High wing to low wing converts...or, visa versa?

Edited out mistake. See below.

Paul

"Paul Missman" wrote in message
...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Paul Missman wrote:
I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
training.

Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.

My reasons are as follows:


You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.

You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.

Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer
to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing
than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary
with the exact aircraft under comparison.)

How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
wing is located.


Matt

That's why I said that it will vary with the aircraft under comparison.
My low wing has a fairly small crosswind area and excellent visibility.
There are low wings that have poor forward visibility also, but I think
that, in the trainer class, many of the low wings have better forward
visibility than many of the high wings.

I'm going to do a little speculation on why I think low wings, in general,
seem to handle better in crosswind situations. *OOPS* SHOULD BE "LOW WING"
In a high wing plane, the crosswind component passes under the wing,
unimpeded, and on top, what dams up against the airframe pushes down on
the top of the wing. In a high wing, the crosswind component passes,
unimpeded, over the wing, while, under the wing, it dams up against the
airframe, increasing lift. This is probably made worse in gusty
conditions, and mitigated in steady state conditions. If I have to land in
gusty, crosswind conditions, I'll take a something like a Cherokee over
something like a 172 any day of the week.

What I've said is based on my experience. Your experience may be
different, and will certainly vary with the exact aircraft you are
comparing.

In the end, some folks will buy a Corvette, and some will buy a Porsche.
For certain, they will handle differently. In both cases, the drivers
will learn how each handles, and learn to push the strengths, while
compensating for the weaknesses.

Paul

Agree here Paul..

We own a 172..and really like the aircraft

But, I woudd NEVER attempt some of the crosswind operations
that I did in Warriors and Comanches with our Cessna.

Landing gear that are on low wing aircraft are shorter, wider
stance and usually stronger, and the vertical center of gravity is
closer to the ground contact point of a low wing aircraft.

Our Cessna ground handles like a bar stool (in comparison) in
a strong wind.

I have done croswind operations in winds that I would think
twice about taxing our 172 in......

The physics are open to interpretation, but the results on the
airframe differ significantly when felt (by me) in the pilots seat of
similar ( weight/size/power) high wing vs low wing aircraft .

YMMV!

Dave

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:09:22 -0500, "Paul Missman"
wrote:

Edited out mistake. See below.

Paul

"Paul Missman" wrote in message
...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Paul Missman wrote:
I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
training.

Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.

My reasons are as follows:


You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.

You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.

Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer
to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing
than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary
with the exact aircraft under comparison.)

How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
wing is located.


Matt

That's why I said that it will vary with the aircraft under comparison.
My low wing has a fairly small crosswind area and excellent visibility.
There are low wings that have poor forward visibility also, but I think
that, in the trainer class, many of the low wings have better forward
visibility than many of the high wings.

I'm going to do a little speculation on why I think low wings, in general,
seem to handle better in crosswind situations. *OOPS* SHOULD BE "LOW WING"
In a high wing plane, the crosswind component passes under the wing,
unimpeded, and on top, what dams up against the airframe pushes down on
the top of the wing. In a high wing, the crosswind component passes,
unimpeded, over the wing, while, under the wing, it dams up against the
airframe, increasing lift. This is probably made worse in gusty
conditions, and mitigated in steady state conditions. If I have to land in
gusty, crosswind conditions, I'll take a something like a Cherokee over
something like a 172 any day of the week.

What I've said is based on my experience. Your experience may be
different, and will certainly vary with the exact aircraft you are
comparing.

In the end, some folks will buy a Corvette, and some will buy a Porsche.
For certain, they will handle differently. In both cases, the drivers
will learn how each handles, and learn to push the strengths, while
compensating for the weaknesses.

Paul

On the other side, I used to own a tripacer and now own a bonanza and
would take the tripacer in higher crosswinds than i would ever take the
bonanza in.
Maybe it's the piper product that does good in x-winds.

dave



Dave wrote:
Agree here Paul..

We own a 172..and really like the aircraft

But, I woudd NEVER attempt some of the crosswind operations
that I did in Warriors and Comanches with our Cessna.

