high wing vs low wing for a private pilot

high wing or low wing ?

  • Total voters
    95
S

scarybus320

Pre-Flight
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
44
Location
nor-cal
Display Name
Display name:
scarybus320
after i get my private pilot license, i want to fly the similar type of aircraft for personal flying pleasure, there are high wing aircraft such as the most popular C 172 or low wing aircraft like piper warriors , archers, diamond katana..
what are the the handling characteristics between these 2 types? what about the takeoff and landings with the ground effects? also, i might get an instruments rating just in case i have to fly IFR in the future and will need 50hours of x-country time under part 61, which type of aircraft is better choice?


i should have added a #3 choice either high or low.. but i couldn't add the 3rd option since it's been created ..
 
Last edited:
From my experience at ~30 hours and having flown a '99 172R, '03 172SP and a '98 Archer PA-28-181, I can give some general answers:

The 172 is a little more responsive on the controls. The Archer, like my CFI describes, flies like a Cadillac. It's super smooth (not that the 172 isn't) and requires smoother inputs. The Archer really enjoys being trimmed for level flight and the 172 is a little more forgiving in this aspect. One thing I like about the Archer is that the nosewheel has a direct connection to your rudder pedals. This makes taxiing a breeze. The 172 has bungees on the nosewheel. If they are worn out, you have to sort of anticipate the turn and use more differential braking.

The 172 and the Archer have different landing characteristics. You need to come in faster in the Archer and really be smooth on the touchdown. The Archer has a noticeable ground effect, but it goes away quickly. My CFI explained many pilots have a tendency to let the Archer slam into the ground because they are too high above the runway letting the ground effect bleed off. It can be hard to gauge where the wheels are in the Archer because you can't see them. The 172 is easy to land and is predictable in that matter.

If you really like looking straight down while in the air, the 172 is the way to go. I rather enjoy the view in the Archer. You can't look straight down, but you can see up into the sky and around on the ground. It was refreshing after flying the 172, since the 172 is kinda like wearing a baseball cap.

Personally, I found the Archer to be super comfortable in comparison to the 172. The 172 sits like a Ford Ranger while the Archer sits like my BMW. It's not like the 172 isn't comfortable. I just felt like I have more room and a better seating position in the Archer. Plus, this particular Archer I flew has some sweet seats. I'm actually trying to get myself checked out in the Archer so I can take it on a XC simply for comfort. However, the Archer burns way more gas than the XC and isn't all that much faster, so it isn't necessarily the better choice.

Most people start in the 172. I would fly that around and then once you are comfortable with flying, you should ask your CFI if you can take an Archer (or whatever you have access to) out for a flight. That's what I did.
 
If you want to fly for fun get a high wing and a low wing like I did. Its a Pitts.....
 

Attachments

  • fam pitts 001.jpg
    fam pitts 001.jpg
    111.9 KB · Views: 52
I trained on Cessnas but I now fly primarily Warrior/Archer/Arrow.

The planes do fly differently but I don't think it was that big of a deal to transition between the two. What I miss about Cessnas is their high wing view of the ground and the huge flaps.

I'm really looking forward to flying a M20J-201 though. I don't think Cessna makes anything that competes with those, so low-wing it is!
 
This debate has been held hundreds if not thousands of times. People tend to like what they fly. I for example have always trained and flown low wings. That said I'd consider a high wing.

If you want the definitive answer then here it is: IT DOES NOT MATTER, they do have different characteristics better view up or better view down or what ever but ya know what they are both great. I'd say you can't go wrong which ever way you choose.
 
scarybus320 said:
, which type of aircraft is better choice?
Click to expand...

Buy the plane that meets your mission and budget.

I like them all, but I fly a Mooney 201. It goes fairly fast at reasonable fuel consumption, meets my useful load requirements, and I could afford a 1/2 share without undue hardship.
 
Both have their talking points and grousing points.

