I was thinking low wing planes would be favorable for landing on a
grass strip, because the extra ground effect could mitigate hard
landings and keep the ride smooth. But I recently read that some
fields are rough enough that rocks, bushes and debris can hit or snag
on the flaps.

I'm interested in hearing which configuration folks prefer for turf
strips - as well as other factors that might make one plane more
suitable than another for grass strips. Or is everything negligable?

I've seen some planes fitted with quad runner off-roading type tires
for landing on very rough terrain.. but that would be overkill in my
case.

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

Operating on grass strips is not the same thing as "Bush flying". Other
than the ground effect issue you noted, neither type has a particular
advantage on a grass strip.

However, on gravel strips and strips with obstacles, high wing aircraft have
advantages, particularly obstacle clearance and being farther away from
rocks kicked up by the tires. That's why most of the bush aircraft up North
have high wings...


"Justin Gombos" > wrote in message
news:Mpr4i.9617$vp1.1589@trnddc06...
>I was thinking low wing planes would be favorable for landing on a
> grass strip, because the extra ground effect could mitigate hard
> landings and keep the ride smooth. But I recently read that some
> fields are rough enough that rocks, bushes and debris can hit or snag
> on the flaps.
>
> I'm interested in hearing which configuration folks prefer for turf
> strips - as well as other factors that might make one plane more
> suitable than another for grass strips. Or is everything negligable?
>
> I've seen some planes fitted with quad runner off-roading type tires
> for landing on very rough terrain.. but that would be overkill in my
> case.
>
> --
> PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

Ground effect can also lengthen the flair process, not a good thing
with most unimproved strips.

Then you're flying too fast. I put 1000 hours on a 182 and now with the
Bonanza I fly it basically the same. 70 MPH short final slowing to
about 65 over the edge of the runway. Just fly it right into the
ground. This is assuming a non paved but not a really soft field.




Paul kgyy wrote:

> Ground effect can also lengthen the flair process, not a good thing
> with most unimproved strips.
>

In article >,
Newps > wrote:

> Then you're flying too fast. I put 1000 hours on a 182 and now with the
> Bonanza I fly it basically the same. 70 MPH short final slowing to
> about 65 over the edge of the runway. Just fly it right into the
> ground. This is assuming a non paved but not a really soft field.
>
>
>
>
> Paul kgyy wrote:
>
> > Ground effect can also lengthen the flair process, not a good thing
> > with most unimproved strips.
> >

No -- his flare exhibits insufficient flair!

Justin Gombos wrote:
> I'm interested in hearing which configuration folks prefer for turf
> strips - as well as other factors that might make one plane more
> suitable than another for grass strips. Or is everything negligable?


I've landed Cherokees and Cessnas on grass and I prefer the Cessnas. It seems
to me that the elevator authority is greater, or becomes effective earlier than
in the Cherokee. It doesn't take much to hold a C-172 nose up, particularly
compared to an PA-28 or -32. YMMV.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

On 2007-05-22, Newps > wrote:
>
> Then you're flying too fast.

I would agree. But if an aircraft requires more precision on the part
of the pilot, then that's a factor in itself, and in fact it's a
strike against it.

So it seems the low wing confines pilots to a smaller range of speeds
in this scenario, making it less tolerant of speed deviations, so what
am I getting for the extra effort? Is the ground roll over turf a
noticeably smoother ride in a low wing? Is it less likely to have the
landing gear sink into soft spots? I'm speculating that that's the
case, but it could all be negligeable for all I know.

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

> So it seems the low wing confines pilots to a smaller range of speeds
> in this scenario, making it less tolerant of speed deviations, so what
> am I getting for the extra effort?

I don't know the answer to your question, but the above contains a
flawed premise. A slippery craft would confine the pilot to a smaller
range of approach speeds (since excess speed is harder to bleed off).
This is independent of the wing configuration. Perhaps the high wing
aircraft in question is draggier, or high wings in general are draggier.

