High wing vs low wing

[temp]

I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
here you go again.

I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always
crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been
in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on
the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a
Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was
a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when
you wish to look straight down.

I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but
their other limitations just won't work for me.

[[email protected]]

No such thing as "better" unless you define it. As you know, high-wings have
better air-ground visibility, and low-wings better air-air. Many low-wings'
visibilities aren't too bad from the front seat. Low wings will have a bit more
ground-effect than high wings, but aren't as happy in grass strips. If the low-wing
you are getting is Cherokee-flavored, the biggest difference you'll notice between it
and the C152 is the wing airfoil characteristics. Doesn't glide as well as the
Cessna, but in-flight and stalls much more benign. As usual, "it depends..."

-Cory


temp > wrote:
: I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
: here you go again.

: I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always
: crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been
: in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on
: the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a
: Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was
: a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when
: you wish to look straight down.

: I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
: better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but
: their other limitations just won't work for me.



--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[PaulH]

Not sure what you're planning to buy. The Cherokees don't glide well
but one thing I like about them in a high density airport is just
that: you can arrive well above the commercial glide slope and do the
crowbar descent and avoid mixing with wake turbulence. But it's a
matter of what fits your flying style. At uncontrolled airports, you
want to enter the pattern low to increase the chances that unannounced
high wing traffic will be above you.

[G.R. Patterson III]

temp wrote:
>
> I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
> better.

You want consensus from usenet?????

Neither is "generally better". Each has advantages and disadvantages. It's just like
politics - pick your favorite complaint and vote for the other one.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Steven Barnes]

"temp" > wrote in message
...
> I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it
so
> here you go again.
>
> I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that
always
> crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has
been
> in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns
on
> the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a
> Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best
was
> a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction
when
> you wish to look straight down.
>
> I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
> better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view,
but
> their other limitations just won't work for me.

I own a Cherokee 180 and am in a flying club with 2 Cessna's. For 90% of
my flying, I like the low wing. I can generally see the ground just fine.
For aerial photography, I use the high-wings. I guess I've got the best of
both worlds. True, the hershey bar wings don't glide that well, but when I
hit the power, all it wants to do is climb.

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

temp wrote:

> I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
> here you go again.
>
> I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always
> crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been
> in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on
> the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a
> Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was
> a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when
> you wish to look straight down.
>
> I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
> better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but
> their other limitations just won't work for me.
>

Most low-wings are harder to get into and out of than low-wings, because
they usually only have one door (on the passenger side). Of course this
doesn't apply to all of them, but it sure does for most piper and
Beechcraft low wings (some musketeers have pilot-side doors, but not all
of them).

It's not a picnic to get into the passenger side either if you aren't
pretty fit and flexible. Lots more climbing and stepping over or down
into. When I take my father flying, he really struggles to get into and
out of the cherokee, and since I have to be in before him (since there
is no door on the pilot's side) I can't help very much.

I fly low-wings because that's what my flying club has, but if I had my
druthers I'd still be flying 172's. YMMV, MHO, etc.

[smackey]

"temp" > wrote in message >...
> I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
> here you go again.
>
> I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always
> crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been
> in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on
> the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a
> Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was
> a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when
> you wish to look straight down.
>
> I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
> better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but
> their other limitations just won't work for me.

This subject...again!!?? Gotta be a troll.

[Rick Graves]

temp wrote:

> I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
> here you go again.
>
> I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always
> crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has
> been in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in
> turns on the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis
> was a Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The
> best was a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big
> obstruction when you wish to look straight down.
>
> I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
> better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view,
> but their other limitations just won't work for me.

I have owned and flown Piper 140s and 180s. I have also owned a C172 and was
a partner in a C182. For the last 16 years I have owned a 1974 C177B
(Cardinal). The visibility from the Cardinal is extraordinary. No struts to
obscure down or side. Great for photos (especially if you have a photo
window). And because the wing is farther aft on the fuselage than other
Cessnas, the upward visibility is virtually unobstructed. Now for the
bonus: there is probably no airplane short of a cabin class twin that is
easier to get into and out of than a Cardinal. Low to the ground. Big wide
doors. Too bad it doesn't go just a little faster and carry just a little
more weight. Oh well...

Rick Graves - N34759 - 1974 C177B

[MikeM]

temp wrote:

> I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
> here you go again.

You ain't kidding...

A google groups search for " high low wing group:rec.aviation.* "
returned 13,800 hits.

Read all of them and then come back if you still have questions.

MikeM

[JimT96309]

I have only about 360 hours, most in 152 & 172s. About 10 in 182, about 12 in
Warrior. My favorite is the Cessna 177 Cardinal. You sit forward in front of
the wing and have better vis in the turns, no strut, no obstruction looking
down. I wish I had my own! Heck, I wish I had any bird of my own. My problem
is I have a taste for an Arrow or 182 and a budget for a run out old 150
project with no radios.....ah well....

[hlongworth]

Rick Graves > wrote in message >...
> temp wrote:
>
> The visibility from the Cardinal is extraordinary.
>..... Now for the bonus: there is probably no airplane short of a
cabin class > twin that is easier to get into and out of than a
Cardinal.. .Big wide
> doors.

and the huge cargo area and large cargo door. With our other
hobbies being photography and scuba diving, the Cardinal was our only
choice in this category and price range. We did consider the low
wing Grumman Tiger for similar attributes (great visibility, easy to
get in and out and to load cargo) but my husband did not like the nose
gear steering. So far, we are quite happy with our choice.

[Rick Graves]

hlongworth wrote:

> Rick Graves > wrote in message
> >...
>> temp wrote:
>>
>> The visibility from the Cardinal is extraordinary.
>>..... Now for the bonus: there is probably no airplane short of a
> cabin class > twin that is easier to get into and out of than a
> Cardinal.. .Big wide
>> doors.
>
> and the huge cargo area and large cargo door. With our other
> hobbies being photography and scuba diving, the Cardinal was our only
> choice in this category and price range. We did consider the low
> wing Grumman Tiger for similar attributes (great visibility, easy to
> get in and out and to load cargo) but my husband did not like the nose
> gear steering. So far, we are quite happy with our choice.
Yup...I forgot about the cargo area. Twelve years ago my wife and I flew our
Cardinal to Alaska. With the back seat removed we had enough room to sleep
in the airplane if we needed to. My wife and I also have recumbent
bicycles. With the back seat removed we have room for two recumbent
bicycles. BTW, do you belong to the Cardinal Club? If not, you should.