High wing to low wing converts...or, visa versa?

[Jack Allison]

I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in
the process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way from
being a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other
folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top then
switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes about
the transition?

It's funny because I started out researching Cardinals (still like them,
have yet to fly one but really want to some day). Two weeks ago, things
shifted gears with a different partner on a possible Cherokee. Then, a
week ago, this same partner has a friend who found a really nice '67
Arrow that the three of us are going to make an offer on. Adding it all
up, four potential partnership prospects and four aircraft prospects
(first potential partner bought himself a C-172 XP and offered me
1/2...I declined based on a questionable engine). The Arrow deal isn't
done yet but it's interesting to see how things have twisted and turned
a bit in the last few months. One thing is for sure, I've definitely
hooked up with a couple of partners that I'm very comfortable with.
That in and of itself has been worth it. Should the Arrow deal fall
apart, plan-B just might be a two way deal on a Cherokee.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student, Student Arrow Buyer

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jim Burns]

The more hours you fly and the more models of airplanes you fly, the less
you will feel that there is a difference, and therefore, the more you will
enjoy flying the airplane that you are currently in, because that is the
best airplane there is.... the one you are the pilot of! :) The best
airplane I ever flew was the one that happened to meet my mission as closely
as possible, whether high wing or low wing.
Jim
C150
C152
PA 28-150
PA 28-161
PA 28-201R
PA 28-181
R182
PA-18
C170
PA 23-250

[[email protected]]

Jack Allison wrote:
<snip>
> I'm wondering how many other
> folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top
then
> switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
> bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes
about
> the transition?
>

I trained in 152s, then rented 172s, then owned a 172, then bought a
Cherokee.

Sometimes I wish my wing wouldn't scrap the bushes on a backcountry
strip, but when the wind is howling, I'm thankful for the low CG of
Piper. Those are about the only real issues I've run across.

The rest of the high/low wing nit picking that usually accompanies a
thread like this, is just that. Picking at miniscule differences that
don't make much difference in the real world.

If you're a competent pilot, transition from high to low should take
about 1/2 hr. to get really knowledgable about the fuel system. Beyond
that, you're wasting your time (assuming your swapping between planes
of similar performance).

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

[Paul Anton]

The only difference worth noting in my opinion is the view restrictions of
each type.

IE: restricted downward view in the low wing and the opposite in the high
wing.

Cheers:

Paul
NC2273H

[Dudley Henriques]

Hi Jack;
(Bet nobody says hello to you walking up the steps to get on an airliner
do they :-)
With your time, you won't have a bit of trouble either way you go. The
whole thing about high wings and low wings is WAY over done. The
differences can be pointed out and taken care of in a single dual
session, and once learned, simply become part and parcel of any good
pilot's ability to fly a SEL airplane.
As for the "fun aspect" of it between the two choices....I can tell you
that the most fun I've had in flying was flying an airplane where I
couldn't see the wings at ALL!!! :-))
Dudley

"Jack Allison" > wrote in
message ...
>I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
>172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in
>the process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way
>from being a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many
>other folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the
>top then switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing
>on the bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues,
>likes/dislikes about the transition?
>
> It's funny because I started out researching Cardinals (still like
> them, have yet to fly one but really want to some day). Two weeks
> ago, things shifted gears with a different partner on a possible
> Cherokee. Then, a week ago, this same partner has a friend who found
> a really nice '67 Arrow that the three of us are going to make an
> offer on. Adding it all up, four potential partnership prospects and
> four aircraft prospects (first potential partner bought himself a
> C-172 XP and offered me 1/2...I declined based on a questionable
> engine). The Arrow deal isn't done yet but it's interesting to see
> how things have twisted and turned a bit in the last few months. One
> thing is for sure, I've definitely hooked up with a couple of partners
> that I'm very comfortable with. That in and of itself has been worth
> it. Should the Arrow deal fall apart, plan-B just might be a two way
> deal on a Cherokee.
>
> --
> Jack Allison
> PP-ASEL, IA Student, Student Arrow Buyer
>
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
> with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
> you will always long to return"
> - Leonardo Da Vinci
>
> (Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[bk]

I learned in a Cherokee and bought into a 182 partnership. The
transition issues had to do with more complexity, somewhat different
handling, and general low-time lack-of-experience on my part. I don't
think there were any issues related to where the wings are (except
learning to duck when approaching the wings and figuring out just where
to put the stepladder to check the fuel.) I like the 182's ample
headroom, but I prefered the Cherokee's manual flaps (although those
electic flaps on the 182 are mighty effective.) The Cherokee has better
visibility for piloting, but the 182 provides a mesmerizing view of the
ground for passengers (and pilots if not careful). The 182's wing
provides more useful shade than the Cherokee's wing does, but it's
easier to check the gas on the low-wing.

For me, the type of plane was secondary. I bought into the 182 because
I knew people who knew the original owner of the plane, the entire
history of the plane was known since it was new, the other partners are
well known around the airport and have excellent integrity. I didn't do
a pre-buy for I had no fear problems were being covered up or even
not-noticed due to negligence (of course, the unexpected could always
happen) and there have been no surprises.

You don't want the wrong plane for your mission, but I think there are
factors beyond the type of airplane that are important in the purchase
decision.

- Bruce


Jack Allison wrote:
> I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in
Cessna
> 172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and
in
> the process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way
from
> being a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other
> folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top
then
> switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
> bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes
about
> the transition?
>

[Bob Gardner]

Got all my ratings/certificates through CFII with the wing on top, then went
to work for a Piper school. No problem.

Bob Gardner

"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
...
>I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
>172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in the
>process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way from being
>a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other folks out
>there did their primary training with the wing on the top then switched to
>flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the bottom...or even
>the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes about the transition?
>
> It's funny because I started out researching Cardinals (still like them,
> have yet to fly one but really want to some day). Two weeks ago, things
> shifted gears with a different partner on a possible Cherokee. Then, a
> week ago, this same partner has a friend who found a really nice '67 Arrow
> that the three of us are going to make an offer on. Adding it all up,
> four potential partnership prospects and four aircraft prospects (first
> potential partner bought himself a C-172 XP and offered me 1/2...I
> declined based on a questionable engine). The Arrow deal isn't done yet
> but it's interesting to see how things have twisted and turned a bit in
> the last few months. One thing is for sure, I've definitely hooked up
> with a couple of partners that I'm very comfortable with. That in and of
> itself has been worth it. Should the Arrow deal fall apart, plan-B just
> might be a two way deal on a Cherokee.
>
> --
> Jack Allison
> PP-ASEL, IA Student, Student Arrow Buyer
>
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
> with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
> you will always long to return"
> - Leonardo Da Vinci
>
> (Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Matt Whiting]

Jack Allison wrote:

> I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
> 172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in
> the process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way from
> being a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other
> folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top then
> switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
> bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes about
> the transition?
>
> It's funny because I started out researching Cardinals (still like them,
> have yet to fly one but really want to some day). Two weeks ago, things
> shifted gears with a different partner on a possible Cherokee. Then, a
> week ago, this same partner has a friend who found a really nice '67
> Arrow that the three of us are going to make an offer on. Adding it all
> up, four potential partnership prospects and four aircraft prospects
> (first potential partner bought himself a C-172 XP and offered me
> 1/2...I declined based on a questionable engine). The Arrow deal isn't
> done yet but it's interesting to see how things have twisted and turned
> a bit in the last few months. One thing is for sure, I've definitely
> hooked up with a couple of partners that I'm very comfortable with. That
> in and of itself has been worth it. Should the Arrow deal fall apart,
> plan-B just might be a two way deal on a Cherokee.
>

I got my private in Cessnas, my instrument in a Cherokee, owned a 182
for 6 years and ~350 hours, and now belong to a club that flies an
Arrow. I like flying and the location of the wing is largely secondary.

Having said that, I do have a preference, and it is for a high wing. It
is probably mostly due to that being how I was introduced to flying,
however, I like being able to straight down when flying, I find high
wing airplanes easy to get into and out of and I live being able to hide
under the wing when it is raining.

However, the important thing is to be flying.


Matt

[A Lieberman]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:22:40 -0800, Jack Allison wrote:

> I'm wondering how many other
> folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top then
> switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
> bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes about
> the transition?

Hey Jack,

Learned in a 172, and bought a Sundowner.

Differeneces I found....

Sight picture will be different on final. Flaps on my Sundowner pitch the
nose way down. I felt like I was diving toward the runway, when in
reality, it was only the nose pitching down. Cessnas I found when
deploying flaps, nose will pitch up.

Speed control on final (FOR THE SUNDOWNER) is critical. Come in too fast,
you will float further down then your expected touch down due to ground
effect. Also, the Sundowner is nose heavy, and has a bad porpoising habit
if you don't put it on the mains and remain on the ground. Initially,
found the Sundowner hard to land, due to such tight speed control, but now,
I find my landings have much improved with the Sundowner.

Handling enroute, no different between high and low wings whatsoever.

Visibility, for me, sitting sorta behind the wing, no big deal, you still
see the ground easily. Not sure about other low wingers though. Wheels
are under the wings, so if you are used to a tire hanging out from your
left side, that dissapears under the wing on a low winger. Makes it harder
to judge how far from the edge of the taxiway initially. I use a line of
rivets where the tire is under for "guidance". No biggie, but something to
be aware of.

Ease of getting in and out, for low wings and passengers, not so easy
loading if you have only one door. Sundowner has two, so I can assist and
ensure the passenger door is closed.

In the air, absolutely no difference flying. I do like the bigger cabin of
the Sundowner which increases outside visibility.

Fuel management, no "both" option, either right or left tanks only. I
switch every half hour to keep things in balance, and also makes me
"stretch" around to keep things moving physically. Some pilots switch
every tanks every hour, either option comes out the same.

Hope this helps.

Allen

[PaulaJay1]

In article >, Jack Allison
> writes:

>I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
>172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in
>the process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way from
>being a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other
>folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top then
>switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
>bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes about
>the transition?

I did my private training in a Piper 140. Then IFR training in a Cessna 172
and then rental in the 172 for about a year before buying my Archer 9 years
ago.

