High or low wing?

By the way: It is now a direct violation of the Patriot Act to fly those
wimpy high-wing planes in uncontrolled air space

The aircraft of choice for terrorist attacks on skyscrapers is low wing.


....which is why high wing aircraft are verboten. Don't you get it?

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

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
There are no low wing birds.

Yeah? Well there's no such thing as a high-wheeled truck, either!

Wonder why that is?

--
Jim Fisher

"Jim Fisher" wrote in message
. ..

Yeah? Well there's no such thing as a high-wheeled truck, either!

Wonder why that is?


I'll bet you do.

Okay, so all kidding aside, what are the issues between high and low wings?
I know that in terms of flying, there are very few differences between your
average Cessna and Piper, but for higher performance aircraft, what are the
aerodynamic/design tradeoffs?

For example:

Why are most of the more expensive private aircraft (cirrus, pilatus, pretty
much all multi engine and jet) low wings?

Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?

Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings, but all
airliners have low wings?

Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?


- Ray



"C. Paul Williams, MD" wrote in message
om...
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

"G.R. Patterson III" writes:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Being a doctor, one would think that you'd be attracted to the studly
low-wing Beech Bonanza,

Ah, yes ... the old "fork-tailed doctor killer".

It's the other way around. Doctors are Bonanza wreckers.

My brother always said I couldn't ever have a Bonanza because I have a PhD.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
G.R. Patterson III wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

Being a doctor, one would think that you'd be attracted to the studly
low-wing Beech Bonanza,

Ah, yes ... the old "fork-tailed doctor killer".

Makes me glad I am not a doctor.

"Forked-tail ERP software consultant killer." Nah, it just doesn't
have the same ring to it.

--
Peter

"Brad Z" writes:

It's not redundant as much as it is a religious issue here. Be ready to
have your manhood questioned for training in a high wing.

Training in a high wing is OK, just like when you were 5 years old,
you used training wheels on your bicycle, or water wings in the wading
pool.

But at some point the boy must grow into the man, and in aviation,
that means graduating to a manly, hairy-chested Low Wing
aircraft...like an Aircoupe, for instance.

In article , "Ray"
wrote:

Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings,

Just some guesses:

It's easier to move equipment around on the tarmac when the
cargo aircraft have high wings.

The high wings on C-130 and C-17 allow for greater ground
clearance in the crappy places they fly in and out of.

Assuming the wingspar goes through the fuselage, it's
better to have the wingspar above the cargo floor than
below it.

--
Bob Noel

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.

"Ray" wrote in message
...
Okay, so all kidding aside, what are the issues between high and low
wings?
I know that in terms of flying, there are very few differences between
your
average Cessna and Piper, but for higher performance aircraft, what are
the
aerodynamic/design tradeoffs?

For example:

Why are most of the more expensive private aircraft (cirrus, pilatus,
pretty
much all multi engine and jet) low wings?

Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?

They don't. The F-15 and F-14 and F-22 have high wings, for example. Even
so, they have canopies that are raised above the wing for better visibility.
The B-52 also has a high wing. High wings give greater clearance for
operating from rough fields and more room for carrying stores.


Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings, but
all
airliners have low wings?

Not all airliners have low wings, either. But again, military aircraft may
be required to operate at times from rough or unimproved fields, carry
stores under their wings (even cargo planes can carry munitions and drones),
etc. High wings simplify air-drop missions and give better visibility for
navigators/bombardiers to see their targets on the ground. High wings also
allow more room for moving cargo and/or people around on the ramp.

I have no idea why so many airliners have low wings. They seem to me to be a
distinct disadvantage.



Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?

Cold weather airplanes are expected to be used in the bush or in the arctic
operating from rough and unimproved fields. I have no idea whether it is
really true that high altitude airplanes have high wings. The Space Shuttle
is a low wing glider, for example. The SR-71 is a low wing airplane. The
Aurora is also said to be a low wing airplane.

In general, flight visibility is much better in low wing aircraft. It is
also easier to design retractable landing gear for low wing planes and the
landing gear systems are usually both stronger and more reliable. The
downside is somewhat reduced short field performance (smaller flaps), more
complicated fuel systems, and more difficult ingress/egress. Service and
fueling are generally easier on low wing airplanes.

High wing airplanes offer slightly better ground visibility than low wing
airplanes. They are better for such missions as sightseeing, aerial
photography, and parachute jumping. They can have bigger flaps, better short
and rough field capability, and simpler fuel systems. Retractable gear
systems are very complicated and fragile. It is usually easier to get in and
out of high wing aircraft.