If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
High wing to low wing converts...or, visa versa?
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) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
High wing vs low wing | temp | Owning | 11 | June 10th 04 02:36 AM |
High Wing or Low Wing | Bob Babcock | Home Built | 17 | January 23rd 04 01:34 AM |
End of High wing low wing search for me | dan | Home Built | 7 | January 11th 04 10:57 AM |
Canard planes swept wing outer VG's? | Paul Lee | Home Built | 8 | January 4th 04 08:10 PM |
Props and Wing Warping... was soaring vs. flaping | Wright1902Glider | Home Built | 0 | September 29th 03 03:40 PM |