I like the ground vis in the 172 when crusing, the ground vis in the Archer
when turning in the pattern. I found that the wind gusts got under the Cessna
wing a little more than the Piper when landing. I like the ground effect in
the Piper when touching down (some people don't and call it float). The
Archer/Arrow choice has some pros and cons too. A little more performance for
a little more maintenance(or maybe a lot). I like the "welded" wheels and
prop.

I like the 2 doors better but don't think that is a high/low wing question.

Chuck

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I trained in 152s, then rented 172s, then owned a 172, then bought a
> Cherokee.
>
> Sometimes I wish my wing wouldn't scrap the bushes on a backcountry
> strip, but when the wind is howling, I'm thankful for the low CG of
> Piper. Those are about the only real issues I've run across.
>
> The rest of the high/low wing nit picking that usually accompanies a
> thread like this, is just that. Picking at miniscule differences that
> don't make much difference in the real world.
>
> If you're a competent pilot, transition from high to low should take
> about 1/2 hr. to get really knowledgable about the fuel system. Beyond
> that, you're wasting your time (assuming your swapping between planes
> of similar performance).

I concur with those sentiments entirely.

I soloed in a 172, finished PVT and IFR training in a 182, bought a 210,
then moved to a Baron (did ME training in a Seneca), then a Bonanza. The
transition involved minimal time and "effort". That's because the
differences are minimal: an airplane is an airplane, especially when they
are of the same general class.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 1/18/05 4:22 PM, in article , "Jack Allison"
> wrote:

> I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
> 172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in
> the process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way from
> being a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other
> folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top then
> switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
> bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes about
> the transition?
>
> It's funny because I started out researching Cardinals (still like them,
> have yet to fly one but really want to some day). Two weeks ago, things
> shifted gears with a different partner on a possible Cherokee. Then, a
> week ago, this same partner has a friend who found a really nice '67
> Arrow that the three of us are going to make an offer on. Adding it all
> up, four potential partnership prospects and four aircraft prospects
> (first potential partner bought himself a C-172 XP and offered me
> 1/2...I declined based on a questionable engine). The Arrow deal isn't
> done yet but it's interesting to see how things have twisted and turned
> a bit in the last few months. One thing is for sure, I've definitely
> hooked up with a couple of partners that I'm very comfortable with.
> That in and of itself has been worth it. Should the Arrow deal fall
> apart, plan-B just might be a two way deal on a Cherokee.

I did my primary in 172s and instrument in an Arrow. I like the Arrow better
for a few reasons although flying is fun no matter what.
The Arrow is more stable, heavier and feels more solid. The Arrow I rent has
a Garmin 430 on the panel and that alone puts it way ahead of all the 172s
that are available at my FBO. It's a bit roomier than a 172.

As a matter of practical reasons, my wife likes flying in the Arrow much
better because she can see the runway in the flare. Her visibility is a
little better all around and makes her feel safer. One of the things I
hadn't realized, is that with the wings under you, she had a feeling of
sitting on them and thus, more secure.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[mindenpilot]

I did all of my training in C172s/C152s, with about 8 hours in a warrior,
too.
In October I bought a Beech Super III.
Of course, I love my Beech more, but surprisingly not because it's a low
wing.
It's all the other little things about my plane that I like better.

1. 200HP vs. 160HP in a 172
2. Six seats (admittedly, the back row is tiny, but hey, so are my kids)
3. Trailing link suspension. I can't even describe what a difference this
makes! It makes crappy landings seem like greasers.
4. The view is amazing (not just wing position, but the windscreen is a huge
wrap-around bubble)
5. The cabin seems HUGE inside
6. A little better climb and cruise (I see 300fpm to 700fpm (more when it's
cold and I'm light) at 5-6000MSL, and about 120KTAS)
7. It just looks cool ;-)

I still like high wing planes, and I would own a U206 in a minute.
Like I said, though, you'll probably find lots of little things that you
like better, too.
With an Arrow, it will probably be SPEED!

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jack Allison > wrote:

> I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
> 172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in
> the process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way from
> being a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other
> folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top then
> switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
> bottom...or even the other way around?

my primary training was in the C-172 (with about 6 hours in a warrior).

my instrument training was in a cherokee 140.

I bought a cherokee 140.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[jsmith]

Here is one thing that no one else has mentioned...
What I like about the post-manual flap Cessna's vice the Piper's is the
floor space between the seats for my nav gear.
The exception being the PA-32. Lots of space behind the front seats
ahead of the spar. I like to keep things within arms reach.

[Aaron Coolidge]

In rec.aviation.owning Jack Allison > wrote:
: I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
: 172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in
: the process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way from
: being a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other
: folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top then
: switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
: bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes about
: the transition?

You should have no troubles. Read the POH: the Arrow has an electric 2nd
fuel pump that is used for takeoff, landing, and flight below 1000'; there
is no "both" setting for the fuel feed. Various speeds are different
depending on whether or not the gear is extended, which is probably not
in the POH due to the airplane's age. With the gear out and the engine
idling the Arrow sinks like a stone. You'll love being able to fly an ILS
at 120k and make the first turnoff with ease. Older Arrows with the short
stabilator take a goodly amount of pull to flare nicely especially at the
recommended approach speed so a lot of folks carry extra speed or power into
the flare which really eats up runway.


BTW, I thought that 1968 was the first year for Arrows.
--
Aaron C.

[Jay Honeck]

> The only difference worth noting in my opinion is the view restrictions of
> each type.
>
> IE: restricted downward view in the low wing and the opposite in the high
> wing.

I've flown "uppers and lowers", and find that both have weaknesses and
strengths. In the end, I like to fly both types.

What I found interesting, though, was watching Mary test-fly Cessna 182s
back in 2002 when we were looking to sell our Warrior. She had maybe 200
hours total time at that point, but no high-wing time at all, so she was a
valid test subject on this matter.

She was impressed with the interior room of the Skylane, but, being just 5
feet tall, she found the Cessna to be too "tall" for her comfort (I.E.: the
seating and panel position restricted her forward visibility too much, even
with a pillow) -- and she absolutely despised the 182's truck-like handling
characteristics.

But in the end the real "deal killer" for a high-wing aircraft was when she
laughed out loud while flying the pattern. She just couldn't believe that
people flew a plane where the runway environment was invisible while turning
base-to-final.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[xyzzy]

PaulaJay1 wrote:

> I like the 2 doors better but don't think that is a high/low wing question.

Actually it is, most low-wings have only one door because they don't
want to spend the money and weight to reinforce a wing-walk on both wings.

[xyzzy]

I trained in a 172 and now fly Warriors in a club. Both choices were
made because of cost and availability, not a preference for one wing
location or another. Both are great planes for different reasons. The
transition was trivial.

As others have said, there are differences but they are minor.

You are more likely to get two doors in a high-wing plane (IMO this is
the biggest argument in favor of high wing, I hate the one-door cabin of
the Warriors I fly now).

High-wing planes are easier to get into and out of, no clambering over
the wing and telling pax to stay on the reinforced part. Just mind your
head.

There is no "slip with flaps" or not controversy in a low-wing plane.

Low wing planes are slightly easier to land because of lower center of
gravity, more ground effect softening it (which may make short-field
landings harder though), and less of the x-wind getting under the wings.
However it's not enough of a difference.

Easier to check fuel level in a low-wing plane, but harder to drain the
sumps and inspect the underside of the wing (fuel vents, pitot tube, etc).

Low wing planes are less likely to have a "both" setting on the fuel
switch.

Better shade in a high wing plane.

Better sightseeing in a low-wing plane.

Bottom line: you should evaluate planes on their merits to you, and
wing location will probably not be much of a factor unless you're into
aerial photography or something like that.

[xyzzy]

I wrote:

> Better sightseeing in a low-wing plane.
>
>
of course this should have said "better sightseeing in a HIGH-wing plane"

[Hilton]

xyzzy wrote:
> Low wing planes are slightly easier to land because of lower center of
gravity,

Why?


> ...more ground effect softening it

There are so many other factors involved, even though this probably is
somewhat true, it's impossible demonstrate - can you really tell when the
induced drag lowers by a couple of % (the diff between a high-wing and
low-wing). Also, nitpicking, but since ground effect causes a nose down
pitching moment, you could argue it tends to 'harden' the landing.

FWIW: I did my Private in a 172 - loved it. Did my Instrument in an Archer.
Given that most mid-air accidents occur in or near a traffic pattern, I feel
somewhat uncomfortable flying high-wing planes in the pattern where you have
practically no visibility in the direction you're turning - a justification
for turning steeper in the pattern in high-wingers??? (less time in the
turn). I still fly 172s (I really like flying them), but I'm extra cautious
and sometimes move my shoulder harness off my shoulder and lean way forward
to try peer around the corner.

Hilton

[ShawnD2112]

Try it in a biplane. Damn near everything is invisible then!

Shawn

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:lVuHd.14738$IV5.1632@attbi_s54...
>> The only difference worth noting in my opinion is the view restrictions
>> of each type.
>>
>> IE: restricted downward view in the low wing and the opposite in the high
>> wing.
>
> I've flown "uppers and lowers", and find that both have weaknesses and
> strengths. In the end, I like to fly both types.
>
> What I found interesting, though, was watching Mary test-fly Cessna 182s
> back in 2002 when we were looking to sell our Warrior. She had maybe 200
> hours total time at that point, but no high-wing time at all, so she was a
> valid test subject on this matter.
>
> She was impressed with the interior room of the Skylane, but, being just
> 5 feet tall, she found the Cessna to be too "tall" for her comfort (I.E.:
> the seating and panel position restricted her forward visibility too much,
> even with a pillow) -- and she absolutely despised the 182's truck-like
> handling characteristics.
>
> But in the end the real "deal killer" for a high-wing aircraft was when
> she laughed out loud while flying the pattern. She just couldn't believe
> that people flew a plane where the runway environment was invisible while
> turning base-to-final.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> But in the end the real "deal killer" for a high-wing aircraft was when she
> laughed out loud while flying the pattern. She just couldn't believe that
> people flew a plane where the runway environment was invisible while turning
> base-to-final.

