High Wing vs. Low Wing

Where do you prefer the wing?

  • Total voters
    83
flyingcheesehead said:
Well... It has NO wings.



Though I suppose the fuselage in this case could be the "plane" part.
Click to expand...
Well the definition of a wing is a thin structure of an airfoil shape to generate lift. A lifting body is a airfoil shaped body. Both are airfoils. A plane is is an aircraft capable of flight using forward motion that generates lift by moving air over its airfoils. Seems that they are the same things.
 
ScottM said:
Well the definition of a wing is a thin structure of an airfoil shape to generate lift. A lifting body is a airfoil shaped body. Both are airfoils. A plane is is an aircraft capable of flight using forward motion that generates lift by moving air over its airfoils. Seems that they are the same things.
Click to expand...
Did you overlook this word "thin"? Combined with Kent's quote of the FAR definition of airplane, it seems to disqualify them. :D
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Bzzzt. :no:

From the left, that'd be the Martin Marietta X-24A, the Northrop M2-F3, and the Northrop HL-10.
Click to expand...

Thanks for IDs.

They're all powered... So they ain't gliders. :no:
Click to expand...

The FAA and I both recognize the concept of powered gliders. :D

None of them ever made it to space, nor were they designed to. :no: The highest altitudes reached were 70,400, 70,500, and 90,030 MSL respectively.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how high they flew - intent is all that matters. They were experimental aircraft designed to test their ability to glide.

That said, they don't really even have wings at all... So despite the incorrect reasoning, they don't belong in the poll. What's really curious is that there is no FAA rating that covers a lifting body! It's not an airplane, a rotorcraft, a glider, a powered-lift vehicle, lighter than air, powered parachute, or weight shift... So no category of aircraft that's put on a pilot certificate applies!
Click to expand...

I still think they are gliders and meet all the requisite criteria.
 
gprellwitz said:
Did you overlook this word "thin"? Combined with Kent's quote of the FAR definition of airplane, it seems to disqualify them. :D
Click to expand...
The point is that they are both airfoils. One thin and one thick. At what point is a wing to think to be called a wing? Is a C5's wing, which is thinker than my Cherokees fuselage not a wing? The point is that lifting bodies are at type of plane too. Where one can think of the wing as being incorporated into the body of the aircraft.
 
dmccormack said:
"Gliders?"

How about Fallers?
Click to expand...
They actually could climb and did. Often times under power they would, after being released by the B52 would then climb under their own power to high altitude. The real question is could a lifting body take off from a treadmill after asking for ATITAPA??
 
Last edited:
Just having a wing at all is important to me. Location much less so. High wings are better for observing the ground below, and that is my usual mission. For travel the Cherokee 180 is faster than a 172, so I use it to travel. Dave
 
How about piloting a rocket? What does the FAA consider that to be?
 
Sac Arrow said:
How about piloting a rocket? What does the FAA consider that to be?
Click to expand...

What is being propelled by the rocket? A rocket is just a motor, a device used to change chemical energy into kinetic energy. I've strapped a small rocket to a 12' hydroplane that the FAA I would imagine would consider a boat. There are rotor craft with rockets on the rotor tips, I imagine they would require a rotorcraft rating. For fixed wing I would assume the appropriate A-SE or ME rating or it could be categorized as a self launching glider. For a ballistic missile, well, you aren't really a pilot now are you, so that is a bit in question, though I do know they are developing a section for civilian space flight.
 
Arbiter419 said:
So...how do you guys feel about this?

E150.jpg


Ralphie's fun machine!
Click to expand...

I've got about 70 hours in the Eagle 150B and think it's one of the best and most fun two-seaters out there!
Pity they aren't made/impoerted anymore...

Chris (ex 27EA and 156EA)
 
ScottM said:
They actually could climb and did. Often times under power they would, after being released by the B52 would then climb under their own power to high altitude. The real question is could a lifting body take off from a treadmill after asking for ATITAPA??
Click to expand...

Bonus points if you can name the B-52....(yes, it had a name)
 
Wow, I didn't read all 5 pages but the only reason I voted for high wing was better ground visibility - it's simply more fun for passengers to fly when they can see the ground better.
 
I bought a low wing but I'd be happy flying almost anything. ALMOST. I'd love to fly a helo or a gyroplane. My land rocket is a Corvette but would be happy driving almost anything. Had a Rambler, Gremlin, Jeep, Buick, Pontiac, test drove a Fierro, PT Cruiser, Porsche, and a bunch of others, rented all kinds of stuff. Used to have motorcycles. Hondas and Harleys. Rode Suzukis, Yamahas, BMWs.
Sometimes it's the mission, sometimes it's what is available, and sometimes it's what you can afford.
 
silver-eagle said:
BUFF... Big Ugly Fat Fella.
Click to expand...

BUFF is generic for all B-52s, he had it right with "Balls Eight" from the tail number of 0008 which was the B-52 that NASA used to drop most of the X series planes tested at Muroch/Edwards.
 
I things the wings could be mounted on a rack and pinion affair. While in cruise the wings are cranked up so the spouse could have her ground visibility.

Upon approaching the airport, they would be cranked down to allow the good pattern visibility of the low wing.:thumbsup:

I'm gonna patent the idea:idea:

Paul
N1431A
2AZ1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top