High or low wing?

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message Ever seen a bird with fixed-geometry
wings? A bird driven by a propellor?

Okay, in that case, I'll choose neither.
I'll go with a mid-wing design called an AEROSTAR!

D.

I think they can probably eke a Bonanza or Cirrus payment out of that each
month.

That's why the surgeons say " A hysterectomy a day keeps the boat on the bay."

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:KuBnc.60668$kh4.3755168@attbi_s52:

we've got to come up with SOMETHING good to argue about, don't we?

Do you mean to imply that we don't argue about every single thing that ever
comes up on this ng? Or did you mean to emphasize the word "good"?

Perhaps now would be a good time for an aircraft manufacturer to
introduce a new design "mid-wing" aircraft. Actually.. We have a few
that meet the bill.. The Velocity (so what if its a kit) comes to mind.
How does THAT figure into the grand scheme?

Dave

C. Paul Williams, MD wrote:

Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
newsgroup.
Thanks. CPW

Run a nicely profitable $60 million company and that income would not be
out
of line. :~)
Keep it profitable in hard times and a higher number is certainly
justified.

Agreed -- but, remember, George was referring to MIDDLE level managers
making that kind of money.

They're not running nuthin'...and there isn't a mid-level manager in the
world that is worth what my General Practioner makes.

Also, if I recall, George was in the telecommunications industry. With the
increased competition in that field, the profit margins are way down.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

John Price said that the question is usually settled the first time you try to set up
the lawn chairs in the shade of the wing at Sun'n Fun.

Right -- the fuel vent drips slowly onto the Cessna pilot as he sits there
under the wing, until someone comes up and asks for a light for a cigarette ...


All the best,


David

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

The wing spars have to pass through the fuselage. With a low-wing, that means a hump
in the floor. With a high-wing, that means a lwo ceiling at that point. Planes that
carry cargo would rather have a flat floor to ease loading. People, on the other
hand, will step over a hump in the floor and bang their heads on a drop in the
ceiling.

The spar is typically below the floor -- I don't have a hump on the floor of
my Cherokee, and I don't remember ever seeing one in an airliner. The cargo
handlers will might to worry about it in the airliner, of course.

Dunno about "cold weather" planes, but the high-altitude aircraft which come to my
mind are mid-wing aircraft; the U-2 and SR-71.

If a high-altitude plane is designed for ground surveillance, high wing
makes sense. "Cold weather" planes may refer to bush planes, which are also
high wing for obvious reasons.


All the best,


David

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

But when the fuel pump breaks, my engine keeps running.

Low-wing planes normally have an electric fuel pump to back up the pump
attached to the engine's accessory drive. Still, in this case, gravity is a
simpler and more elegant solution than an extra gadget.


All the best,


David

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

I doubt it. The 172 performs better on less power than a PA-28 from the same year.

Do you have a source for that? It happens that I have the PIM's (generic
POH's) on my shelf for the 1981 Skyhawk (the plane I did most of my
training) and the 1979 Piper Warrior II (the plane I own, though the same
numbers apply to the 1981 Warrior II). Both have a 160 hp O-320 Lycoming
engine. Here are the true airspeeds at 8,000 ft DA and 75% power:

Cessna 172P Skyhawk: 121 ktas
Piper Cherokee Warrior II: 127 ktas

I can vouch for at least 125 ktas in my not-quite-mint-condition Warrior II
at the appropriate density altitude and 75% power, so please, no nonsense
about that being an imaginary POH number. A member of the Piper list who is
a professional bizjet pilot and a Warrior II owner gets 126-127 ktas,
probably because he takes better care of his plane and rigs it more cleanly.
I didn't do enough cross-country in the 172P to establish whether it also
meets its POH numbers.

Note that the difference may be due to factors that have nothing to do with
high-wing vs. low-wing. For example, the Warrior has particularly efficient
wheel fairings -- if you remove them, you lose 7 ktas.


All the best,


David

Jay Honeck wrote:
Various resources on the 'net list a physician's average income as

ranging

anywhere from $129K to $255K annually.

That makes it about the same as mid-level managers at my former place of

employment.

Perhaps this is why they are no longer employing so many people?

When a business is paying mid-level managers what a physician averages in
salary, something is seriously amiss. Unless the company is making gold, or
selling crack, their profit margins aren't going to support such a salary
structure for long.

It probably varies in different parts of the country, but 129K is a
middle-of-middle class income for a lot of urban areas. In fact, a family
would probably struggle a fair bit with a single 129K/year income in areas
around NY/NJ, Boston/Cambridge, Seattle, San Francisco/San Jose, or Los
Angeles -- you're going to have to pay your senior managers more than that
if you want to keep them.

I'm not say that there are not a lot of people less well off who'd give
anything to make 129K/year -- and in Canada, where things are cheaper, that
still translates into a respectable almost-upper-middle-class salary in
Canadian dollars -- but for the better-off parts of the U.S., I don't think
129K/year really counts as "upper middle class", much less "rich". Many
years ago, doctors' incomes put them fairly high up the social scale; now
they're behind most other professions.


All the best,


David