High or low wing?

I wonder, for equal performance, if low winged airplanes aren't a bit more
efficient? My Mooney (an M20J) is really clean, I file for 150 kts (and get it)
while burning less than 9 gph at reasonable altitudes, and I don't know of a
high winded airplane that does that.

As for crosswind landings, the ground effect in a low winged airplane is much
more pronounced, I'm not sure they are easier in general to land. Its stalling
speed really increases dramatically from 5 feet AGL to 6 inches AGL. Of course,
touching down on the upwind wheel first puts that wing even closer to the
ground.

So, I recognize many of the disadvantages of low winged airplanes, but there's
this. In my particular one, thinking the thought and having the airplane
respond as if it was clairvoyant is something I've not found in high winged
airplanes (or other low winged ones, for that matter). Maybe it has more to do
with flying the same airplane for a long time.

Nah -- it's a Mooney.

tony wrote:

As for crosswind landings, the ground effect in a low winged airplane is much
more pronounced, I'm not sure they are easier in general to land.

The funny thing is that that's not the case for a Cherokee, at least not the
ones with the semi-tapered wing. I had some trouble transitioning from the
172 to the Warrior because I was used to the 172 gliding forever in ground
effect, while the Warrior will drop like a brick as the airspeed decays. I
don't know exactly what the aerodynamic explanation is -- perhaps the
Warrior has a slightly higher wing loading -- but I've heard of the same
experience from many other first-time Cherokee pilots as well.

The solution (for anyone interested) is either (a) add some power in the
flare to keep the nose up, or (b) keep your approach speed right to the
flare, rather than beginning a gradual roundout higher up like you would in
a 172.

I wonder if you're noticing the different ground-effect behaviour with the
Mooney not because the wings are low, but because the Mooney is such an
amazingly clean plane. I personally lust after a Mooney 201, which would
give me 165 ktas burning only a couple of GPH more than my Warrior at 126 ktas.


All the best,


David

The solution (for anyone interested) is either (a) add some power in the
flare to keep the nose up, or (b) keep your approach speed right to the
flare, rather than beginning a gradual roundout higher up like you would in
a 172.

I wonder if you're noticing the different ground-effect behaviour with the
Mooney not because the wings are low, but because the Mooney is such an
amazingly clean plane. I personally lust after a Mooney 201, which would
give me 165 ktas burning only a couple of GPH more than my Warrior at 126
ktas.

David, I think I'm tuned into the ground effect so much because I fly the M20J
150 hours a year or so. If you carry too much airspeed into the flare, you're
in for a long, long settling time, and the chances are you'll not hear the
stall warning before the mains touch.

Lots of Mooney pilots, when in the flare, retract the flaps. that helps the
airplane stop flying sooner (and the trailing edge of the flaps are really
close to the ground, which makes ground effect issues become GROUND EFFECT
issues).

The other thing is, what one does when landing is try to burn off the energy
the airplane has, and clarn airplanes don't lose energy very quickly. Again,
that's an argument for managing airspeed carefully.

tony wrote:

Lots of Mooney pilots, when in the flare, retract the flaps. that helps the
airplane stop flying sooner (and the trailing edge of the flaps are really
close to the ground, which makes ground effect issues become GROUND EFFECT
issues).

I learned that trick in the Cessna 172, but I've never needed it in my
Warrior -- it stops flying just fine on its own in the flare, whether I want
it to or not.

The other thing is, what one does when landing is try to burn off the energy
the airplane has, and clarn airplanes don't lose energy very quickly. Again,
that's an argument for managing airspeed carefully.

I have to think of some reason not to be jealous of your Mooney ... let's
see ... with good airspeed control and full flaps in my Warrior, I can often
make a turnoff at the approach end of the runway, saving me maybe 5 minutes
in taxiing time. That will have to be my compensation for the hour you
saved in your Mooney during cruise.

Seriously, with all the hype about the Cirrus and Lancair composite planes,
I'm still not all that impressed -- for all the new materials and techniques
no one (except maybe Diamond with their TwinStar) seems to come close to a
1970's Mooney aircraft's combination of speed and efficiency.


All the best,


David

I have to think of some reason not to be jealous of your Mooney ... let's
see ... with good airspeed control and full flaps in my Warrior, I can often
make a turnoff at the approach end of the runway, saving me maybe 5 minutes
in taxiing time. That will have to be my compensation for the hour you
saved in your Mooney during cruise.

Seriously, with all the hype about the Cirrus and Lancair composite planes,
I'm still not all that impressed -- for all the new materials and techniques
no one (except maybe Diamond with their TwinStar) seems to come close to a
1970's Mooney aircraft's combination of speed and efficiency.

