"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
I really love flying this plane. It handles nicely and takes bumps more
gracefully then high wing planes.

In what way do you mean takes bumps more gracefully? Is there some
way to quantify this?

The way a plane handles bumps is a function of wing loading instead of
where
the wing is located.

Seems to me one either needs to define "handles bumps" more specifically, or
one needs to accept that wing position does affect how an airplane "handles
bumps" as well as wing loading.

Just as putting the CG fore or aft of the main gear affects an airplane
moving forward on the ground, I would expect putting the CG above or below
the wing would affect the airplane moving about in the air. For example,
ignoring the horizontal stabilizer for a moment, if an airplane pitches up
or down in response to a gust, it will have negative stability with the CG
above the wing, and positive stability with the CG below the wing.

Of course, a properly designed horizontal stabilizer cures many ills, and
this effect may or may not be perceptible in actual airplanes. But surely
one can't say that there's no effect due to wing placement.

As a corallary, I find it puzzling that someone would claim low-wing
airplanes are superior to high-wing airplanes with respect to "bumps", since
the only theoretical difference I can think of implies that high wings would
be better.

Pete