I just read the AOPA ePilot Flight Training Edition -- Vol. 4, Issue 4 from

"Roger Bartholomee" wrote:
The author says "It's important to leave a little slack in each
line, especially if you are expecting gusty wind conditions.
Slack will allow the airplane to move a little. Without any
slack, a strong gust could damage the airframe."

Utter bulls---.

AOPA should fix this.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

Plus the wind is less the closerit is to the ground because of friction.

Roger @ MD43 C150E


"Rick Durden" wrote in message
m...
Allen

Lets just say I've seen more than one Cessna flipped onto its back
when tie
downs failed in high winds.. But Pipers seem to stay upright.

I wondered about this.

I found that taxing a low wing is much easier to handle in high winds
situation. Is it because the CG is lower to the ground?

After all, the weight of the fuel is lower to the ground over the
wheels, thus harder to tip over?

A little too simplified. Low wing airplanes get blown over in high
winds as do high wing airplanes. Dihedral, direction and force of the
wing, width of the landing gear all play a role.

When taxiing, holding appropriate aileron and elevator deflection
makes a big difference. Doing it wrong on an extremely windy or gusty
day, combined with misue of the brakes which gets the airplane
rocking, can ruin things for you in almost any light airplane.

All the best,
Rick

I agree. Low wings ought to be taxed out of existence.

{;-)


Jim (manly high winger)

that's MANLY, not mainly.
-



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Taxes aren't needed. Just send a high-wing out after them

The Ultimate High-Wing = B-52!

- - -

Al Gilson
1964 Skyhawk 3082U


In article , wrote:

I agree. Low wings ought to be taxed out of existence.

{;-)


Jim (manly high winger)

that's MANLY, not mainly.

--
Al Gilson
Spokane, WA USA
1970 VW Convertible
1964 Cessna Skyhawk

Gene Kearns wrote:

why the hell would *anybody* want to own a low wing aircraft,
anyway????

You gotta admit that retractable gear works a lot prettier in one of those.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Gene Kearns wrote:

why the hell would *anybody* want to own a low wing aircraft,
anyway????

You gotta admit that retractable gear works a lot prettier in one of
those.

Which begs the question.....why would anybody want to hide perfectly working
landing gear?


George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way
that
you look forward to the trip.

If you are asking for serious...there are as many aerodynamic and aesthetic
reasons for using the low wing configuration as there are for the high wing
configuration. The list would be endless of the advantages/disadvantages of one
over the other.

If you are asking for comic...people who have to squat to pee feel better with
their fanny over a sheet of aluminum rather than open air.

Jim


"Gene Kearns"
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-
-why the hell would *anybody* want to own a low wing aircraft,
-anyway????

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

In article ,
Jim Weir wrote:

If you are asking for comic...people who have to squat to pee feel better with
their fanny over a sheet of aluminum rather than open air.

It took me a long time to realize you didn't mean WHILE PEEING.

Whew!

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Gene Kearns wrote:
why the hell would *anybody* want to own a low wing aircraft,
anyway????

You gotta admit that retractable gear works a lot prettier in one of those.

And it's usually easier to get out in style after you ditch in the water

Cheers, Kev

A Lieberman wrote in message ...

I found that taxing a low wing is much easier to handle in high winds
situation. Is it because the CG is lower to the ground?

After all, the weight of the fuel is lower to the ground over the
wheels, thus harder to tip over?


Lower CG is part of it. The weight of not only the fuel, but the
wing spar and internal structure significantly contributes to the
lower CG. The other part is that the gear stance is usually wider on
a low wing, since it is often attached to the wing spar instead of the
fuselage. The triangle formed by the nose, left and right wheel is
wider and less prone to tip to one side or the other.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)