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

Jay Honeck wrote:

Now I may get lambasted for this

What? You getting flamed? :-)

Call me a purist, but there's just something wrong with parking a plane that
looks exactly like a current-production aircraft (because, well, it IS
identical) next to a classic old Navion or Comanche.

Hmmm, interesting point Jay. Might there be some nasty backlash form
the "pure" vintage crowd? Good question to ponder over the next six
months :-) Hey, at least it's not an Arrow IV with, IMHO, the extremely
goofy looking T-tail.

Actually, that would be an interesting topic to hear from folks on both
sides of the fence. Perhaps a future post.


In a few years I suppose my Pathfinder will be eligible for "Classic"
parking -- but you'll still find me happily watching departures from my lawn
chair out in the North 40...

That's one aspect of the North-40 that, IMHO, is *very* compelling.
While being more centrally located in a place like Vintage sounds good,
there's just something about kicking back in the morning/evening
watching departures and arrivals that makes camping with everyone in the
North-40 a ton of fun.

--
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)

"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

On the other side, I used to own a tripacer and now own a bonanza and
would take the tripacer in higher crosswinds than i would ever take the
bonanza in.
Maybe it's the piper product that does good in x-winds.

dave



Dave wrote:
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

Hmmm..

......never flew a Bo...

But the smaller stubby wings of a Tripacer and the stout gear
could contribute immeasureably to the stable feeling of the Tripacer
in winds..

I can see how that could be...

Anybody else out there with any comments?

Dave



..On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:19:22 -0600, wrote:

On the other side, I used to own a tripacer and now own a bonanza and
would take the tripacer in higher crosswinds than i would ever take the
bonanza in.
Maybe it's the piper product that does good in x-winds.

dave



Dave wrote:
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

Also, thinking a little more about it, In the high wing you can see how
high your wingtip is above the ground when your landing on two wheels
because of the crosswind.
In the Bo, you don't have the same picture. you can't see if your going
to dig that tip into the turf.
Dave

Dave wrote:
Hmmm..

......never flew a Bo...

But the smaller stubby wings of a Tripacer and the stout gear
could contribute immeasureably to the stable feeling of the Tripacer
in winds..

I can see how that could be...

Anybody else out there with any comments?

Dave



.On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:19:22 -0600, wrote:


On the other side, I used to own a tripacer and now own a bonanza and
would take the tripacer in higher crosswinds than i would ever take the
bonanza in.
Maybe it's the piper product that does good in x-winds.

dave



Dave wrote:

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

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:15:55 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Jay Honeck wrote:

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.


Interesting. When I fly a high wing, the runway always disappears in
turns. (I'm 6' tall.)

Where does the runway go when you are turning? :-) I've never come
across a runway that can disappear like that.

It hides behind the wing.

The only high wing I've flown where I could see the runway when
turning final was a Cardinal. OTOH it isn't going any place and I
know where it was and where it will appear so that really isn't a
problem.

Both High and low wing aircraft hive blind spots. The only time it
gets dicey is when each is in the other's blind spot.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com



Matt

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 06:20:44 GMT, "Hilton"
wrote:

jsmith wrote:
Two things to reduce "float" on landing...
1.) slow down
2.) after roundout, take out one notch of flaps while pulling the yoke
back to maintain pitch attitude.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no... Sorry, the complex CFI in me just kicked
in.

I think the AirSafety foundation might have a few comments about
taking out flaps before getting the wheels down:-))

There is one fool proof way to reduce, or eliminate float. Fly the
proper airspeed! :-)) "and the proper angle" for the type of landing.

Even in the old Johnson Bar flap Cherokee 180s you took the flaps out
*after* the wheels were down.

Taking flaps out while low and slow above the runway is a really good
way to break something.

I saw six guys in a Cherokee 6 come in on a spot landing contest at
HTL some years back. They dumped the flaps over the tape, but
unfortunately they were a couple a feet up. It was a terrible sound.
Yes, it definitely eliminated float. The FBO wanted to look at the
plane before they left. (They really did hit hard enough there was
some discussion as to whether it might have done something
undesirable)

Remember they did this with all 6 seats full. Had it been the pilot
alone it wouldn't have been quite so rough, but still unadvisable.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Hilton

Roger wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:15:55 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote:


Jay Honeck wrote:


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.


Interesting. When I fly a high wing, the runway always disappears in
turns. (I'm 6' tall.)

Where does the runway go when you are turning? :-) I've never come
across a runway that can disappear like that.


It hides behind the wing.

The only high wing I've flown where I could see the runway when
turning final was a Cardinal. OTOH it isn't going any place and I
know where it was and where it will appear so that really isn't a
problem.

That is my point. The runway doesn't go anywhere when the wing hides it.

Matt