I have seen some beautiful BI-planes pictured in this site (including the attached, very gorgeous plane) and now I am wondering.
This may seem like a stupid question for all you non-beginners out there, but I would like to ease my curiousity here .
Will a Bi-plane fly with the top wing removed and just having it as a low-wing? Sorry for the dumb question but I am curious The gorgeous yellow BI attached here looks like it would be capable of flying just as a low-wing.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/gallery/ga...s/lg-29462.jpg

P.S: I would love to see some more of those gorgeous BIs you guys have. Let's see'um!!!! [sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif][sm=thumbup.gif]

Here's another beautiful plane. I know I am a beginner and haven't even learned to fly yet, but I have always wanted a BI. I KNow, years down the road - as they say, learn to walk before you run!!!

http://www.rcuniverse.com/gallery/ga...s/lg-29453.jpg

WOW, another beauty - and sporty, bet this is super fast!!!!
http://www.rcuniverse.com/gallery/ga...s/lg-29309.jpg

You have to keep in mind that both wings add up to total flying surface. If you remove one wing, then wing loading becomes a HUGE problem. Maybe to the point that the plane doesn't have enough available lift to fly. It most certainly would not fly well--bi planes have shorter wings than equivilent monoplanes, but the fact that there are two wings makes up for that in the lift department--it also, though, introduces a lot more drag since there is overall more surface area exposed to the incoming air (plus support struts, etc).

Tigerdude,
I know it seems like it should work, but like was said above, but if you remove the top wing the bottom wing usually doesn't produce enough lift to keep the plane airborne. Take for example the Sig Hog Bipe and the Sig Astro Hog. At first glance it looks like the Astro Hog is a Hog Bipe without the top wing. Yes it is true that the fuselage is the same and the two planes have the same airfoil, but they are not the same. The Hog Bipe has a bottom wingspan of 51" while the Astro Hog has a wingspan of 71". In order to compensate for the loss in lift from removing the top wing you need to increase the size of the wing left in order to produce enough lift to fly the airplane.

Hope this helps

Ken

Most won't fly well but the exception to the rule showed up at my field this summer, one of the guys picked up a Hog bipe with a damaged top wing in a trade so he figured he would give it a try with just the bottom wing and it actually flies pretty well. But as said above, most won't fly well if at all.

Dauntae

Actually, the lift would be sufficient if one of the wings of a biplane were removed. The average sport biplane has a wing loading below 2 pounds per square foot. Double that and the wing loading is right where most heavy scale models are flying (3 to 4 lb/sqft).

The big issue is the wing "stagger" that is common on most bips. The CG is set for the combined positioning of both wings. The CG would be out of place with one removed. IF the sweep and/or taper of one wing is different from the other, this must be considered too.

So if the biplane wing loading is not too bad (usually true), and there is no wing stagger, (usually not true), then the thing will fly just fine without a wing.

Typically the top wing is staggered forward of the rear wing. So losing the top wing causes a very nose heavy condition. Very nose heavy is very stable, just hard to flare for landing. Many stunt biplanes have lost a top wing during a high G maneuver, then flew in for a bit faster but successful landing. If you are really curious, start a thread asking about people who have had this experience.

Multiflyer

I have a vague recollection of one or more full-scale airplanes designed to be flown either as a biplane or a low winger. I have a mental picture of a biplane spitfire, but surely that is a delusion.

Jim,

It was the Hillson FH.40 ... a modification to the Hawker Hurricane

Top wings had internal fuel tanks, used for long flights, and when the fuel tanks were empty, the entire top wing could be jettisoned...

[link=http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/html%20pages/HILLS%20FH40.htm]Clicky Clicky[/link]

Good! Thanks! I feel better about my grip on reality.

One thing to realize is that removing a wing removes wing area, but also removes a lot of weight and drag too. I have converted a few monoplanes to biplanes and was less than impressed with the performance change.

Multiflyer.

Yes, unless the relative position of the CG and the new center of lift difference is so great that the plane becomes unduly noseheavy or tail heavy, it will fly. Most bipes have a stagger (one wing more forward than the other) so, if you lose the forward wing, the effective CG is now forward of the center of lift giving you a very noseheavy flight condition. If the elevator is sufficiently large and powerful, you can still fly it. If you lose the aft positioned wing, the resulting tail heavy condition usually results in an uncontrollable craft. I've seen the Airomaster lose the upper wing and still make a successful landing albeit at a higher landing speed. If you manually remove one wing and readjust the CG, it should fly reasonably well if the wing loading is not to great.

This is a very interesting question.

I know of 2 examples using the same model where this actually did work.

As most bipe pilots, me included, are aware that SIG has the Sundancer. Some of the very first models had issues with the big screw that screwed into the top wing and then attached to the center cabanes that allowed the top wing to part company in flight due to the screw pulling through the wood in the wing. I know of 2 instances where both planes landed without issues, but at higher landing speeds.

If you do a search for the Sundancer here on RCU, there are a few threads on it and the big one has one example in it. That plane was used by SIG to test the updated top wing connection and from what I remember went on to fly very well.

I agree with Rodney, if all things are equal and the wing loading is not to high and the CG is forward, not aft when the top wing is removed then it will fly, but not very well

It does say in the data that the wing was never actually "slipped" in flight. I wonder if it might take the tail off?

Many years ago, my dad and I both built GP Super Skybolts. He built his with no top-wing ailerons - which turned out to be a blessing cause one day he did a snap and the top wing left the plane (He's a lousy builder )

Anyway, I kept an eye on the wing while he safely landed the plane.

Thank you for all this info, you have satisfied my curiousity.

NOW LET'S SEE SOME OF THOSE BEAUTIFUL BI-PLANES

Here ya go

Looks "Hare"y

Oh that smarts...You know the weird thing is that is actually a pic from Tom's website. I have my own but have not even taken them off the camera yet. I know I know, bad bad bad boy.

I do have a third one in the works and that's the GP Ultimate 160 and the SIG Hog Bipe, or as RCKen calls it, the SIG Pig ready for building when the flying season goes to heck in a few more weeks.

Hopefully Minn has his pics of his Skybolt still floating around, I know Ken has his of his Pig

And for the record, here was my first bipe.

Love the bunny logo - soooooooooo cute . Beautiful planes, lets see more.

I need to build a bipe. Last one I had was a Phaeton Bipe from House of Balsa I think. Back in the late 70's. Does that sound right for the mfg? It's been so long and I've slept since then.

Yeah, this looks like it, different color of course.
http://mysite.verizon.net/kenandjane...haetonbipe.jpg

Here's mine. Nice kit from Gee Bee. Flies nice, but to do some of the wilder stunts I want to learn, I'll be putting wing bolts on the bottom and modifying the top wing to take bolt down also since both are held on by rubber bands. Will also but on a tail flying wire kit since I ahve heard that the aft surfaces aren't too strong for the really good stuff.

Don