Transition from low wing to high wing?

[LongRoadBob]

when I can start flying, I always figured it would be in a Cessna 152 or 172, but the best choice of clubs here usually use a low wing plane called a Aquila. It's a good deal smaller than a 172 and though it is possible to use the 172 it costs more and it also gets rented out by the club so it is not always available. They recommend learning in the low wing Aquila.

I'm assuming I want to do all learning until I get my certificate on one plane if possible.

I think it likely that after getting my certificate I will want to rent the Cessna, and I know I will have to be "checked out" on it. Any average time for checking out on a new plane when it is a different wing configuration such as all experience on a low wing getting checked out on a high wing?

I'm trying to think of what differences there would be. I beleive ground effect would be much less on a high wing. But also was thinking the prop wash is maybe not affecting the wings as much on a high wing? Also what does that do to the feel when you stall (just guessing it might be more noticeable when you start stalking on a high wing because less ?) but I of course know nothing so I thought to ask. Also is there stability differences as a high wing the air over the wings doesn't have as much effect on the horizontal stabilizer?

I thought I had asked this here before, and gotten a "it's no big difference" but when I searched I couldn't find my question of any responses so pardon if I've asked this before and forgotten.

 

[write-stuff]

It doesn't answer the specifics of your question, but in realworld flying the differences will be negligible. As far as which is easier to fly, I don't think you can pigeon-hole it into high-wing vs. low-wing. Some models are easier to fly than others, but you can't generalize the differences to wing placement.

 

[Mike Smith]

I am about to do the same thing. I have almost all my hours in a Cherokee and am about to get checked out in the 172. My instructor tells me he believes we can get it done in one lesson, maybe an hour and a half.

 

[Unit74]

Low wings tend to float much more as IGE is more pronounced. Downward visibility is also diminished. Upward vis is much better.

Having flown both, I prefer low wing planes.

 

[midwestpa24]

The biggest difference I found between the Pipers and Cessnas when I transitioned between them was not the wing, but the landing gear. It feels much different on the ground and during takeoff and landing.

 

[FastEddieB]

Pay attention to how and when visibility is blocked when turning in each style.

It's different, and that difference is important.

Beyond that, it's mainly the ground effect thing you mentioned.

Though I think I also subtly prefer the ride of a low wing in turbulence - something about sitting ON the wing rather than hanging UNDER it.

 

[James331]

It doesn't answer the specifics of your question, but in realworld flying the differences will be negligible. As far as which is easier to fly, I don't think you can pigeon-hole it into high-wing vs. low-wing. Some models are easier to fly than others, but you can't generalize the differences to wing placement.

Why would you want to learn in the easiest to fly plane you could find?

Did you choose your college based on which one had the easiest classes?


Per the OPs question, I have zero experience in the plane in question BUT I do fly low to high wing planes all the time, it's all the same and I wouldn't worry about where your wings are bolted to.

 

[tsts4]

I did it the other way around went from high wing to low wing. IMO it really doesn't matter. Yes there are some differences IGE but they are minor. As for stalls, there's no difference that I've noticed.

 

[yakdriver]

Looks like the Aquila would be a great trainer. The Light Sports like that usually have nice light crisp controls and a 172 will feel like a truck after learning in the Aquila. It is no a big deal to transition from low to high wing as all airplanes fly about the same. I fly a biplane so get all the drawbacks of high and low wing. Don

 

[Volitation]

Why would you want to learn in the easiest to fly plane you could find?

Did you choose your college based on which one had the easiest classes?


Per the OPs question, I have zero experience in the plane in question BUT I do fly low to high wing planes all the time, it's all the same and I wouldn't worry about where your wings are bolted to.

-----

Would a better comparison be in which kindergarten or elementary school did you begin learning?

 

[GRG55]

Pay attention to how and when visibility is blocked when turning in each style.

It's different, and that difference is important.

Beyond that, it's mainly the ground effect thing you mentioned.

Though I think I also subtly prefer the ride of a low wing in turbulence - something about sitting ON the wing rather than hanging UNDER it.

+1 to the visibility comments. That's probably the most important difference, and not difficult to adjust to in one flight.

Stability of the airplane is dependent on the aeronautical engineering of the design, not the wing placement. Any airplane that is "not stable" won't prove very successful with student pilots, and nobody is ever going to accuse the C172 of being unstable or difficult to fly. You won't have any problem transitioning to it if you've done most of your training in something else.