  • Insofar as cruise flight is concerned, the high-wing cabin is shaded and more comfortable.
  • For hangar, the high wing provides much more flexibility since the space under the wings is usable for parking or other use (boats, bikes, storage, etc.
  • For ease of pax-pilot loading, high-wing wins every time. No wing climb or "Cherokee roll" required to get in pilot seat, pilot can assure all others are seated, belted, secure and door closed/locked before boarding. Also much easier for pilot to deplane and run back inside to retrieve flight plan material, credit card, sun-glasses, flight bag, fuel ticket, approach plates, ipad, luggage, pencils, headsets or whatever else he forgot prior to loading.
  • For MX, high-wing is much more accessible.
  • For in-flight stability, high-wing is preferable; all birds are so designed for that reason.
  • For loading/unloading in inclement weather, high-wing provides protection from rain & snow.
  • For watching airshows and sitting around at fly-ins, high-wings provide much better shade.
  • For attaching tie-downs and visually assuring that they are untied, high-wings are clearly more superior.
  • For in-flight visibility of anything of interest, high-wings are clearly superior unless you are fascinated rivet patterns on the top of the wing.
  • For pre-flight checks, high-wings provide much much easier fuel sump and wing and tail control surface access.
  • For chocking-unchocking main wheels, high-wing is clearly superior as they can be seen and moved without soiling britches on ramp or grass.
  • For ventilation, high-wings have easy-open windows on both cabin doors. Most low wing cabins are swelter pits.
Low wings are less "tippy" in high-wind ground ops and fuel filler caps are more accessible.

Flying either version is a push. You will acclimate to either configuration in about 15 minutes and never think about it again.
 
Last edited:
I first learned to fly in a 172G, then I bought a 152 to finish my PPL. After finishing up, my wife wanted a larger plane so I bought a Beech Sierra, now I don't think I could go back to flying a high wing aircraft. This may seem insignificant, but besides a much better view of your surroundings, along with the large amount of interior room on the Sierra, one of the main things I like about it is how easy it is to fill the tanks on the low-wing airplane.

In the end, I guess a "Fly both and see what you like" is probably the best answer to this question.
 
Last edited:
Need to add another category - It really doesn't matter.
 
Yahoo_Bang_Head_Emoticon_by_WhiteDragon1983.gif
 
AdamZ said:
This debate has been held hundreds if not thousands of times. People tend to like what they fly. I for example have always trained and flown low wings. That said I'd consider a high wing.

If you want the definitive answer then here it is: IT DOES NOT MATTER, they do have different characteristics better view up or better view down or what ever but ya know what they are both great. I'd say you can't go wrong which ever way you choose.
Click to expand...
What he said. :yeahthat:
 
If youre checked out on it, it has wings, can pass a AROW check, and starts, just say "Yes Please!"
 
MSPAviator said:
I trained on Cessnas but I now fly primarily Warrior/Archer/Arrow.

The planes do fly differently but I don't think it was that big of a deal to transition between the two. What I miss about Cessnas is their high wing view of the ground and the huge flaps.

I'm really looking forward to flying a M20J-201 though. I don't think Cessna makes anything that competes with those, so low-wing it is!
Click to expand...
Ever heard of the Cessna 400? Not your grandfather's 201!
 
I'm a farmer. Nothing but a high wing makes any sense for me. I want to look down at the crops. Other than that, Wayne said it all.
 
Both have their advantages and disadvantages. I prefer low wings myself, but I'd take 182 if you gave me a decent price for it.

It's my personal opinion though that low wings are inherently better for retractable gear applications.
 
Since it seems like the consensus is that high vs. low makes no difference then let me ask this. Are there any difference in flight characteristics with the two?
 
LJS1993 said:
Since it seems like the consensus is that high vs. low makes no difference then let me ask this. Are there any difference in flight characteristics with the two?
Click to expand...

Yup, low wings fly much better. ;)

In my limited experience, design detail seems more important than shade or step (high or low).
 
You are looking at the wrong criteria for which planes to fly, high wing and low wing is basically irrelevant. What a plane looks like doesn't mean squat to how it flies. All planes fly the same, get checked in as many as you can if you're a renter that way you'll have the most planes available. Then you can choose which one suits that flights mission best and take it. That may have you flying a 152 in the morning and a Cherokee 6 in the afternoon; it shouldn't matter to you which one you fly.
 
