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

xyzzy wrote:

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

What controversy? You can do it if it isn't prohibilted. I don't know
about all Cessna models, but I don't think that all have this prohibition.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
xyzzy wrote:

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


What controversy? You can do it if it isn't prohibilted. I don't know
about all Cessna models, but I don't think that all have this prohibition.

None do.

Check the C172 manual under EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.
Some models contain a caution/warning against slipping with 30 degrees
of flaps.

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

Matt Whiting wrote:
What controversy? You can do it if it isn't prohibilted. I don't know
about all Cessna models, but I don't think that all have this prohibition.

Newps wrote:
None do.

jsmith wrote:
Check the C172 manual under EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.
Some models contain a caution/warning against slipping with 30 degrees
of flaps.

I'm quite sure newps knows that and was making the point that a caution/warning
does not a prohibition make.

xyzzy wrote:


Better sightseeing in a low-wing plane.

I feel just the opposite. Unless you are star gazing, it is much easier
to see the ground in a high-wing and much easier to take pictures. I
had a heck of a time taking pictures of my house in the Arrow.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

xyzzy wrote:


Better sightseeing in a low-wing plane.


I feel just the opposite. Unless you are star gazing, it is much easier
to see the ground in a high-wing and much easier to take pictures. I
had a heck of a time taking pictures of my house in the Arrow.

Matt

You're right, I typed it wrong.

All:

Thanks for the input. So far, with the few hours I have in an Archer,
I've found the transition pretty simple. There are things I like
better, things I don't like as much when comparing to a Cessna. Mostly,
just annoyance level stuff that I'll get over (especially once I join
the ranks of owner).

Things from misc. replies:
- Jay H - Definitely agree on the panel height of a C-182. I'm 6 feet
tall and when I've flown a newer C-182 with my brother, I felt short,
even with the seat all the way up. Way different than a C-172. I can
hardly imagine Mary being able to see much over the panel.

- Aaron C. - Nope, 1967 is the first year for the Arrow. Not something
I knew a couple weeks ago.

- Adam - Hmmm, I'll have to keep the gear stance thing in mind should I
ever be taxiing with snow on the ramp (not something I have to deal with
here in the CA central valley). Oh, and as for what I'd enjoy about the
Arrow...yep, speed is one thing. Others include that funny lever that
makes those cute little green lights go on and off, the cool looking
blue lever in the middle of the throttle quadrant, the cool factor of
the 3-blade prop conversion...ok, back to reality :-)


--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL, IA Student, Student Arrow Buyer

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

"Jack Allison" wrote in message
news:csjun0$sr9

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?

Jack,

I have mostly flown C-172's, but have flown a Cherokee for a few hours.
Being so used to the Cessnas, it would be reasonable to think that flying
the Cherokee would be hard to get used to. I was pleasantly surprised to
find that I really liked it. Here are some random thoughts:

I like manual flaps, a lot. Once I flew an older C-172 that had manual flaps
and loved it. The Cherokee had manual flaps too. One major difference I
found is that when you lower flaps in the C-172, the nose goes up, but in
the Cherokee, the tail goes up.

The Cherokee had much rougher ride while taxiing, kind of wallowed and
rocked side to side. Also, a stiffer jolt on landing. Could be the pilot's
fault on that one.

My major gripe: The single door on the Cherokee. Couldn't stand it, but it's
not a deal breaker. I do have a concern about safety and egress. In CAP, we
practice egress from C-172's and C-182's. We can clear the plane with 4 pax
in about 13 seconds. In a single door plane this would be considerably
longer. Also, what if that one door was to jam in a crash? Sometimes those
doors don't seal so well either since they are much more complex than the
C-172's doors. A minor detail, but one that could get on your nerves and
wallet.

The Cherokee seemed to turn better than the C-172. I don't know exactly why,
but it just seemed to fly a little better and easier, a little crisper. More
natural coordination? Also, I liked the increased visibility while turning.

The Cherokee had a engine cowling that opened completely up so that I could
inspect the engine visually. I liked that a whole lot more than the little
inspection port on the C-172.

I like the thought of a gravity-fed fuel system rather than a pump system.
Also, there's no need to switch tanks on the C-172.

I like to fly for the scenic value and the C-172 has a better view of the
ground.

The cabin had a bigger feel in the C-172, but the instrument panel was lower
in the Cherokee.

Low wingers generally look better aesthetically, but high wingers stay
cooler in the summer because of the extra shade. The C-172's doors and
windows allow the cockpit to cool off quicker if it does get hot. As a
designer, I appreciate aesthetics, but I also appreciate functional design.
Functional designs are beautiful to me.

All in all, there's no clear winner for me. That been said, I think the high
wing scheme wins by a nose for me.

HTH,

-Trent
PP-ASEL

I like the high-wing for my fun flying since I can get better camera shots
on my trips of the scenery below, without that big wing in the way... Also,
I like the idea that the C172 has two doors to the Arrow III's (not counting
the 'emergency' baggage compartment door g) one door (which to me seems
pretty prone to getting stuck in an accident - Cessna doors you can wedge
open with a coat,,, not so sure that one can do that with an Arrow III.

By the way,,, congrats on getting ready to join the aircraft owners
'club'.... Someday, for me,,, for certain.... :0)
--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

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