How would it work?

Having two sets of landing gear back to the 20’s/30’s…
Done by a few people…here is a pic of one…

http://www.junkables.com/jimages/memproductimages/184/airplanephotospearldisplayivorywonderbread006.JPG

This sounds rather like a variation of a thread some months ago that asked if you put big enough engines on, could a hangar door fly? I think the concensus was yes; but have you ever seen a hangar door with a fin and flying control surfaces?!! 🙂

I’ve also watched a NZ movie clip recently that showed a flying lawnmower – again sheer power over aerodynamics. Sorry it was sent to me as an e-mail attachment, not a link – it was titled ‘This is what happens when you get a Boeing engineer to mess about with your lawn mower’.

Also, again drifting off topic slightly, as it is the reverse of the question asked, I recall aerobatic pilot Neil Williams landing a Zlin inverted after the main spar failed. Well he approached inverted, then rolled upright immediately prior to touch-down, so keeping the wings aerodynamically loaded against the failed spar section.

Back on-topic, I remember seeing photos some years ago of a Pitts S-1 in the USA with a second undercarriage and wheels fixed above the wing – the party piece being to depart normally, then land and take-off inverted to land right way up again. If a Pitts fits “Hampden98’s” image of an ‘average’ aircraft, then this recollection of mine, would indicate the answer is most certainly, yes! (Wonder how long it will take the obscure recognition thread maestros to produce a picture?).

Aye, and an ideal combination of the two can be an uplifting experience:)

Hi Stuart

I was just trying to say it has to be lift generated by the aerofoil OR the AoA.

Benyboy, your diagram only shows the aerofoil one way up. If you simply invert the diagram, you will have a negative angle of attack and lift exerting a downforce. If you invert the aerofoil and give it a positive angle of attack, you will have lift as an upward force, albeit inefficiently.

if you take the average wing as you say. of a none aerobatic type and basically try to make the aircraft fly or even take off? the answer is no. not in the normal fashion unless you have tons of power to use but thats cheating

if you look at a Formula 1 racing car and at the aerofoils attatched at front and rear you will see they are in a sense “inverted wings”. the reason is to suck the car to the ground the faster it goes. once one of these wings gets damaged in a bump the car becomes skittish, especialy on the bends due to the loss of the suction/inverted lift

the angle of the aircraft when upside down changes to nose up as extra power would be required to keep it flying at a set altitude. if no power is at hand the aircraft will descend rapidly but in perhaps a controlled fashion

As a lot of modern stuff are not aerodynamically shaped, simply nailed on at an angle?. So yes… After all they do fly inverted 🙂

Surely has to be one or the other http://www.freewebs.com/aeroengineering/creatinglift.htm

I believe some aerobatic machines have a symmetrical aerofoil section.

I see no reason ordinary aircraft couldn’t fly with the wing inverted, although it would fly with a much higher angle of attack and require more power to maintain height. If you watch a glider flying inverted, the nose is pointing steeply at the sky and it’s glide angle is severely degraded.