End to high/low wing debate?

[spiderweb]

I've flown the following high wings: C150, C172, C182, Twin Commander
I've flown the following low wings: F33, PA32, Z242, Seneca, C310

What I have found is that the difference between where the wing is placed is a smaller concern than the overal transition. IOW, I spent as much time transitioning from the C172 to the C182 because of checklist items, airspeeds, feel of the airplane, etc., as I did transitioning from the C172 to the Zlin and Saratoga.

I've heard people say that high wings are more squirrely in the flare; I've heard the same, though, about low wings. What I've actually found, however, is that most light planes are squirrely under similar conditions (gusty crosswinds), and land about this same under calm conditions IF you follow procedures, stabilize the approach, nail the airspeeds, and flare properly for that airplane. Notable exceptions like the Commanche, or a Cub, seem to have a lot less to do with where the wing is than with other reasons.

Just some random thoughts, there. . . .

 

[Anthony]

Low wings are still better.

 

[SCCutler]

Ben:

I tend to agree with you. My principal basis for tending to favor the low-winged aircraft is two-fold: 1> My wife likes them better; and 2> I *really* like being able to see the field all the way through the pattern. This seems a bigger deal for me than it is for others. I guess I also like the simpler landing gear setup on low-winged aircraft; all that monkey-motion in Cessna gear just looks wrong.

On the other hand, I find little in the way of shelter from the rain under the wing of a Bonanza; and having two doors to 'gress with (you know, ingress and egress) is a real benefit.

Saw, in another post, that you got to fly the RFC Deb on one of your recent visits; you can see why I like that plane, 300HP being a very nice number for the plane. That fine steed has taken me on many good trips, and there are more yet to come, I am sure.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Low wings are still better.

Yup.

That was all I was going to say, but this system told me it had to be more than 10 characters. So I'll elaborate.

Flight characteristics between theoretical airplanes that are identical except for wing placement would be slightly different, but the differences would be lost in the noise of pilot technique unless you had very very skilled pilots. The differences between "high wing" and "low wing" in the real world have more to do with the other choices/compromises the designers made rather than simple placement of the wings. For instance, the stick forces in a low wing aerobatic Micco SP-26 are very low in pitch and roll, but a low-wing Mooney J model with a similar power loading and wing loading is relatively heavy in roll and moderate in pitch. Obviously it's possible to design in any level of responsiveness you want, regardless of wing placement, by changing control system design.

That's all extremely clinical, but what it boils down to is that the best airplane in any case is defined by one that fits your personal taste and needs and style based on ALL of the compromises the designer made, plus other factors like budget, parts availability etc.

Ken
High wing owner
Low wing lover

 

[Rudy]

I agree also,

I have a cherokee 140 and love it but recently when it was in the shop, my Grandpa/flight instructor let me fly his C182 for a couple lessons. The high wing transition wasn't that big of a deal for me. I bounced one landing haha, but then i got the hang of it. I was more overwhelmed by everything else, prop pitch and how much more power it has. I enjoyed it though it gave me a good idea of how important trim is, in the 140 you can override your trim if you dont have it quite right. In the 182 you have to have it pretty close on take-offs and such.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Low wings are still better.

Only when they're glued onto the side of the aircraft. The kind that rotate above you are even better, Anthony!

 

[EdFred]

As far as how they fly, there's no real issue with me. I did most of my training in wrong wings before I crossed over and bought a Cherokee. Here's what I do like about the low wings over the high wings -
#1: Flight Visibility. I can see up, I can see out, I can see all around me. I don't have much need to look straight down. See and avoid is much easier in a low wing than a high wing. Especially when any time I head south and I get to "play" dodge-em with heavies.
#2: Fueling is easier. I don't have to play Tarzan to get to the fuel cap. Sure I have to do a Johnny Bench to sump, but that's all of 3 seconds on a side, and after I sump, I can dump it right back into the easily accessible tanks.
#3: Take offs. From what I've noticed, I get into ground effect sooner in my Cherokee and other low-wings than I did with the high-wings. Quicker ground effect = less wear on the tires, and to me means slightly better soft field performance.
#4: Landings. I like to land with 2 notches (25º) of flaps for normal hard surface landings. The low wing gives me a little extra cushion of air when I settle into ground effect and landings are very smooth as it settles out of ground effect. If I need to get down fast (short field) I put in the full 40º of flaps and I never feel ground effect and can plant it down if I need to.
#5: Climbing In. Even at 6'2" I like the feel of getting into a low wing. It's like getting into a sports car, whereas with a high wing - well it feels like getting into a minivan. Sports car or minivan - which is cooler? 'Nuff said.

 

[RobertGerace]

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:

 

[Toby]

The Decathlon doesn't feel like a minivan.

The only thing I don't like about low-wings is that it's hard to look down. I love looking down at the scenery.

OK, here's one that's not even worth a debate: yoke or stick. Every airplane should have a stick! Yeah!

 

[RobertGerace]

OK, here's one that's not even worth a debate: yoke or stick. Every airplane should have a stick! Yeah!

FOR SURE! I love the Cirri's side-stick (except for the time I had to land it with the door open)... you need three hands for that!

 

[EdFred]

The only thing I don't like about low-wings is that it's hard to look down. I love looking down at the scenery.

And in a low wing it's a good excuse to bank and yank!

 

[spiderweb]

Saw, in another post, that you got to fly the RFC Deb on one of your recent visits; you can see why I like that plane, 300HP being a very nice number for the plane. That fine steed has taken me on many good trips, and there are more yet to come, I am sure.

Actually, I flew a Deb based here at BWI, but like you say, I really enjoyed flying it!

 

[Greebo]

Only when they're glued onto the side of the aircraft. The kind that rotate above you are even better, Anthony!

I sure hope you aren't and cause you might think you're but your passengers will feel :coaster: and . Also :cheerio: :martini: and will make you a big for the FAA and :zap!: :zap!: they'll take your ticket and you'll be and and . So keep things :yinyang: and don't mix :wine: or :martini: and and we'll all be !

 

[wsuffa]

I sure hope you aren't and cause you might think you're but your passengers will feel :coaster: and . Also :cheerio: :martini: and will make you a big for the FAA and :zap!: :zap!: they'll take your ticket and you'll be and and . So keep things :yinyang: and don't mix :wine: or :martini: and and we'll all be !

Fweeeppppp!!!!

10 yard penalty for execcive Smilies!!!!

Gosh, that's annoying...

(But seriously folks, the only way to end the high/low wing debate is to fly a plane that has both....)

 

[Greebo]

Bill:



As my wife says, "You'll get over it!"

 

[RotaryWingBob]

I sure hope you aren't and cause you might think you're but your passengers will feel :coaster: and . Also :cheerio: :martini: and will make you a big for the FAA and :zap!: :zap!: they'll take your ticket and you'll be and and . So keep things :yinyang: and don't mix :wine: or :martini: and and we'll all be !

Jeez, Chuck, you take all the fun out of everything

You missed using a couple of smilies, though...

 

[RotaryWingBob]

The Decathlon doesn't feel like a minivan.

The only thing I don't like about low-wings is that it's hard to look down. I love looking down at the scenery.

OK, here's one that's not even worth a debate: yoke or stick. Every airplane should have a stick! Yeah!

Amen on the stick, Toby.

Tandem taildraggers don't count as high wing minivans, either!

 

[Toby]

Fer sure, Bob!

 

[Ken Ibold]

I sure hope you aren't and cause you might think you're but your passengers will feel :coaster: and . Also :cheerio: :martini: and will make you a big for the FAA and :zap!: :zap!: they'll take your ticket and you'll be and and . So keep things :yinyang: and don't mix :wine: or :martini: and and we'll all be !

Where's a moderator when you need one?!?!?

 

[Greebo]

I'm gonna take BIG reputation hits for that little post, aren't I?

Thank goodness not many people actually have reputation power yet! :-D

 

[gibbons]

Argument for high/low wing:

Does the person you're talking to own/fly a high wing airplane?
The argue that low wing planes are better.

Does the person you're talking to own/fly a low wing airplane?
Then argue that high wing planes are better.

There's always the biplane argument you can fall back on if you are talking to two pilots - one high wing and one low wing.

It's that simple.

Chip

 

[Diana]

I've heard people say that high wings are more squirrely in the flare; I've heard the same, though, about low wings. What I've actually found, however, is that most light planes are squirrely under similar conditions (gusty crosswinds), and land about this same under calm conditions IF you follow procedures, stabilize the approach, nail the airspeeds, and flare properly for that airplane.

I'm thinking there is NO end to this particular debate

I wouldn't want to disappoint Chip so I'll have to comment. I can drop/bang a Bonanza onto the runway (off center) as "deftly" as I do it in the Citabria. Poor Chip has ridden through both wild rides.

My personal preference is a high wing, for many reasons, mostly lifestyle.

High wings provide shade from the sun, shelter from the rain, it's easier to get in and out of the airplane, you can see the ground below better, you can sleep under the wing and sit under the wing, and sit on a tire if you run out of chairs. It's easier to check the fuel. You can taxi through the soybeans and milo without getting gunk on the wings. It seems like MOST high wing airplanes are better at soft/short/rough strips.

Then, of course, high wing airplanes are more graceful and beautiful.

 

[gibbons]

Poor Chip has ridden through both wild rides.

No comment, except to say "Low wings are better."

Chip

 

[fgcason]

The only thing I don't like about low-wings is that it's hard to look down. I love looking down at the scenery.

OK, here's one that's not even worth a debate: yoke or stick. Every airplane should have a stick! Yeah!

A stick would look real funny in a Cherokee. Of course if they had sticks to start with, a yoke would look funny in one.


Sight seeing from the front seats of a low wing isn't really too bad. Looking straight down on top of something is mostly boring anyway. I think low wing makes you kind of look around at the scenery more. Photography of ground objects, or raining, give me the high wing though.

I flew the Cherokee for a long time then flew a CE152 and kept running into the ground while landing. The main problem was that in the Cherokee, you get a big ground effect feeling going before you touched. I knew what 3" AGL felt like. A CE152 would do the same thing too except for the minor but significant problem of the wheels sticking down below the wing way too far. KABONG!

I do particularly like low wings when maneuvering in close proximity of mountains, trees, varying terrain contours and such all at the same time. You get a very clear view of what you're turning toward easily. The stuff under you is a non issue. Low altitude/close proximity steep turns to line up with a runway while avoiding the rocks is not as much fun when you loose sight of the runway and can't see anything anywhere except the treetops getting closer on 3 sides and under you.

Of course I like the Cherokee hershey bar wings over the tapered wings too...but I'm weird that way. 120ft obstacle to drop in over at the end of a 3000ft runway, noooo problem. Just plummet into ground effect. Don't even need the brakes.

 

[Diana]

Argument for high/low wing:

Does the person you're talking to own/fly a high wing airplane?
The argue that low wing planes are better.

Chip

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I get it now. You don't really think low wings are better? We've been having this discussion for a year now, and I didn't know that?

 

[citationxjl]

I have done all my training (except tailwheel and acro) in a low wing. Warrior, Arrow, and Seminole. I also fly a Supercub and Decathalon. I start a new job in 3 weeks and will be flying a T207 and a Caravan. High wing/low wing. As long as it has wings, I will fly it!!!

 

[gibbons]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I get it now. You don't really think low wings are better? We've been having this discussion for a year now, and I didn't know that?

Well, that took a while.

I'm with Jeff... if it's got wings I love it. High wing, low wing, mid wing, biplane.... I'm all about it.

Now, when I meet someone who thinks one is better than the other I just can't resist...

The best airplane I've ever flown for visibility is the Extra 300/L. Low wing (yea!) but far enough forward that I can see straight down behind it. The canopy offers an unbelievable view. It's an awesome airplane to go cross country in.

Worst in-flight visibility, my second favorite airplane - the Pitts S2C. Can't see up, can't see down, can't see forward. Ah, what an airplane! And they both have sticks - which is the way it should be.

But now I'm in the market for a Citabria, which will only be the second high wing airplane I've ever owned. But flying around in Diana's has convinced me that I have to own one.

Chip

 

[Don Jones]

In the words of my Grandsons " Low wings Rule----High wings Drool"
Don

 

[Diana]

Well, that took a while.

LOL! Never mind!

