High Wing vs. Low Wing, end of discussion...

timwinters said:
I thought about pinging you while here but figured you stayed pretty busy...we're heading back to Anchorage today for the weekend, flying out Monday afternoon.



It's definitely not quiet up here! The only time I got aggravated was when we hiked 1/2 a day to get to the middle of nowhere and was buzzed by a super up flying at treetop level while trying to have a peaceful
lunch...kinda ruins the solitude. We were in the middle of the wilderness area and I assume that the same 2,000' AGL request is on the charts over wilderness areas and parks like in the lower 48. But, obviously, I have no clue if that's true.

If I'd've known (or remembered) you were in Homer, I'd've tried to get together with you for a beer...we could've come over any day this week...that would have been hoot.

Speaking of a hoot, Matthew (from here...lives in KC) is also up here this week with his wife. We're both celebrating our 30th anniversaries and both cruised Resurrection Bay on Monday...completely coincidental. We were on different cruises but got together for dinner afterwards. It was a great time.
Click to expand...

Sorry we missed each other. Seems like the closer to the end of summer the busier I am getting. Its been fun flying the 206 and landing on the beach, but business waits.

Then on 05 September the wife and I will drive back to New Mexico. Long drive....looooooong drive.....looooooooooooooong drive.
 
Dav8or said:
:confused: Wonder why? :dunno:
Click to expand...

There was a former forum member, CTLSi, who got banned for various reasons some time ago.

Comparing LoxaBagels' posts to his, they seemed very similar - posting bad info, enamored with the Flight Design CT4, just copying and pasting performance stats and manufacturer's ad copy, speaking on topics he knew very little about, never admitting error, putting down Cessna and Piper and other "legacy" products while extolling the virtues of Flight Design and Cirrus, that sort of thing.

While CTLSi got banned here, he was still posting on other aviation forums. The "smoking gun" was the thread about 2014 fatalities being up 13%. Started on this forum yesterday at 12:38 PM. Identical post here, posted yesterday at 12:31 PM:

http://ctflier.com/index.php?/topic/3403-ntsb-2014-fatalities-up-13/

(100Hamburger is a new username that CTLSi chose in that forum)

Anyway, on the forums he's still active on he never fails to post erroneous information ("And oh by the way, from the second world war on, all combat aircraft are low wing. I doubt the guys that flew and fly them today would be considered pu**sys.), derail discussions, start arguments and is not an asset. I think the mods here made the right choice.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
There was a former forum member, CTLSi, who got banned for various reasons some time ago.

Comparing LoxaBagels' posts to his, they seemed very similar - posting bad info, enamored with the Flight Design CT4, just copying and pasting performance stats and manufacturer's ad copy, speaking on topics he knew very little about, never admitting error, putting down Cessna and Piper and other "legacy" products while extolling the virtues of Flight Design and Cirrus, that sort of thing.

While CTLSi got banned here, he was still posting on other aviation forums. The "smoking gun" was the thread about 2014 fatalities being up 13%. Started on this forum yesterday at 12:38 PM. Identical post here, posted yesterday at 12:31 PM:

http://ctflier.com/index.php?/topic/3403-ntsb-2014-fatalities-up-13/

(100Hamburger is a new username that CTLSi chose in that forum)

Anyway, on the forums he's still active on he never fails to post erroneous information ("And oh by the way, from the second world war on, all combat aircraft are low wing. I doubt the guys that flew and fly them today would be considered pu**sys.), derail discussions, start arguments and is not an asset. I think the mods here made the right choice.
Click to expand...

Super Sleuth!
 
drotto said:
From the Alaskan bush pilot perspective, there is no competition. High wing is better for bad terrain and floats. Really hard to argue that. Here in the lower 48, where 95% of flying is hard surface it is still personal preference. I will say however, you never see a high performance plane that is high wing.
Click to expand...

Would you consider a Mitsubishi MU-2 to be a high performance airplane???

Twin turbine that cruises at 300kts. I think that qualifies as high performance. MU2 has been on my bucket list for a long time.
 
Holy ****.

I just drove around Lake Hood and Merrill Field and I swear, everyone in this entire state must own an airplane.

Hell, even down at Soldotna, a town of only 4,000, there are easily 150 single engine aircraft on the field.

Oh, and I saw at least 8 more low wings today. Including a Beech 18 on floats. :goofy:
 
red4golf said:
Yup.... I NEED that C177 I've been looking at to improve my photography skills. ;)

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's definitely possible to shoot good shots out of a 172 without the strut being in the way - but a C177 is a lot nicer. I shot this last week out of our 172.
 

Attachments

  • RED_7445.JPG
    RED_7445.JPG
    142.4 KB · Views: 34
RyanShort1 said:
It's definitely possible to shoot good shots out of a 172 without the strut being in the way - but a C177 is a lot nicer. I shot this last week out of our 172.
Click to expand...
I've actually taken some nice shots out of a C172 but the one of Homer, AK that I posted was missing something that the others had..... thought. I was lining up for a left downwind when I thought "that would make a great photo".

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk
 
AdamZ said:
As EdFred would say " Nice picture of your strut" :rofl:
Click to expand...


In a low-wing airplane it would have been a nice shot of the whole wing and very little scenery, It's a pain trying to take photos from my Jodel without slipping a bunch to get the wing out of the shot.
 
Dav8or said:
I have noticed that there are some high wing pilots that once they get their high wing plane, go right out and flip it upside down to try to be more like a low wing. I think that says something right there! :yes::D
Click to expand...

Well at least you can still get out of a flipped high wing
 
would you be more likely to fly a high wing or low wing in sandals?
 
I guess it all boils down to, do you like 'em on top or on bottom?

I like to invert sometimes, so it's complicated. :D
 
I could careless where the hell the wing is at. Whatever airplane works best for whatever mission needs to be flown is the airplane I like the best.
 
jesse said:
I could careless where the hell the wing is at. Whatever airplane works best for whatever mission needs to be flown is the airplane I like the best.
Click to expand...

Well, you just took the fun out of this thread....:lol::lol::lol:
 
Dan Thomas said:
In a low-wing airplane it would have been a nice shot of the whole wing and very little scenery, It's a pain trying to take photos from my Jodel without slipping a bunch to get the wing out of the shot.
Click to expand...

You obviously never saw my trip journal. Almost 1000 pictures taken over 12 days, all but about 6 pictures from inside the plane, and in 80-90% of the shots there was no wing to be seen. Done in a Cherokee 180.
 
Zeldman said:
Well, you just took the fun out of this thread....:lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...
No he didn't. Now people can start criticizing him for his use of "could care less". It's what we do best here.:(
 
As an aside, the rear windows on the Sky Arrow pop out with 4 cam locks:

8341236409_d67dc4a2cb_z.jpg


Good news: photos taken by the passenger look great with no wing or plexiglass in the way.

Bad news: pretty drafty and as an LSA it cannot be used for any commercial purpose.
 
JOhnH said:
No he didn't. Now people can start criticizing him for his use of "could care less". It's what we do best here.:(
Click to expand...

Actually I would criticize him for using the term "careless." :D
 
EdFred said:
Actually I would criticize him for using the term "careless." :D
Click to expand...
I thought about that too, but I didn't want to be too critical. Especially with my typing skills. Glass houses and all that.
 
EdFred said:
You obviously never saw my trip journal. Almost 1000 pictures taken over 12 days, all but about 6 pictures from inside the plane, and in 80-90% of the shots there was no wing to be seen. Done in a Cherokee 180.
Click to expand...

A major advantage of a cessna high wing is the ability to open the window and take pictures without any distorting and reflecting window acting like an unwanted extra lens. High wing or low wing, you still have to work to not include the wing or the strut in the picture.
 
The pilot must have used an impressive selfie stick.

11450102685_53aae3f82a_z.jpg
[/QUOTE]
 
FastEddieB said:
As an aside, the rear windows on the Sky Arrow pop out with 4 cam locks:

8341236409_d67dc4a2cb_z.jpg


Good news: photos taken by the passenger look great with no wing or plexiglass in the way.

Bad news: pretty drafty and as an LSA it cannot be used for any commercial purpose.
Click to expand...

Well there is a certified version of that plane, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top