Saw a biplane this morning. Are there any reasons, other than historical ones, for flying a small biplane these days? Eg. Perhaps stability or safety, or easier for wing walkers?
The main advantage of a small (single propeller) monoplane would be cost, wouldn’t it?
I think the manufacturer Curtiss switched from biplanes to monoplanes between 1933 (first monoplane) and 1938 (last new biplane).
mollwollfumble said:
Saw a biplane this morning. Are there any reasons, other than historical ones, for flying a small biplane these days? Eg. Perhaps stability or safety, or easier for wing walkers?The main advantage of a small (single propeller) monoplane would be cost, wouldn’t it?
I think the manufacturer Curtiss switched from biplanes to monoplanes between 1933 (first monoplane) and 1938 (last new biplane).
A biplane flew over my house the other day and think it does often, as it flies very low and makes a particular engine sound.
a lot of it was structural.
We now have much more suitable material for planes, therefore don’t need as much bracing.
and the drag on biplanes was huge compared to modern planes
two wings means wing loading is spread and therefore wings can be stubbier for better roll rates. modern biplanes are seen in aerobatics. pitts special for instance.
JudgeMental said:
two wings means wing loading is spread and therefore wings can be stubbier for better roll rates. modern biplanes are seen in aerobatics. pitts special for instance.
Yep, Pitts Specials.
Crop dusters sometimes use biplanes for certain work.
roughbarked said:
Crop dusters sometimes use biplanes for certain work.
Let me guess. Cocaine smuggling?
Postpocelipse said:
roughbarked said:Crop dusters sometimes use biplanes for certain work.
Let me guess. Cocaine smuggling?
Who knows?
The crop dusters here have a couple of biplanes in their fleet.
roughbarked said:
Postpocelipse said:
roughbarked said:Crop dusters sometimes use biplanes for certain work.
Let me guess. Cocaine smuggling?
Who knows?
The crop dusters here have a couple of biplanes in their fleet.
Everyone needs a hobby…..
mollwollfumble said:
Saw a biplane this morning. Are there any reasons, other than historical ones, for flying a small biplane these days? Eg. Perhaps stability or safety, or easier for wing walkers?The main advantage of a small (single propeller) monoplane would be cost, wouldn’t it?
I think the manufacturer Curtiss switched from biplanes to monoplanes between 1933 (first monoplane) and 1938 (last new biplane).
The only real reason is for historical and maybe aesthetic value. In the early days when engines had little power they needed all the wing area they could get, but to build a monoplane with enough wing area would have likely made it too heavy and not strong enough. As engine power and construction techniques improved though there was no need for such large wings and a single wing could easily be made strong enough to take the loads.
They have far more drag than a monoplane, due to the struts between the tips of the wings and the almost inevitable wires between the wings to make it all stiff enough. There’s also an aerodynamic interference between the wings, with the higher pressure on the lower surface of the upper wing partly cancelling out the lower pressure on the upper surface of the lower wing. So the two wings don’t make twice the lift that one single one would. The effect is partly reduced by moving the upper wing forwards, so the pressure regions interact a bit less.
The Beechcraft Staggerwing …
… had them going the other way, but just to make it look cool.
So for anything remotely modern, the advantages of a monoplane are – cost, speed, weight, drag, etc.
Spiny Norman said:
mollwollfumble said:
Saw a biplane this morning. Are there any reasons, other than historical ones, for flying a small biplane these days? Eg. Perhaps stability or safety, or easier for wing walkers?The main advantage of a small (single propeller) monoplane would be cost, wouldn’t it?
I think the manufacturer Curtiss switched from biplanes to monoplanes between 1933 (first monoplane) and 1938 (last new biplane).
The only real reason is for historical and maybe aesthetic value. In the early days when engines had little power they needed all the wing area they could get, but to build a monoplane with enough wing area would have likely made it too heavy and not strong enough. As engine power and construction techniques improved though there was no need for such large wings and a single wing could easily be made strong enough to take the loads.
They have far more drag than a monoplane, due to the struts between the tips of the wings and the almost inevitable wires between the wings to make it all stiff enough. There’s also an aerodynamic interference between the wings, with the higher pressure on the lower surface of the upper wing partly cancelling out the lower pressure on the upper surface of the lower wing. So the two wings don’t make twice the lift that one single one would. The effect is partly reduced by moving the upper wing forwards, so the pressure regions interact a bit less.
The Beechcraft Staggerwing …Http://auntypru.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/StaggerwingRyan.jpg
… had them going the other way, but just to make it look cool.
So for anything remotely modern, the advantages of a monoplane are – cost, speed, weight, drag, etc.
I was also thinking in terms of the 2:4 analogy.
2 wings vs 4 wings = beetle vs dragonfly.
2 legs vs 4 legs = biped vs quadruped.
2 wheels vs 4 wheels = motorcycle vs car.
2 rotors vs 4 rotors = Sikorski vs quadcopter.
So, also,
2 wings vs 4 wings = monoplane vs biplane.
4 seems to give better stability at low speed, better safety and better lifting capacity, but worse aerodynamic drag (important at high speed). Acceleration doesn’t seem be necessarily better for one or the other.
You can load up the extra two wings with chemtrail spray.