That's probably also related to her height. I don't lose sight of the runway
turning base to final in a 182. I *do* have to lean forward, though.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[G.R. Patterson III]

ShawnD2112 wrote:
>
> Try it in a biplane. Damn near everything is invisible then!

I've been told that flaring to land in a Fokker DR-1 is like closing a set of
venetian blinds. Everything disappears.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

[nrp]

Me? 1700 hrs over 42 years in 172 and Aeronca 15AC high wing. Pvt
ASEL&S with an unused instrument rating.

I like the snow bank and dock clearance of high wings. If these are
not an issue I'd say it is a tossup though.

An aside of a tower operator - High wings fly tighter patterns.

I've wondered if the incidence of getting lost under contact navigation
might be higher for low wings?

[xyzzy]

Hilton wrote:

> xyzzy wrote:
>
>>Low wing planes are slightly easier to land because of lower center of
>
> gravity,
>
> Why?
>
>
>
>>...more ground effect softening it
>
>
> There are so many other factors involved, even though this probably is
> somewhat true, it's impossible demonstrate - can you really tell when the
> induced drag lowers by a couple of % (the diff between a high-wing and
> low-wing). Also, nitpicking, but since ground effect causes a nose down
> pitching moment, you could argue it tends to 'harden' the landing.

Good point. My experiences are c172 and warrior. I just know that I
float more in the Warrior, and that it's much easier to land smoother in
the Warrior. I think low-wing definitely explains the float, but the
smoother landing could very well be the inflated struts landing gear of
the warrior vs. the stiffer legs on the 172. The highwing/lowwing
probably is a smaller factor than that.

[Jack Allison]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Hi Jack;
> (Bet nobody says hello to you walking up the steps to get on an airliner
> do they :-)
Groan...If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that one. Certainly
would get a more interesting response in the post-911 days, eh? :-)
No, it's "Hello Jack", "Hey, Jack, hows it going"...er, something like
that. I prefer to avoid the TSA cavity search just because someone says
"Hi Jack" at an airport...though, that's not much of a problem since I
don't fly commercially all that much.

> The whole thing about high wings and low wings is WAY over done.
Yep, sort of like the proverbial Ford/Chevy debate.


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student, Student Arrow Buyer

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[[email protected]]

Aaron Coolidge wrote:
>
>
> BTW, I thought that 1968 was the first year for Arrows.

It's a lot like cars. The first Arrows were built and sold in late
'67 even though they belong to the '68 model year. What makes it more
confusing is that airplane registration data is based on the "year of
manufacture" not the model year. Lot's of Arrows show up in the
registration database as '67 models, even though they are actually '68
models as far as appearance and equipment go (e.g. third side window).
John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Jack Allison]

All:

Thanks for the input. So far, with the few hours I have in an Archer,
I've found the transition pretty simple. There are things I like
better, things I don't like as much when comparing to a Cessna. Mostly,
just annoyance level stuff that I'll get over (especially once I join
the ranks of owner).

Things from misc. replies:
- Jay H - Definitely agree on the panel height of a C-182. I'm 6 feet
tall and when I've flown a newer C-182 with my brother, I felt short,
even with the seat all the way up. Way different than a C-172. I can
hardly imagine Mary being able to see much over the panel.

- Aaron C. - Nope, 1967 is the first year for the Arrow. Not something
I knew a couple weeks ago.

- Adam - Hmmm, I'll have to keep the gear stance thing in mind should I
ever be taxiing with snow on the ramp (not something I have to deal with
here in the CA central valley). Oh, and as for what I'd enjoy about the
Arrow...yep, speed is one thing. Others include that funny lever that
makes those cute little green lights go on and off, the cool looking
blue lever in the middle of the throttle quadrant, the cool factor of
the 3-blade prop conversion...ok, back to reality :-)


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student, Student Arrow Buyer

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[[email protected]]

One of the nice things about the Diamond Eclipse I rent is that
although it's a low wing it has great visibility. The wings are far
enough back of the cockpit that you get excellent upward visibility and
usable downward visibility as well. The picture is different from the
172 I learned on though, the forward window goes down lower. It makes
a great sightseeing airplane!

-Malcolm Teas

[[email protected]]

George,
I'm only 5' 2" and need 2" cushions to see over the cowling and to
reach the pedals in both high wings (150/152/172/177, Champ) and low
wing (Tiger). I don't recall ever losing sight of the runway turning
base to final either.

Our interest in aerial photography along with the need for easily
accessible large baggage area led to buying a Cardinal. If it wasn't
for those factors, I'd have leaned towards the Grumman Tiger. I had not
flown any low-wing planes but had no problem handling/landing the Tiger
at first try.

Hai

[Matt Whiting]

xyzzy wrote:


> Better sightseeing in a low-wing plane.

I feel just the opposite. Unless you are star gazing, it is much easier
to see the ground in a high-wing and much easier to take pictures. I
had a heck of a time taking pictures of my house in the Arrow.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

xyzzy wrote:

> There is no "slip with flaps" or not controversy in a low-wing plane.

What controversy? You can do it if it isn't prohibilted. I don't know
about all Cessna models, but I don't think that all have this prohibition.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>But in the end the real "deal killer" for a high-wing aircraft was when she
>>laughed out loud while flying the pattern. She just couldn't believe that
>>people flew a plane where the runway environment was invisible while turning
>>base-to-final.
>
>
> That's probably also related to her height. I don't lose sight of the runway
> turning base to final in a 182. I *do* have to lean forward, though.

Yes, same here, but I'm 6' tall with relatively short legs so I could
see over even the 182's glare shield fairly well and leaning forward I
could get ahead of the wing root fairly easily. No doubt that a
low-wing gives you a better view of the runway environment than a
high-wing, but I never found it a problem. As long as you start your
turn to final at the right point, it isn't hard to roll out on the
extended centerline. Usually you can see the runway once your heading
is within 30 degrees or so and that is usually plenty of time to adjust
the rate of turn to accomodate wind drift or an early or late turn.


Matt

[bk]

The runway disappears, but that has never bothered me as it always
reappears right where it was originally. When the runway disappears is
a good time to look the other direction for the King Air zipping toward
the same piece of asphalt.

---------------------
She just couldn't believe that
people flew a plane where the runway environment was invisible while
turning
base-to-final.

--------------------

I can see where short people have a forward visibility problem,
although cranking the seat up helps some. For us tall people, the
headroom is great. I can barely sit in a Commanchee with headsets on,
and the Cherokee was pretty limited too.

The 182 does handle like a truck, but that's kind-of-nice sometimes,
too.

The differences are all secondary, though.

[Newps]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> xyzzy wrote:
>
>> There is no "slip with flaps" or not controversy in a low-wing plane.
>
>
> What controversy? You can do it if it isn't prohibilted. I don't know
> about all Cessna models, but I don't think that all have this prohibition.

None do.

[Matt Whiting]

bk wrote:

> The runway disappears, but that has never bothered me as it always
> reappears right where it was originally. When the runway disappears is
> a good time to look the other direction for the King Air zipping toward
> the same piece of asphalt.
>
> ---------------------
> She just couldn't believe that
> people flew a plane where the runway environment was invisible while
> turning
> base-to-final.
>
> --------------------
>
> I can see where short people have a forward visibility problem,
> although cranking the seat up helps some. For us tall people, the
> headroom is great. I can barely sit in a Commanchee with headsets on,
> and the Cherokee was pretty limited too.
>
> The 182 does handle like a truck, but that's kind-of-nice sometimes,
> too.

I hear that a lot, but I find the 67 Arrow I fly now to be just as
trucky as the 182. It is a little lighter in pitch, but the rudders are
stiffer. Roll is comparable.

I also prefer the vernier controls to the quadrant controls in the Piper.


Matt

[Dave]

Jay...

I love flying our 172...(love flying anything)

But I am with Mary on the invisible turn to final!

One gets used to it.. but I much prefer the low wing
aircraft..

Dave


On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:20:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> The only difference worth noting in my opinion is the view restrictions of
>> each type.
>>
>> IE: restricted downward view in the low wing and the opposite in the high
>> wing.
>
>I've flown "uppers and lowers", and find that both have weaknesses and
>strengths. In the end, I like to fly both types.
>
>What I found interesting, though, was watching Mary test-fly Cessna 182s
>back in 2002 when we were looking to sell our Warrior. She had maybe 200
>hours total time at that point, but no high-wing time at all, so she was a
>valid test subject on this matter.
>
>She was impressed with the interior room of the Skylane, but, being just 5
>feet tall, she found the Cessna to be too "tall" for her comfort (I.E.: the
>seating and panel position restricted her forward visibility too much, even
>with a pillow) -- and she absolutely despised the 182's truck-like handling
>characteristics.
>
>But in the end the real "deal killer" for a high-wing aircraft was when she
>laughed out loud while flying the pattern. She just couldn't believe that
>people flew a plane where the runway environment was invisible while turning
>base-to-final.

[Ben Jackson]

On 2005-01-19, Jay Honeck > wrote:
>
> But in the end the real "deal killer" for a high-wing aircraft was when she
> laughed out loud while flying the pattern. She just couldn't believe that
> people flew a plane where the runway environment was invisible while turning
> base-to-final.

I learned to fly in C-172s and bought a Comanche. I laughed outloud the
first time I made a 30 degree banked turn and I could see everything!

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Matt Barrow]

"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
> > Hi Jack;
> > (Bet nobody says hello to you walking up the steps to get on an airliner
> > do they :-)
> Groan...If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that one. Certainly
> would get a more interesting response in the post-911 days, eh? :-)
> No, it's "Hello Jack", "Hey, Jack, hows it going"...er, something like
> that. I prefer to avoid the TSA cavity search just because someone says
> "Hi Jack" at an airport...though, that's not much of a problem since I
> don't fly commercially all that much.
>
> > The whole thing about high wings and low wings is WAY over done.
> Yep, sort of like the proverbial Ford/Chevy debate.

Not really...Chevy's suck!!


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> PaulaJay1 wrote:
>
> > I like the 2 doors better but don't think that is a high/low wing
question.
>
> Actually it is, most low-wings have only one door because they don't
> want to spend the money and weight to reinforce a wing-walk on both wings.

