A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

High wing vs low wing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 6th 04, 11:40 AM
temp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default High wing vs low wing

I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
here you go again.

I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always
crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been
in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on
the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a
Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was
a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when
you wish to look straight down.

I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but
their other limitations just won't work for me.


  #2  
Old June 6th 04, 01:54 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No such thing as "better" unless you define it. As you know, high-wings have
better air-ground visibility, and low-wings better air-air. Many low-wings'
visibilities aren't too bad from the front seat. Low wings will have a bit more
ground-effect than high wings, but aren't as happy in grass strips. If the low-wing
you are getting is Cherokee-flavored, the biggest difference you'll notice between it
and the C152 is the wing airfoil characteristics. Doesn't glide as well as the
Cessna, but in-flight and stalls much more benign. As usual, "it depends..."

-Cory


temp wrote:
: I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
: here you go again.

: I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always
: crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been
: in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on
: the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a
: Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was
: a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when
: you wish to look straight down.

: I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
: better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but
: their other limitations just won't work for me.



--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

  #3  
Old June 7th 04, 01:57 AM
PaulH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Not sure what you're planning to buy. The Cherokees don't glide well
but one thing I like about them in a high density airport is just
that: you can arrive well above the commercial glide slope and do the
crowbar descent and avoid mixing with wake turbulence. But it's a
matter of what fits your flying style. At uncontrolled airports, you
want to enter the pattern low to increase the chances that unannounced
high wing traffic will be above you.
  #4  
Old June 7th 04, 02:06 AM
G.R. Patterson III
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



temp wrote:

I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
better.


You want consensus from usenet?????

Neither is "generally better". Each has advantages and disadvantages. It's just like
politics - pick your favorite complaint and vote for the other one.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.
  #5  
Old June 7th 04, 02:27 AM
Steven Barnes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"temp" wrote in message
...
I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it

so
here you go again.

I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that

always
crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has

been
in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns

on
the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a
Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best

was
a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction

when
you wish to look straight down.

I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view,

but
their other limitations just won't work for me.


I own a Cherokee 180 and am in a flying club with 2 Cessna's. For 90% of
my flying, I like the low wing. I can generally see the ground just fine.
For aerial photography, I use the high-wings. I guess I've got the best of
both worlds. True, the hershey bar wings don't glide that well, but when I
hit the power, all it wants to do is climb.


  #6  
Old June 7th 04, 05:14 PM
TTA Cherokee Driver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

temp wrote:

I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
here you go again.

I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always
crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been
in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on
the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a
Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was
a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when
you wish to look straight down.

I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but
their other limitations just won't work for me.


Most low-wings are harder to get into and out of than low-wings, because
they usually only have one door (on the passenger side). Of course this
doesn't apply to all of them, but it sure does for most piper and
Beechcraft low wings (some musketeers have pilot-side doors, but not all
of them).

It's not a picnic to get into the passenger side either if you aren't
pretty fit and flexible. Lots more climbing and stepping over or down
into. When I take my father flying, he really struggles to get into and
out of the cherokee, and since I have to be in before him (since there
is no door on the pilot's side) I can't help very much.

I fly low-wings because that's what my flying club has, but if I had my
druthers I'd still be flying 172's. YMMV, MHO, etc.

  #7  
Old June 8th 04, 02:55 AM
smackey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"temp" wrote in message ...
I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
here you go again.

I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always
crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has been
in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in turns on
the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis was a
Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The best was
a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big obstruction when
you wish to look straight down.

I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view, but
their other limitations just won't work for me.


This subject...again!!?? Gotta be a troll.
  #8  
Old June 8th 04, 03:47 AM
Rick Graves
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

temp wrote:

I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
here you go again.

I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always
crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has
been in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in
turns on the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis
was a Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The
best was a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big
obstruction when you wish to look straight down.

I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view,
but their other limitations just won't work for me.


I have owned and flown Piper 140s and 180s. I have also owned a C172 and was
a partner in a C182. For the last 16 years I have owned a 1974 C177B
(Cardinal). The visibility from the Cardinal is extraordinary. No struts to
obscure down or side. Great for photos (especially if you have a photo
window). And because the wing is farther aft on the fuselage than other
Cessnas, the upward visibility is virtually unobstructed. Now for the
bonus: there is probably no airplane short of a cabin class twin that is
easier to get into and out of than a Cardinal. Low to the ground. Big wide
doors. Too bad it doesn't go just a little faster and carry just a little
more weight. Oh well...

Rick Graves - N34759 - 1974 C177B
  #9  
Old June 8th 04, 06:17 AM
MikeM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

temp wrote:

I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
here you go again.


You ain't kidding...

A google groups search for " high low wing group:rec.aviation.* "
returned 13,800 hits.

Read all of them and then come back if you still have questions.

MikeM
  #10  
Old June 9th 04, 05:39 AM
JimT96309
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I have only about 360 hours, most in 152 & 172s. About 10 in 182, about 12 in
Warrior. My favorite is the Cessna 177 Cardinal. You sit forward in front of
the wing and have better vis in the turns, no strut, no obstruction looking
down. I wish I had my own! Heck, I wish I had any bird of my own. My problem
is I have a taste for an Arrow or 182 and a budget for a run out old 150
project with no radios.....ah well....
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fwd: [BD4] Source of HIGH CHTs on O-320 and O-360 FOUND! Bruce A. Frank Home Built 1 July 4th 04 07:28 PM
High Wing or Low Wing Bob Babcock Home Built 17 January 23rd 04 02:34 AM
End of High wing low wing search for me dan Home Built 7 January 11th 04 11:57 AM
Props and Wing Warping... was soaring vs. flaping Wright1902Glider Home Built 0 September 29th 03 03:40 PM
Wing Extensions Jay Home Built 22 July 27th 03 12:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.