Accidents classified by high or low wing?

L

LandSickness

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
1,023
Display Name
Display name:
fri tale
With respect to the Cirrus SR22 and RV7a crashes this week, I want to extend my deepest condolences to the families affected.

I didn't want to litter the tribute threads with my question but I was wondering if someone could guide me to a resource that would show the percentages of plane crashes that are high wing versus low wing. I know there's not much in the way of glide ratio for low wing planes and I was just wondering if there is data somewhere that supports or rebuts the value of glide ratio in high wing planes. I'm not sure if the NTSB would break accidents down by high or low wing. I'd just like to see some statistics.

Again, my deepest condolences to the families and friends affected.
 
RV's have an excellent glide ratio and survivability landing / stall speed. None of that matters when you stall and hit the ground. :no:

Panic is the biggest enemy when the big fan quits. If you fly the plane to the ground and land your chances of survival are pretty good. Stall it 100' above the ground, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Is that an accurate statement? That low wing planes don't have much of a glide ratio.... as opposed to high wings that is? I had not heard that.
 
I honestly don't know. What I should have said was that I never hear glide ratio discussed with respect to low wing planes. I've heard people describe Cessnas as "kite like" especially in ground effect. Just curious if one wing orientation is statistically more dangerous than the other.

AdamZ said:
Is that an accurate statement? That low wing planes don't have much of a glide ratio.... as opposed to high wings that is? I had not heard that.
Click to expand...
 
Lots of gliders are low-wing and have insanely higher glide rations than powered aircraft. As just one example.
 
LandSickness said:
I was wondering if someone could guide me to a resource that would show the percentages of plane crashes that are high wing versus low wing.
Click to expand...

Ron Wanttaja to the rescue:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=630563&postcount=63

Note that all the planes with 15% or less fatality rate are high wing.
Note that all the planes with 30% or higher fatality rate are low or mid wing.
Note also that as the speed goes up, so does the minimum fatality rate.
On the subset of plane accidents that Ron reviewed, there is not much below the diagonal line from 50,0 to 350,45. Speed kills (well, probably high stall speed kills - it is not easy to get a large speed range out of a fixed wing airplane.)
 
AdamZ said:
Is that an accurate statement? That low wing planes don't have much of a glide ratio.... as opposed to high wings that is? I had not heard that.
Click to expand...

I've never heard this either. I suspect it's not true. And even if it is, this comparison begs the question of whether lack of glide ratio is actually a significant factor in accidents. Pilots have managed to lose an engine directly over an airport and still screw it up.
 
LandSickness said:
I honestly don't know. What I should have said was that I never hear glide ratio discussed with respect to low wing planes. I've heard people describe Cessnas as "kite like" especially in ground effect. Just curious if one wing orientation is statistically more dangerous than the other.
Click to expand...

Thank you for asking the question out side of the condolence thread. Good call. ;)

But.... Anyone that describes any Cessna as "kite like" has no idea what they are talking about. They are like a cross between a brick and a lumber wagon compared to any RV. Solid airplanes? Yes. Kite like? :no:

Ground effect is way over rated. Is it real? Yes, but after flying a while there is no difference or reliance on it. It's not going to save you from a bad landing or improper approach technique. Practice, practice, and more practice will. ;)

BTW, low wings are affected more by ground effect than high wings. :eek:
 
Last edited:
I found a thread on the Van's Airforce site and found that the RV7 has a glide ratio of 10:1 compared to 9:1 for a 172. I stand corrected.

A private pilot told me that a Cherokee was more forgiving in ground effect than a 172. He said the Cessna had a tendency to "kite" or "balloon" in ground effect if the approach was not ideal. I obviously misunderstood him.
 
LandSickness said:
I found a thread on the Van's Airforce site and found that the RV7 has a glide ratio of 10:1 compared to 9:1 for a 172. I stand corrected.

A private pilot told me that a Cherokee was more forgiving in ground effect than a 172. He said the Cessna had a tendency to "kite" or "balloon" in ground effect if the approach was not ideal. I obviously misunderstood him.
Click to expand...

It is best to form your own opinions after you have experienced several aircraft it difference situations. Trying to form a working knowledge of airplanes based on what others say is very subjective. There are a lot of "experts" out there, most have no basis for comparison and are just relaying their limited experience.

Good for you to ask and find out.
 
There's also evidence that 100% of the fatal plane crashes didn't have Ron Wattanja on board.
 
I'd like to see the ratio of high wing to low wing light piston aircraft. My gut instinct tells me there are a lot more high wings. This disparity could skew accident statistics.

Maybe Ken or someone can comment.
 
