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

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.

--
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)

The more hours you fly and the more models of airplanes you fly, the less
you will feel that there is a difference, and therefore, the more you will
enjoy flying the airplane that you are currently in, because that is the
best airplane there is.... the one you are the pilot of! The best
airplane I ever flew was the one that happened to meet my mission as closely
as possible, whether high wing or low wing.
Jim
C150
C152
PA 28-150
PA 28-161
PA 28-201R
PA 28-181
R182
PA-18
C170
PA 23-250

Jack Allison wrote:
snip
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?


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).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

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.

Cheers:

Paul
NC2273H

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"

Try it in a biplane. Damn near everything is invisible then!

Shawn

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:lVuHd.14738$IV5.1632@attbi_s54...
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"

ShawnD2112 wrote:

Try it in a biplane. Damn near everything is invisible then!

I've been told that flaring to land in a Fokker DR-1 is like closing a set of
venetian blinds. Everything disappears.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

Try it in a biplane. Damn near everything is invisible then!

Yeah, in my whopping 0.6 hours of biplane time (a Stearman), I was surprised
to find that visibility really sucked.

I expected to see more from an open-cockpit, I guess -- not less.

Still, it was a gas to fly!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

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.

That's probably also related to her height. I don't lose sight of the runway
turning base to final in a 182. I *do* have to lean forward, though.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

George,
I'm only 5' 2" and need 2" cushions to see over the cowling and to
reach the pedals in both high wings (150/152/172/177, Champ) and low
wing (Tiger). I don't recall ever losing sight of the runway turning
base to final either.

Our interest in aerial photography along with the need for easily
accessible large baggage area led to buying a Cardinal. If it wasn't
for those factors, I'd have leaned towards the Grumman Tiger. I had not
flown any low-wing planes but had no problem handling/landing the Tiger
at first try.

Hai