kokamo

My Feedback: (1)

I was just wondering which is harder to fly. I have read some things like "" If you have ever sucessfully flown or landed a low wing plane, then you can do ....so and so"" I really don't quite understand which is harder. At the moment I have a low wing plane but havent got a chance to fly it just yet. Should I be in for a surprise?
Thanks in advance!!!

Joe

3dd

My Feedback: (6)

a low wing plane tends to land a little faster then a high wing,also a high wing usualy has more of a correction built into the wing,meaning when you bank to turn a high wing will tend to right itself and straighten out to level a low wing tends to loose altitude in a turn so you have to right it with alirons.so to answer your question a high wing is easyer to fly and to land

jcflysrc

My Feedback: (50)

Do you mean right it with "elevator"?
Actually I think it totally depends on the planes in question. There are some low wingers that are pretty darn easy to fly. And some high wingers that aren't. Take for example your basic three channel high wing trainer setup. If you do not make use of your rudder...you are going to have trouble. I have seen some folks fly, and you would never have a clue that they knew what a rudder was.
I digress...
In GENERAL, the low wingers are more neutral flying. This makes them a little tougher than the basic high wing plane. What this means is you will have to fly the low wing...whereas the high wing is more forgiving with its built in stability.
Once you get used to flying the low wing planes, you will probably enjoy them more.

FHHuber

Well... it actually depends on the model's design.

A Four-star 40 is a very easy to fly low wing model. ALMOST as easy as a high wing trainer. The Goldberg Tiger is very close to the same.

Cubs are notorious for bad ground handling and some people that don't understand them have tons of trouble flying them. (its a Cub.. its SUPPOSED to fly like one.[&:])

*************

You want an example of problems flying a model[>:] (he'll want to shoot me if I say his name...)

We have an outstanding Pattern aerobatic competition flyer in our club... I gave him the controls of a high wing airplane and he couldn't handle it. Dynaflite Butterfly. Stall speed about 12 mph. Max speed appx 25. TONS of dihedral. I can fly these things inverted all day.

He can fly rings around me when it comes to a Pattern design though. (he's good enough that he gets his fuel free and gets huge discounts from Futaba in sponsorship support...)

Rhilluk

I feel I wasted alot of money by buying a high wing trainer. I only flew it for 2 hours and then moved on to my low wing acro wot. I think with computer games the younger ones find it easier to fly them nowadays. Look at the PS2 controller, remind you of anything.
Why do people train in a Piper Cheerokee for fullsize, that still a stable low wing aircraft.

It's dihedral that will pick a wing up and neutrailse it's self. A high wing plane tends to roll with the input of rudder. Low wingers sometimes tend to roll the other way to rudder. But this can be compensated for with a little dihedral.

a65l

My Feedback: (17)

I personally thought my first low wingers (Sig Kougar and WM SS 40) were as easy or easier to fly then my trainers. Easier to land, too, as they didn't float forever. True, they were a little more responsive, but nothing that lowe rates couldn't take care of...


Andy

Fastsky

The low wings are much more reponsive and capable of higher speeds for the same size engine. Once I got used to this I find low wings easier to fly than high wings. Where I fly the winds can really pick up in the afternoon. The low wings handle them just fine and are easy to control hereas the high wings tend to get blown around a lot more and tend to want to jump up when landing when hit by a high wind. The low wings may slow down a bit but then just keep on coming down. For me I find that this makes the low wing planes more predictable and therefore easier to fly.[

Montague

Wing location is just one of many design elements that affect how a plane flys. By itself, it's actually pretty meaningless.

However, when you look at how most RC planes are designed, you'll find that there are definate patterns that show up, so you can make some very broad sweeping statements and be close enough most of the time.

Does a trainer have to have a high wing? Nope, it doesn't. Is it easier to design and build a trainer with a high wing? actually, yes. So most trainers are high wing. Also, since people expect a trainer to have a high wing, if you want to sell a trainer, you'd better make it with a high wing, or very few people will buy it.

Does an sport acrobatic plane have to have a low or mid wing? Nope. But it's easier to get some of the desired results that way. And guys tend to like how they look as well.

So, there's nothing in high wing vs low wing that makes a plane easier or harder to fly by itself. Factors such as dihedral, wing loading, airfoil, tail volume, and a host of others matter just as much as the location of the wing, and all those factors affect each other.

Now, to go on a slight tangent brough up by some of the earlier posts, most guys find a "second plane" like a 4-40, tiger, or any of a host of others to be easier to fly than their trainer. That is, after they've learned to fly. That's because they stay where you put them, more or less (ie, the plane doesn't try to recover from odd attitudes on it's own). Once you know how to put it where you want it, a plane that stays there is a good thing, and easier to fly.

But when learning, a plane that trys to help you get back to straight and level flight, and flys really slowly is an advantage. Some guys quickly and easily pick up the basics, some guys strugle to acheive level flight after each turn.

Fastsky

I aquired a 40 sized Cessna 182 with a fully sym wing. It was banged up and there was no manual. I fixed it up and used the TLAR method for determining the throws. I put an FX46 on it and it surprized me in that it was very fast, responsive, and a blast to fly. For landing it handled medium winds just fine but the thing tended to turn into a floater like a trainer in higher winds. I thought the sym. wing would prevent that but it didn't. I don't even consider any thing but low wings now! [8D]

Montague

Floating has NOTHING to do with wing location. You want it to stop floating? Tape a brick to the CG, that will fix any floating tendancy.

I have a couple of differnet high wing planes that handle very high winds very well.

Nope, nothing about a high wing makes a plane slower or change he response rates.

MikeMc

Montague++

Thanks dude. You saved me from having to write all that.

