End to high/low wing debate?

The only real answer to the high wing low wing debate is a Waco UPF7.
 
gibbons said:
The Extra 300 can't hold a candle to the performance of a 172 or 182 RG.... Oh, you're KILLING me here! Can we get a moderator over here please!
;)

Chip
Click to expand...

Hey, Hey, HEY!!! Misqoute alert!!! You forgot the part about Mission profile!!!
Unfortunately I can't think of a way to put four people, luggage and two dogs into the Extra. :D If I could I'd do it in a heartbeat!!

So, I'll just have to wait until I win the lottery to get my Zifko or Extra into the hanger.

Until then it's the trusty old Cessna for me.

Mark
 
I prefer wings on my airplanes. At least one on each side. Other than that, not fussy at all. Lift is good. Flying is good. Life is good.

Jim G
 
RobertGerace said:
Is it just me, or do C172's and C182's have weird (very high flare) landing requirements? I started in a Piper Traumahawk and never had any trouble landing. I switched to a 172 and it must have taken 100 before I could flare it correctly (i.e. tons of flare).

I then switched to the Cirri and the first time I tried to land it I struck the tail because of so much flare.

I finally learned to land the Piper's, High-Wing Cessna's, Cirri -- and landing my 310 was the easiest of all.

Give me a high wing for SAR / sight-seeing, but give me a low wing for easy (and better) landings...(and for safer visibility (and a less sore neck)) in the pattern. :cheerio:
Click to expand...


I had the same problems with the flair in the 172. I always seemed to be late
and not enough. Oddly enough I did 10 hours for my commercial in a 182RG and had no problems at all squeaking it on. Then I went to get checked out in
the 172 for our trip to Australia and had a heck of a time getting it down without the thump. I noticed the 172 did not float like my Piper when in ground effect and that was why I was always late in the flare. I guess the larger wing in the 182 was more forgiving about that.
Don
 
I see I effectively ended debate! If visibility is your primary concern, then this wins every time. The wing is far, far back, and you can see everywhere. And believe it or not, she's easy to fly, even on one engine. I flew the piston version.
 
Don Jones said:
Oddly enough I did 10 hours for my commercial in a 182RG and had no problems at all squeaking it on. Then I went to get checked out in the 172 for our trip to Australia and had a heck of a time getting it down without the thump. I noticed the 172 did not float like my Piper when in ground effect and that was why I was always late in the flare. I guess the larger wing in the 182 was more forgiving about that.
Don
Click to expand...

It might be the higher wing loading of the 182 makes for easier landings, not the larger wing. My landings are consistently better with the 182 than the 172 though.

Mark
 
wangmyers said:
I see I effectively ended debate! If visibility is your primary concern, then this wins every time. The wing is far, far back, and you can see everywhere. And believe it or not, she's easy to fly, even on one engine. I flew the piston version.
Click to expand...

How easy is it to fuel? ;)
 
Mark S said:
It might be the higher wing loading of the 182 makes for easier landings, not the larger wing. My landings are consistently better with the 182 than the 172 though.

Mark
Click to expand...

Me too. The only thing I don't like about the club's 182 is that it is too heavy for me to put back in the hangar by myself, so I can only use it if I have someone going with me.

Ghery
 
wangmyers said:
I see I effectively ended debate! If visibility is your primary concern, then this wins every time. The wing is far, far back, and you can see everywhere. And believe it or not, she's easy to fly, even on one engine. I flew the piston version.
Click to expand...

We used a turboprop version of that (1500) for our first corporate shuttle when we were building the DuPont facility back in 1996. I wasn't a pilot then, and didn't get to sit up front, but the jump seat is a great second choice as you can watch everything that is going on up front, plus enjoy the view. Nice plane.

Ghery
 
Ghery said:
Me too. The only thing I don't like about the club's 182 is that it is too heavy for me to put back in the hangar by myself, so I can only use it if I have someone going with me.

Ghery
Click to expand...

This can be my attempt at posting some photo's, so here goes...

This is a device I heard about from the CPA board that helps me push our 182 into the hanger. It consists of a bungie cord that goes from the tow bar to one main gear, plus a rope from the tow bar in the other direction to be used to steer with. See attached photo's.

This arrangement allows you to push on the strut while steering with the rope to push and guide the plane into the hanger. By doing this you do not need help, and with a little practice you will put the plane exactly where you want it.

Given my druthers I would have a Power Tow, but considering the price difference this works quite well.

Mark
 
N2212R said:
How easy is it to fuel? ;)
Click to expand...
Very easy, indeed. As soon as we are in range, I make a call to the FBO on the #3 radio requesting a quick turn. The fuel truck is usually waiting for us when we arrive! ;)
 
Ghery said:
We used a turboprop version of that (1500) for our first corporate shuttle when we were building the DuPont facility back in 1996. I wasn't a pilot then, and didn't get to sit up front, but the jump seat is a great second choice as you can watch everything that is going on up front, plus enjoy the view. Nice plane.

Ghery
Click to expand...
Really, it is also an easy plane to fly.
 
Mark S said:
This can be my attempt at posting some photo's, so here goes...

This is a device I heard about from the CPA board that helps me push our 182 into the hanger. It consists of a bungie cord that goes from the tow bar to one main gear, plus a rope from the tow bar in the other direction to be used to steer with. See attached photo's.

This arrangement allows you to push on the strut while steering with the rope to push and guide the plane into the hanger. By doing this you do not need help, and with a little practice you will put the plane exactly where you want it.