I think the only two door low wing (other than the newer models) is the
Commander 112/114/115, right?


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Jay Honeck]

> Try it in a biplane. Damn near everything is invisible then!

Yeah, in my whopping 0.6 hours of biplane time (a Stearman), I was surprised
to find that visibility really sucked.

I expected to see more from an open-cockpit, I guess -- not less.

Still, it was a gas to fly!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I'm only 5' 2" and need 2" cushions to see over the cowling and to
> reach the pedals in both high wings (150/152/172/177, Champ) and low
> wing (Tiger). I don't recall ever losing sight of the runway turning
> base to final either.

Interesting. When I fly a high wing, the runway always disappears in
turns. (I'm 6' tall.)

Of course, your Cardinal's wing is mounted properly, so that the runway
environment *never* disappears. Which is why the Cardinal was on my short
list of aircraft when I first started looking for an airplane.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> I also prefer the vernier controls to the quadrant controls in the Piper.

Isn't that odd? I find vernier controls annoying in the extreme.

"To each, his own..."

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JpEHd.15267$IV5.11720@attbi_s54...
> > I also prefer the vernier controls to the quadrant controls in the
Piper.
>
> Isn't that odd? I find vernier controls annoying in the extreme.
>
> "To each, his own..."
>
> ;-)

I guess I never got used to them, but they remind me of using my lawn mower.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Jim Rosinski]

Hilton wrote:

> turn). I still fly 172s (I really like flying them), but I'm extra
cautious
> and sometimes move my shoulder harness off my shoulder and lean way
forward
> to try peer around the corner.

I installed inertia-reel shoulder harnesses (BAS) in my 172 mainly for
comfort. But the ability to lean forward, particularly in the pattern
for visibility, was worth the price in itself.

Jim Rosinski

[jsmith]

TRIM!!!
TRIM!!!
TRIM!!!
The 182 (and other such aircraft) are flown with trim controls.
Set the proper trim prior to taking the runway, add power and with a
gentle tug, the airplane flys off the runway.
Adjust the elevator trim for climb airspeed and the rudder trim to
center the ball.
Level off for cruise, readjust the pitch and yaw trims after setting power.
To descend, reduce power (or set down trim if you can stay out of the
yellow arc with power) and readjust rudder trim.
What are you doing that requires large control inputs?

Jay Honeck wrote:
> She was impressed with the interior room of the Skylane, but, being just 5
> feet tall, she found the Cessna to be too "tall" for her comfort (I.E.: the
> seating and panel position restricted her forward visibility too much, even
> with a pillow) -- and she absolutely despised the 182's truck-like handling
> characteristics.

[Hilton]

xyzzy wrote:
> > There are so many other factors involved, even though this probably is
> > somewhat true, it's impossible demonstrate - can you really tell when
the
> > induced drag lowers by a couple of % (the diff between a high-wing and
> > low-wing). Also, nitpicking, but since ground effect causes a nose down
> > pitching moment, you could argue it tends to 'harden' the landing.
>
> Good point. My experiences are c172 and warrior. I just know that I
> float more in the Warrior, and that it's much easier to land smoother in
> the Warrior. I think low-wing definitely explains the float, but the
> smoother landing could very well be the inflated struts landing gear of
> the warrior vs. the stiffer legs on the 172. The highwing/lowwing
> probably is a smaller factor than that.

Since I don't have usable performance numbers, what follows is speculation
on my part: I think the apparent added float occurs for two reasons:

1. Pilots fly the POH approach speed which is for the plane at gross. But
when landing, they're lighter, so need to fly slower.

2. Pipers have completely different flaps to Cessnas. Cessnas have the
barn door flaps, so that by itself probably does cause less float.

I think the only way to do this experiment properly would be to move the
wings on a specific plane, but the FBO might not like it.

Hilton

[jsmith]

Two things to reduce "float" on landing...
1.) slow down
2.) after roundout, take out one notch of flaps while pulling the yoke
back to maintain pitch attitude.

xyzzy wrote:
> Good point. My experiences are c172 and warrior. I just know that I
> float more in the Warrior, and that it's much easier to land smoother in
> the Warrior. I think low-wing definitely explains the float, but the
> smoother landing could very well be the inflated struts landing gear of
> the warrior vs. the stiffer legs on the 172. The highwing/lowwing
> probably is a smaller factor than that.

[jsmith]

Check the C172 manual under EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.
Some models contain a caution/warning against slipping with 30 degrees
of flaps.

xyzzy wrote:
> There is no "slip with flaps" or not controversy in a low-wing plane.

Matt Whiting wrote:
> What controversy? You can do it if it isn't prohibilted. I don't know
> about all Cessna models, but I don't think that all have this prohibition.

Newps wrote:
> None do.

[Dave Butler]

jsmith wrote:
> Check the C172 manual under EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.
> Some models contain a caution/warning against slipping with 30 degrees
> of flaps.

I'm quite sure newps knows that and was making the point that a caution/warning
does not a prohibition make.

[xyzzy]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "xyzzy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>PaulaJay1 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I like the 2 doors better but don't think that is a high/low wing
>
> question.
>
>>Actually it is, most low-wings have only one door because they don't
>>want to spend the money and weight to reinforce a wing-walk on both wings.
>
>
> I think the only two door low wing (other than the newer models) is the
> Commander 112/114/115, right?
>
>

Some Musketeers have it too, I believe.

[xyzzy]

Hilton wrote:
>
> I think the only way to do this experiment properly would be to move the
> wings on a specific plane, but the FBO might not like it.

Yeah, FBOs don't have much of a sense of humor about that kind of stuff,
do they?

[xyzzy]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> xyzzy wrote:
>
>
>> Better sightseeing in a low-wing plane.
>
>
> I feel just the opposite. Unless you are star gazing, it is much easier
> to see the ground in a high-wing and much easier to take pictures. I
> had a heck of a time taking pictures of my house in the Arrow.
>
> Matt

You're right, I typed it wrong.

[ShawnD2112]

The other qualities a Stearman has more than compensate for its visibility
problem! In the Pitts it doesn't really matter becuase it moves so fast
than anything that's blanked by a wing now will become very visible in just
a second...

Shawn :-)

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ekEHd.15250$OF5.2830@attbi_s52...
>> Try it in a biplane. Damn near everything is invisible then!
>
> Yeah, in my whopping 0.6 hours of biplane time (a Stearman), I was
> surprised to find that visibility really sucked.
>
> I expected to see more from an open-cockpit, I guess -- not less.
>
> Still, it was a gas to fly!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Aaron Coolidge]

In rec.aviation.owning jsmith > wrote:
: To descend, reduce power (or set down trim if you can stay out of the
: yellow arc with power) and readjust rudder trim.

Why would you want to stay out of the yellow arc if the air is smooth?
The yellow arc is my target in the descent!
--
Aaron C.

[Jay Honeck]

> TRIM!!!
> TRIM!!!
> TRIM!!!
> The 182 (and other such aircraft) are flown with trim controls.

I know. But Mary didn't.

Our Pathfinder (essentially a Piper Skylane, with the wing on the right
side) is not quite so trim-dependent, but proper trim sure makes everything
easier.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jack Allison" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Jack;
>>>(Bet nobody says hello to you walking up the steps to get on an airliner
>>>do they :-)
>>
>>Groan...If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that one. Certainly
>>would get a more interesting response in the post-911 days, eh? :-)
>>No, it's "Hello Jack", "Hey, Jack, hows it going"...er, something like
>>that. I prefer to avoid the TSA cavity search just because someone says
>>"Hi Jack" at an airport...though, that's not much of a problem since I
>>don't fly commercially all that much.
>>
>>
>>>The whole thing about high wings and low wings is WAY over done.
>>
>>Yep, sort of like the proverbial Ford/Chevy debate.
>
>
> Not really...Chevy's suck!!
>
>

Yep, suck them into the radiator and spit them out the tail pipe. :-)

Like we say here in rural PA, "on a quiet night you can hear a Ford rust."

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I'm only 5' 2" and need 2" cushions to see over the cowling and to
>>reach the pedals in both high wings (150/152/172/177, Champ) and low
>>wing (Tiger). I don't recall ever losing sight of the runway turning
>>base to final either.
>
>
> Interesting. When I fly a high wing, the runway always disappears in
> turns. (I'm 6' tall.)

Where does the runway go when you are turning? :-) I've never come
across a runway that can disappear like that.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>I also prefer the vernier controls to the quadrant controls in the Piper.
>
>
> Isn't that odd? I find vernier controls annoying in the extreme.
>
> "To each, his own..."

I agree. Well, for VFR flying, I don't see much difference, but for
instrument approaches, I really like being able to dial in just a little
throttle. The Arrow is hard to adjust in less than about 1" of MP
increments. I could adjust my 182 much more precisely.



Matt

[Matt Whiting]

ShawnD2112 wrote:

> The other qualities a Stearman has more than compensate for its visibility
> problem! In the Pitts it doesn't really matter becuase it moves so fast
> than anything that's blanked by a wing now will become very visible in just
> a second...

Yes, kind of like a Harley. It makes up in noise for what it lacks in
other areas. :-)


Matt

[Dave]

OK..

I finally got this to happen in our 172..

Practising forced approaches...was too high, - dropped 40 deg
of flap, roled hte port wing down , and put my foot to the wall..

I pitched for 60 knts indicated, and about 3-4 seconds after
it stabiized, it started..

I would describe it as a gentle oscillation of the control
yoke fore & aft, perhaps 1 inch of amplitude, frequency about once
each second.

The pitch of the aircraft seemed quite stable, the oscillation
was in the control column only. It felt as if I was "alowing" the
movement to happen, to keep the pitch of the aircraft stable...

Very gentle,but might surprise someone not expecting it.

Relaxing the rudder only slightly stopped it...

Certianly not an issue as far as contolling the aircraft.

Remember, 40 deg, wing way down, foot all the way in, dropping
like an elevator before it started oscillating.

Recovery from the slip was instantaneous, I would not hesitate
to do it any time necessary...

Dave






On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:58:04 -0500, Dave Butler > wrote:

>jsmith wrote:
>> Check the C172 manual under EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.
>> Some models contain a caution/warning against slipping with 30 degrees
>> of flaps.
>
>I'm quite sure newps knows that and was making the point that a caution/warning
>does not a prohibition make.