Before you fly a new type make a habit of studying the POH for the airplane you are moving to, understand the differences in the important numbers compared to the airplane you are coming from (airspeeds), and carefully read the emergency procedures - they will all be similar, but don't assume they are all exactly the same.

 

[Somedudeintn]

Really not a big deal. Visibility in turns is the biggest difference I noticed. High vs low not much of a difference. Yoke vs center stick not much of a difference. Once you learn to fly a trainer airplane, there's not much to flying other ones that have similar hp and speeds.

 

[LongRoadBob]

Thanks all. I like this forum, there are really great, and direct answers.
It pretty much answered all I was trying to find out.

 

[James331]

-----

Would a better comparison be in which kindergarten or elementary school did you begin learning?

I wouldn't say that, and seeing the end product of guys who were trained 0 time in taildraggers compared to 172s, it's a world of difference.

 

[Unit74]

As a side note, have you noticed that just about every new performance plane rolling off the line is low wing to include Cessna? Draw your own conclusions there.

 

[AggieMike88]

Another point on visibility... Your sight picture is different between the two because of seat design and position. So expect lots of TnGs before your happy with your landings.

Also spend some time just sitting on the ground with motor off training your muscle memory and the new to you flows.

Now go fly and have fun

 

[GRG55]

I wouldn't say that, and seeing the end product of guys who were trained 0 time in taildraggers compared to 172s, it's a world of difference.

LongRoadBob is working hard to become a private pilot. He asked a straight forward question about high wing vs low wing. Taildraggers have nothing to do with a cogent answer to that question. Let's try to help him out and encourage him, instead of making him feel training without tailwheel time is somehow deficient before he even gets started.

I'll bet the overwhelming majority of commercial and corporate pilots in the world today have ZERO tailwheel time. Doesn't seem to make much difference.

 

[write-stuff]

Why would you want to learn in the easiest to fly plane you could find?

Did you choose your college based on which one had the easiest classes?

Why do infer things that weren't implied?

 

[Everskyward]

I wouldn't say that, and seeing the end product of guys who were trained 0 time in taildraggers compared to 172s, it's a world of difference.

Yeah, they can fly taildraggers better. So what? It doesn't make any difference if the airplane they are flying is not a taildragger. People are generally best at flying the airplane they have the most recent time in.

 

[James331]

Simply saying trying to find the easiest plane to fly for your initial training isn't really a good goal.

Why do infer things that weren't implied?

Because you said

It doesn't answer the specifics of your question, but in realworld flying the differences will be negligible. As far as which is easier to fly, I don't think you can pigeon-hole it into high-wing vs. low-wing. Some models are easier to fly than others, but you can't generalize the differences to wing placement.

Mentioning which was easier to fly, on a topic of which aircraft is better for flight training. Perhaps I was off, but it sounded like a selling point in your post.

 

[FastEddieB]

Yeah, they can fly taildraggers better. So what? It doesn't make any difference if the airplane they are flying is not a taildragger. People are generally best at flying the airplane they have the most recent time in.

I will hold that taildragger experience is generally an overall good thing for all pilots.

 

[Everskyward]

I will hold that taildragger experience is generally an overall good thing for all pilots.

I think that diverse experience, taildraggers included, is good for any pilot. But I wouldn't tell someone to go way out of their way to get their initial training in one. I don't think it makes any difference in the end.

 

[write-stuff]

Mentioning which was easier to fly, on a topic of which aircraft is better for flight training. Perhaps I was off, but it sounded like a selling point in your post.

Since my position is that there is negligible difference in the way they fly, I was hardly selling anything. Read slower next time.

 

[denverpilot]

Pay attention to how and when visibility is blocked when turning in each style.

It's different, and that difference is important.

Also on the ground. I've noticed that folks that didn't do primary training in a high wing rarely turn the airplane in a circle or half circle on the ground to look around the pattern at uncontrolled fields and also rarely angle themselves to see final well before taking the runway.

Primacy and all that... They just don't do it. They sit there sideways to the final and try to look out and up from under the wing and don't really even realize all they have to do is turn the airplane a bit to have a perfect view.

 

[GRG55]

I will hold that taildragger experience is generally an overall good thing for all pilots.

I doubt you'd find much disagreement around here.