You may have something, although if one is familiar with the airplane and
controls airspeed brfore going into the flare, , Mooneys can stop pretty short
too w/o burning up breaks. There aren't too many airports I fly into where the
first turn off is less than 1000 feet or so from the approach end. In fact,
it's fairly common for me to plan my touchdown pretty far down the runway to
get close to the turn off, since I'd rather fly over the centerline than taxi
on it.

A lot of this discussion isn't really fair, though -- as I mentioned, I'm a
fairly high time pilot (for not having been taught to fy in one of the
services) and lots of that time is in the same aircraft. I read its mind, and
it reads mine, pretty well.

You can say the same thing about your airplane, can't you?

One thing about the Mooney -- in fairly stiff cross winds, it's easy to run out
of rudder authority before you'd like, so sometimes it has to be flown onto the
runway. I hate touching down before the airplane doesn't have enough airspeed
to fly!

OTOH, if you start adding power in the flare, you can actually make the tail
skid touch down before the mains. that's won me a few hamburgers when flying
with pilots who don't like their tail backwards.

But Warrier or M20, we're among the lucky ones.

tony wrote:

A lot of this discussion isn't really fair, though -- as I mentioned, I'm a
fairly high time pilot (for not having been taught to fy in one of the
services) and lots of that time is in the same aircraft. I read its mind, and
it reads mine, pretty well.

You can say the same thing about your airplane, can't you?

About my airplane perhaps, but not myself -- I'm still under 300 hours. I
agree, though, that after even a couple of hundred hours in the same
airplane, you start to know its behaviour very well.


All the best,


David

"David Megginson" wrote
Seriously, with all the hype about the Cirrus and Lancair composite
planes,
I'm still not all that impressed -- for all the new materials and
techniques
no one (except maybe Diamond with their TwinStar) seems to come close to a
1970's Mooney aircraft's combination of speed and efficiency.


All the best,


David

Ouch! Have you seen the single engine ceiling for the Diamond?

I'm not impressed. Truely a better way to get to the crash site.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.677 / Virus Database: 439 - Release Date: 5/5/2004

tony wrote:

I wonder, for equal performance, if low winged airplanes aren't a bit more
efficient?

I doubt it. The 172 performs better on less power than a PA-28 from the same year.

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

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

I doubt it. The 172 performs better on less power than a PA-28 from the same year.

Do you have a source for that? It happens that I have the PIM's (generic
POH's) on my shelf for the 1981 Skyhawk (the plane I did most of my
training) and the 1979 Piper Warrior II (the plane I own, though the same
numbers apply to the 1981 Warrior II). Both have a 160 hp O-320 Lycoming
engine. Here are the true airspeeds at 8,000 ft DA and 75% power:

Cessna 172P Skyhawk: 121 ktas
Piper Cherokee Warrior II: 127 ktas

I can vouch for at least 125 ktas in my not-quite-mint-condition Warrior II
at the appropriate density altitude and 75% power, so please, no nonsense
about that being an imaginary POH number. A member of the Piper list who is
a professional bizjet pilot and a Warrior II owner gets 126-127 ktas,
probably because he takes better care of his plane and rigs it more cleanly.
I didn't do enough cross-country in the 172P to establish whether it also
meets its POH numbers.

Note that the difference may be due to factors that have nothing to do with
high-wing vs. low-wing. For example, the Warrior has particularly efficient
wheel fairings -- if you remove them, you lose 7 ktas.


All the best,


David

David Megginson wrote in message e.rogers.com...
G.R. Patterson III wrote:

I doubt it. The 172 performs better on less power than a PA-28 from the same year.

Do you have a source for that? It happens that I have the PIM's (generic
POH's) on my shelf for the 1981 Skyhawk (the plane I did most of my
training) and the 1979 Piper Warrior II (the plane I own, though the same
numbers apply to the 1981 Warrior II). Both have a 160 hp O-320 Lycoming
engine. Here are the true airspeeds at 8,000 ft DA and 75% power:

Cessna 172P Skyhawk: 121 ktas
Piper Cherokee Warrior II: 127 ktas

My experience is the same as a CFI. The Cherokee is faster. The seats
are also a bit further apart (we're talking inches here). The Cherokee
is also more stable and doesn't flop around as much. Of course the
hardest part of doing stalls in a Cherokee is knowing when its
stalled. Its so tame its hard to detect. Most of them simply will not
give you a break with power on and the yoke back to the stops.

-Robert