[Hilton]

Jim Rosinski wrote:
> Hilton wrote:
>
> > turn). I still fly 172s (I really like flying them), but I'm extra
> cautious
> > and sometimes move my shoulder harness off my shoulder and lean way
> forward
> > to try peer around the corner.
>
> I installed inertia-reel shoulder harnesses (BAS) in my 172 mainly for
> comfort. But the ability to lean forward, particularly in the pattern
> for visibility, was worth the price in itself.

I always assumed that inertia-reel harnesses were for comfort. You raise a
great point that it aids safety too; i.e. helps see-n-avoid if the pilot
makes the additional effort.

Thanks!

Hilton

[Hilton]

jsmith wrote:
> Two things to reduce "float" on landing...
> 1.) slow down
> 2.) after roundout, take out one notch of flaps while pulling the yoke
> back to maintain pitch attitude.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no... Sorry, the complex CFI in me just kicked
in.

Hilton

[Trent Moorehead]

"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
news:csjun0$sr9

> I'm wondering how many other
> folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top then
> switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
> bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes about
> the transition?

Jack,

I have mostly flown C-172's, but have flown a Cherokee for a few hours.
Being so used to the Cessnas, it would be reasonable to think that flying
the Cherokee would be hard to get used to. I was pleasantly surprised to
find that I really liked it. Here are some random thoughts:

I like manual flaps, a lot. Once I flew an older C-172 that had manual flaps
and loved it. The Cherokee had manual flaps too. One major difference I
found is that when you lower flaps in the C-172, the nose goes up, but in
the Cherokee, the tail goes up.

The Cherokee had much rougher ride while taxiing, kind of wallowed and
rocked side to side. Also, a stiffer jolt on landing. Could be the pilot's
fault on that one. :)

My major gripe: The single door on the Cherokee. Couldn't stand it, but it's
not a deal breaker. I do have a concern about safety and egress. In CAP, we
practice egress from C-172's and C-182's. We can clear the plane with 4 pax
in about 13 seconds. In a single door plane this would be considerably
longer. Also, what if that one door was to jam in a crash? Sometimes those
doors don't seal so well either since they are much more complex than the
C-172's doors. A minor detail, but one that could get on your nerves and
wallet.

The Cherokee seemed to turn better than the C-172. I don't know exactly why,
but it just seemed to fly a little better and easier, a little crisper. More
natural coordination? Also, I liked the increased visibility while turning.

The Cherokee had a engine cowling that opened completely up so that I could
inspect the engine visually. I liked that a whole lot more than the little
inspection port on the C-172.

I like the thought of a gravity-fed fuel system rather than a pump system.
Also, there's no need to switch tanks on the C-172.

I like to fly for the scenic value and the C-172 has a better view of the
ground.

The cabin had a bigger feel in the C-172, but the instrument panel was lower
in the Cherokee.

Low wingers generally look better aesthetically, but high wingers stay
cooler in the summer because of the extra shade. The C-172's doors and
windows allow the cockpit to cool off quicker if it does get hot. As a
designer, I appreciate aesthetics, but I also appreciate functional design.
Functional designs are beautiful to me.

All in all, there's no clear winner for me. That been said, I think the high
wing scheme wins by a nose for me.

HTH,

-Trent
PP-ASEL

[Jack Allison]

I think you qualify for the "slip with flaps" T-shirt Dave.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student, Student Arrow Buyer

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Cecil Chapman]

I like the high-wing for my fun flying since I can get better camera shots
on my trips of the scenery below, without that big wing in the way... Also,
I like the idea that the C172 has two doors to the Arrow III's (not counting
the 'emergency' baggage compartment door <g>) one door (which to me seems
pretty prone to getting stuck in an accident - Cessna doors you can wedge
open with a coat,,, not so sure that one can do that with an Arrow III.

By the way,,, congrats on getting ready to join the aircraft owners
'club'.... Someday, for me,,, for certain.... :0)
--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[jsmith]

Read TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS by Leighton Collins.

> jsmith wrote:
> > Two things to reduce "float" on landing...
> > 1.) slow down
> > 2.) after roundout, take out one notch of flaps while pulling the yoke
> > back to maintain pitch attitude.

> Hilton wrote:
> No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no... Sorry, the complex CFI in me just kicked
> in.

[Hilton]

jsmith wrote:
> Read TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS by Leighton Collins.

Read ACCIDENTS by NTSB ;)


> > jsmith wrote:
> > > Two things to reduce "float" on landing...
> > > 1.) slow down
> > > 2.) after roundout, take out one notch of flaps while pulling the yoke
> > > back to maintain pitch attitude.
>
> > Hilton wrote:
> > No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no... Sorry, the complex CFI in me just
kicked
> > in.

[Dave]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh....

This one is gonna hurt sooner or later if the plane is a
retractable, big time!

Dave


On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:58:04 GMT, jsmith > wrote:


>2.) after roundout, take out one notch of flaps while pulling the yoke
>back to maintain pitch attitude.

[Dave]

Hehe...

Well, hadda find out..hate surprises...

I just looked at my post, I sure don't qualify for the
spelling T-shirt tho... :)

Gawd I hate laptop keyblards. err...keyboards....

Dave


+On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:43:53 -0800, Jack Allison
> wrote:

>I think you qualify for the "slip with flaps" T-shirt Dave.

[Paul Missman]

I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
training.

Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.

My reasons are as follows:


You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.

You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.

Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer to
the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing than in
the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary with the
exact aircraft under comparison.)

Not as susceptable to launching itself into the air during flare if the
landing is a bit hot. (Though this will also vary somewhat with the
aircraft under comparison.)

More stable during taxi operations on windy days.

Better forward visibility in flight and during flare. (This will, also,
vary with the models under comparison.)

Easier to de-ice/de-frost the wings.

Easier to wash the aircraft.


Though the low wing took some getting used to, I don't believe I'd want to
go back without some great finincial incentive. (As in, I probably wouldn't
turn down a free 182 in excellent condition.)

Paul

[Matt Whiting]

Paul Missman wrote:
> I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
> training.
>
> Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
>
> My reasons are as follows:
>
>
> You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.
>
> You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.
>
> Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
> crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer to
> the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing than in
> the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary with the
> exact aircraft under comparison.)

How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
wing is located.


Matt

[Newps]

Paul Missman wrote:

>
>
> You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.

I can wear good pants to check my fuel.


>
> You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.

I don't "loose" sight of the airport either.


>
> Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
> crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer to
> the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing than in
> the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary with the
> exact aircraft under comparison.)

Nonsense. Two aircraft with about the same cross sectional area will
drift the same amount in the same wind.


>
> Not as susceptable to launching itself into the air during flare if the
> landing is a bit hot. (Though this will also vary somewhat with the
> aircraft under comparison.)

Pilot error.



>
> Better forward visibility in flight and during flare. (This will, also,
> vary with the models under comparison.)

During the flare? A blanket assumption? Nonsense again.



>
> Easier to wash the aircraft.

Not easier, I don't have to crouch down. I have one of them car washing
wands with a brush on the end that dispenses soap when I want it too.
>
>
> Though the low wing took some getting used to, I don't believe I'd want to
> go back without some great finincial incentive. (As in, I probably wouldn't
> turn down a free 182 in excellent condition.)

I wouldn't want a Cherokee 235 for off road ops either. To each his own.

[Dave Stadt]

"Paul Missman" > wrote in message
...
>
> I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
> training.
>
> Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
>
> My reasons are as follows:
>
>
> You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.

Many high wings have steps to get to the tanks. The fuel on my high wing is
gravity feed. No fuel pumps to fail.

> You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.

But you do lose sight of anyone else that might be on final. I know where
the airport is.

> Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
> crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer to
> the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing than in
> the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary with the
> exact aircraft under comparison.)

Simply not true. Low wings have more dihedral which could make them more
suspectable.

> Not as susceptable to launching itself into the air during flare if the
> landing is a bit hot. (Though this will also vary somewhat with the
> aircraft under comparison.)

Huh?

> More stable during taxi operations on windy days.

Huh?

> Better forward visibility in flight and during flare. (This will, also,
> vary with the models under comparison.)

Don't believe so. Wing location has nothing to do with forward visibility.

> Easier to de-ice/de-frost the wings.

That's what hangars are made for.

> Easier to wash the aircraft.

Tell me how easy it is to wash the bottom of the wing or how easy it is to
sump the tanks.. Or for that matter getting into the plane when it is
raining.

> Though the low wing took some getting used to, I don't believe I'd want to
> go back without some great finincial incentive. (As in, I probably
wouldn't
> turn down a free 182 in excellent condition.)
>
> Paul

[dave]

Not all high wings cause you to lose sight of the airport on final. My
citabria has fantastic visibility. I haven't flown one but I understand
the cardinal has excellent visibility because the wing is further
compared to a 172 or 182. I really don't have a preference. Both have
their good points.
Dave
68 7ECA

Paul Missman wrote:
> I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
> training.
>
> Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
>
> My reasons are as follows:
>
>
> You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.
>
> You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.
>
> Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
> crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer to
> the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing than in
> the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary with the
> exact aircraft under comparison.)
>
> Not as susceptable to launching itself into the air during flare if the
> landing is a bit hot. (Though this will also vary somewhat with the
> aircraft under comparison.)
>
> More stable during taxi operations on windy days.
>
> Better forward visibility in flight and during flare. (This will, also,
> vary with the models under comparison.)
>
> Easier to de-ice/de-frost the wings.
>
> Easier to wash the aircraft.
>
>
> Though the low wing took some getting used to, I don't believe I'd want to
> go back without some great finincial incentive. (As in, I probably wouldn't
> turn down a free 182 in excellent condition.)
>
> Paul
>
>
>

[A Lieberman]

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:42:11 GMT, Dave Stadt wrote:

> But you do lose sight of anyone else that might be on final. I know where
> the airport is.

Dave,

How do you lose someone on final due to a low wing configuration?

I fly a Sundowner and have never lost someone on final.