So is flying in different weather conditions, flying to new airports for the first time, dealing with un-controlled and towered (controlled) airports, getting a night rating, flying a variety of different airplanes, learning to configure a new GPS (decades old VCR training can be useful ) and a host of other experiences that are available to students and licensed pilots.

But iirc LongRoadBob is a mature student in the very initial stages of seeking a PPL, asking a series of questions the answers to which will doubtless shape his expectations. In that context some of the suggestions seemed a wee bit unhelpful. All of us learn to stand before we walk, and walk before we run. No need for him to make his journey any more difficult or less enjoyable for him than necessary.

 

[FastEddieB]

...learning to configure a new GPS (decades old VCR training can be useful )...

Is that why my GPS keeps flashing 12:00?

 

[GRG55]

Also on the ground. I've noticed that folks that didn't do primary training in a high wing rarely turn the airplane in a circle or half circle on the ground to look around the pattern at uncontrolled fields and also rarely angle themselves to see final well before taking the runway.

Primacy and all that... They just don't do it. They sit there sideways to the final and try to look out and up from under the wing and don't really even realize all they have to do is turn the airplane a bit to have a perfect view.

+1. My home airport is a towered regional, and on the nice days the pattern can be busy with students. I am amazed at the number of pilots that announce to the tower they are "ready for take off" with an airplane on final that they seem not to know about because they didn't bother to look.

 

[GRG55]

Is that why my GPS keeps flashing 12:00?

That'll teach you for turning off the Master.

 

[ahypnoz]

The best advice that I received from an old salty pilot: "It is best to train in the plane that you plan on flying"

Very simple but true advice, the more you train in the plane that you will be flying, overall the better pilot you will be in that plane.

You will naturally want to fly what you have been trained in, based on Primacy, the state of being first, often creates a strong impression in the mind that is difficult to break or change. It is what you will feel the most comfortable in. You must ask yourself, If I am going to use the Aquila low wing to be trained in because it is cheaper and more available, what is going to change when you get your ticket?

If you want to fly a high wing plane, I would train in a high wing plane.

In my opinion the advantage of the high wing planes is that they are much easier to land when there is not much wind, they are very forgiving and float down the runway and come down very gently and soft. They are engineered to make you look good on landings.
They are also much easier to get in and out of, you do not have to climb on top of the wing.

The low wing planes are more difficult to master in the landing phase, they float in the ground effect and then they loose lift all of a sudden and land with a "Thunk" They cut into the wind instead of just float through the wind. Thus the low wing airplanes generally do better in high wind espically high cross wind conditions. In low wing airplane, the crosswind seems like it does not get under the wing and try to flip the plane during landings and taxing. It will also train you not to be lazy with your right ruder on full power during takeoffs. The low wing airplanes are harder to get into, you have to climb on top of the wings.

You would probably feel more comfortable to fly in high wind and crosswind conditions and thus fly more often in those conditions, but in general there are more high wing airplanes available to rent then low wing airplanes.

In reality, when you become an experienced pilot, it really will not matter that much what the wind conditions will be, but you will probability just gravitate to what you were initially trained in. I would definitly try to train exclusively in what you are going to have your check ride in and not switch back and forth.

when I can start flying, I always figured it would be in a Cessna 152 or 172, but the best choice of clubs here usually use a low wing plane called a Aquila. It's a good deal smaller than a 172 and though it is possible to use the 172 it costs more and it also gets rented out by the club so it is not always available. They recommend learning in the low wing Aquila.

I'm assuming I want to do all learning until I get my certificate on one plane if possible.

I think it likely that after getting my certificate I will want to rent the Cessna, and I know I will have to be "checked out" on it. Any average time for checking out on a new plane when it is a different wing configuration such as all experience on a low wing getting checked out on a high wing?

I'm trying to think of what differences there would be. I beleive ground effect would be much less on a high wing. But also was thinking the prop wash is maybe not affecting the wings as much on a high wing? Also what does that do to the feel when you stall (just guessing it might be more noticeable when you start stalking on a high wing because less ?) but I of course know nothing so I thought to ask. Also is there stability differences as a high wing the air over the wings doesn't have as much effect on the horizontal stabilizer?

I thought I had asked this here before, and gotten a "it's no big difference" but when I searched I couldn't find my question of any responses so pardon if I've asked this before and forgotten.