If this is the case, then what you get in tradeoff is better performance
for a given power.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On May 21, 6:10 pm, Justin Gombos >
wrote:
> I was thinking low wing planes would be favorable for landing on a
> grass strip, because the extra ground effect could mitigate hard
> landings and keep the ride smooth. But I recently read that some
> fields are rough enough that rocks, bushes and debris can hit or snag
> on the flaps.
>
> I'm interested in hearing which configuration folks prefer for turf
> strips - as well as other factors that might make one plane more
> suitable than another for grass strips. Or is everything negligable?
>
> I've seen some planes fitted with quad runner off-roading type tires
> for landing on very rough terrain.. but that would be overkill in my
> case.
>
> --
> PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

When I flew out of a rough grass strip the high wings were at a clear
advantage (I was flying an Aeronca and a Swift). The low wing planes
would often get rock dings on the leading edge but the high wings were
always fine.

-robert, CFII

Justin,

> so what
> am I getting for the extra effort?
>

You get to fly a low wing aircraft! ;-)

Seriously, though, if you can't control your speed on final enough to
avoid more flare than you want in a low wing, you have no business
flying to (difficult) airfields in any aircraft.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Justin,

> I'm interested in hearing which configuration folks prefer for turf
> strips
>

For "turf" it's not an issue at all. Most fields in Europe are "turf"
(meaning well kept gras, in my definition), and only in very wet times
after a lot of rain does operation on them become any issue.

Dirt strips on the other hand are much different. You can operate both
kinds out of them, but high wings do have the advantage you mention.
Also, many high wings seem to have shorter ground rolls than low wings.

Any lack of ground effect can be compensated with a little power.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 2007-05-22, Mortimer Schnerd, RN <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:
> I've landed Cherokees and Cessnas on grass and I prefer the Cessnas. It seems
> to me that the elevator authority is greater, or becomes effective earlier than
> in the Cherokee. It doesn't take much to hold a C-172 nose up, particularly
> compared to an PA-28 or -32. YMMV.

That's just Cessna -vs- a Cherokee though, nothing to do with high or
low wing. The Diamond DA-40 has tremendous elevator authority, and you
can keep it rolling on the mains only for just as long as a C172. But it
is low wing.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:
> That's just Cessna -vs- a Cherokee though, nothing to do with high or
> low wing. The Diamond DA-40 has tremendous elevator authority, and you
> can keep it rolling on the mains only for just as long as a C172. But it
> is low wing.


I can't deny it. My comments are based strictly on my own experience... and 99%
of my flying has been in Piper and Cessna aircraft. That's what I had to fly;
not what I necessarily would have preferred to fly. Although I do like both
quite a lot.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Newps > wrote:
>
>> Then you're flying too fast. I put 1000 hours on a 182 and now with the
>> Bonanza I fly it basically the same. 70 MPH short final slowing to
>> about 65 over the edge of the runway. Just fly it right into the
>> ground. This is assuming a non paved but not a really soft field.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul kgyy wrote:
>>
>> > Ground effect can also lengthen the flair process, not a good thing
>> > with most unimproved strips.
>> >
>
> No -- his flare exhibits insufficient flair!

OH! NO! Not this carp again! :~)

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> On May 21, 6:10 pm, Justin Gombos >
> wrote:
>
>>I was thinking low wing planes would be favorable for landing on a
>>grass strip, because the extra ground effect could mitigate hard
>>landings and keep the ride smooth. But I recently read that some
>>fields are rough enough that rocks, bushes and debris can hit or snag
>>on the flaps.
>>
>>I'm interested in hearing which configuration folks prefer for turf
>>strips - as well as other factors that might make one plane more
>>suitable than another for grass strips. Or is everything negligable?
>>
>>I've seen some planes fitted with quad runner off-roading type tires
>>for landing on very rough terrain.. but that would be overkill in my
>>case.
>>
>>--
>>PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.
>
>
> When I flew out of a rough grass strip the high wings were at a clear
> advantage (I was flying an Aeronca and a Swift). The low wing planes
> would often get rock dings on the leading edge but the high wings were
> always fine.