That's the problem, you don't even have a correlation here without knowing the utilization: flights, hours, miles, pick your poison.
 
Anthony said:
I'd like to see the ratio of high wing to low wing light piston aircraft. My gut instinct tells me there are a lot more high wings. This disparity could skew accident statistics.

Maybe Ken or someone can comment.
Click to expand...
There are so many considerations that go into trying to develop reasonable accident statistics. You make all kinds of assumptions, which may or may not be true.

For example, Cessna 150/152 and Cessna 172 are by far the most common high wings, of course. They are also the most common trainers. That means that the kind of exposure the fleet as a whole has is qualitatively different than the block of aircraft that are not commonly used as trainers. A trainer spends more time around airports than a traveling machine, so you would expect fewer weather related accidents but perhaps more runway loss of control accidents.

There is not enough data regarding utilization for most aircraft to allow reasonable statistical conclusions on this kind of thing. You're left with anecdote and innuendo.

That's not to say you can't draw some very broad conclusions about aircraft safety, but I believe trying to winnow it down to something like high wing/low wing is pointless because it's not well defined enough to draw out causal relationships. You're lumping the J-3 Cub and Decathlon with the T206H and MU2, for example. The exposures are completely different, and any attempt to draw a parallel based solely on wing position is a waste of time.
 
Thanks Ken. That's what I figured.
 
LandSickness said:
I didn't want to litter the tribute threads with my question but I was wondering if someone could guide me to a resource that would show the percentages of plane crashes that are high wing versus low wing. I know there's not much in the way of glide ratio for low wing planes
Click to expand...

Glide ratio has nothing whatsoever to do with high / low / mid wing. Glide ratio is essentially the ratio of lift / drag. These are a function of how well the airplane is streamlined - fixed gear vs. retract. Good low drag cowl vs. not. Good fairings at the intersection between the wings / fuselage. Good smooth fuselage vs clunky. Flush riveted vs round head. Stuff hanging in the breeze or not.


Speed at impact has a lot to do with survival rates, but that tends to be a function of wing loading - the ratio of weight to wing area - which affects the stall speed.

None of these things are directly related to where the wing is attached.

But...

There is a difference - it's called marketing.

Yes, marketing.

Low wing airplanes look sexy and fast. If you want to appeal to the "wanna get there fast" crowd you build a low wing airplane. And you also make it very aerodynamically clean for speed - which gives you a GOOD glide ratio. But you also give it a high wing loading (keep the wing small for speed) which results in a high stall speed. Bad for accidents.

High wing airplanes give the appearance of "utility". If you want to appeal to someone's inner bush pilot, you build a high wing airplane. And you give it lots of wing for a low stall speed. Since you are building utility, the glide ratio won't be as good, but with lots of wing you get a low stall speed - good for accidents, but with a tendency to get blown around by gusts. (Hence the "kite" remarks.)

But there are lots of exceptions to the above stereotypes.


So, while there probably is a difference in the fatality rate by high wing vs. low wing, it is not because of " not much in the way of glide ratio for low wing planes" which is probably the opposite of reality.
 
Last edited:
A Cirrus has a glide ratio of 10 to 1 but that decreases to about 9 to 1 if fitted with the big composite prop. A Boeing 747 has a much higher glide ratio than a Cirrus or a high wing Cessna piston.
 
Sorry, I don't get all the emphasis on glide ratio. Not saying it's totallyl irrelevant, but in terms of safety there are so many bigger fish to fry.
 
I had the same question before (long before) getting back into flight training. My conclusion from many hours of browsing NTSB accident reports and statistics: There has never been a single documented incident of a low wing airplane such as a PA-28 falling from the sky due to a damaged or improperly maintained wing strut. You can't say the same of the Cessnas. Made me a little leery of them, to be honest, and if the 172 didn't fly so well I'd still not like it as much.

When all's said and done, though, structural failures are a tiny fraction of the total crash data. Most seem to be pilot error ranging from simple mistakes to downright stupid stuff that just makes you shake your head and wonder how the guy lived as long as he did. The lesson I took from it was that I could personally avoid about 90% of crashes just by not doing dumb things; 5% I can avoid by doing a thorough preflight; 4.9% or so keep an eye on what your A&P does to make sure it's done right, and that last 0.1% -- well, it's just not your day. Just my impressions, mind you, those are not real numbers but you get the drift.

