short supply.
No sweat, it all turned out fine, but the unnecessary loss of altitude made for additional concern.

When I had an engine out in the P-92, I could see (almost) completely around the plane without any wing wobbling until I found my spot....

I hear ya...the one time I was forced to ride in a 172 I was amazed how much I could see directly below us. The trick in the low wing is to be ahead of the plane and always already know what’s available in front of u, below u, behind u. The length of time something is directly below u is pretty small.

 

[Tantalum]

I'll only talk to this point since I only care if (bird) wings are mild, hot or atomic.

Atomic

engine out

this:

I hear ya...the one time I was forced to ride in a 172 I was amazed how much I could see directly below us. The trick in the low wing is to be ahead of the plane and always already know what’s available in front of u, below u, behind u. The length of time something is directly below u is pretty small.

^yes!

 

[steingar]

Can you imagine the carnage and how many crashes must have taken place as those poor raptors with half-evolved wings must’ve tried to learn how to fly? It’s a miracle wonder they were deemed fit enough to survive.

The evolution of powered flight is actually a really interesting topic. From what I've read the earliest "flights" were short hops where flight control came from the back legs. How that transitioned to sustained flight I don't think is yet known.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Three things:
I believe you'll find that 1,000²s of years of evolution is not too different than what engineers give us when you look at the fundamentals in the design and the limitations and obvious differences in each

FTFY.
Peter Garrison wrote an article on 'high-winged birds' some years back. I really only like it for how things look when I'm inside. When I'm outside, I like how low wings look. Wanting a larger plane, only low wings fit the bill anyway.

 

[Weekend Warrior]

Birds just need more evolution, then they will become low wings. Low wings are just more advanced than current evolution.

 

[nrpetersen]

Muscles have evolved to be tension devices. They would have to be compression devices to be structurally efficient low winged flyers.

 

[Tantalum]

Certainly beautiful to admire bird's wings, either way.. and without struts and the gear retracted it actually doesn't look half bad for a high wing!


I'd be curious where, in flight, a bird's center of gravity primarily lies.. IE, are the tail feathers primarily adding a down force, or providing additional life.. or does it vary? They're dynamic things so can shift their weight.. but during relaxed soaring I'm curious

 

[RyanShort1]

Muscles have evolved to be tension devices. They would have to be compression devices to be structurally efficient low winged flyers.

The evolved part has got me in a quandary. It's too perfect and to complex to have survived half-evolved. I think that takes more blind faith than I've got.

 

[Tantalum]

The evolved part has got me in a quandary. It's too perfect and to complex to have survived half-evolved. I think that takes more blind faith than I've got.

That's exactly why it doesn't exist. Science will say that evolutionary processes take thousands / millions of years for adaptations to develop. There's some logic in that, the strong members of the species survive, and the weak (er, less well equipped) die out, fail to breed, etc.. and hence the strong pass their genetic data on to their offspring, and so forth. Certain muscle groups die out, other muscle groups become stronger, with each generation, and so forth. These aren't big jumps. They're tiny tiny adaptations that take place over a long period of time. The bird with the beak that's slightly longer, narrower, might hunt prey better than the other bird.. it may live longer, mate more, etc., and hence pass more that "slightly longer, narrower beak" gene on

The leap of faith part happens when you go from species to species.. when does that "jump" occur, and how? IE, from reptile to bird, and so forth. That's the biggest obstacle most face, is when the "jump" from ape to human took place, etc. Understandably, it's a hard one to make. Asking ourselves though, what is more likely, which requires more blind faith? That we came from something very similar and sharing 96% of our DNA with, or that we sprouted into existence one day on the desires of a deity? If the former, the only question to answer is what created matter, if we answer that then everything sort of falls into place after it.. if the latter, then the question is "why" .. both are tantalizing.. and I'm not taking a side one way or the other or attempting to convince anyone of one or the other.. perhaps there's some hybrid answer in there somewhere?

 

[Dan Thomas]

It takes much more force to drive a bird's wings downward than upward, so they're pivoted high so the geometry allows better angles for the pectoral muscles to do the job. A low-wing bird would need much more massive muscles in its belly, requiring much more bone structure, which drive up weight, which requires more muscle, which....

Their landing gear is active all the time they're using them. Like a Segway. Can't shut down without falling over, which is why we don't use tetrapod gear on airplanes. Of course, some birds go to sleep on one foot clamped around a branch, and its weight keeps the tendons tight to keep the talons clamped there. Maybe we could do that. Tiedown spots with hitch rails...

 

[Tantalum]

What does this make hummingbird?