How do you get rock dings on the leading edge of your wing? Never had
that happen, high or low wing. I've eliminated rock dings on the tail
now with the V tail. In the 182 I had to install the rubber leading
edge strips, it was getting pretty bashed up.

On May 22, 8:39 am, Newps > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On May 21, 6:10 pm, Justin Gombos >
> > wrote:
>
> >>I was thinking low wing planes would be favorable for landing on a
> >>grass strip, because the extra ground effect could mitigate hard
> >>landings and keep the ride smooth. But I recently read that some
> >>fields are rough enough that rocks, bushes and debris can hit or snag
> >>on the flaps.
>
> >>I'm interested in hearing which configuration folks prefer for turf
> >>strips - as well as other factors that might make one plane more
> >>suitable than another for grass strips. Or is everything negligable?
>
> >>I've seen some planes fitted with quad runner off-roading type tires
> >>for landing on very rough terrain.. but that would be overkill in my
> >>case.
>
> >>--
> >>PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.
>
> > When I flew out of a rough grass strip the high wings were at a clear
> > advantage (I was flying an Aeronca and a Swift). The low wing planes
> > would often get rock dings on the leading edge but the high wings were
> > always fine.
>
> How do you get rock dings on the leading edge of your wing? Never had
> that happen, high or low wing. I've eliminated rock dings on the tail
> now with the V tail. In the 182 I had to install the rubber leading
> edge strips, it was getting pretty bashed up.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My guess is that the prop blast lifted them and the movement of the
plane ramed them into the wing. I guess I never through about it much.
Of course dings were pretty obvious in the Swift because it was
polished aluminum.

-robert

On May 21, 10:40 pm, Orval Fairbairn >
wrote:
>

I wish I could say that I always land with flair, but my flare usually
turns into a thud.

Justin Gombos wrote:
>
>I'm interested in hearing which configuration folks prefer for turf
>strips - as well as other factors that might make one plane more
>suitable than another for grass strips. Or is everything negligable?
>
I'll go with negligable. I used to fly my 172, and currently fly my
Cherokee from unpaved strips. Both were equally suitable.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200705/1

A really importanat thing to think about when operating off of turf is
if the aircraft has wheel pants.
If the grass was allowed to grow long before it was cut, it is possible
for wet clippings to fill the space between the wheel pant and the tire,
locking the wheel and sending the aircraft in a direction you may not
want it to go and have no control over it going there.
I have seen it happen and it is not a pretty sight.

> Justin Gombos wrote:
>> I'm interested in hearing which configuration folks prefer for turf
>> strips - as well as other factors that might make one plane more
>> suitable than another for grass strips. Or is everything negligable?

On 2007-05-21 18:10:04 -0700, Justin Gombos
> said:

> I was thinking low wing planes would be favorable for landing on a
> grass strip, because the extra ground effect could mitigate hard
> landings and keep the ride smooth. But I recently read that some
> fields are rough enough that rocks, bushes and debris can hit or snag
> on the flaps.

Yes. Also, high wing aircraft can have bigger flaps and lower approach
speeds than low wing aircraft. Flap size is limited on many low wing
aircraft by the need for ground clearance.

>
> I'm interested in hearing which configuration folks prefer for turf
> strips - as well as other factors that might make one plane more
> suitable than another for grass strips. Or is everything negligable?

For well-kept turf strips, it is about equal except for the slightly
higher approach speeds of some low wing aircraft. One of the nice
things about turf, though, is that it has greater rolling resistance,
so it actually tends to be a bit of an equalizer between low wing and
high wing aircraft in short field landings. Takeoff is another matter.
Low wing aircraft tend to get into ground effect a little quicker than
high wing aircraft.

>
> I've seen some planes fitted with quad runner off-roading type tires
> for landing on very rough terrain.. but that would be overkill in my
> case.

The big balloon-type tundra tires look like even more overkill. It
looks like fun and one of these days I will have to beg someone to
demonstrate them to me.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor