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

timwinters

timwinters

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
13,732
Location
Conway, MO
Display Name
Display name:
LTD
...so we went down to Homer today. Had a great time. Close to the brewery is a really nice building housing the "SW Alaska Pilots' Association." Beautiful building, I was impressed. So, after I got a belly full of beer and a few dozen oysters, I decided to go over and check it out.

Walked in and there were four or five guys roaming around. Struck up a conversation and enjoyed about thirty minutes of "hangar flying" or "dock flying" as the case may be.

During the visit I mentioned that out of at least 500 planes I've seen in the air and in the ground this week, exactly one has been a low wing.

One of the guys piped up with, "low wings are pu**y planes flown by pu**y pilots in the lower 48. Real pilots, especially those in Alaska, won't get in one!"

All the other locals in the room laughed and agreed.

I just said, "well, you won't get an argument with me on that one."

End of discussion! At least from an Alaska perspective.

:goofy:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
drotto said:
I will say however, you never see a high performance plane that is high wing.
Click to expand...

My T210M got me my high performance complex sign off... Pretty sure it is a high wing..
 
drotto said:
you never see a high performance plane that is high wing.
Click to expand...

I think HP is anything over 199 hp.
Lots of high wings that fit that definition.

But I can see why one might think that. They look so cute with that wing on top like a hat ;)
 
timwinters said:
...so we went down to Homer today. Had a great time. Close to the brewery is a really nice building housing the "SW Alaska Pilots' Association." Beautiful building, I was impressed. So, after I got a belly full of beer and a few dozen oysters, I decided to go over and check it out.

Walked in and there were four or five guys roaming around. Struck up a conversation and enjoyed about thirty minutes of "hangar flying" or "dock flying" as the case may be.

During the visit I mentioned that out of at least 500 planes I've seen in the air and in the ground this week, exactly one has been a low wing.

One of the guys piped up with, "low wings are pu**y planes flown by pu**y pilots in the lower 48. Real pilots, especially those in Alaska, won't get in one!"

All the other locals in the room laughed and agreed.

I just said, "well, you won't get an argument with me on that one."

End of discussion! At least from an Alaska perspective.

:goofy:
Click to expand...

What do they know? They don't even have their PPLs.

A high wing would be nice if all I ever visited was full service FBOs or had a trained monkey to refuel them. Oh and plexiglass wings would be nice so to can see where you're going when turning in the pattern. Oh, if they could put the wheels out wider for stability it would be nice.

And finally... High wing retracts... :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
What discussion. Biplanes are the best of both worlds!
 

Attachments

  • N3N solo.jpg
    N3N solo.jpg
    139.3 KB · Views: 54
bartmc said:
A high wing would be nice if all I ever visited was full service FBOs or had a trained monkey to refuel them.
Click to expand...

Or climb up on the wing every time you board and get in from the wrong side, sliding across a cramped cockpit...or just step in on the correct side...pick your poison.


bartmc said:
Oh and plexiglass wings would be nice so to can see where you're going when turning in the pattern.
Click to expand...

My belly is still adequately small to allow me to lean forward and see whatever I want/need to.

bartmc said:
Oh, if they could put the wheels out wider for stability it would be nice.
Click to expand...

Never had a problem as I land right at stall speed, not 10 knots above it! (And I have an "alleged" more unstable tall stance straight tail, not a later more stable and lower 182)

:goofy:
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
I think HP is anything over 199 hp.
Lots of high wings that fit that definition.

But I can see why one might think that. They look so cute with that wing on top like a hat ;)
Click to expand...

Over 200 is the magic number. I like mid wing. Best of both worlds.
 
timwinters said:
Or climb up on the wing every time you board and get in from the wrong side, sliding across a cramped cockpit...or just step in on the correct side...pick your poison.




My belly is still adequately small to allow me to lean forward and see whatever I want/need to.



Never had a problem as I land right at stall speed, not 10 knots above it! (And I have an "alleged" more unstable tall stance straight tail, not a later more stable and lower 182)

:goofy:
Click to expand...

Maybe it's not the wide gear but the superior struts as opposes to the "here's a hunk of steel" gear on the Cessna.

Friend of mine had a umm good sized dude jumping out of his 182. Guy stepped on the gear in flight and off it went. He had a full tank of fuel and circled until it was very low. Got anxious doing a "one main gear landing" and went around, ran out o gas on upwind and cartwheeled it. He was fine. Never woulda happened in a low wing.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I think HP is anything over 199 hp.
Lots of high wings that fit that definition.

But I can see why one might think that. They look so cute with that wing on top like a hat ;)
Click to expand...

Nope, anything over 200hp. 200hp planes like the Arrow won't get you a HP endorsement.
 
So for real. I totally kid about bashing High wings. I really hope to get a 172 next year.

In RC planes, every trainer is a high wing. I assume it is because the weight is under the wing making it more stable (guessing there) like a weight on the bottom of the hull of a boat.

Just for grins a quick google image of RC trainer brings back almost all high wings
RC trainers

Is there any difference in stability in one versus the other?
When I was working w/ the cargo ships, stacking boxes higher made the vessels more at risk for stability issues so I kind of wonder if having the weight on the top of the wing presents a similar issue.

Most trainers are 172s. (not that that implies you can't learn in something else)
 
timwinters said:
...so we went down to Homer today. Had a great time. Close to the brewery is a really nice building housing the "SW Alaska Pilots' Association." Beautiful building, I was impressed. So, after I got a belly full of beer and a few dozen oysters, I decided to go over and check it out.

Walked in and there were four or five guys roaming around. Struck up a conversation and enjoyed about thirty minutes of "hangar flying" or "dock flying" as the case may be.

During the visit I mentioned that out of at least 500 planes I've seen in the air and in the ground this week, exactly one has been a low wing.

