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

xyzzy wrote:
Low wing planes are slightly easier to land because of lower center of
gravity,

Why?


...more ground effect softening it

There are so many other factors involved, even though this probably is
somewhat true, it's impossible demonstrate - can you really tell when the
induced drag lowers by a couple of % (the diff between a high-wing and
low-wing). Also, nitpicking, but since ground effect causes a nose down
pitching moment, you could argue it tends to 'harden' the landing.

FWIW: I did my Private in a 172 - loved it. Did my Instrument in an Archer.
Given that most mid-air accidents occur in or near a traffic pattern, I feel
somewhat uncomfortable flying high-wing planes in the pattern where you have
practically no visibility in the direction you're turning - a justification
for turning steeper in the pattern in high-wingers??? (less time in the
turn). I still fly 172s (I really like flying them), but I'm extra cautious
and sometimes move my shoulder harness off my shoulder and lean way forward
to try peer around the corner.

Hilton

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"

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.

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.

Me? 1700 hrs over 42 years in 172 and Aeronca 15AC high wing. Pvt
ASEL&S with an unused instrument rating.

I like the snow bank and dock clearance of high wings. If these are
not an issue I'd say it is a tossup though.

An aside of a tower operator - High wings fly tighter patterns.

I've wondered if the incidence of getting lost under contact navigation
might be higher for low wings?

Hilton wrote:

xyzzy wrote:

Low wing planes are slightly easier to land because of lower center of

gravity,

Why?



...more ground effect softening it


There are so many other factors involved, even though this probably is
somewhat true, it's impossible demonstrate - can you really tell when the
induced drag lowers by a couple of % (the diff between a high-wing and
low-wing). Also, nitpicking, but since ground effect causes a nose down
pitching moment, you could argue it tends to 'harden' the landing.

Good point. My experiences are c172 and warrior. I just know that I
float more in the Warrior, and that it's much easier to land smoother in
the Warrior. I think low-wing definitely explains the float, but the
smoother landing could very well be the inflated struts landing gear of
the warrior vs. the stiffer legs on the 172. The highwing/lowwing
probably is a smaller factor than that.

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Hi Jack;
(Bet nobody says hello to you walking up the steps to get on an airliner
do they :-)
Groan...If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that one. Certainly
would get a more interesting response in the post-911 days, eh? :-)
No, it's "Hello Jack", "Hey, Jack, hows it going"...er, something like
that. I prefer to avoid the TSA cavity search just because someone says
"Hi Jack" at an airport...though, that's not much of a problem since I
don't fly commercially all that much.

The whole thing about high wings and low wings is WAY over done.
Yep, sort of like the proverbial Ford/Chevy debate.


--
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)

Aaron Coolidge wrote:


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

It's a lot like cars. The first Arrows were built and sold in late
'67 even though they belong to the '68 model year. What makes it more
confusing is that airplane registration data is based on the "year of
manufacture" not the model year. Lot's of Arrows show up in the
registration database as '67 models, even though they are actually '68
models as far as appearance and equipment go (e.g. third side window).
John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

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)

One of the nice things about the Diamond Eclipse I rent is that
although it's a low wing it has great visibility. The wings are far
enough back of the cockpit that you get excellent upward visibility and
usable downward visibility as well. The picture is different from the
172 I learned on though, the forward window goes down lower. It makes
a great sightseeing airplane!

-Malcolm Teas