But now I'm in the market for a Citabria, which will only be the second high wing airplane I've ever owned. But flying around in Diana's has convinced me that I have to own one.

Will you take me for a ride when you get it?

:yinyang:

 

[gibbons]

Will you take me for a ride when you get it?

I should have known... "I want a ride! I want a ride!"

LOL

Chip

 

[gismo]

I have done all my training (except tailwheel and acro) in a low wing. Warrior, Arrow, and Seminole. I also fly a Supercub and Decathalon. I start a new job in 3 weeks and will be flying a T207 and a Caravan. High wing/low wing. As long as it has wings, I will fly it!!!

Same here. I would add that high wings are better on high winged airplanes and vice versa. Can you imagine how a Bonanza or Mooney would look with the wings on top (not to mention that it would be hard to open the door). And what an eyesore a 182 with wings at floor level would be!

-lance

 

[Mark S]

I'm thinking there is NO end to this particular debate

My personal preference is a high wing, for many reasons, mostly lifestyle.

High wings provide shade from the sun, shelter from the rain, it's easier to get in and out of the airplane, you can see the ground below better, you can sleep under the wing and sit under the wing, and sit on a tire if you run out of chairs. It's easier to check the fuel. You can taxi through the soybeans and milo without getting gunk on the wings. It seems like MOST high wing airplanes are better at soft/short/rough strips.

Then, of course, high wing airplanes are more graceful and beautiful.

Well said Diana,

We have really enjoyed tucking the wheels up in the RG and having a completely unfettered view of the ground. No wheels, no wing, just scenery. I have flown a few low wings, the Comanche I got my complex rating in, the Extra 300 we flew with Phil Knight, the Piper Lance to name a few. All were nice airplanes, but cannot hold a candle to the performance of the 172 or 182 RG (when it comes to our mission profile that is) we owned. Especially, as you said, when it comes to short field performance.

I do have to say if I won the lottery my next purchase would be a low wing - Either a Zivko Edge 540T or Extra 300L.

Mark

 

[gibbons]

... the Extra 300 we flew with Phil Knight... all were nice airplanes, but cannot hold a candle to the performance of the 172 or 182 RG

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

(I know what you were saying.)

 

[Diana]

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

(I know what you were saying.)

Well, I wasn't going to bring this up.........BUT, I have had lots of 172's, 182's, and 182 RG's land at my house, but never an Extra has tried.

 

[Carol]

Well, I wasn't going to bring this up.........BUT, I have had lots of 172's, 182's, and 182 RG's land at my house, but never an Extra has tried.

WOOP, WOOP, WOOP! I detect a dare alert.

 

[gibbons]

WOOP, WOOP, WOOP! I detect a dare alert.

I've called my insurance company and told them someone dared me to land at their farm and they said, "Well, what's stopping you then? Go for it!!" Not!

It's not about the airplane. No doubt an Extra can land there, just not with this 100 hr Extra pilot in it. Sticks and stones....

Chip

 

[Barry W]

A friend of mine was flying his Cherokee one day and hit a duck. After landing, we were examing the damage to the leading edge of the right wing. He said, "man, that's a mess. What could I have done to prevent this? I never even saw the bird." I told him "If you had been flying a high wing airplane you would have missed him."

 

[Diana]

A friend of mine was flying his Cherokee one day and hit a duck. After landing, we were examing the damage to the leading edge of the right wing. He said, "man, that's a mess. What could I have done to prevent this? I never even saw the bird." I told him "If you had been flying a high wing airplane you would have missed him."

LOL! Barry, that's a good one.

 

[gibbons]

Diana,

Please don't encourage Barry. He's firmly brainwashed and will forever be in the "high wing" camp. There is no hope for him.

Chip

 

[Ghery]

Of course I like the Cherokee hershey bar wings over the tapered wings too...but I'm weird that way. 120ft obstacle to drop in over at the end of a 3000ft runway, noooo problem. Just plummet into ground effect. Don't even need the brakes.

The Arrow is the same way. "Safe Mode Glide" my CFI called it. It glides like a safe! Pull the power and it's coming down NOW! Just remember to drop the gear before reaching the ground. Don't have to worry about that in the Cherokee.

Ghery