As for the ground effect thing... I had a much bigger problem with the Cherokee wanting to float or balloon in ground effect. It doesn't seem to be nearly as big a deal in a high wing plane. Of course learning to land properly helps a lot, too. :)
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Glide ratio has nothing whatsoever to do with high / low / mid wing. Glide ratio is essentially the ratio of lift / drag. These are a function of how well the airplane is streamlined - fixed gear vs. retract. Good low drag cowl vs. not. Good fairings at the intersection between the wings / fuselage. Good smooth fuselage vs clunky. Flush riveted vs round head. Stuff hanging in the breeze or not.


Speed at impact has a lot to do with survival rates, but that tends to be a function of wing loading - the ratio of weight to wing area - which affects the stall speed.

None of these things are directly related to where the wing is attached.

But...

There is a difference - it's called marketing.

Yes, marketing.

Low wing airplanes look sexy and fast. If you want to appeal to the "wanna get there fast" crowd you build a low wing airplane. And you also make it very aerodynamically clean for speed - which gives you a GOOD glide ratio. But you also give it a high wing loading (keep the wing small for speed) which results in a high stall speed. Bad for accidents.

High wing airplanes give the appearance of "utility". If you want to appeal to someone's inner bush pilot, you build a high wing airplane. And you give it lots of wing for a low stall speed. Since you are building utility, the glide ratio won't be as good, but with lots of wing you get a low stall speed - good for accidents, but with a tendency to get blown around by gusts. (Hence the "kite" remarks.)

But there are lots of exceptions to the above stereotypes.


So, while there probably is a difference in the fatality rate by high wing vs. low wing, it is not because of " not much in the way of glide ratio for low wing planes" which is probably the opposite of reality.
Click to expand...

So I asked the wrong question initially. Stall speed is more of a determining factor in non collision, non airframe failure crashes than glide ratio. There's probably not a resource that ranks planes by their stall speed is there?
 
LandSickness said:
So I asked the wrong question initially. Stall speed is more of a determining factor in non collision, non airframe failure crashes than glide ratio. There's probably not a resource that ranks planes by their stall speed is there?
Click to expand...

At some point in time, I found a spread sheet that had bunches of airplanes and basic performance numbers. I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to find a data base like that online again.

FWIW - the lowest stall speed "regular" aircraft will often be light sport aircraft - the accident rate in those (particularly landing accidents) tends to be higher than larger aircraft. Presumably this is due to geezers moving down to an LSA from something bigger and heavier and not being prepared for how differently they handle.
 
Last edited:
DaleB said:
There has never been a single documented incident of a low wing airplane such as a PA-28 falling from the sky due to a damaged or improperly maintained wing strut. You can't say the same of the Cessnas.
Click to expand...

That is true. I have heard of cases where the wing strut on a Cessna was damaged and failed. I read somewhere it was possible that it was damaged by someone standing in the middle of the strut and bent it while checking the fuel.
 
If you are going to ditch you are better off in a low wing. Try this on a high wing.

José
 

Attachments

  • Mooney on Water.jpg
    Mooney on Water.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 11
Piloto said:
If you are going to ditch you are better off in a low wing. Try this on a high wing.

José
Click to expand...

Ok.

a7esapet.jpg


aru2epuv.jpg
 
Amphibians don't count, you do not ditch them. Another reason why low wing are better for ditching.

José
 

Attachments

  • Hudson Ditching.JPG
    Hudson Ditching.JPG
    114.5 KB · Views: 13
flyer said:
That is true. I have heard of cases where the wing strut on a Cessna was damaged and failed. I read somewhere it was possible that it was damaged by someone standing in the middle of the strut and bent it while checking the fuel.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and one where the mechanic who did the annual didn't check or grease the strut attachment bolts... and one snapped. As did the wing. 1 fatal.
 
DaleB said:
There has never been a single documented incident of a low wing airplane such as a PA-28 falling from the sky due to a damaged or improperly maintained wing strut.
Click to expand...

A Piper PA-28 doesn't have wing struts. Very hard for a non-existent entity to fail. It has cantilevered wings. I know of low wing airplane accidents where the wings failed. Not hard to find them.

By the way, the Piper PA-25 is a low wing aircraft with wing (lift) struts. Don't know if there have been any of those with wings failing in flight.

Someone has put together a list of some of the larger more notable aircraft structural failures on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_structural_failures

Looks like some low wing aircraft in that list.
 
Jim Logajan said:
A Piper PA-28 doesn't have wing struts. Very hard for a non-existent entity to fail. It has cantilevered wings.
Click to expand...
That was kind of my point.
Jim Logajan said:
I know of low wing airplane accidents where the wings failed. Not hard to find them.
Click to expand...
Nor is it harder to find high-wing failures from bad spars, over-stress, etc. My point was... a non-cantilever wing has one more way to kill you than a cantilever wing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top