High Wing vs Low Wing

Bell206 said:
True. But they come with a built-in ridge pole that can handle a decent size tarp or tent with no problem. You need shade, I can get you shade.;)
Click to expand...
The old stinger hammock trick…
 
Brad Smith said:
I prefer the handling of a taper-wing Piper over the same class of Cessna, but everything else seems to be in the high wings favor. Ingress/egress, fuel sumps, visibility, better basic stability, more comfortable cabin (to me), gravity fuel feed, simpler fuel system etc…. Oh, and Pipers seem to shed their wings more often than Cessna.
Click to expand...

If you are worried about wings coming off, you need a Mooney. One piece tip to tip. Cessna wings are separate and just a few bolts to attach.
 
You can't have a bubble canopy on a high wing aircraft. The visibility in an AA-1X is fantastic, although it can be a tad warm in hot climates. I'm the AA-5x, they put metal over your head, but I still got a canopy. Free AC during taxi! Can't do that in a high wing.

Otherwise, there is little to choose between high and low wing. They are...different, yet the same in most ways.
 
Pinecone said:
If you are worried about wings coming off, you need a Mooney. One piece tip to tip. Cessna wings are separate and just a few bolts to attach.
Click to expand...
I’ve only ever been concerned with shedding wings during aerobatic maneuvers. I’ve flown lots of Cherokees and even helped remove wings from them for transport. Seems pretty robust, but the latest Piper AD reminds us that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
 
chemgeek said:
You can't have a bubble canopy on a high wing aircraft. The visibility in an AA-1X is fantastic, although it can be a tad warm in hot climates. I'm the AA-5x, they put metal over your head, but I still got a canopy. Free AC during taxi! Can't do that in a high wing.

Otherwise, there is little to choose between high and low wing. They are...different, yet the same in most ways.
Click to expand...
F060C405-FF97-46D4-996F-568EA5F8E437.jpeg
 
Half Fast said:
I trained in Tecnam high-wings, then transitioned to Cherokees and Warriors. I presently own a Beech Musketeer. I prefer low-wings for several reasons, but reason number (1) dwarfs the others: when I am holding short at an uncontrolled airport, waiting to take the runway, I want a clear and unobstructed view of the sky, especially a view of anyone who might be on final. I absolutely hate the restricted view a high-wing provides in that situation.

My other, less important, reasons are:
(2) Ease of entry. At my diminutive size, entering a high-wing requires stepping onto a landing tire or a strut or some such. Stepping onto the wing of my Beech is much easier, and I can set things like a kneeboard or headset on the wing while I sit in the seat and get things sorted in the cockpit.
(3) Ease of fueling. Dragging a fuel hose up a ladder, or even just climbing up to stick the tanks, is a royal pain.
(4) I've knocked my head on a high wing so many times that I'm convinced the only reason people like them is that they now have brain damage from one too many knocks.
(5) I don't like the way a high-wing obstructs visibility in the direction of a turn. This includes obscuring the runway during turns in the pattern.
(6) Low-wings look better. Don't believe me? Try to envision a high-wing version of a P-51. Just doesn't work, does it? Or a high-wing F-16, F-35, SR-71, etc., etc.?
(7) Low-wings are faster. Ever seen a supersonic high-wing?
(8) Low-wings fly higher. Ever seen a high-wing that will fly higher than the space shuttle?

YMMV, of course. Or you just might be in denial.
Click to expand...
Except for the fueling thing, howsa bout this

upload_2022-6-15_8-20-49.jpeg
 
chemgeek said:
You can't have a bubble canopy on a high wing aircraft.
Click to expand...

Almost a bubble!

23596403906_20a397a77b_c.jpg
 
I fly because I like the view from the air. I don't want a wing in my way, so I really prefer a high wing plane! I also like putting a chair in the shade of my wing and enjoying a good fly-in, but I invite my low-wing buddies to join me!

It's funny how we can all see things so differently.
Half Fast said:
when I am holding short at an uncontrolled airport, waiting to take the runway, I want a clear and unobstructed view of the sky, especially a view of anyone who might be on final. I absolutely hate the restricted view a high-wing provides in that situation.
Click to expand...
I turn toward the landing traffic enough I can see anyone on final. Not sure how this is a problem.
Half Fast said:
Ease of entry. At my diminutive size, entering a high-wing requires stepping onto a landing tire or a strut or some such. Stepping onto the wing of my Beech is much easier, and I can set things like a kneeboard or headset on the wing while I sit in the seat and get things sorted in the cockpit.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty stiff from my football years and my hip replacement. Making that first step up onto a wing, and avoiding the flap which says "No Step" on it, yet still has the wing walk on it, is harder for me than climbing into my 182!
Half Fast said:
I don't like the way a high-wing obstructs visibility in the direction of a turn. This includes obscuring the runway during turns in the pattern.
Click to expand...
I hate the way a low wing obscures what I really need to see in the traffic pattern... someone on final that could be coming right at me! I know where the runway is! I have flown a lot of biplanes though, so maybe I'm just used to not seeing the runway at all!
Half Fast said:
Or you just might be in denial.
Click to expand...
I probably am!
 
