High or low wing?

Wow! Thanks a lot guys, your responses really clear things up...
I get the feeling this has been discussed/debated/dueled over before.
I'll have to fly each when I've got the certificate...but have decided
already to stay away from the true high performance/complex aircraft
until I've got a few hundred hours under my belt.
As to the "doctor killer"...I think that applies more to the
egotistical specialties like surgery, and I'm just a poor country
radiologist.
Thanks again. CPW

As to the "doctor killer"...I think that applies more to the
egotistical specialties like surgery, and I'm just a poor country
radiologist.

Good one! ;-)

Actually, most doctors make great pilots. What kills 'em is the fact that
they are too busy to stay current, and they end up flying into conditions
that they are no longer able to handle.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Ever heard of the McDonnell F-15?

Neither the F-15 nor the F-14 are "high wing" aircraft.

Most of the fuselage, and all of the cockpit, are above the wing. I suppose
you could call them "mid-wings," if you wanted to split hairs, but in my
opinion if you step out of the cockpit ON TO the wing, it's a "low wing"
aircraft.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:KCpnc.11372$536.2196107@attbi_s03...

Neither the F-15 nor the F-14 are "high wing" aircraft.


Of course they are, don't be ridiculous.

C J Campbell wrote:
There are no low wing birds.

There aren't many with propellers, either.


All the best,


David

tony wrote:

Draining fuel from a highwinged airplane is easy to do, visually checking fuel
levels is easier in a low winged one.

High-wing pilots have permanent dents in their foreheads; low-wing pilots
have permanent mud and grease stains on their knees.


All the best,


David

Ray wrote:

Okay, so all kidding aside, what are the issues between high and low wings?
I know that in terms of flying, there are very few differences between your
average Cessna and Piper, but for higher performance aircraft, what are the
aerodynamic/design tradeoffs?

OK, if you want a serious answer rather than a punch line, here goes.

Typically, high-wing planes have struts bracking the wings, and those add
extra drag (some high wings, like the Cessna Cardinal, manage to avoid
struts) -- that drag can become very significant at higher speeds. On the
other hand, low-wing planes that want a lot of roll damping (such as
trainers) have to use a higher dihedral angle than high-wing planes, and
that also adds drag. If you want to build a high-performance,
highly-responsive plane (i.e. very little roll damping), a low wing is
probably the best choice, but I'm not an engineer or a scientist, so others
may step in to correct me.

High-wing planes are far better for bush work. The wings are less likely to
hit bushes, shrubs, fenceposts, and so on, and on floats, the high wings
will easily clear the dock. I'm happy to take my low-wing Piper Warrior
onto a well-maintained grass strip, but I won't land on a farmer's field
outside of an emergency. Of course, I wouldn't land a high-wing nosewheel
plane like a 172 or 182 on a farmer's field either -- high-wing or low-wing,
with a nosewheel you're only one gopher hole away from a prop strike and
engine teardown. Serious bush types around here (central Canada) normally
fly high-wing *tailwheel* planes like the Super Cub, C-180, C-182, DHC-2
(Beaver), etc. You can land and taxi those almost anywhere. High-wing
pilots also worry less about hitting a snowbank with a wingtip during the
winter -- that might be an advantage if you fly in snow country.

Low-wing planes are better for crosswind landings and taxiing, because the
wheels are considerably further apart than they can be on a high-wing
single. If you're flying mainly to paved airports or well-maintained grass
strips, that can be a measurable advantage.

Others have already mentioned visibility issues. High-wing planes give a
better view of the ground for backseat passengers, but low-wing planes give
the pilot better visibility of conflicting traffic in a turn. As a related
point, I have one daughter who gets motion sick easily, so I appreciate not
having to lift my inside wing to check for traffic before turning, the way I
would have to in a high wing. In a low-wing plane you can see the top of
the wing, which is where the ice can accumulate if you stumble into icing
conditions -- that can be a comfort if you fly IFR, but it's not a big deal.

High-wing planes can have a "both" position on the fuel selector, which
simplifies fuel management. Low-wing planes need to use pumps rather than
gravity, so they cannot have a "both" postition, and you have to manage the
fuel more actively: I'd guess that fuel-exhaustion accidents are more common
in low-wing planes (especially with renters who usually fly high-wing and
never touch the fuel selector), but I don't have the stats in front of me.

You can probably extrapolate the answers to these questions from what I've
written above:

Why are most of the more expensive private aircraft (cirrus, pilatus, pretty
much all multi engine and jet) low wings?

Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?

Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings, but all
airliners have low wings?

Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?

If you're doing most of your flying to proper airports (pavement or
well-maintained grass strips), just pick the plane you like best and don't
worry about the high-wing/low-wing thing. If you're going to do serious
bush work, fly a high-wing taildragger.


All the best,


David

Draining fuel from a highwinged airplane is easy to do, visually
checking fuel
levels is easier in a low winged one.

I suspect that someday, when I'm beyond my prime, and arthritis has crept
into my limbs, I'll be forced to buy one of those high-wing "retirement
planes"...

I won't like it as much -- but it'll beat being grounded...

It would be interesting to know the average age of the owners of high-wing
aircraft, versus low-wing. I wonder if it's significantly different?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bob Noel wrote:

My initial training was in 172's. Probably 75 hours of
my first 100 were in 172's. But I find it easier to get
in and out of a cherokee than the 172 (I've owned a cherokee
since 1994).

It's a tradeoff. With the PA-28 Cherokee, you get one very large door that
you have to climb up on the wing to get to; with the C-172, you get two tiny
doors close to the ground. I find it easier climbing down into my Warrior
through the big door then bending double to squeeze into the 172 under the
wing, but other people with different size/flexibility issues might find the
opposite.

I trained in 172's as well, and when I was first shopping, I wouldn't even
look at Cherokees because of the single-door thing. Finally, I actually
tried climbing into one, and that was so much easier (for me) that it got
rid of all my prejudices.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote in message
.rogers.com...
C J Campbell wrote:
There are no low wing birds.

There aren't many with propellers, either.


:-) You look kind of silly with that one on your head, though.