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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
xyzzy wrote:
Low wing planes are slightly easier to land because of lower center of gravity, Why? ...more ground effect softening it There are so many other factors involved, even though this probably is somewhat true, it's impossible demonstrate - can you really tell when the induced drag lowers by a couple of % (the diff between a high-wing and low-wing). Also, nitpicking, but since ground effect causes a nose down pitching moment, you could argue it tends to 'harden' the landing. FWIW: I did my Private in a 172 - loved it. Did my Instrument in an Archer. Given that most mid-air accidents occur in or near a traffic pattern, I feel somewhat uncomfortable flying high-wing planes in the pattern where you have practically no visibility in the direction you're turning - a justification for turning steeper in the pattern in high-wingers??? (less time in the turn). I still fly 172s (I really like flying them), but I'm extra cautious and sometimes move my shoulder harness off my shoulder and lean way forward to try peer around the corner. Hilton |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Me? 1700 hrs over 42 years in 172 and Aeronca 15AC high wing. Pvt
ASEL&S with an unused instrument rating. I like the snow bank and dock clearance of high wings. If these are not an issue I'd say it is a tossup though. An aside of a tower operator - High wings fly tighter patterns. I've wondered if the incidence of getting lost under contact navigation might be higher for low wings? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Hilton wrote:
xyzzy wrote: Low wing planes are slightly easier to land because of lower center of gravity, Why? ...more ground effect softening it There are so many other factors involved, even though this probably is somewhat true, it's impossible demonstrate - can you really tell when the induced drag lowers by a couple of % (the diff between a high-wing and low-wing). Also, nitpicking, but since ground effect causes a nose down pitching moment, you could argue it tends to 'harden' the landing. Good point. My experiences are c172 and warrior. I just know that I float more in the Warrior, and that it's much easier to land smoother in the Warrior. I think low-wing definitely explains the float, but the smoother landing could very well be the inflated struts landing gear of the warrior vs. the stiffer legs on the 172. The highwing/lowwing probably is a smaller factor than that. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Hi Jack; (Bet nobody says hello to you walking up the steps to get on an airliner do they :-) Groan...If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that one. Certainly would get a more interesting response in the post-911 days, eh? :-) No, it's "Hello Jack", "Hey, Jack, hows it going"...er, something like that. I prefer to avoid the TSA cavity search just because someone says "Hi Jack" at an airport...though, that's not much of a problem since I don't fly commercially all that much. The whole thing about high wings and low wings is WAY over done. Yep, sort of like the proverbial Ford/Chevy debate. -- 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) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Aaron Coolidge wrote: BTW, I thought that 1968 was the first year for Arrows. It's a lot like cars. The first Arrows were built and sold in late '67 even though they belong to the '68 model year. What makes it more confusing is that airplane registration data is based on the "year of manufacture" not the model year. Lot's of Arrows show up in the registration database as '67 models, even though they are actually '68 models as far as appearance and equipment go (e.g. third side window). John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
One of the nice things about the Diamond Eclipse I rent is that
although it's a low wing it has great visibility. The wings are far enough back of the cockpit that you get excellent upward visibility and usable downward visibility as well. The picture is different from the 172 I learned on though, the forward window goes down lower. It makes a great sightseeing airplane! -Malcolm Teas |
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 |