I would think it would be more possible to lose someone on final if you
were in a high wing, since the wing would POTENTIALLY block your view on
your turn from base to final.

Allen

[Hilton]

Paul Missman wrote:
>
> I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
> training.
>
> Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
>
> My reasons are as follows:
>
> You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.

Well, most high-wings I fly do not require a ladder, but I agree low wings
are better for this; i.e. putting gas in AND verifying the gas level.


> You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.

I fully agree AND you can see during turns to avoid mid-airs.


> Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
> crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer to
> the ground.

Why does the ground change anything? Also, low wings generally have more
dihedral which would make low wings more susceptable.


> Not as susceptable to launching itself into the air during flare if the
> landing is a bit hot. (Though this will also vary somewhat with the
> aircraft under comparison.)

What does the high-wing/low-wing have anything to do with this?


> More stable during taxi operations on windy days.

If this was really a deciding factor, I would seriously start being more
critical of my go/no-go decisions.


> Better forward visibility in flight and during flare. (This will, also,
> vary with the models under comparison.)

What does the high-wing/low-wing have anything to do with this?


Hilton

[Dave]

This thread sounds remarkably similar to discussions I had about
motorcycles.
Sportbikes vs cruisers, Harleys Vs. Imports.
Funny thing was, after riding for 20 years, off and on at times, I would
occasionally get the bug a by an old bike for $1200.
whatever was available, I bought it just because I had to ride.

You know what I realized? They are ALL good. heck I 've even bought a
scooter. It's just plain fun wrapped up in a different package. That's the
way it is when you _have to_ ride.

When I finally get my private license I don't think I would ever want to get
wrapped up in what is best. I'd be looking forward to what is next.

I will say this though, I am training in a high wing, but I expect a low
wing in my future, perhaps a Tiger. I can't wait for the transition.


--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot

"Jack Allison" > wrote in message
...
>I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
>172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in the
>process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way from being
>a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other folks out
>there did their primary training with the wing on the top then switched to
>flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the bottom...or even
>the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes about the transition?
>
> It's funny because I started out researching Cardinals (still like them,
> have yet to fly one but really want to some day). Two weeks ago, things
> shifted gears with a different partner on a possible Cherokee. Then, a
> week ago, this same partner has a friend who found a really nice '67 Arrow
> that the three of us are going to make an offer on. Adding it all up,
> four potential partnership prospects and four aircraft prospects (first
> potential partner bought himself a C-172 XP and offered me 1/2...I
> declined based on a questionable engine). The Arrow deal isn't done yet
> but it's interesting to see how things have twisted and turned a bit in
> the last few months. One thing is for sure, I've definitely hooked up
> with a couple of partners that I'm very comfortable with. That in and of
> itself has been worth it. Should the Arrow deal fall apart, plan-B just
> might be a two way deal on a Cherokee.
>
> --
> Jack Allison
> PP-ASEL, IA Student, Student Arrow Buyer
>
> "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
> with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
> you will always long to return"
> - Leonardo Da Vinci
>
> (Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[xyzzy]

Hilton wrote:
> Paul Missman wrote:
>
>>I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
>>training.
>>
>>Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
>>
>>My reasons are as follows:
>>
>>You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.
>
>
> Well, most high-wings I fly do not require a ladder, but I agree low wings
> are better for this; i.e. putting gas in AND verifying the gas level.
>
>
>
>>You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.
>
>
> I fully agree AND you can see during turns to avoid mid-airs.
>

People keep saying this like it's a plus for low-wings. It's not. At
the time you guys are complainining that the high-wing blocks your view
of the runway (which isn't moving), you SHOULD be looking out the other
side to make sure you're not turning into the path of an oncoming
airplane -- execpt in a low-wing, that's the view that's blocked.

I hate turning base to final in the Warrior, knowing I can't see if a
plane is coming down final. yes I was watching final while in the base
leg, but I would like to still keep an eye on it while turning because
sometimes you don't see other traffic until you've been looking for a while

[Dave Stadt]

"xyzzy" > wrote in message
...
> Hilton wrote:
> > Paul Missman wrote:
> >
> >>I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
> >>training.
> >>
> >>Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
> >>
> >>My reasons are as follows:
> >>
> >>You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.
> >
> >
> > Well, most high-wings I fly do not require a ladder, but I agree low
wings
> > are better for this; i.e. putting gas in AND verifying the gas level.
> >
> >
> >
> >>You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.
> >
> >
> > I fully agree AND you can see during turns to avoid mid-airs.
> >
>
> People keep saying this like it's a plus for low-wings. It's not. At
> the time you guys are complainining that the high-wing blocks your view
> of the runway (which isn't moving), you SHOULD be looking out the other
> side to make sure you're not turning into the path of an oncoming
> airplane -- execpt in a low-wing, that's the view that's blocked.
>
> I hate turning base to final in the Warrior, knowing I can't see if a
> plane is coming down final. yes I was watching final while in the base
> leg, but I would like to still keep an eye on it while turning because
> sometimes you don't see other traffic until you've been looking for a
while


Exactly, I want to see what is coming at me not what is going away from me.

[Jon Woellhaf]

"Newps" wrote, "... Two aircraft with about the same cross sectional area
will drift the same amount in the same wind."

Yes, but wouldn't two aircraft with even extreme differences in cross
sectional area drift the same amount in the same wind?

Jon

[Jay Honeck]

> You know what I realized? They are ALL good. heck I 've even bought a
> scooter.

I was with you, man, all the way up to this point.

You bought a *scooter*? What were you thinking?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave A.]

WHA? zipping around NYC on an Road King is kinda fun, but at times a chore.
Head down Park Ave. on a Scaraebo... WooHoO!!
anyway, didn't last very long. It couldn't hack the long hauls, and neither
could my backside on that thing. :)

I am back to my old favorite, my '96 Virago 1100. My niece told me in no
uncertain terms that I "SHALL NOT!" sell that bike until she is old enough
to get a ride on it (She's 8)

(Note the Dave A. to differentiate from the pack)


--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:V1_Id.25854$EG1.8775@attbi_s53...
>> You know what I realized? They are ALL good. heck I 've even bought a
>> scooter.
>
> I was with you, man, all the way up to this point.
>
> You bought a *scooter*? What were you thinking?
>
> ;-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> WHA? zipping around NYC on an Road King is kinda fun, but at times a
> chore. Head down Park Ave. on a Scaraebo... WooHoO!!
> anyway, didn't last very long. It couldn't hack the long hauls, and
> neither could my backside on that thing. :)

My Gold Wing is a terrific cruise for riding I-80 out to the Black Hills --
but it really, really sucks if you just want to bop on down to a convenience
store. I've often thought a scooter would be a fun little thing to own.

Are they still so danged teetery? The last time I rode one I was scared
shi*less. I couldn't get out of my own way, and felt like I was going to
dump it at every opportunity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jack Allison]

Dave wrote:
> This thread sounds remarkably similar to discussions I had about
> motorcycles.
> Sportbikes vs cruisers, Harleys Vs. Imports.
> Funny thing was, after riding for 20 years, off and on at times, I would
> occasionally get the bug a by an old bike for $1200.
> whatever was available, I bought it just because I had to ride.
>
> You know what I realized? They are ALL good.

True Dave...I'd be happy with a nice C-172, Cherokee, whatever. So long
as I can afford it and it's in decent condition, I'll take it.
> When I finally get my private license I don't think I would ever want to get
> wrapped up in what is best. I'd be looking forward to what is next.

Definitely agree. Whatever is next is what I'm after. I started out
researching Cardinals and I really like them. My partnership morphed
into a potential Cherokee deal and I was happy with that prospect. The
change to an Arrow is even better. I'm really after my first complex
single so whether the wing is on the top or bottom, it's all logs as
complex time.

>
> I will say this though, I am training in a high wing, but I expect a low
> wing in my future, perhaps a Tiger. I can't wait for the transition.
>

I found the transition to an Archer for my instrument lessons to be a
nice change. As my CFI from my PPL days once told me, anytime you get a
chance to fly something new/different, take advantage of the opportunity.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student, Student Arrow Buyer

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jay Honeck]

>> You know what I realized? They are ALL good.
>
> True Dave...I'd be happy with a nice C-172, Cherokee, whatever. So long
> as I can afford it and it's in decent condition, I'll take it.

While we all felt that way at first, Jack, I think some of us are trying to
save you from the learning curve that goes with buying that first plane.

My experience seems to be all too typical. We truly thought we'd be happy
with our Warrior forever. I lavished money on it, fixed it up to the "nth"
degree, and -- just four years later -- had to sell it, because my kids were
getting too big.

Well, "had to" is a bit strong -- we could have made do with it. But 300
fpm climb on a hot summer day, and having to stop for fuel on our way to OSH
proved that we had reached the practical limits of a 150 horsepower engine
with four people aboard.

I would have been SO much better off financially, in the long run, to have
bought a Pathfinder/Dakota/Skylane back in '98, rather than taking the
interim step with buying the Warrior. But who knew? I'd never heard of
Usenet, and had no idea that there were so many valuable aircraft ownership
resources available online.

Now, you do. And the Arrow should keep you happy for a long while!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jack Allison]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> While we all felt that way at first, Jack, I think some of us are trying to
> save you from the learning curve that goes with buying that first plane.

And I definitely appreciate it.

> -- had to sell it, because my kids were getting too big.

Hey, I won't have that excuse...done having kids, they're already too
big :-)

> Now, you do. And the Arrow should keep you happy for a long while!

Given my longer term aviation goals, I know I'll be happier/more
satisfied with the Arrow vs. a C-172/Cherokee class plane. If, however,
it proved that I couldn't swing something like the Arrow due to
acquisition cost, higher insurance, etc. and had to settle for something
more basic, I'd be ok with it. I'm just happy that things are working
out with the partnership and airplane in the works.

Of course, the big question for this year just may become where to park
at Oshkosh...North-40 or Vintage? :-)

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student, Piper Arrow purchasing student

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jay Honeck]

> Of course, the big question for this year just may become where to park at
> Oshkosh...North-40 or Vintage? :-)

Now I may get lambasted for this, but I still don't feel that it's "right"
to park a Piper Arrow in the Vintage section -- even if, technically, it's
old enough.