One of the guys piped up with, "low wings are pu**y planes flown by pu**y pilots in the lower 48. Real pilots, especially those in Alaska, won't get in one!"

All the other locals in the room laughed and agreed.

I just said, "well, you won't get an argument with me on that one."

End of discussion! At least from an Alaska perspective.

:goofy:
Click to expand...

Hop on the ferry to kodiak....I'll give you a ride in a high-wing. Not one of those ***** planes!
 
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Is there any difference in stability in one versus the other?
When I was working w/ the cargo ships, stacking boxes higher made the vessels more at risk for stability issues so I kind of wonder if having the weight on the top of the wing presents a similar issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is why low wings often have a lot more dihedral.

And sometimes high-wings have anhedral to reduce stability that otherwise might be excessive.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Antonov_An-225_front_view.jpg
 
timwinters said:
Or climb up on the wing every time you board and get in from the wrong side, sliding across a cramped cockpit...or just step in on the correct side...pick your poison.
Click to expand...

Grumman Tiger/Cheetah/Traveler, DA20/40 and Cirrus SR20/22 all board from both sides. Heck, with the Grummans all 4 pilots/pax can climb into the cockpit at the same time.

Except for the Cardinal, most all high wings involve at least a little bit of climbing to board unless you've got really long legs. And if you aren't climbing to board, you're climbing to preflight.

One thing you forgot to mention though, those high wings sure make nice sunshades.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
So for real. I totally kid about bashing High wings. I really hope to get a 172 next year.
Click to expand...

172's are really fine aircraft except they don't do well in the bang-for-buck category.
 
For the most part, low wing pilots get paid more.
 
Always hated this argument....if your opinion is strong one way or another....your not really an aviator.

If it flys....give me the keys. I like em both....and each carries their own pros n cons.
 
timwinters said:
One of the guys piped up with, "low wings are pu**y planes flown by pu**y pilots in the lower 48. Real pilots, especially those in Alaska, won't get in one!"
Click to expand...

(I couldn't find a larger picture.) :D
b17.JPG
 
timwinters said:
...so we went down to Homer today. Had a great time. Close to the brewery is a really nice building housing the "SW Alaska Pilots' Association." Beautiful building, I was impressed. So, after I got a belly full of beer and a few dozen oysters, I decided to go over and check it out.

Walked in and there were four or five guys roaming around. Struck up a conversation and enjoyed about thirty minutes of "hangar flying" or "dock flying" as the case may be.

During the visit I mentioned that out of at least 500 planes I've seen in the air and in the ground this week, exactly one has been a low wing.

One of the guys piped up with, "low wings are pu**y planes flown by pu**y pilots in the lower 48. Real pilots, especially those in Alaska, won't get in one!"

All the other locals in the room laughed and agreed.

I just said, "well, you won't get an argument with me on that one."

End of discussion! At least from an Alaska perspective.

:goofy:
Click to expand...

If you went to the Homer Brewing Company on Lakeshore drive you passed right by my house. I was in Lake Clark National Park all day today doing bear guiding.

Yeah, hard pressed to find a low wing around here. But even I am getting tired of hearing the float planes taking off all day.
 
You guys are delusional. Mid wing is where the highest performance planes come from. Mid wing is where it's at. Aerostar - fastest piston twin. Piaggio Avanti - fastest TP twin. Extra - OK, maybe not fastest, but most agile single. Case closed. :D
 
Once you start to get older,you appreciate a high wing,for ease of entry exit,shade at air shows. Protection from the rain.
 
I trained in a Cherokee, but have owned high-wings ever since. I like the view and the shade.
 
I don't think the wing could have been mounted any higher on these cute little airplanes.

images
 
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...

You may want to check out the WACO. It's a high performance bi-wing. http://www.wacoaircraft.com/

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.
 
Last edited:
As a recent owner, high wings because reasons:

1) Plowed snow drift either side of the taxiway at your local rural airfield? 172 slides right through. Low wing, you'll need to get the shovel out. That ended up being a big deal this last winter.

2) In the hangar, you can walk around fuselage, not the whole airframe. My sits-a-lot-higher 1957 172 I don't even have to duck with my 5'11" frame. Low wing, you're walking all the way around or clambering over the wings.

3) Want to put a motorcycle or even any normal car in the hangar, too? Tuck it under the high wing. Low wing? You can maybe tuck an RC car under it.
 
jimmyjack said:
As a recent owner, high wings because reasons:

1) Plowed snow drift either side of the taxiway at your local rural airfield? 172 slides right through. Low wing, you'll need to get the shovel out. That ended up being a big deal this last winter.

2) In the hangar, you can walk around fuselage, not the whole airframe. My sits-a-lot-higher 1957 172 I don't even have to duck with my 5'11" frame. Low wing, you're walking all the way around or clambering over the wings.

3) Want to put a motorcycle or even any normal car in the hangar, too? Tuck it under the high wing. Low wing? You can maybe tuck an RC car under it.
Click to expand...


All good reasons, forgot using the wing as shelter, but none have anything to do with how it flys, which is why we buy an airplane in the 1st place.
 
And then there is this:
 

Attachments

  • Cessna Forehad smack.jpg
    Cessna Forehad smack.jpg
    59.8 KB · Views: 84
It might be end of discussion for Alaska pilots that have to deal with rough terrain and snow drifts, but I've owned both and prefer my low wing over having to climb ladders to fuel the plane and dodge wing struts to get in. It is so much easier fueling my low wing.
 
Alaska pilots live in a place where the men outnumber the women 7:1. Not so sure I'd trust the opinion of guys wanting to hang out with other dudes all the time.

Cue video game scene from 40 Year Old Virgin....
 
The only time it matters where the wing is is when the plane is on the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top