Given my druthers I would have a Power Tow, but considering the price difference this works quite well.

Mark
Click to expand...

I will have to try and rig up something like that. Looks simple enough. I can see where pushing on the strut would be a whole lot easier than on the tow bar and prop. I think I'll still have a second person available the first time I try it, however. ;)
 
Ghery said:
I can see where pushing on the strut would be a whole lot easier than on the tow bar and prop. I think I'll still have a second person available the first time I try it, however. ;)
Click to expand...

It is a lot easier than pushing on the prop and towbar and yes, it is a very good idea to have someone there the first time you try this. It does take a certain amount of thought the first few times. "Let's see, pull on the rope and the tail goes right, right? Yeah"

Mark
 
Mark S said:
This arrangement allows you to push on the strut
Mark
Click to expand...

Strut? What's a strut? :)
 
It's what you do after pushing a plane into position using that contraption! "Yeah baby, me bad!"
 
Anthony said:
Strut? What's a strut? :)
Click to expand...

It's what we Cessna Pilots use to make the wing stronger and lighter so we can carry more than a Grumman weighs. :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:

Mark
 
Mark S said:
It's what we Cessna Pilots use to make the wing stronger and lighter so we can carry more than a Grumman weighs.

Mark
Click to expand...

Ha! Knew that would get you Mark. :)

Bob. I should have known that, since I was born on Broad Street.
 
Anthony said:
Ha! Knew that would get you Mark. :)
Click to expand...

Glad I didn't dissapoint you Tony. BTW, if you are still confused about struts, they are those things you can see going from the lower part of the fuselage to the wings. They will be easy to see as I pass you.

Mark
 
struts: (n) devices used to further uglify planes that already have misplaced wings.
 
I don't care where they put the wings. I just wanna know where they put the fuel, the wheels, and how to get to 'em. Why I'll do almost anything to get to the fuel and to the wheels.....
 
N2212R said:
struts: (n) devices used to further uglify planes that already have misplaced wings.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA - Thanks for the laugh.

Mark
 
I thought the title of this said the END to the debate. Looks like it is going on and on and on and on :D
 
citationxjl said:
I thought the title of this said the END to the debate. Looks like it is going on and on and on and on :D
Click to expand...

This debate cannot end until everyone is flying a plane with the wing it the correct position (whatever that is). :D

Mark
 
N2212R said:
struts: (n) devices used to further uglify planes that already have misplaced wings.
Click to expand...
Hi Ed :)

Are you still thinking of coming to Gaston's? If you do, let's go flying together in my high wing airplane. :)
 
Diana said:
Hi Ed :)

Are you still thinking of coming to Gaston's? If you do, let's go flying together in my high wing airplane. :)
Click to expand...

Not sure. I'm doing a round robin my birthday week (May 13-22) and I think I'm going to head out west and mark off all the states I haven't been to yet. I'm in the early planning stages of the flight. Haven't narrowed down my stops yet, but I'm planning on touching down in ID, WA, OR, NV, UT, CO, NM, OK, KS. It looks like Atkinson, KS was going to be a touchdown point for me on the way back, so maybe I'll "desecrate" your farm by landing my low wing in there. At least I'll be able to keep you from saying low wings never land there. :)
 
Low Wings are best for fantasizing about being a fighter pilot in flight, no doubt.

High Wings are best for the backcountry. We use 'em ALMOST exclusively when filming backcountry/bush airstrips for mountainflyingvideos.com
 
I will NEVER enjoy the day when I have to pull a plane out just to park a car in the hangar. Hopefully I always stick with a high wing or two.
 
What's stopping you?

A Warrior is a pretty easy transition from a 172. Just don't try to land them hot or you'll float forever (they are completely fine at the correct speed).

I prefer the high wing Cessnas because most of my flights are for sightseeing. In most of them, you can open a window for a photo, and in all, you can see down. Every Piper photo has a wingtip in it.
 
Anyone have issues with summer heat in a Cherokee?

As a freshly minted pilot my experience is limited. I've flow a 152, 172, and an old Cherokee 140. The 172 seems like a lot better summer plane because of the air vent locations. They blast cool air on your face/body. The Cherokee is more like a greenhouse. The overhead vents are anemic with the main airflow on my feet. Maybe that's a function of model year but for now I think I'll be flying the 172 during the summer and the 140 during the winter. I like the pattern view in the Cherokee better, everywhere else I think the 172 is better for sight seeing.
 
Maybe it was just a matter of having more experience when I flew the 172 vs the Cherokees, but compared to landing the low wings, it seemed like a monkey could land the 172. Maybe it is because I learned on the Warrior and Archer and didn't fly the 172 until I had my license. That big steel spring gear and less float seemed to make the landings way more forgiving. That said, I'll take a low wing any day over the 172!
 
kujo806 said:
Maybe it was just a matter of having more experience when I flew the 172 vs the Cherokees, but compared to landing the low wings, it seemed like a monkey could land the 172. Maybe it is because I learned on the Warrior and Archer and didn't fly the 172 until I had my license. That big steel spring gear and less float seemed to make the landings way more forgiving. That said, I'll take a low wing any day over the 172!
Click to expand...

Huge difference though between the tapered wing Warrior and Archer vs. the straight wing of earlier Cherokees. They have no float compared to a 172. I almost always overshoot the runway the first time flying a 172 after flying my Arrow or an older Cherokee for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top