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

-Cory


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

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

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



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