Call me a purist, but there's just something wrong with parking a plane that
looks exactly like a current-production aircraft (because, well, it IS
identical) next to a classic old Navion or Comanche.

In a few years I suppose my Pathfinder will be eligible for "Classic"
parking -- but you'll still find me happily watching departures from my lawn
chair out in the North 40...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dave A.]

> Are they still so danged teetery? The last time I rode one I was scared
> shi*less. I couldn't get out of my own way, and felt like I was going to
> dump it at every opportunity.
> --
> Jay Honeck

The big difference is that on your Gold Wing you can psychologically feel
safer because you can squeeze your knees together and feel like you are
hanging on somehow. You can't do that on a scooter. Put a knee out in any
way and you think you can fall right off it.
But in reality they both work exactly the same.

--
Dave A
Aging Student Pilot


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:vn6Jd.26240$OF5.22185@attbi_s52...
>> WHA? zipping around NYC on an Road King is kinda fun, but at times a
>> chore. Head down Park Ave. on a Scaraebo... WooHoO!!
>> anyway, didn't last very long. It couldn't hack the long hauls, and
>> neither could my backside on that thing. :)
>
> My Gold Wing is a terrific cruise for riding I-80 out to the Black
> Hills -- but it really, really sucks if you just want to bop on down to a
> convenience store. I've often thought a scooter would be a fun little
> thing to own.
>

> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jack Allison]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Now I may get lambasted for this

What? You getting flamed? :-)

> Call me a purist, but there's just something wrong with parking a plane that
> looks exactly like a current-production aircraft (because, well, it IS
> identical) next to a classic old Navion or Comanche.

Hmmm, interesting point Jay. Might there be some nasty backlash form
the "pure" vintage crowd? Good question to ponder over the next six
months :-) Hey, at least it's not an Arrow IV with, IMHO, the extremely
goofy looking T-tail.

Actually, that would be an interesting topic to hear from folks on both
sides of the fence. Perhaps a future post.

>
> In a few years I suppose my Pathfinder will be eligible for "Classic"
> parking -- but you'll still find me happily watching departures from my lawn
> chair out in the North 40...

That's one aspect of the North-40 that, IMHO, is *very* compelling.
While being more centrally located in a place like Vintage sounds good,
there's just something about kicking back in the morning/evening
watching departures and arrivals that makes camping with everyone in the
North-40 a ton of fun.

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student, Student Arrow Buyer

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Paul Missman]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Paul Missman wrote:
>> I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
>> training.
>>
>> Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
>>
>> My reasons are as follows:
>>
>>
>> You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.
>>
>> You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.
>>
>> Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
>> crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer
>> to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing
>> than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary
>> with the exact aircraft under comparison.)
>
> How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
> cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
> wing is located.
>
>
> Matt

That's why I said that it will vary with the aircraft under comparison. My
low wing has a fairly small crosswind area and excellent visibility. There
are low wings that have poor forward visibility also, but I think that, in
the trainer class, many of the low wings have better forward visibility than
many of the high wings.

I'm going to do a little speculation on why I think low wings, in general,
seem to handle better in crosswind situations. In a high wing plane, the
crosswind component passes under the wing, unimpeded, and on top, what dams
up against the airframe pushes down on the top of the wing. In a high wing,
the crosswind component passes, unimpeded, over the wing, while, under the
wing, it dams up against the airframe, increasing lift. This is probably
made worse in gusty conditions, and mitigated in steady state conditions.
If I have to land in gusty, crosswind conditions, I'll take a something like
a Cherokee over something like a 172 any day of the week.

What I've said is based on my experience. Your experience may be different,
and will certainly vary with the exact aircraft you are comparing.

In the end, some folks will buy a Corvette, and some will buy a Porsche.
For certain, they will handle differently. In both cases, the drivers will
learn how each handles, and learn to push the strengths, while compensating
for the weaknesses.

Paul

[Paul Missman]

Edited out mistake. See below.

Paul

"Paul Missman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Paul Missman wrote:
>>> I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
>>> training.
>>>
>>> Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
>>>
>>> My reasons are as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.
>>>
>>> You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.
>>>
>>> Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
>>> crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer
>>> to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing
>>> than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary
>>> with the exact aircraft under comparison.)
>>
>> How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
>> cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
>> wing is located.
>>
>>
>> Matt
>
> That's why I said that it will vary with the aircraft under comparison.
> My low wing has a fairly small crosswind area and excellent visibility.
> There are low wings that have poor forward visibility also, but I think
> that, in the trainer class, many of the low wings have better forward
> visibility than many of the high wings.
>
> I'm going to do a little speculation on why I think low wings, in general,
> seem to handle better in crosswind situations. *OOPS* SHOULD BE "LOW WING"
> In a high wing plane, the crosswind component passes under the wing,
> unimpeded, and on top, what dams up against the airframe pushes down on
> the top of the wing. In a high wing, the crosswind component passes,
> unimpeded, over the wing, while, under the wing, it dams up against the
> airframe, increasing lift. This is probably made worse in gusty
> conditions, and mitigated in steady state conditions. If I have to land in
> gusty, crosswind conditions, I'll take a something like a Cherokee over
> something like a 172 any day of the week.
>
> What I've said is based on my experience. Your experience may be
> different, and will certainly vary with the exact aircraft you are
> comparing.
>
> In the end, some folks will buy a Corvette, and some will buy a Porsche.
> For certain, they will handle differently. In both cases, the drivers
> will learn how each handles, and learn to push the strengths, while
> compensating for the weaknesses.
>
> Paul
>
>
>

[Dave]

Agree here Paul..

We own a 172..and really like the aircraft

But, I woudd NEVER attempt some of the crosswind operations
that I did in Warriors and Comanches with our Cessna.

Landing gear that are on low wing aircraft are shorter, wider
stance and usually stronger, and the vertical center of gravity is
closer to the ground contact point of a low wing aircraft.

Our Cessna ground handles like a bar stool (in comparison) in
a strong wind.

I have done croswind operations in winds that I would think
twice about taxing our 172 in......

The physics are open to interpretation, but the results on the
airframe differ significantly when felt (by me) in the pilots seat of
similar ( weight/size/power) high wing vs low wing aircraft .

YMMV! :)

Dave

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:09:22 -0500, "Paul Missman" >
wrote:

>Edited out mistake. See below.
>
>Paul
>
>"Paul Missman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Paul Missman wrote:
>>>> I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
>>>> training.
>>>>
>>>> Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
>>>>
>>>> My reasons are as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.
>>>>
>>>> You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.
>>>>
>>>> Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
>>>> crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer
>>>> to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing
>>>> than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary
>>>> with the exact aircraft under comparison.)
>>>
>>> How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
>>> cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
>>> wing is located.
>>>
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> That's why I said that it will vary with the aircraft under comparison.
>> My low wing has a fairly small crosswind area and excellent visibility.
>> There are low wings that have poor forward visibility also, but I think
>> that, in the trainer class, many of the low wings have better forward
>> visibility than many of the high wings.
>>
>> I'm going to do a little speculation on why I think low wings, in general,
>> seem to handle better in crosswind situations. *OOPS* SHOULD BE "LOW WING"
>> In a high wing plane, the crosswind component passes under the wing,
>> unimpeded, and on top, what dams up against the airframe pushes down on
>> the top of the wing. In a high wing, the crosswind component passes,
>> unimpeded, over the wing, while, under the wing, it dams up against the
>> airframe, increasing lift. This is probably made worse in gusty
>> conditions, and mitigated in steady state conditions. If I have to land in
>> gusty, crosswind conditions, I'll take a something like a Cherokee over
>> something like a 172 any day of the week.
>>
>> What I've said is based on my experience. Your experience may be
>> different, and will certainly vary with the exact aircraft you are
>> comparing.
>>
>> In the end, some folks will buy a Corvette, and some will buy a Porsche.
>> For certain, they will handle differently. In both cases, the drivers
>> will learn how each handles, and learn to push the strengths, while
>> compensating for the weaknesses.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[[email protected]]

On the other side, I used to own a tripacer and now own a bonanza and
would take the tripacer in higher crosswinds than i would ever take the
bonanza in.
Maybe it's the piper product that does good in x-winds.

dave



Dave wrote:
> Agree here Paul..
>
> We own a 172..and really like the aircraft
>
> But, I woudd NEVER attempt some of the crosswind operations
> that I did in Warriors and Comanches with our Cessna.
>
> Landing gear that are on low wing aircraft are shorter, wider
> stance and usually stronger, and the vertical center of gravity is
> closer to the ground contact point of a low wing aircraft.
>
> Our Cessna ground handles like a bar stool (in comparison) in
> a strong wind.
>
> I have done croswind operations in winds that I would think
> twice about taxing our 172 in......
>
> The physics are open to interpretation, but the results on the
> airframe differ significantly when felt (by me) in the pilots seat of
> similar ( weight/size/power) high wing vs low wing aircraft .
>
> YMMV! :)
>
> Dave
>
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:09:22 -0500, "Paul Missman" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Edited out mistake. See below.
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>"Paul Missman" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>Paul Missman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
>>>>>training.
>>>>>
>>>>>Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
>>>>>
>>>>>My reasons are as follows:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.
>>>>>
>>>>>Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
>>>>>crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer
>>>>>to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing
>>>>>than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary
>>>>>with the exact aircraft under comparison.)
>>>>
>>>>How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
>>>>cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
>>>>wing is located.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>That's why I said that it will vary with the aircraft under comparison.
>>>My low wing has a fairly small crosswind area and excellent visibility.
>>>There are low wings that have poor forward visibility also, but I think
>>>that, in the trainer class, many of the low wings have better forward
>>>visibility than many of the high wings.
>>>
>>>I'm going to do a little speculation on why I think low wings, in general,
>>>seem to handle better in crosswind situations. *OOPS* SHOULD BE "LOW WING"
>>>In a high wing plane, the crosswind component passes under the wing,
>>>unimpeded, and on top, what dams up against the airframe pushes down on
>>>the top of the wing. In a high wing, the crosswind component passes,
>>>unimpeded, over the wing, while, under the wing, it dams up against the
>>>airframe, increasing lift. This is probably made worse in gusty
>>>conditions, and mitigated in steady state conditions. If I have to land in
>>>gusty, crosswind conditions, I'll take a something like a Cherokee over
>>>something like a 172 any day of the week.
>>>
>>>What I've said is based on my experience. Your experience may be
>>>different, and will certainly vary with the exact aircraft you are
>>>comparing.
>>>
>>>In the end, some folks will buy a Corvette, and some will buy a Porsche.
>>>For certain, they will handle differently. In both cases, the drivers
>>>will learn how each handles, and learn to push the strengths, while
>>>compensating for the weaknesses.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[Dave]

Hmmm..

