High Wing vs Low Wing

How many low-winged birds have you seen in nature? Case solved. Even though I own a Cessna & love the way it flies I prefer the flight visibility out of a low wing airplane.
 
Most fighters are low wing ... :)
 
Low wing is used by airliners. Officially that's because it lets them make the gear shorter. But really, it's so that passengers can't see if the fuel tanks are leaking in flight.

High wing is used by military transports. Officially that's to provide more unobstructed cargo space. But really, it's to reduce the chances of airmen driving trucks into the wings.

A low, mid, and high wing was used on the Fokker Dreidecker. Officially this was made as a copy of a Sopwith Triplane. But really, Anthony Fokker was just drunk when he requested it.
 
I prefer high wing, especially as I've gotten older. Very nice to have an easy step-in to the cabin. Passengers seem to appreciate this feature as well.

Also on hot or rainy days, it's nice to have the high wing as a canopy cover. Night ops, it's easier to get in/out as well.
 
This is a debate no one can win. Most people with high wing planes will say "high wing", while most people with low wing planes will say "low wing". There's usually a reason why they ended up buying the plane they ended up buying. I've flown Cessnas in training and even owned a C-150 for a few months. I also owned an Ercoupe and now a Cherokee. I personally like low wing aircraft much better. They feel more stable to me, they don't get caught in x-wind nearly as bad as high wing planes and I prefer seeing the top of the wings when looking out of the window. But I betcha others have a ton of points on why they prefer high wings over low wings.
 
I prefer low wings for in-flight and pattern visibility, and ease of fueling. High wings are better for straight and level ground visibility, ease of entry, ease of pushing around on the ground and are cooler in the summer. While a few low wings have two doors, most high wings do. Climbing up onto the wing and down into the cabin is hard on aging bones.

I generally prefer low wings, though I wouldn’t trade my 185 for anything right now.
 
I like the flight characteristics of a low wing, but in the summer in Florida it feels like an oven during taxi and run up. Two doors on a Cessna beats climbing across the seat of a Piper.
 
MauleSkinner said:
High wings are better because you have better visibility and they don’t float as much on landing.

On the other hand, low wings are better because you have better visibility and they don’t float as much on landing.
Click to expand...


You had me in the first half.

I've also never hit my head on the trailing edge of a low wing during preflight.
 
The high wing is so superior, the Fokker DrI used two of them.

Or....it was so inferior, it needed two high wings and just one low wing.

Case closed!

iu
 
Charlie Golf said:
The high wing is so superior, the Fokker DrI used two of them.

Or....it was so inferior, it needed two high wings and just one low wing.

Case closed!
Click to expand...

No way! The case was reopened by the British that saw the need for one more wing with the quadruplane Armstrong Whitworth F.K.10. Everybody knows now that there is an even greater need for a plane with five wings, of which three should be upper and two lower, or two upper and three lower, whatever is best...

upload_2022-6-13_8-31-10.png
 
saddletramp said:
How many low-winged birds have you seen in nature? Case solved. Even though I own a Cessna & love the way it flies I prefer the flight visibility out of a low wing airplane.
Click to expand...
That's due more for how muscles work, they contract, not push, so it makes more sense for birds to have the majority of their "meat" under their wings..

Mid-wing probably makes the most sense, ideally speaking. But that creates structural challenges. Still, the magnificent Aerostar, photo'd above, got it done.. and to this day it's the fastest GA piston twin out there



My biggest issue with high wings is their handling, they just don't feel as tight. And while you can see DOWN great I feel like I can't really see ahead, left, right, left and up, right and up, or up at all. When maneuvering in tight spaces, uncontrolled airports, or around terrain I'll take a low wing every day of the week
 
FWIW: from a maintenance perspective, I would have all low wings below 6000 lbs banned, or made owner-maintained only, or impose a system wide premium hourly rate to work on them. ;)
 
What ever you prefer.

Transition from one to the other is no biggie either.

it’s best to fly them both especially if you rent, gives you more options
 
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.
 
Brad Smith said:
Pipers seem to shed their wings more often than Cessna.
Click to expand...
shots fired! Is it all of them or just the PA-28? Something I don't like to think about when in the bumps either, even though I generally prefer low wings. Don't forget un-strutted 210 had a wing failure and is subject to an AD now as well. Our little 60 year old antique relics are past their prime sadly :(
 
I’m fortunate that I can fly one type as BAD as the other!

OTOH - High wings do clear snow banks better.
 
How's that refueling going for you when there's no ladder at the pumps?
 
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.
 
Piperonca said:
No shade (unless you have an old wide-blade Cobra), but a nice breeze.
Click to expand...
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.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top