High or low wing?

As one poster already said, there are advantages and disadvantages to
each (macho/religious leanings aside). I prefer high wing (qualified)
for a few reasons. I like two doors for egress if I need to get out of
the plane in a hurry. (Not a problem in a Beech, Grumman or a
Traumahawk, but an issue in a Piper or Mooney). High wing planes tend
to be a bit easier to get in and out of. Checking the fuel level is not
a problem for me (6'3"), but a "vertically challenged" neighbor can't
see the fuel level in a 172 without a step ladder. (He flies a Piper.)
High wings help when the snow banks start to grow.

I like the visibility down, but, as others have stated, the wing
generally blocks the view of the airport in a turn in the pattern
(except in a 177, so I've read) but does allow a view of any traffic
that may be entering the pattern (helped me avoid a mid-air once when
someone in the pattern decided to do a 360 on base).

(As an interesting aside, I read recently that passengers that have
little or no experience flying in small planes generally prefer low
wings because they get the feeling that they are being held up by the
wings and not suspended in the air under them.)

I also like the fact that, at least in the 172, there is generally no
need to switch tanks (there is a "Both" setting) and the fact that the
fuel system is gravity fed (no need to worry about the fuel pumps).

I think that you will find that each of the models have their good and
bad points, and that there are a number of makes to choose from for a
particular mission.



C. Paul Williams, MD wrote:
Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
newsgroup.
Thanks. CPW


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

I also like the fact that, at least in the 172, there is generally no
need to switch tanks (there is a "Both" setting)


But when your'e out of gas, you're out of gas.

JOse

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Teacherjh wrote:

But when your'e out of gas, you're out of gas.

But when the fuel pump breaks, my engine keeps running.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

But when the fuel pump breaks, my engine keeps running.

Low-wing planes normally have an electric fuel pump to back up the pump
attached to the engine's accessory drive. Still, in this case, gravity is a
simpler and more elegant solution than an extra gadget.


All the best,


David

In article , Dan Truesdell
wrote:

High wing planes tend
to be a bit easier to get in and out of.

My initial training was in 172's. Probably 75 hours of
my first 100 were in 172's. But I find it easier to get
in and out of a cherokee than the 172 (I've owned a cherokee
since 1994).

--
Bob Noel

Wow! Thanks a lot guys, your responses really clear things up...
I get the feeling this has been discussed/debated/dueled over before.
I'll have to fly each when I've got the certificate...but have decided
already to stay away from the true high performance/complex aircraft
until I've got a few hundred hours under my belt.
As to the "doctor killer"...I think that applies more to the
egotistical specialties like surgery, and I'm just a poor country
radiologist.
Thanks again. CPW

As to the "doctor killer"...I think that applies more to the
egotistical specialties like surgery, and I'm just a poor country
radiologist.

Good one! ;-)

Actually, most doctors make great pilots. What kills 'em is the fact that
they are too busy to stay current, and they end up flying into conditions
that they are no longer able to handle.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" writes:

As to the "doctor killer"...I think that applies more to the
egotistical specialties like surgery, and I'm just a poor country
radiologist.

Good one! ;-)

Actually, most doctors make great pilots. What kills 'em is the fact that
they are too busy to stay current, and they end up flying into conditions
that they are no longer able to handle.

And they're more likely to be able to afford more airplane than they
can fly than most of us are.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Photos: dd-b.lighthunters.net Snapshots: www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

And they're more likely to be able to afford more airplane than they
can fly than most of us are.

That must have been before universal health care (in most rich countries)
and HMOs + sky-high malpractice insurance premiums (in the U.S.). General
practitioners are not exactly lining up at the food banks, yet, but they're
hardly the ones with the big houses or new cars any more, and they probably
won't be the ones buying the new glass-panel contraptions.

On the other hand, a lot of people in tech made a lot of money before the
dot.com bubble burst, and many of those people now have (a) a lot of money
saved and (b) a lot of unexpected free time on their hands. I think that a
more appropriate name from the newer composite planes like the SR-22 would
be the one in the subject line.


All the best,


David

That must have been before universal health care (in most rich countries)
and HMOs + sky-high malpractice insurance premiums (in the U.S.).

Various resources on the 'net list a physician's average income as ranging
anywhere from $129K to $255K annually.

I think they can probably eke a Bonanza or Cirrus payment out of that each
month.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"