......never flew a Bo...

But the smaller stubby wings of a Tripacer and the stout gear
could contribute immeasureably to the stable feeling of the Tripacer
in winds..

I can see how that could be...

Anybody else out there with any comments?

Dave



..On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:19:22 -0600, wrote:

>On the other side, I used to own a tripacer and now own a bonanza and
>would take the tripacer in higher crosswinds than i would ever take the
>bonanza in.
>Maybe it's the piper product that does good in x-winds.
>
>dave
>
>
>
>Dave wrote:
>> Agree here Paul..
>>
>> We own a 172..and really like the aircraft
>>
>> But, I woudd NEVER attempt some of the crosswind operations
>> that I did in Warriors and Comanches with our Cessna.
>>
>> Landing gear that are on low wing aircraft are shorter, wider
>> stance and usually stronger, and the vertical center of gravity is
>> closer to the ground contact point of a low wing aircraft.
>>
>> Our Cessna ground handles like a bar stool (in comparison) in
>> a strong wind.
>>
>> I have done croswind operations in winds that I would think
>> twice about taxing our 172 in......
>>
>> The physics are open to interpretation, but the results on the
>> airframe differ significantly when felt (by me) in the pilots seat of
>> similar ( weight/size/power) high wing vs low wing aircraft .
>>
>> YMMV! :)
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:09:22 -0500, "Paul Missman" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Edited out mistake. See below.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>"Paul Missman" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>Paul Missman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
>>>>>>training.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My reasons are as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
>>>>>>crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer
>>>>>>to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing
>>>>>>than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary
>>>>>>with the exact aircraft under comparison.)
>>>>>
>>>>>How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
>>>>>cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
>>>>>wing is located.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Matt
>>>>
>>>>That's why I said that it will vary with the aircraft under comparison.
>>>>My low wing has a fairly small crosswind area and excellent visibility.
>>>>There are low wings that have poor forward visibility also, but I think
>>>>that, in the trainer class, many of the low wings have better forward
>>>>visibility than many of the high wings.
>>>>
>>>>I'm going to do a little speculation on why I think low wings, in general,
>>>>seem to handle better in crosswind situations. *OOPS* SHOULD BE "LOW WING"
>>>>In a high wing plane, the crosswind component passes under the wing,
>>>>unimpeded, and on top, what dams up against the airframe pushes down on
>>>>the top of the wing. In a high wing, the crosswind component passes,
>>>>unimpeded, over the wing, while, under the wing, it dams up against the
>>>>airframe, increasing lift. This is probably made worse in gusty
>>>>conditions, and mitigated in steady state conditions. If I have to land in
>>>>gusty, crosswind conditions, I'll take a something like a Cherokee over
>>>>something like a 172 any day of the week.
>>>>
>>>>What I've said is based on my experience. Your experience may be
>>>>different, and will certainly vary with the exact aircraft you are
>>>>comparing.
>>>>
>>>>In the end, some folks will buy a Corvette, and some will buy a Porsche.
>>>>For certain, they will handle differently. In both cases, the drivers
>>>>will learn how each handles, and learn to push the strengths, while
>>>>compensating for the weaknesses.
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

[[email protected]]

Also, thinking a little more about it, In the high wing you can see how
high your wingtip is above the ground when your landing on two wheels
because of the crosswind.
In the Bo, you don't have the same picture. you can't see if your going
to dig that tip into the turf.
Dave

Dave wrote:
> Hmmm..
>
> ......never flew a Bo...
>
> But the smaller stubby wings of a Tripacer and the stout gear
> could contribute immeasureably to the stable feeling of the Tripacer
> in winds..
>
> I can see how that could be...
>
> Anybody else out there with any comments?
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> .On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:19:22 -0600, wrote:
>
>
>>On the other side, I used to own a tripacer and now own a bonanza and
>>would take the tripacer in higher crosswinds than i would ever take the
>>bonanza in.
>>Maybe it's the piper product that does good in x-winds.
>>
>>dave
>>
>>
>>
>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>>Agree here Paul..
>>>
>>> We own a 172..and really like the aircraft
>>>
>>> But, I woudd NEVER attempt some of the crosswind operations
>>>that I did in Warriors and Comanches with our Cessna.
>>>
>>> Landing gear that are on low wing aircraft are shorter, wider
>>>stance and usually stronger, and the vertical center of gravity is
>>>closer to the ground contact point of a low wing aircraft.
>>>
>>> Our Cessna ground handles like a bar stool (in comparison) in
>>>a strong wind.
>>>
>>> I have done croswind operations in winds that I would think
>>>twice about taxing our 172 in......
>>>
>>> The physics are open to interpretation, but the results on the
>>>airframe differ significantly when felt (by me) in the pilots seat of
>>>similar ( weight/size/power) high wing vs low wing aircraft .
>>>
>>> YMMV! :)
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:09:22 -0500, "Paul Missman" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Edited out mistake. See below.
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>>"Paul Missman" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Paul Missman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
>>>>>>>training.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My reasons are as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
>>>>>>>crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer
>>>>>>>to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing
>>>>>>>than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary
>>>>>>>with the exact aircraft under comparison.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
>>>>>>cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
>>>>>>wing is located.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Matt
>>>>>
>>>>>That's why I said that it will vary with the aircraft under comparison.
>>>>>My low wing has a fairly small crosswind area and excellent visibility.
>>>>>There are low wings that have poor forward visibility also, but I think
>>>>>that, in the trainer class, many of the low wings have better forward
>>>>>visibility than many of the high wings.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm going to do a little speculation on why I think low wings, in general,
>>>>>seem to handle better in crosswind situations. *OOPS* SHOULD BE "LOW WING"
>>>>>In a high wing plane, the crosswind component passes under the wing,
>>>>>unimpeded, and on top, what dams up against the airframe pushes down on
>>>>>the top of the wing. In a high wing, the crosswind component passes,
>>>>>unimpeded, over the wing, while, under the wing, it dams up against the
>>>>>airframe, increasing lift. This is probably made worse in gusty
>>>>>conditions, and mitigated in steady state conditions. If I have to land in
>>>>>gusty, crosswind conditions, I'll take a something like a Cherokee over
>>>>>something like a 172 any day of the week.
>>>>>
>>>>>What I've said is based on my experience. Your experience may be
>>>>>different, and will certainly vary with the exact aircraft you are
>>>>>comparing.
>>>>>
>>>>>In the end, some folks will buy a Corvette, and some will buy a Porsche.
>>>>>For certain, they will handle differently. In both cases, the drivers
>>>>>will learn how each handles, and learn to push the strengths, while
>>>>>compensating for the weaknesses.
>>>>>
>>>>>Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

[Roger]

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:15:55 -0500, Matt Whiting
> wrote:

>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>I'm only 5' 2" and need 2" cushions to see over the cowling and to
>>>reach the pedals in both high wings (150/152/172/177, Champ) and low
>>>wing (Tiger). I don't recall ever losing sight of the runway turning
>>>base to final either.
>>
>>
>> Interesting. When I fly a high wing, the runway always disappears in
>> turns. (I'm 6' tall.)
>
>Where does the runway go when you are turning? :-) I've never come
>across a runway that can disappear like that.

It hides behind the wing.

The only high wing I've flown where I could see the runway when
turning final was a Cardinal. OTOH it isn't going any place and I
know where it was and where it will appear so that really isn't a
problem.

Both High and low wing aircraft hive blind spots. The only time it
gets dicey is when each is in the other's blind spot.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>
>Matt

[Roger]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:20:44 GMT, "Hilton" >
wrote:

>jsmith wrote:
>> Two things to reduce "float" on landing...
>> 1.) slow down
>> 2.) after roundout, take out one notch of flaps while pulling the yoke
>> back to maintain pitch attitude.
>
>No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no... Sorry, the complex CFI in me just kicked
>in.

I think the AirSafety foundation might have a few comments about
taking out flaps before getting the wheels down<:-))

There is one fool proof way to reduce, or eliminate float. Fly the
proper airspeed! <:-)) "and the proper angle" for the type of landing.

Even in the old Johnson Bar flap Cherokee 180s you took the flaps out
*after* the wheels were down.

Taking flaps out while low and slow above the runway is a really good
way to break something.

I saw six guys in a Cherokee 6 come in on a spot landing contest at
HTL some years back. They dumped the flaps over the tape, but
unfortunately they were a couple a feet up. It was a terrible sound.
Yes, it definitely eliminated float. The FBO wanted to look at the
plane before they left. (They really did hit hard enough there was
some discussion as to whether it might have done something
undesirable)

Remember they did this with all 6 seats full. Had it been the pilot
alone it wouldn't have been quite so rough, but still unadvisable.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Hilton
>

[Matt Whiting]

Roger wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:15:55 -0500, Matt Whiting
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I'm only 5' 2" and need 2" cushions to see over the cowling and to
>>>>reach the pedals in both high wings (150/152/172/177, Champ) and low
>>>>wing (Tiger). I don't recall ever losing sight of the runway turning
>>>>base to final either.
>>>
>>>
>>>Interesting. When I fly a high wing, the runway always disappears in
>>>turns. (I'm 6' tall.)
>>
>>Where does the runway go when you are turning? :-) I've never come
>>across a runway that can disappear like that.
>
>
> It hides behind the wing.
>
> The only high wing I've flown where I could see the runway when
> turning final was a Cardinal. OTOH it isn't going any place and I
> know where it was and where it will appear so that really isn't a
> problem.

That is my point. The runway doesn't go anywhere when the wing hides it.

Matt