Yeah, I'm definitely a low wing guy.

L

LandSickness

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
1,023
Display Name
Display name:
fri tale
I had an afternoon to myself, so I decided to take a couple of hours of dual in a Cessna 172P. My first time in a plane in like nine months...and it was weird. I'm so used to looking out the window and being assured by that low wing of the Warriors and 180s I trained in that I was so distracted. The divot in the floor just ahead of the brakes was also an "adjustment".

Although I experienced a great afternoon of flying and was able to knock off some rust while going over basic ground reference maneuvers, the sensation that I'm being carried by a pterodactyl remains...

I'm a low wing guy.
 
Last edited:
The major problem I have with low wings (and I know there are exceptions) is the single door concept... It is so awkward to climb in before your passengers, especially if they are new to flying... Also that tiny little window leaves me drenched on summer days with no ventilation... It's so much better to pop the windows opened after touching down or taxiing...better yet to fly with them opened... IMHO...
 
What's a 172U? The latest model I've seen is a 172S.

There is a high wing U206. Pretty different beast, especially in either right seat.
 
FlySince9 said:
The major problem I have with low wings (and I know there are exceptions) is the single door concept... It is so awkward to climb in before your passengers, especially if they are new to flying... Also that tiny little window leaves me drenched on summer days with no ventilation... It's so much better to pop the windows opened after touching down or taxiing...better yet to fly with them opened... IMHO...
Click to expand...

this..

I'm a low time student pilot, so I don't know nothing about nothing, but that was the impression I got from the one training flight I had in a cherokee, kinda claustrophobic in the left seat. And I'm a small dude. I guess this isn't really a low wing 'feature' though. Other low wings have different door/canopy configurations

It did feel cooler though for some reason looking down on the wing.
 
Last edited:
I like a high wing better also for a lot of reasons. But, low wings are great too!
 
I really wish more low wing planes had more doors too.
The Sierra has 3 huge doors. Not sure why piper couldn't the same
 
High wing or low, I wouldn't kick either out of my hangar. Each has pros and cons, mostly relating to visibility and/or cabin access.

My dad, who like me got his private pilot license in 1968, suffered from claustrophobia. He was comfortable in any lightplane, as long as there was a door next to him -- not that he would use it in flight, but it just had to be there. So he was fine in his Cessnas; but left seat in a Cherokee, Bonanza, etc. -- wasn't gonna happen.
 
I have owned both high (Cessna) and low (Piper). They both have their pros and cons. I just got sick and tired of having to climb up a ladder to fuel the Cessna. My Piper is about like fueling up a car. I have heard other people make negative comments about pre-flighting a low wing to sump the tanks. To me it is not a big deal to kneel down for two seconds to get a fuel sample. I do agree that it is nicer having two doors instead of having to slide over the passenger side to get in the pilot seat. As far as being cool on the ground, I leave my passenger door cracked until I am ready to lift off. With the amount of air flow in the cabin from this I can't tell any real difference between the Cessna and Piper. As I started the post, they both have their pros and cons. I have no strong passion against either and enjoy flying whatever I'm in. I just don't want to be the one having to fuel the high wing.
 
Last edited:
I'm split on the issue. While in the air, I prefer a low wing aircraft. The visibility is better IMHO, and I can see that I secured the fuel caps A-ok. Making turns is far more comfortable especially in a high traffic environment.

On the ground however I much prefer a high wing, clear runway/taxiway lights, snowbanks are a non-issue. GREAT for camping and pre-flighting in foul weather. The aircraft are generally more rugged. Also when it comes to retracts, being able to see the gear and visually confirm that it's down is a plus. Also, low-wing tailwheel planes look silly (if built after WWII) :)

High wing-tailwheel always looks great!
 
I was surprised at how much better the visibility is in the Ercoupe compared to high wing planes.

If you have a low wing tail dragger and do a ground loop you can leave wingtip paint on the runway.
 
Have owned both high and low wings,enjoyed both,have no favorite,just like to fly.
 
The biggest disadvantage to a low wing is that when you roll it into your typical T-Hangar it hogs the whole place leaving you nothing but to stand outside and look at it smirking at you as if you're not welcome inside.
 
High wings are better in every way than low wings... except when flying...

Since flying is the point of it, I fly a low wing.
 
Spending almost all of my time in a TB-10, the concept of no door on my side gets to me on the rare times I get to fly any other low wing.
 
High wing pilots get all the chicks.

Q.E.D.
 
Weird, every girl I've talked to says that a low winger looks so much more like a "real" airplane.

Sure they're ignorant but they're chicks, and they go for rides, so who cares.

I did primary in 152s/172s. After my ticket, I checked out in an Archer and flew a high wing exactly once after that. And my purchase was a low wing. Main reason being the visibility. I got used to the single door pretty easily.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I really wish more low wing planes had more doors too.
The Sierra has 3 huge doors. Not sure why piper couldn't the same
Click to expand...

I don't know when you got rid of the sandals picture, but I now have "Aways Look on the Bright Side of Life" running through my head. Even if it is spelled wrong.

And to make it relevant to the OP ... I had a similar conversation with a friend this afternoon that just took a ride in a Cherokee for the first time. He now considers himself a low wing guy. I told him I'm more of a wing guy.
 
Last edited:
It's all the same to me.

Once you fly enough hours, it's nothing that sticks out to you.

I've only owned high wings, for work I've flown both, it's not really something I notice much, going from a 208B to a pilatus, the position of the wing wasn't really something that made any diffrence.