Maybe I was just thankful for having my butt in an airplane, but I always adapted to whichever configuration the wing was in and just flew it.

Maybe the Aerostar and 690 messed with my head a bit, but they were too cool to worry abut the wing. Couldn't hardly see it, anyway!
 
Lowflynjack said:
...I hate the way a low wing obscures what I really need to see in the traffic pattern... someone on final that could be coming right at me! I know where the runway is! ...
Click to expand...

huh???
 
Ahhh yes, the ole Mary Anne v. Ginger aviation discussion...

I identify as highlowany wing.
 
eman1200 said:
huh???
Click to expand...
When you turn toward the runway, the low wing goes up in the air and blocks your view of anything on a straight-in approach, the same way he says the high wing comes down and blocks his view of the runway.
 
Lowflynjack said:
When you turn toward the runway, the low wing goes up in the air and blocks your view of anything on a straight-in approach, the same way he says the high wing comes down and blocks his view of the runway.
Click to expand...

yeah, I can't imagine anyone would ever look at final BEFORE they turn. that would just be silly. looking for traffic while you're turning into that traffic clearly is the way to go. I think I've been doing it wrong all these years.
 
FastEddieB said:
When in the pattern, a low wing blocks your view of traffic in turns. Most critically blocking your view of traffic on final while you’re in the base-to-final turn.
Click to expand...

so fly crosswind, downwind, base, and don't look for any traffic anywhere until you turn into potentially oncoming traffic, then look. got it. makes perfect sense.
 
Just a shot in the dark but - can we just all agree to disagree? Some like a high wing, some like a low wing. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Some like to hang below the wing, some like to sit on the wing. Some have mental issues and some like a low wing. Some like to stand on the ground to fuel their airplane, some need some sort of appliance to do so. Some....
 
eman1200 said:
yeah, I can't imagine anyone would ever look at final BEFORE they turn. that would just be silly. looking for traffic while you're turning into that traffic clearly is the way to go. I think I've been doing it wrong all these years.
Click to expand...
No argument, but it's the same as someone saying they can't see the runway when they're turning. Oh no, maybe they moved it right after I started my turn!!
 
I have owned both. They have their pluses and minuses. Whatever is available on any day is my favorite. My current airplane is a c150.
 
This one qualifies too...
upload_2022-6-15_23-4-0.png
And the test pilot (XB-52 Stratofortress) happened to be that Tex Johnston that has just been named in another thread for his barrel roll at the presentation of the 707
upload_2022-6-15_23-7-18.png
 
Most of the pictures of planes with "high wings" and canopies that have been posted are NOT high wing. They are shoulder wing. Be definition, a HIGH wing is above the cockpit.

But I fly a C-182 for CAP and am buying a Mooney M20K.

What do I know. They are both planes, and they both fly, and that is what makes them fun.
 
Pinecone said:
Be definition, a HIGH wing is above the cockpit.
Click to expand...
Is that right? I think maybe the wing position is described relative to the fuselage, not the cockpit. But I'm no aeronautical engineer.

I AM, however, a biologist, which qualifies me to answer questions that are too tough for many in media and politics.
 
Pinecone said:
Most of the pictures of planes with "high wings" and canopies that have been posted are NOT high wing. They are shoulder wing. Be definition, a HIGH wing is above the cockpit.
Click to expand...

This better? And before someone says "that's not an airplane" the original post everyone is responding to specifically said aircraft not airplane.
 

Attachments

  • B47.jpg
    B47.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 30
OneCharlieTango said:
...
I AM, however, a biologist, which qualifies me to answer questions that are too tough for many in media and politics.
Click to expand...

A four year degree in a scientific field? You're 10x that of media and politics. At best, they have a degree in speaking with authority about subjects they're generally unaware of. A teenager that knows how to work all the food stations at a McDonald's can answer questions that would stump most in media and politics.
 
OneCharlieTango said:
Is that right? I think maybe the wing position is described relative to the fuselage, not the cockpit. But I'm no aeronautical engineer.
Click to expand...

Maybe be more accurate to say a high wing is above the fuselage. A wing at the top edge is normally called a shoulder wing placement.
 
If high wings just didn't need struts (210,177).

A high wing owner here. Low wings look cooler. Mid height or T-tail even better. Love the Columbia/TTx.

But two big doors, shade and seeing down would be hard to part with. Especially when its another $400k.
 
I fly a 182T and DA40 regularly...and honestly, don't prefer one over the other. Sure, the 182 is a better for the NYC skyline tour over the Hudson, but for the most other flights, it doesn't matter.
 
They're are pros and cons to both. I think high wings have more benefit during initial training.
 
I used to think that aside from the obvious view of the ground benefits, there really wasn’t much of significance that would tilt me one way or the other. I fly both, but I’m tall, and find I always have to crank the seat down for decent air to air view from high wing Cessnas.

Then came the PA-28 wing separation accident and the sudden realization that aircraft subject to hard landings during training activities are also likely stressing the wing attach hardware at the same time. Not so good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top