Montague

(anyone who thinks a high wing plane can't go fast, groove like it's on rails, maneuver like crazy, and handle high winds has never seen a Q-500 race or a combat match, that's for sure)

gus

Back on topic ...

... there is a very basic difference between low and high wings. The center of gravity (CG - or center of mass) typically exists somewhere in the middle of the fuselage in the region of the main spar of the wing. There are a number of forces acting on planes, but the two most significant in this situation, are gravity, which acts on the CG, and lift, which is generated by the wing. The lift of the plane can be "summarized" by determining the center of lift (CL) - a point where all the lift forces combine to one point. In a high wing plane, the CG is BELOW the wing (or CL), in a low wing plane, it is ABOVE the wing (or CL).

Because the CG is below the wing of a high wing plane, and because the wing generates the lift of the plane, the lift is "pulling" the weight of the plane up. the CG will tend to "fall" naturally under the wing. Hold the high-wing plane by it's wingtips, and it will stay upright.

On a low wing plane, the CG is above the CL. Hold the plane by the wing tips, and it will want to pitch forward/backward.

In flight, you have to constantly correct the tendency for the CG to "pitch" over the CL with a low wing plane.

Frankly, it is a "natural" thing to do, and it does not take mych training, proactice, or even suggestion to do it, but it does have to be done.

A high or low wing plane will have diferent handling characteristics when flying inverted, but a plane with the wing mounted in such a way that the CL and CG are at the same place, will have very similar inverted, right-side-up characteristics.

gus

FHHuber

Again... generalizing.

You can put enough dihedral in a low wing model that the CG is below the CL. It can even look right that way. (it won't look right with a P-51 or most warbirds but there are other lo wing designs...)

Any generalization you try to make based on high wing or low wing canbe blown out of the water by going through a few aircraft book and finding SEVERAL aircraft that contradict the generalization.

The overhead plan view of a model had a LOT more to do with how it will perform than if its a high wing or low wing. You have your wing's aspect ratio, sweep (if any) and taper (if any) the coupling ratio between wing chord and placement of the tailplanes and the horizontal tial volumn and ratios shown in that view. You also have the percentage of areas that are the ailerons and elevators. Add in the CG placement and wing loading, then you can just about predict performance from that one view not knowing if its high wing or low wing.

Look at the overhead views of a typical trainer and a Four-Star 40. They have VERY similar overhead views, except the Four-Star has larger control surfaces proportionate to the wing area and horiz stab area. The 4* tends to com out as light, or lighter than the trainer. The 4* CAN fly just like the trainer if you keep the control throws down and place the CG at the same %MAC. The symetrical airfoil lets it fly inverted better... but thats about it if the control throws are limited for the same roll rate and minimum loop diameter.

phread59

Gus has the physics basicly nailed down. FH has the practical aspects nailed down. The answer is pretty much a grey area somewhere between the two of them. It all comes down to weight, mass and where forces apply. You could go nuts trying to come up with a definative answer.

Mark Shuman

FHHuber

Physics are what you study in school[:'(]

Practical is what you fly at the airfield.

Mjet

Query: For total wingspan of 70 inches the left wing is slightly bigger (90 cm) as compared to left wing (88.5cm). I feels that there is an error in the drawing or Is it an error or deliberate to compensate for the engine rotation? Expert comment please. Also post , your models have equal wing span or have this difference.

Thanks

TomCrump

" I feels that there is an error in thedrawing or Is it an error or deliberate to compensate for the engine rotation? "

I'd say neither.



Paper frequently expands and contracts with variations in humidity. This could make your drawing asymmetrical.

If the model is built, don't worry about it. See how it flies, and make trim adjustments accordingly.

If you are building the model, build the wing halves as identically as posssible.

Mjet

Thanks Tom

speedracerntrixie

My Feedback: (29)

High wing vs low wing is an old wives tale as far as I am concerned. It's all about the setup and flight trim. I can set up a semi symmetrical airfoil trainer to do anything an Extra 300 can do. Look at the classic Ugly Stick, great trainer ( it's what I learned on ) yet capable of pattern competition up through intermediate class. I think the better suited question would be airfoil selection. A Clark Y is easier to fly then a symmetrical airfoil due to its self correcting traits. However the best thing you can do for any airplane to make it easy to fly is keep the wing loading down and get the CG set correctly. That leads us to the next wives tale..........forward CG is always more stable, NOT

a70eliminator

You'll be in for a pleasant surprise when you fly the low wing, if your confident with flying your high wing trainer then it's time, the low wing plane will be much more responsive in a good way, you'll love it., nothing harder about about flying it, you'll notice the plane stay where you put it like when into a turn it will keep banking until you input opposite aileron and level it back out, nothing hard you'll just instinctively make the correction.

jetmech05

I don't notice a difference. Now a high wing trainer flies like a trainer and a low wing acrobat flies like a acrobat. Which is harder? Neither just different airframes. I find that a high wing in a cross wind once on the ground can lift a wing. In that case aileron into the high wing.
Tail draggers aren't harder than trike gear either

jaka

Hi!
For a newbie a low wing plane i harder to fly compared to a high winged trainer...if both are set up right.

AllModesR/C

I think this is true. While I am new to the hobby and have not flown any low wing planes yet I did "fly" plenty on my flight sim. The high wingers basically correct themselves back into level flight.. In regards to high wing planes or any airplanes for that matter I remember what my full scale flight instructor once told me. The plane knows how to fly better than you, don't over control. 100% truth. It's the complete opposite with helicopters, which I am terrible at LOL.

sensei

Speed is exactly right, High wing, mid wing, bi wing, or low wing, If the wing loading is high then it will be more of a handful to fly and land, if the wing loading is low then it will be much more tame and forgiving to fly or land, correct setup and C/G is a given in all cases.

Bob