High wing vs low wing

temp wrote:

I am sure this has been beat to death many times but I have not seen it so
here you go again.

I have just agreed to buy an aircraft, pending the few details that always
crop up. It happens to be a low wing plane, but all my time so far has
been in a C152. The low wing appeals to me as the lack of visiblity in
turns on the Cessna is irritating. The worst plane I ever flew in for vis
was a Taylorcraft, all I could see without ducking was the wing root! The
best was a Piper Tomahawk. However, the low wing planes have a big
obstruction when you wish to look straight down.

I am wondering if there was ever a concensus about which is generally
better. I expect some of the ultralights come out best for overall view,
but their other limitations just won't work for me.

I have owned and flown Piper 140s and 180s. I have also owned a C172 and was
a partner in a C182. For the last 16 years I have owned a 1974 C177B
(Cardinal). The visibility from the Cardinal is extraordinary. No struts to
obscure down or side. Great for photos (especially if you have a photo
window). And because the wing is farther aft on the fuselage than other
Cessnas, the upward visibility is virtually unobstructed. Now for the
bonus: there is probably no airplane short of a cabin class twin that is
easier to get into and out of than a Cardinal. Low to the ground. Big wide
doors. Too bad it doesn't go just a little faster and carry just a little
more weight. Oh well...

Rick Graves - N34759 - 1974 C177B

Rick Graves wrote in message om...
temp wrote:

The visibility from the Cardinal is extraordinary.
..... Now for the bonus: there is probably no airplane short of a
cabin class twin that is easier to get into and out of than a
Cardinal.. .Big wide
doors.

and the huge cargo area and large cargo door. With our other
hobbies being photography and scuba diving, the Cardinal was our only
choice in this category and price range. We did consider the low
wing Grumman Tiger for similar attributes (great visibility, easy to
get in and out and to load cargo) but my husband did not like the nose
gear steering. So far, we are quite happy with our choice.

hlongworth wrote:

Rick Graves wrote in message
om...
temp wrote:

The visibility from the Cardinal is extraordinary.
..... Now for the bonus: there is probably no airplane short of a
cabin class twin that is easier to get into and out of than a
Cardinal.. .Big wide
doors.

and the huge cargo area and large cargo door. With our other
hobbies being photography and scuba diving, the Cardinal was our only
choice in this category and price range. We did consider the low
wing Grumman Tiger for similar attributes (great visibility, easy to
get in and out and to load cargo) but my husband did not like the nose
gear steering. So far, we are quite happy with our choice.
Yup...I forgot about the cargo area. Twelve years ago my wife and I flew our
Cardinal to Alaska. With the back seat removed we had enough room to sleep
in the airplane if we needed to. My wife and I also have recumbent
bicycles. With the back seat removed we have room for two recumbent
bicycles. BTW, do you belong to the Cardinal Club? If not, you should.