Search

Notices
Flight Schools and Training Ratings, building hours, airmanship, CFI topics

Wing Dihedral..

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-06-2009 | 09:01 PM
  #11  
SomedayRJ's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
From: BE50C (A), BE95 (A), C172S (B)
Default

Originally Posted by X Rated
That ^ would be referred to as anhedral, like the horizontal stabilizer of the old F-4 Phantom.

X
Or, if memory serves, the wings of the Tu-154 and most Dassault Falcon corporate jets. Some aircraft have anhedral wings, too. Graceful looking things. Otherwise the aircraft would be *too* stable.
Reply
Old 12-07-2009 | 02:42 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by SomedayRJ
Or, if memory serves, the wings of the Tu-154 and most Dassault Falcon corporate jets. Some aircraft have anhedral wings, too. Graceful looking things. Otherwise the aircraft would be *too* stable.
Here is a prime example for you, this plane was way to laterally stable just from its shear size. The result:

Reply
Old 12-07-2009 | 12:27 PM
  #13  
the King's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
From: JS32 FO
Default

I believe the Harrier has anhedral wings.

While some some horizontal stabilizers seemingly have anhedral, remembering that a horizontal stab is an upside down wing makes me think it functions more like dihedral (providing designed stability). Am I crazy?
Reply
Old 12-07-2009 | 01:58 PM
  #14  
Riddler's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
From: Left Seat, Toyota Tacoma
Default

Some things I saw on the website that I linked to earlier...
- A swept wing has the same effect as a couple degrees of dihedral.
- A high mounted wing has the same effect as a couple degrees of dihedral.
- Thus, high wing airplanes (C-17, C-5, C-141), have a little anhedral to counter the effective dihedral.
Reply
Old 12-07-2009 | 02:45 PM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 398
Likes: 1
Default

As far as I know lateral stability is usually measured in units of effective dihedral. A high wing airplane with a wing at zero degrees (no dihedal) inherently has a few degrees of effective dihedral due to the keel effect. Swept wing airplanes also have a few degrees of effective dihedral.

So on high wing/swept wing planes (think harrier, C141/C17/C5 etc..) there is too much inherent stability, so the wings are swept down (anhedral) to retain some degree of maneuverability.

Hope that helps some
_____________________________

I guess I repeated everything said above^

Disregard!
Reply
Old 12-07-2009 | 03:01 PM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by PW305
As far as I know lateral stability is usually measured in units of effective dihedral. A high wing airplane with a wing at zero degrees (no dihedal) inherently has a few degrees of effective dihedral due to the keel effect. Swept wing airplanes also have a few degrees of effective dihedral.
High wing ~5 degrees. Swept wing depends on the degree of sweep and I do not know the formula.
Reply
Old 12-08-2009 | 04:01 AM
  #17  
jeeps's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
From: My name is Roger Murdock, I'm the copilot!
Default

Originally Posted by PW305
As far as I know lateral stability is usually measured in units of effective dihedral. A high wing airplane with a wing at zero degrees (no dihedal) inherently has a few degrees of effective dihedral due to the keel effect. Swept wing airplanes also have a few degrees of effective dihedral.

So on high wing/swept wing planes (think harrier, C141/C17/C5 etc..) there is too much inherent stability, so the wings are swept down (anhedral) to retain some degree of maneuverability.
x2

Keel effect plays an important, albeit subordinate role to dihedral
Reply
Old 12-28-2009 | 06:56 PM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
Default

To keep the plane level... less maneuverable but more stable... the opposite type is more maneuverable... this is good:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihedral_(aircraft)
Reply
Old 12-29-2009 | 03:40 AM
  #19  
jonnyjetprop's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Default

A B-52 inflight doesn't have the droop that it does on the ground. In addition, all planes that have high wing placement have stability by virtue of the verticle CG being below the wing.


Originally Posted by shdw
Here is a prime example for you, this plane was way to laterally stable just from its shear size. The result:

Reply
Old 12-29-2009 | 12:41 PM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by jonnyjetprop
A B-52 inflight doesn't have the droop that it does on the ground. In addition, all planes that have high wing placement have stability by virtue of the verticle CG being below the wing.
True, in flight is less, but still exists. The point was the design phase for this aircraft. If you research its design you will discover it was one of the first times (1955) that anhidral was specifically used to counter lateral stability.

And yes, all high wings do, that was previous mentioned. It equates to approximately 5 degrees of dihedral versus a low wing. That is why the low wing piper trainers have about 5 degrees more than their high wing cessna buddies.

See, still a decent amount of anhedral, even in flight:

Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jsfBoat
Military
42
10-31-2013 07:21 AM
Longbow64
Technical
0
08-31-2009 06:05 AM
AZFlyer
Hangar Talk
18
08-23-2009 07:27 PM
flyths1
Major
79
08-05-2009 04:56 PM
HerkDriver
Military
56
06-19-2009 01:25 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices