High or low wing?

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"

"Jay Honeck" writes:

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.

And they're more likely to be able to afford more airplane than they
can fly than most of us are.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Jay

I had (he is now gone with his boots on in bed) a Doc (Flight Surgeon)
friend. Wife was widow of a Fighter Pilot friend of mine who bought
the farm in an early F-80 (small engine) taking off at Denver on a hot
day.

He (Doc) finished his tour and got out and located in Dallas. Family
was in Iowa and they wanted to take their children to see grandparents
over week ends. Helen got a PP in a 172 (all it takes is money).Then
they bought a Bo and continued flying and got her commercial and
Instrument. Joined the 99's and flew in the Powder Puff Derby's, etc.
High proficiency pilot.

After this, Ed got a doc's PP and they flew happily ever after.

Not only was he a good Doc but a smart one ) to make his wife the
FP. May he rest in peace.

Long story about him and his wife but not enough time or space to
write a book here )

Fly safe.

Big John


On Sun, 09 May 2004 12:32:02 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

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.

"C. Paul Williams, MD" wrote:

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

The term "doctor killer" comes from the fact that Beech aircraft are expensive to buy
and own and the Bonanza can easily get away from a pilot who's a bit rusty. Doctors
made up a disproportionate percentage of the ownership because they could afford the
plane. They also are extremely busy people and tended to not have enough time to fly
enough to handle the Bo safely, so they also made up a disproportionate percentage of
the accident statistics.

Whether you're a surgeon or a statistician, the plane will bite you if you don't keep
in practice. Being poor, on the other hand, would tend to steer you away from it
anyway.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

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

I wonder, for equal performance, if low winged airplanes aren't a bit more
efficient? My Mooney (an M20J) is really clean, I file for 150 kts (and get it)
while burning less than 9 gph at reasonable altitudes, and I don't know of a
high winded airplane that does that.

As for crosswind landings, the ground effect in a low winged airplane is much
more pronounced, I'm not sure they are easier in general to land. Its stalling
speed really increases dramatically from 5 feet AGL to 6 inches AGL. Of course,
touching down on the upwind wheel first puts that wing even closer to the
ground.

So, I recognize many of the disadvantages of low winged airplanes, but there's
this. In my particular one, thinking the thought and having the airplane
respond as if it was clairvoyant is something I've not found in high winged
airplanes (or other low winged ones, for that matter). Maybe it has more to do
with flying the same airplane for a long time.

Nah -- it's a Mooney.

tony wrote:

As for crosswind landings, the ground effect in a low winged airplane is much
more pronounced, I'm not sure they are easier in general to land.

The funny thing is that that's not the case for a Cherokee, at least not the
ones with the semi-tapered wing. I had some trouble transitioning from the
172 to the Warrior because I was used to the 172 gliding forever in ground
effect, while the Warrior will drop like a brick as the airspeed decays. I
don't know exactly what the aerodynamic explanation is -- perhaps the
Warrior has a slightly higher wing loading -- but I've heard of the same
experience from many other first-time Cherokee pilots as well.

The solution (for anyone interested) is either (a) add some power in the
flare to keep the nose up, or (b) keep your approach speed right to the
flare, rather than beginning a gradual roundout higher up like you would in
a 172.

I wonder if you're noticing the different ground-effect behaviour with the
Mooney not because the wings are low, but because the Mooney is such an
amazingly clean plane. I personally lust after a Mooney 201, which would
give me 165 ktas burning only a couple of GPH more than my Warrior at 126 ktas.


All the best,


David

tony wrote:

I wonder, for equal performance, if low winged airplanes aren't a bit more
efficient?

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

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

"C. Paul Williams, MD" wrote:

Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
aircraft and why?...

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.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

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