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
|
|||
|
|||
xyzzy wrote:
There is no "slip with flaps" or not controversy in a low-wing plane. What controversy? You can do it if it isn't prohibilted. I don't know about all Cessna models, but I don't think that all have this prohibition. Matt |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote: xyzzy wrote: There is no "slip with flaps" or not controversy in a low-wing plane. What controversy? You can do it if it isn't prohibilted. I don't know about all Cessna models, but I don't think that all have this prohibition. None do. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Check the C172 manual under EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.
Some models contain a caution/warning against slipping with 30 degrees of flaps. xyzzy wrote: There is no "slip with flaps" or not controversy in a low-wing plane. Matt Whiting wrote: What controversy? You can do it if it isn't prohibilted. I don't know about all Cessna models, but I don't think that all have this prohibition. Newps wrote: None do. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
jsmith wrote:
Check the C172 manual under EMERGENCY PROCEDURES. Some models contain a caution/warning against slipping with 30 degrees of flaps. I'm quite sure newps knows that and was making the point that a caution/warning does not a prohibition make. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
xyzzy wrote:
Better sightseeing in a low-wing plane. I feel just the opposite. Unless you are star gazing, it is much easier to see the ground in a high-wing and much easier to take pictures. I had a heck of a time taking pictures of my house in the Arrow. Matt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote:
xyzzy wrote: Better sightseeing in a low-wing plane. I feel just the opposite. Unless you are star gazing, it is much easier to see the ground in a high-wing and much easier to take pictures. I had a heck of a time taking pictures of my house in the Arrow. Matt You're right, I typed it wrong. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
All:
Thanks for the input. So far, with the few hours I have in an Archer, I've found the transition pretty simple. There are things I like better, things I don't like as much when comparing to a Cessna. Mostly, just annoyance level stuff that I'll get over (especially once I join the ranks of owner). Things from misc. replies: - Jay H - Definitely agree on the panel height of a C-182. I'm 6 feet tall and when I've flown a newer C-182 with my brother, I felt short, even with the seat all the way up. Way different than a C-172. I can hardly imagine Mary being able to see much over the panel. - Aaron C. - Nope, 1967 is the first year for the Arrow. Not something I knew a couple weeks ago. - Adam - Hmmm, I'll have to keep the gear stance thing in mind should I ever be taxiing with snow on the ramp (not something I have to deal with here in the CA central valley). Oh, and as for what I'd enjoy about the Arrow...yep, speed is one thing. Others include that funny lever that makes those cute little green lights go on and off, the cool looking blue lever in the middle of the throttle quadrant, the cool factor of the 3-blade prop conversion...ok, back to reality :-) -- 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) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Jack Allison" wrote in message news:csjun0$sr9 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? Jack, I have mostly flown C-172's, but have flown a Cherokee for a few hours. Being so used to the Cessnas, it would be reasonable to think that flying the Cherokee would be hard to get used to. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I really liked it. Here are some random thoughts: I like manual flaps, a lot. Once I flew an older C-172 that had manual flaps and loved it. The Cherokee had manual flaps too. One major difference I found is that when you lower flaps in the C-172, the nose goes up, but in the Cherokee, the tail goes up. The Cherokee had much rougher ride while taxiing, kind of wallowed and rocked side to side. Also, a stiffer jolt on landing. Could be the pilot's fault on that one. My major gripe: The single door on the Cherokee. Couldn't stand it, but it's not a deal breaker. I do have a concern about safety and egress. In CAP, we practice egress from C-172's and C-182's. We can clear the plane with 4 pax in about 13 seconds. In a single door plane this would be considerably longer. Also, what if that one door was to jam in a crash? Sometimes those doors don't seal so well either since they are much more complex than the C-172's doors. A minor detail, but one that could get on your nerves and wallet. The Cherokee seemed to turn better than the C-172. I don't know exactly why, but it just seemed to fly a little better and easier, a little crisper. More natural coordination? Also, I liked the increased visibility while turning. The Cherokee had a engine cowling that opened completely up so that I could inspect the engine visually. I liked that a whole lot more than the little inspection port on the C-172. I like the thought of a gravity-fed fuel system rather than a pump system. Also, there's no need to switch tanks on the C-172. I like to fly for the scenic value and the C-172 has a better view of the ground. The cabin had a bigger feel in the C-172, but the instrument panel was lower in the Cherokee. Low wingers generally look better aesthetically, but high wingers stay cooler in the summer because of the extra shade. The C-172's doors and windows allow the cockpit to cool off quicker if it does get hot. As a designer, I appreciate aesthetics, but I also appreciate functional design. Functional designs are beautiful to me. All in all, there's no clear winner for me. That been said, I think the high wing scheme wins by a nose for me. HTH, -Trent PP-ASEL |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I like the high-wing for my fun flying since I can get better camera shots
on my trips of the scenery below, without that big wing in the way... Also, I like the idea that the C172 has two doors to the Arrow III's (not counting the 'emergency' baggage compartment door g) one door (which to me seems pretty prone to getting stuck in an accident - Cessna doors you can wedge open with a coat,,, not so sure that one can do that with an Arrow III. By the way,,, congrats on getting ready to join the aircraft owners 'club'.... Someday, for me,,, for certain.... :0) -- -- =----- Good Flights! Cecil PP-ASEL-IA Student - CP-ASEL Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond! Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery - "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet" - Cecil Day Lewis - |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after training. Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to. My reasons are as follows: You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank. You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern. Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary with the exact aircraft under comparison.) Not as susceptable to launching itself into the air during flare if the landing is a bit hot. (Though this will also vary somewhat with the aircraft under comparison.) More stable during taxi operations on windy days. Better forward visibility in flight and during flare. (This will, also, vary with the models under comparison.) Easier to de-ice/de-frost the wings. Easier to wash the aircraft. Though the low wing took some getting used to, I don't believe I'd want to go back without some great finincial incentive. (As in, I probably wouldn't turn down a free 182 in excellent condition.) Paul |
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 |