I didn't vote. It really doesn't matter - buy the plane you like better.

Low wings are my preference.
 
High wing. All the above mention issues plus easier egress in a rollover accident and failsafe fuel delivery (at least in my plane) in the event of a fuel pump failure. The high wing would appear to add some structural protection to the cabin, at least on the smaller aircraft.
 
I've noticed that low wings tend to have 'crisper' rolls. But then again, I have nothing ankles down.
 
Tailwheel or nosewheel is a more salient question. If you want to learn to fly, find an airplane that will help teach you to fly. Most trainers today fly like a Honda Civic drives. Find one that requires a pilot aboard.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Ever heard of the Cessna 400? Not your grandfather's 201!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a fixed gear, low wing with a TSIO-550

Not exactly apples to oranges with low wing retract with an IO-360.

a 172/177RG would be more along the lines for comparison for a Cessna high wing vs Mooney Low wing debate.
 
wabower said:
[*]For in-flight visibility of anything of interest, high-wings are clearly superior unless you are fascinated rivet patterns on the top of the wing.
Click to expand...
This would be my reason for choosing a high-wing since I find looking a the scenery more entertaining than looking at the sky, which looks the same from the ground. :D
 
1. Can't see the runway when turning in the pattern.
2. Need a ladder and/or a pet monkey to refuel. (Although it is mildly entertaining watching a guy refuel an Otter on floats)
3. Narrow gear not as forgiving and typically spring steel or tube.
4. high wing retract mechanisms :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
5. Typically more sensitive to turbulence (and crosswind).
6. Need braces to prop the wing up when it's parked.

Unless you just need the clearance from obstacles you encounter when operating in the the bush, I can't really see any positives with a high wing. :D
 
>1. Can't see the runway when turning in the pattern.

Keeps the sun out of your eyes when turning in the pattern.

>2. Need a ladder and/or a pet monkey to refuel. (Although it is mildly entertaining watching a guy refuel an Otter on floats)

Don't need to rely on an electric fuel pump.

>3. Narrow gear not as forgiving and typically spring steel or tube.

Easier to taxi through the cones the FBO set up to keep you from taking the shortcut you always take.

>4. high wing retract mechanisms

Mechanical R&D engineers need jobs too.

>5. Typically more sensitive to turbulence (and crosswind).

On the ground, yes. In the air, no.

>6. Need braces to prop the wing up when it's parked.

Actually those braces hold the wing up in flight too.

>obstacles you encounter when operating in the the bush

Yes - indeed harder for the tower to see what you're doing with your girlfriend.
 
>1. Can't see the runway when turning in the pattern.

Keeps the sun out of your eyes when turning in the pattern.

-> I live in Montana, what is that?

>2. Need a ladder and/or a pet monkey to refuel. (Although it is mildly entertaining watching a guy refuel an Otter on floats)

Don't need to rely on an electric fuel pump.

-> I don't I have a mechanical one attached to the engine.


>3. Narrow gear not as forgiving and typically spring steel or tube.

Easier to taxi through the cones the FBO set up to keep you from taking the shortcut you always take.

-> 91.13

>4. high wing retract mechanisms

Mechanical R&D engineers need jobs too.

-> Welfare for R&D engineers

>5. Typically more sensitive to turbulence (and crosswind).

On the ground, yes. In the air, no.

-> My plane's on the ground more than it's in the air.

>6. Need braces to prop the wing up when it's parked.

Actually those braces hold the wing up in flight too.

-> Even worse. (Though i thought they were mainly for propping the wings up when on the ground)


>obstacles you encounter when operating in the the bush

Yes - indeed harder for the tower to see what you're doing with your girlfriend.

-> As good a reason as any
[/QUOTE]
 
My present plane is a high wing,,, but I voted for a low wing..:yesnod:

My poison of choice would be a mid wing though.. AeroStar..:)
 
Actually it's best when the wing is so far behind you that you can't see much of it anyway. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top