Landing gear that are on low wing aircraft are shorter, wider
stance and usually stronger, and the vertical center of gravity is
closer to the ground contact point of a low wing aircraft.

Our Cessna ground handles like a bar stool (in comparison) in
a strong wind.

I have done croswind operations in winds that I would think
twice about taxing our 172 in......

The physics are open to interpretation, but the results on the
airframe differ significantly when felt (by me) in the pilots seat of
similar ( weight/size/power) high wing vs low wing aircraft .

YMMV!

Dave

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:09:22 -0500, "Paul Missman"
wrote:


Edited out mistake. See below.

Paul

"Paul Missman" wrote in message
...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Paul Missman wrote:

I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
training.

Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.

My reasons are as follows:


You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.

You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.

Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer
to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing
than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary
with the exact aircraft under comparison.)

How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
wing is located.


Matt

That's why I said that it will vary with the aircraft under comparison.
My low wing has a fairly small crosswind area and excellent visibility.
There are low wings that have poor forward visibility also, but I think
that, in the trainer class, many of the low wings have better forward
visibility than many of the high wings.

I'm going to do a little speculation on why I think low wings, in general,
seem to handle better in crosswind situations. *OOPS* SHOULD BE "LOW WING"
In a high wing plane, the crosswind component passes under the wing,
unimpeded, and on top, what dams up against the airframe pushes down on
the top of the wing. In a high wing, the crosswind component passes,
unimpeded, over the wing, while, under the wing, it dams up against the
airframe, increasing lift. This is probably made worse in gusty
conditions, and mitigated in steady state conditions. If I have to land in
gusty, crosswind conditions, I'll take a something like a Cherokee over
something like a 172 any day of the week.

What I've said is based on my experience. Your experience may be
different, and will certainly vary with the exact aircraft you are
comparing.

In the end, some folks will buy a Corvette, and some will buy a Porsche.
For certain, they will handle differently. In both cases, the drivers
will learn how each handles, and learn to push the strengths, while
compensating for the weaknesses.

Paul

Hmmm..

......never flew a Bo...

But the smaller stubby wings of a Tripacer and the stout gear
could contribute immeasureably to the stable feeling of the Tripacer
in winds..

I can see how that could be...

Anybody else out there with any comments?

Dave



..On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:19:22 -0600, wrote:

On the other side, I used to own a tripacer and now own a bonanza and
would take the tripacer in higher crosswinds than i would ever take the
bonanza in.
Maybe it's the piper product that does good in x-winds.

dave



Dave wrote:
Agree here Paul..

We own a 172..and really like the aircraft

But, I woudd NEVER attempt some of the crosswind operations
that I did in Warriors and Comanches with our Cessna.

Landing gear that are on low wing aircraft are shorter, wider
stance and usually stronger, and the vertical center of gravity is
closer to the ground contact point of a low wing aircraft.

Our Cessna ground handles like a bar stool (in comparison) in
a strong wind.

I have done croswind operations in winds that I would think
twice about taxing our 172 in......

The physics are open to interpretation, but the results on the
airframe differ significantly when felt (by me) in the pilots seat of
similar ( weight/size/power) high wing vs low wing aircraft .

YMMV!

Dave

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:09:22 -0500, "Paul Missman"
wrote:


Edited out mistake. See below.

Paul

"Paul Missman" wrote in message
...

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Paul Missman wrote:

I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
training.

Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.

My reasons are as follows:


You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.

You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.

Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer
to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing
than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary
with the exact aircraft under comparison.)

How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
wing is located.


Matt

That's why I said that it will vary with the aircraft under comparison.
My low wing has a fairly small crosswind area and excellent visibility.
There are low wings that have poor forward visibility also, but I think
that, in the trainer class, many of the low wings have better forward
visibility than many of the high wings.

I'm going to do a little speculation on why I think low wings, in general,
seem to handle better in crosswind situations. *OOPS* SHOULD BE "LOW WING"
In a high wing plane, the crosswind component passes under the wing,
unimpeded, and on top, what dams up against the airframe pushes down on
the top of the wing. In a high wing, the crosswind component passes,
unimpeded, over the wing, while, under the wing, it dams up against the
airframe, increasing lift. This is probably made worse in gusty
conditions, and mitigated in steady state conditions. If I have to land in
gusty, crosswind conditions, I'll take a something like a Cherokee over
something like a 172 any day of the week.

What I've said is based on my experience. Your experience may be
different, and will certainly vary with the exact aircraft you are
comparing.

In the end, some folks will buy a Corvette, and some will buy a Porsche.
For certain, they will handle differently. In both cases, the drivers
will learn how each handles, and learn to push the strengths, while
compensating for the weaknesses.

Paul

Also, thinking a little more about it, In the high wing you can see how
high your wingtip is above the ground when your landing on two wheels
because of the crosswind.
In the Bo, you don't have the same picture. you can't see if your going
to dig that tip into the turf.
Dave

Dave wrote:
Hmmm..

......never flew a Bo...

But the smaller stubby wings of a Tripacer and the stout gear
could contribute immeasureably to the stable feeling of the Tripacer
in winds..

I can see how that could be...

Anybody else out there with any comments?

Dave



.On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:19:22 -0600, wrote:


On the other side, I used to own a tripacer and now own a bonanza and
would take the tripacer in higher crosswinds than i would ever take the
bonanza in.
Maybe it's the piper product that does good in x-winds.

dave



Dave wrote:

Agree here Paul..

We own a 172..and really like the aircraft

But, I woudd NEVER attempt some of the crosswind operations
that I did in Warriors and Comanches with our Cessna.

Landing gear that are on low wing aircraft are shorter, wider
stance and usually stronger, and the vertical center of gravity is
closer to the ground contact point of a low wing aircraft.

Our Cessna ground handles like a bar stool (in comparison) in
a strong wind.

I have done croswind operations in winds that I would think
twice about taxing our 172 in......

The physics are open to interpretation, but the results on the
airframe differ significantly when felt (by me) in the pilots seat of
similar ( weight/size/power) high wing vs low wing aircraft .

YMMV!

Dave

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:09:22 -0500, "Paul Missman"
wrote:



Edited out mistake. See below.

Paul

"Paul Missman" wrote in message
...


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...


Paul Missman wrote:


I did my training in high wings, and then purchased a low wing after
training.

Though I could go back to a high wing if I had to, I wouldn't want to.

My reasons are as follows:


You don't have to get a ladder to put gas in the tank.

You don't loose sight of the airport during turns in the pattern.

Much less susceptable to crosswind effects. It is much harder for the
crosswind to get under the wing, and flip it over, with the wing nearer
to the ground. I need much less crosswind correction in the low wing
than in the high wing aircraft I trained in. (This will, however, vary
with the exact aircraft under comparison.)

How so? The amount of crosswind correction needed depends only the the
cross wind component and the groundspeed of the airplane, not where the
wing is located.


Matt

That's why I said that it will vary with the aircraft under comparison.
My low wing has a fairly small crosswind area and excellent visibility.
There are low wings that have poor forward visibility also, but I think
that, in the trainer class, many of the low wings have better forward
visibility than many of the high wings.

I'm going to do a little speculation on why I think low wings, in general,
seem to handle better in crosswind situations. *OOPS* SHOULD BE "LOW WING"
In a high wing plane, the crosswind component passes under the wing,
unimpeded, and on top, what dams up against the airframe pushes down on
the top of the wing. In a high wing, the crosswind component passes,
unimpeded, over the wing, while, under the wing, it dams up against the
airframe, increasing lift. This is probably made worse in gusty
conditions, and mitigated in steady state conditions. If I have to land in
gusty, crosswind conditions, I'll take a something like a Cherokee over
something like a 172 any day of the week.

What I've said is based on my experience. Your experience may be
different, and will certainly vary with the exact aircraft you are
comparing.

In the end, some folks will buy a Corvette, and some will buy a Porsche.
For certain, they will handle differently. In both cases, the drivers
will learn how each handles, and learn to push the strengths, while
compensating for the weaknesses.

Paul