For my own planes, I like backcountry stuff and that typically is going to be high wing.

PA28 vs a 172/82, I do like the PA28s more for cross country stuff, but it's not really the wing position as much as they seem to be better cruisers, for technical landings I'd go with the 172/82, again it's more the handling.
 
Most of my time is in high wing Cessna's, and the visibility is awful, especially in the 182. Other than the ground, you don't see much, and turns in the pattern are "blind". I'm about done wid 'em, after many years - I eant something with a low eing and a canopy.
 
I've flown plenty in both. I prefer a high wing as can be told by the fact I have a 182. I flew many an hours in the arrow and twinstar and absolutely hate the sun beating down on me constantly. I like the added shade the high wing provides me in Florida. And even if the ventilation can be the same while moving it helps keep the cabin overall a little cooler. The visibility in turns has never been something that bothered me. And when descending into a pattern I like being able to see what's below. After all half of flying is being able to look at the world below you so I prefer the view a high wing affords. I also prefer my two doors and not having to climb onto and off of a wing to get in/out

Plus the most important thing of all.....provides the best shade for me to sit under during the sun n fun air show!
 
FlySince9 said:
The major problem I have with low wings (and I know there are exceptions) is the single door concept... It is so awkward to climb in before your passengers, especially if they are new to flying... Also that tiny little window leaves me drenched on summer days with no ventilation... It's so much better to pop the windows opened after touching down or taxiing...better yet to fly with them opened... IMHO...
Click to expand...

I actually found the lack of a door in the Pipers comforting. One less latch to fail in flight. :yikes: (I've had a few nightmares of falling out of plane.) Exiting during an emergency is the only thing that concerns me about not having a door on the left side, but I'm pretty nimble.
 
Only ever flown high wings( 152's and 172's) but have always wanted to fly the pipers or bonanzas of the world too. That being said, high wings are amazing planes especially in the summer. Nothing like built in shade. When you park and get out, you just leave your headsets on the seat and when you return a few hours later you get to put them on they are nice and cool because they have been sitting in the shade the entire time. You can't ever get that in the low wing.
 
Having flown both, I much prefer low wing and they are easier to land for me in terms of the flare.
 
Meh. High wing... low wing... real men fly with their wings swept behind them.
 
Grumman Tiger - no door issues, no ventilation issues, only 4 sumps, great view up and down, I'm skinny enough to sleep/camp under the wing (if you're not you got BMI issues!). Looks and feels so COOL to taxi with canopy back. Never going back to high wing

Besides, in a low wing Ground Effect is really a thing.
 
Last edited:
evapilotaz said:
No one mentioned biplanes. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
Click to expand...

It's got the cool factor, that's for sure. I love biplanes, and am hoping to buy a stearman one of these days, but most guys will tell you that biplanes are the worst of both worlds. Visibility limited both high AND low, more drag, etc. but they're still cool! :yes:
 
evapilotaz said:
No one mentioned biplanes. Isn't that the best of both worlds?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily...a ground loop in a Stearman can be very expensive if you crack a wing spar for instance. All depends on the mission, small grass airports or back country flying I'd want a high wing, lots of cross country, paved runways mostly, a faster low wing. IE: 180 cessna for one a mooney for the cross country stuff.
 
Any wing beats a desk. As someone else said after a point it's all the same. Some configurations are better for a given mission. I can't imagine a much better ship than our high wing Cardinal for what we do but I like some low wings, too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FlySince9 said:
The major problem I have with low wings (and I know there are exceptions) is the single door concept... It is so awkward to climb in before your passengers, especially if they are new to flying... Also that tiny little window leaves me drenched on summer days with no ventilation... It's so much better to pop the windows opened after touching down or taxiing...better yet to fly with them opened... IMHO...
Click to expand...


That's why I'm interested in Commanders. Two doors!
 
I've got low wings and one door. We call it a canopy, and it tips up for easy entry... allows lots air for cooling when partially closed.

Get yourself an AA-1B... also low wing with one "door" That one slides. Options options options.
 
wrbix said:
Grumman Tiger - no door issues, no ventilation issues, only 4 sumps, great view up and down, I'm skinny enough to sleep/camp under the wing (if you're not you got BMI issues!). Looks and feels so COOL to taxi with canopy back. Never going back to high wing

Besides, in a low wing Ground Effect is really a thing.
Click to expand...

Never flown a Grumman AA5 but that is my dream plane one day( within reach without hitting the lottery I mean.)
 
Sundancer said:
Most of my time is in high wing Cessna's, and the visibility is awful, especially in the 182. Other than the ground, you don't see much, and turns in the pattern are "blind". I'm about done wid 'em, after many years - I eant something with a low eing and a canopy.
Click to expand...


Yep! I'd love a T-34, but an also looking at Commanders. After flying in a couple of T-6's, the next time I flew the Cutlass, I felt like I was in a cave.
 
nddons said:
Yep! I'd love a T-34, but an also looking at Commanders. After flying in a couple of T-6's, the next time I flew the Cutlass, I felt like I was in a cave.
Click to expand...

I have a wee bit of time in a SF-260 and that was the most fun airplane I've fliown, and I liked it better than the L-39 even. So I guess I'm heading to the low wing dark side. But not likely I'll ever have the discretionary $$$ for a SF-260, short of a multi person partnership. . .

The AA1s are fun to fly, and someone said they do rolls real easy. Real short legs, though, and kinda rnway hogs, too. . .
 
What's a "runway hog"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top