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

Paul Missman wrote:



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

I can wear good pants to check my fuel.



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

I don't "loose" sight of the airport either.



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.)

Nonsense. Two aircraft with about the same cross sectional area will
drift the same amount in the same wind.



Not as susceptable to launching itself into the air during flare if the
landing is a bit hot. (Though this will also vary somewhat with the
aircraft under comparison.)

Pilot error.




Better forward visibility in flight and during flare. (This will, also,
vary with the models under comparison.)

During the flare? A blanket assumption? Nonsense again.




Easier to wash the aircraft.

Not easier, I don't have to crouch down. I have one of them car washing
wands with a brush on the end that dispenses soap when I want it too.


Though the low wing took some getting used to, I don't believe I'd want to
go back without some great finincial incentive. (As in, I probably wouldn't
turn down a free 182 in excellent condition.)

I wouldn't want a Cherokee 235 for off road ops either. To each his own.

"Newps" wrote, "... Two aircraft with about the same cross sectional area
will drift the same amount in the same wind."

Yes, but wouldn't two aircraft with even extreme differences in cross
sectional area drift the same amount in the same wind?

Jon

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

"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. 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

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

"Paul Missman" wrote in message
...

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.

Many high wings have steps to get to the tanks. The fuel on my high wing is
gravity feed. No fuel pumps to fail.

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

But you do lose sight of anyone else that might be on final. I know where
the airport is.

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.)

Simply not true. Low wings have more dihedral which could make them more
suspectable.

Not as susceptable to launching itself into the air during flare if the
landing is a bit hot. (Though this will also vary somewhat with the
aircraft under comparison.)

Huh?

More stable during taxi operations on windy days.

Huh?

Better forward visibility in flight and during flare. (This will, also,
vary with the models under comparison.)

Don't believe so. Wing location has nothing to do with forward visibility.

Easier to de-ice/de-frost the wings.

That's what hangars are made for.

Easier to wash the aircraft.

Tell me how easy it is to wash the bottom of the wing or how easy it is to
sump the tanks.. Or for that matter getting into the plane when it is
raining.

Though the low wing took some getting used to, I don't believe I'd want to
go back without some great finincial incentive. (As in, I probably
wouldn't
turn down a free 182 in excellent condition.)

Paul

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:42:11 GMT, Dave Stadt wrote:

But you do lose sight of anyone else that might be on final. I know where
the airport is.

Dave,

How do you lose someone on final due to a low wing configuration?

I fly a Sundowner and have never lost someone on final.

I would think it would be more possible to lose someone on final if you
were in a high wing, since the wing would POTENTIALLY block your view on
your turn from base to final.

Allen

Not all high wings cause you to lose sight of the airport on final. My
citabria has fantastic visibility. I haven't flown one but I understand
the cardinal has excellent visibility because the wing is further
compared to a 172 or 182. I really don't have a preference. Both have
their good points.
Dave
68 7ECA

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.)

Not as susceptable to launching itself into the air during flare if the
landing is a bit hot. (Though this will also vary somewhat with the
aircraft under comparison.)

More stable during taxi operations on windy days.

Better forward visibility in flight and during flare. (This will, also,
vary with the models under comparison.)

Easier to de-ice/de-frost the wings.

Easier to wash the aircraft.


Though the low wing took some getting used to, I don't believe I'd want to
go back without some great finincial incentive. (As in, I probably wouldn't
turn down a free 182 in excellent condition.)

Paul

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.

Well, most high-wings I fly do not require a ladder, but I agree low wings
are better for this; i.e. putting gas in AND verifying the gas level.


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

I fully agree AND you can see during turns to avoid mid-airs.


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.

Why does the ground change anything? Also, low wings generally have more
dihedral which would make low wings more susceptable.


Not as susceptable to launching itself into the air during flare if the
landing is a bit hot. (Though this will also vary somewhat with the
aircraft under comparison.)

What does the high-wing/low-wing have anything to do with this?


More stable during taxi operations on windy days.

If this was really a deciding factor, I would seriously start being more
critical of my go/no-go decisions.


Better forward visibility in flight and during flare. (This will, also,
vary with the models under comparison.)

What does the high-wing/low-wing have anything to do with this?


Hilton