High Wingers in General

[rayd]

In restarting this hobby, something surfaced, again. Answers are in books and I will check, if anything, out of sheer curiousity. It concerns the seemingly good stability of high wingers over other types of craft, models or real. Seems a high winger eg Cub 95, Cessna 180, etc have better flying stability compared to other types ..more or less. In a way, isn't a bird eg a high wing type creature? Sure we had our acrobatic bipes, lean mean monowing warbirds, but look at all the high wing champs, Lindy's ship, Winnie Mae, Ford Tri Motor, etc. It seems as though the wings of such craft held its body aloft nicely, more stable, and often gracefully.

I know there are books galore on this, and knew my theory satisfactorily back then...but forgot much. But, I still seem to favor high wingers, in the modelling world anyway. The only low wingers ok for me were mostly 10 cent gliders, and later U Control days. But for rubber power, scale flyers, or sport free flight types, high wingers flew better to me. Any of you feel likewise, more or less? I bring this up owiing to talk of builds, fun type contest affairs....using what >>a high winger. Say, a good more modern one I hope for soon, that Pilatus Porter turbo, a sport craft, versatile machine, with life saving capabilities, an STOL high winger. Any ETA yet??

[MakMov]

Highwingers, are more stable because the weight is hanging at the bottom below the wing where a in a low wing its above the wing plane. So a warbird will have some natrual tendancy to want to roll, which is what you want in a warbird: manuverablilty. Plus warbirds tend to have smaller wing surface, semi semetircal wings all in the name of performance. Not so much in the stability department.

Stability and performance are two different things.

There is always an exception to the rule. A Wildcat, has a like shoulder wing which makes it a very good flying warbird, in almost any scale.

I'd like to see a RV-4 kit in 16-20 inches.

[rayd]

Thanks MakMov...certainly makes sense. Likely came across it decades ago, stability vs. manuverability trade offs. I will look up further. Yes that Wildcat, and later Hellcat, their wings are kinda between top and bottom of fuselage. Would likely be plane had decent stability & manuverability. Think they were more in Pacific theater on carriers. Planes make controlled crash landings there: good combo of stability & manuverability a plus for that application. I'm sure we've members that can add yet more interest to this.

Your response jogged some "stuff" in my head and loosened some cobwebs. Hope you eventually get RV4 you want, and...hey, you folks at Guillows, rumor has it Santa is bellyaching about back orders on Porter, Beaver, and laser "stuff", also MakMov is looking for somethng. You know we're like kids in a candy store, so see what you can do, eh?

[MakMov]

I have seen build ups of the Beaver. That looks pretty cool.

I have a .60 sized RV-4, but a RP one would be cool, at least IMHO.