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

wrote in message
ups.com...

I trained in 152s, then rented 172s, then owned a 172, then bought a
Cherokee.

Sometimes I wish my wing wouldn't scrap the bushes on a backcountry
strip, but when the wind is howling, I'm thankful for the low CG of
Piper. Those are about the only real issues I've run across.

The rest of the high/low wing nit picking that usually accompanies a
thread like this, is just that. Picking at miniscule differences that
don't make much difference in the real world.

If you're a competent pilot, transition from high to low should take
about 1/2 hr. to get really knowledgable about the fuel system. Beyond
that, you're wasting your time (assuming your swapping between planes
of similar performance).

I concur with those sentiments entirely.

I soloed in a 172, finished PVT and IFR training in a 182, bought a 210,
then moved to a Baron (did ME training in a Seneca), then a Bonanza. The
transition involved minimal time and "effort". That's because the
differences are minimal: an airplane is an airplane, especially when they
are of the same general class.

On 1/18/05 4:22 PM, in article , "Jack Allison"
wrote:

I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in
the process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way from
being a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other
folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top then
switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes about
the transition?

It's funny because I started out researching Cardinals (still like them,
have yet to fly one but really want to some day). Two weeks ago, things
shifted gears with a different partner on a possible Cherokee. Then, a
week ago, this same partner has a friend who found a really nice '67
Arrow that the three of us are going to make an offer on. Adding it all
up, four potential partnership prospects and four aircraft prospects
(first potential partner bought himself a C-172 XP and offered me
1/2...I declined based on a questionable engine). The Arrow deal isn't
done yet but it's interesting to see how things have twisted and turned
a bit in the last few months. One thing is for sure, I've definitely
hooked up with a couple of partners that I'm very comfortable with.
That in and of itself has been worth it. Should the Arrow deal fall
apart, plan-B just might be a two way deal on a Cherokee.

I did my primary in 172s and instrument in an Arrow. I like the Arrow better
for a few reasons although flying is fun no matter what.
The Arrow is more stable, heavier and feels more solid. The Arrow I rent has
a Garmin 430 on the panel and that alone puts it way ahead of all the 172s
that are available at my FBO. It's a bit roomier than a 172.

As a matter of practical reasons, my wife likes flying in the Arrow much
better because she can see the runway in the flare. Her visibility is a
little better all around and makes her feel safer. One of the things I
hadn't realized, is that with the wings under you, she had a feeling of
sitting on them and thus, more secure.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

I did all of my training in C172s/C152s, with about 8 hours in a warrior,
too.
In October I bought a Beech Super III.
Of course, I love my Beech more, but surprisingly not because it's a low
wing.
It's all the other little things about my plane that I like better.

1. 200HP vs. 160HP in a 172
2. Six seats (admittedly, the back row is tiny, but hey, so are my kids)
3. Trailing link suspension. I can't even describe what a difference this
makes! It makes crappy landings seem like greasers.
4. The view is amazing (not just wing position, but the windscreen is a huge
wrap-around bubble)
5. The cabin seems HUGE inside
6. A little better climb and cruise (I see 300fpm to 700fpm (more when it's
cold and I'm light) at 5-6000MSL, and about 120KTAS)
7. It just looks cool ;-)

I still like high wing planes, and I would own a U206 in a minute.
Like I said, though, you'll probably find lots of little things that you
like better, too.
With an Arrow, it will probably be SPEED!

Adam
N7966L
Beech Super III

In article ,
Jack Allison wrote:

I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in
the process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way from
being a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other
folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top then
switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
bottom...or even the other way around?

my primary training was in the C-172 (with about 6 hours in a warrior).

my instrument training was in a cherokee 140.

I bought a cherokee 140.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

Here is one thing that no one else has mentioned...
What I like about the post-manual flap Cessna's vice the Piper's is the
floor space between the seats for my nav gear.
The exception being the PA-32. Lots of space behind the front seats
ahead of the spar. I like to keep things within arms reach.

In rec.aviation.owning Jack Allison wrote:
: I find myself in the position of having just under 200 hours in Cessna
: 172s/152s (99% C-172 time), approximately 9 hours in an Archer, and in
: the process of making an offer on an Arrow. So, I'm well on my way from
: being a high wing to low wing convert. I'm wondering how many other
: folks out there did their primary training with the wing on the top then
: switched to flying (or even better, buying) one with the wing on the
: bottom...or even the other way around? Any issues, likes/dislikes about
: the transition?

You should have no troubles. Read the POH: the Arrow has an electric 2nd
fuel pump that is used for takeoff, landing, and flight below 1000'; there
is no "both" setting for the fuel feed. Various speeds are different
depending on whether or not the gear is extended, which is probably not
in the POH due to the airplane's age. With the gear out and the engine
idling the Arrow sinks like a stone. You'll love being able to fly an ILS
at 120k and make the first turnoff with ease. Older Arrows with the short
stabilator take a goodly amount of pull to flare nicely especially at the
recommended approach speed so a lot of folks carry extra speed or power into
the flare which really eats up runway.


BTW, I thought that 1968 was the first year for Arrows.
--
Aaron C.

The only difference worth noting in my opinion is the view restrictions of
each type.

IE: restricted downward view in the low wing and the opposite in the high
wing.

I've flown "uppers and lowers", and find that both have weaknesses and
strengths. In the end, I like to fly both types.

What I found interesting, though, was watching Mary test-fly Cessna 182s
back in 2002 when we were looking to sell our Warrior. She had maybe 200
hours total time at that point, but no high-wing time at all, so she was a
valid test subject on this matter.

She was impressed with the interior room of the Skylane, but, being just 5
feet tall, she found the Cessna to be too "tall" for her comfort (I.E.: the
seating and panel position restricted her forward visibility too much, even
with a pillow) -- and she absolutely despised the 182's truck-like handling
characteristics.

But in the end the real "deal killer" for a high-wing aircraft was when she
laughed out loud while flying the pattern. She just couldn't believe that
people flew a plane where the runway environment was invisible while turning
base-to-final.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

PaulaJay1 wrote:

I like the 2 doors better but don't think that is a high/low wing question.

Actually it is, most low-wings have only one door because they don't
want to spend the money and weight to reinforce a wing-walk on both wings.

I trained in a 172 and now fly Warriors in a club. Both choices were
made because of cost and availability, not a preference for one wing
location or another. Both are great planes for different reasons. The
transition was trivial.

As others have said, there are differences but they are minor.

You are more likely to get two doors in a high-wing plane (IMO this is
the biggest argument in favor of high wing, I hate the one-door cabin of
the Warriors I fly now).

High-wing planes are easier to get into and out of, no clambering over
the wing and telling pax to stay on the reinforced part. Just mind your
head.

There is no "slip with flaps" or not controversy in a low-wing plane.

Low wing planes are slightly easier to land because of lower center of
gravity, more ground effect softening it (which may make short-field
landings harder though), and less of the x-wind getting under the wings.
However it's not enough of a difference.

Easier to check fuel level in a low-wing plane, but harder to drain the
sumps and inspect the underside of the wing (fuel vents, pitot tube, etc).

Low wing planes are less likely to have a "both" setting on the fuel
switch.

Better shade in a high wing plane.

Better sightseeing in a low-wing plane.

Bottom line: you should evaluate planes on their merits to you, and
wing location will probably not be much of a factor unless you're into
aerial photography or something like that.

I wrote:

Better sightseeing in a low-wing plane.


of course this should have said "better sightseeing in a HIGH-wing plane"