 

[Everskyward]

+1. My home airport is a towered regional, and on the nice days the pattern can be busy with students. I am amazed at the number of pilots that announce to the tower they are "ready for take off" with an airplane on final that they seem not to know about because they didn't bother to look.

In most cases I'm guessing it's not because they don't know there is an airplane on final, it's because they want to preserve their sequence for takeoff, especially if there is more than one access point to the runway or runways.

 

[MAKG1]

+1. My home airport is a towered regional, and on the nice days the pattern can be busy with students. I am amazed at the number of pilots that announce to the tower they are "ready for take off" with an airplane on final that they seem not to know about because they didn't bother to look.

Irrelevant.

That you are ready for takeoff does not mean you want to take the runway right now. It does, however, get you a place in line.

 

[ircphoenix]

Why would you want to learn in the easiest to fly plane you could find?

Did you choose your college based on which one had the easiest classes?

Whether your degree is from Geffen Medical School at UCLA or Hollywood Upstairs Medical College, you still have M.D. after your name.... and in 90% of situations, that's all that matters.

 

[Cluemeister]

Reminds me of the old joke. What do they call the guy who graduates last in his class at medical school? Doctor.

 

[frfly172]

Not too worry,the difference is negligible,with a good instructor check out.i enjoy flying both. The more time you get ,the easier it gets to fly either. When I was renting ,I would fly what was available.

 

[EdFred]

My first few lessons were in a Cherokee. Then lessons in a 152, then a 172, then back to the Cherokee 140, then back to the 152. I had no "check out" flights for any of the switches. We did each lesson as if I had flown all my lessons in the plane I was going to be using that day. In other words, if you can't transition from one trainer to another in less than half an hour, your instructor sucks.

 

[EdFred]

Irrelevant.

That you are ready for takeoff does not mean you want to take the runway right now. It does, however, get you a place in line.

Agreed. I even say I'm ready if I'm waiting behind someone else waiting to be cleared for takeoff. Let's the tower know I'm ready when he (the tower) is.

 

[FreqFlyrJr]

I transitioned from Cessna 152's and 172's to a Grumman Tiger. After having about 60 hours in the high wings, I was sold on always wanting to fly a high-wing for my training and pre-airline work. Man was I wrong. I enjoy the low-wing Grumman much more. I get better visibility and comfort in the Grumman (keep in mind there are some low-wings that the visibility is crap).

Anyway, the main difference I saw between the high and low wing was that the low wing Grumman has a much more pronounced float in ground-effect. While you flare a Cessna during landing pretty dramatically, the low-wing Grumman needs to come in almost flat or you'll float and bounce. That one lesson you'll have will probably be beating up the pattern a bit until you feel the difference in landing the high-wing.

 

[JustinD]

The difference in negligible as many others have said, when I started flying both high wings and low wings not very many differences to notice. some of things though include. When taxiing in a low wing you don't have as good an idea where your mains are so just be extra careful around edges and lights etc. if using wing low in a strong crosswind also just be mindful in the low wing. With a high wing you generally have poorer visibility during climbs, and turns, especially in a pattern as your wing is blocking some of the view, but again these are all things that you just learn to adapt to and its not a noticeable thing to worry about. I wouldn't base your training, renting, or purchase preference off the high wing or low wing aspect.

 

[saddletramp]

If your area has lots of rain the high wing is much better. Ask a Grumman pilot how they like getting in & out of their cockpits in the rain.

The difference is the way they fly isn't a big deal.

 

[classicrock]

I am a VFR private pilot in training. did my first 2 "supervised" solos last 10 days. I started at one school flyingin a Cessna 172 and after switching flying schools, ended up in a Piper Warrior. my CFI told me that you have to solo in one type of plane, and so after about 10 lessons in a Cessna 172, I had decided to test the Piper Warrior. its the one I will solo in. the primary difference is there are 2 doors(one on each side) of a Cessna 172 and to use flaps, you press down a toggle switch to the far right of the instrument panel to engage the flaps. with a Piper Warrior(low wing)there is only one door to get in and out the plane, and to engage the flaps, you pull up the bar between the seats. I dont really like one door entry or the bar between the seats but other than that, I like the plane. They both fly pretty much the same. after I get my license, I will join a local flying club where their fleet is one C-172 and 2 C-182. both C-182 are constant speed prop planes. I will have to learn how to fly one of those but that's another story