High Wing or Low Wing

High wings (general)

Easier to remove the interior.

Easier work on items in the fuselage. Much less work trying to carry all the tools in and out than a low wing. Super annoying climbing onto a wing through one cabin door then trying to laying on your back to get under the panel and finding out you need a different wrench.



All the space under the wings can usually accommodate two cars in the hangar and/or have work space for a shop. When it's about to hail and storm, I just park the car under the airplane and close the hangar door.



Easier to load and unload passengers and gear.

I can park my car in the hangar and move the airplane in or out without having shuffle them.

More difficult to put gas in, but if my amputated feet are sore, I just have line services fuel it or a passenger if I have company on the flight.
Easier to take fuel samples.

Stay cooler in the summer time. Most high wings have larger opening windows than low wings. Most certainly can open two cabin doors when on the ground. Most low wings only have one cabin door that you could taxi with open. Can sit in the shade under the wings when parked.

Much easier to work landing gear inspections and other things like tire and brake servicing.

Fuel tanks high wings may be less likely to be penetrated by short fence poles, small trees etc when making off airport landings.

High wings typically have gravity feed fuel systems eliminating a rats nest of fuel hoses and fuel pumps. Fuel pumps and hoses aren't cheap.

Heavier people tend to crack wing structures under the wing walk, where you enter and exit a low wing.
 
Last edited:
Dan Thomas said:
Yeah. And in the shop, doing maintenance, the low-wing is a pain. Got to walk all the way around the wingtips instead of ducking under the wing.

Dan
Click to expand...

It's a massive waste of time doing so. Also a huge waste of space.
 
When someone asks me about working on their airplane, my first question is, high wing or low wing? If it's a low wing it better be an engine issue cause someone else can bust their butt working in the cabin. Annual a low wing? That makes me nauseated.
 
Timmer said:
Also, most -- or all? -- birds are mid-wing, and likewise so are fighters and most airliners, I believe.

Also, birds can flap their wings so it's not necessarily a perfect comparison.

I have yet to fly a low-wing airplane but would like to at some point. I imagine the visibility of sky to be improved without the feeling that there's a big wing above you creating a more 'open' feeling. I would probably like low-wings better if more had doors for each side.

I also like that the fuel system is much simpler on a high-wing.

Personally, my dream plane would be a 182-sized airplane based on the Cardinal design. I hear the Skymaster is great, too, for this reason.
Click to expand...

The only reason a bird is 'high wing' is because muscles make power in contraction, not expansion.
 
The obvious answer is one (or more) of each.
 
To add to the low wing cons,

Cracking of the wing walk structure like on Pipers is big $ and downtime to repair.
 
Cessnas (162/172/150) were all I flew until I had about 100 hours, then I got checked out in a Archer II. Here are my impressions from that checkout:

1. Pattern work is a delight in the low wing due to better visibility in turns. But also because the Archer responds to flaps (especially notches 2 and 3) better than the Cessnas, in terms of trim). IMO.
2. I found taxiing less stressful. I could judge the positions of the wingtips more easily, and scanning for traffic before taking the runway is easier.
3. Fueling was easier, but overall preflight was about a wash.
4. No "both" position for fuel is asking for trouble.
5. I did miss the view below in cruise. I have heard that passengers like "sitting on the wing" more; haven't had a chance to get feedback on this.
6. Entry/egress is easier on the Cessnas, for the front seats anyway.
7. The Piper checkout was in the mild weather of Norcal, so shade was not important. However, I have been thankful for the shade of that wing here in the Midwest summers, especially with family.
 
For off field, high wings are better. They don't hit the bushes or tall grass.
 
The one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the view of the ground is much better in a high wing. Even with Cessna struts.

That's relevant if your mission is sightseeing, or search and rescue (CAP has VERY few if any low wings -- most of the fleet is 172s, 182s, and 206s and a few rumored GA-8 Airvans).
 
I would think washing and waxing your high wing is worse than doing it on a low wing, although you better have a comfortable creeper when waxing the underside of your low wing.
 
I've always liked aircraft where the seating is as far in front of the wing as possible. Diamonds are #1 in my book. Bonanzas aren't bad, better than most of the older generations. I'm trying to avoid flying a glider - afraid I'll fall in serious lust ... I can't afford a jet - no problem there ...
 
brian];1631212 said:
I've always liked aircraft where the seating is as far in front of the wing as possible. Diamonds are #1 in my book.
Click to expand...

Better demote that Diamond to #2!

14175503597_9d616dee3a.jpg


Well, for the pilot, anyway!
 
Oh yea - forgot about them. There are other pusher examples where you are sitting out in the wind - yea, that would be my idea of low, slow and high vis..
 
brian];1631212 said:
I've always liked aircraft where the seating is as far in front of the wing as possible. Diamonds are #1 in my book. Bonanzas aren't bad, better than most of the older generations. I'm trying to avoid flying a glider - afraid I'll fall in serious lust ... I can't afford a jet - no problem there ...
Click to expand...

I started training in an SGS 2-33 glider, an old reliable trainier, but stopped short of getting a glider license. When I restarted my training a couple years later, but in powered airplanes, my first impression of the C-152 I trained in was "Holy crap - the visibility in this thing truly sucketh - how does anyone put up with this!? And the noise and annoying headphones!"
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
All the choices between high and low wing are purely ephemeral, not technical.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking .......one doesn't see many low wing bush planes ( like in alaska) and the reasons are visibility and ease of operation, ie: taxiing up to a dock, etc. on and on.
 
I am a low wing convert.
Being that the high wing tends to be nearly eye level it obscures more than the low wing which tends to be 3 feet below your eyes.

Can't see as much ground but the over all view is less limited and spotting traffic is a bit less stressful with the wings further from your eyes.

I want to camp under a high wing though. that looks like fun.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Technically speaking .......one doesn't see many low wing bush planes ( like in alaska) and the reasons are visibility and ease of operation, ie: taxiing up to a dock, etc. on and on.
Click to expand...

The low wings just need to be a bit larger to get the needed clearance:
_DSC0027-small.jpg

 
Jim Logajan said:
The low wings just need to be a bit larger to get the needed clearance:
_DSC0027-small.jpg

Click to expand...

The only reason a DC 3 is - was used in back country is that they were cheap to buy after WW2 and parts were prevalent. As for a DC3 on floats, there were only two or three built. None are now flying.
 
brian];1631226 said:
Oh yea - forgot about them. There are other pusher examples where you are sitting out in the wind - yea, that would be my idea of low, slow and high vis..
Click to expand...

Lake Amphibs are good as well.
97_LakeBuccaneer_N550YS_e_e.jpg
 
Jimmy cooper said:
The only reason a DC 3 is - was used in back country is that they were cheap to buy after WW2 and parts were prevalent. As for a DC3 on floats, there were only two or three built. None are now flying.
Click to expand...

There were 2 a couple of years ago, one was a Bassler turbine.
 
Jimmy cooper said:
Technically speaking .......one doesn't see many low wing bush planes ( like in alaska) and the reasons are visibility and ease of operation, ie: taxiing up to a dock, etc. on and on.
Click to expand...

However, in Australia, the 36 Bonanza is the primary 'bush plane'. BTW, those are ephemeral differences.
 
Low wings without retracts look silly.
 
For me, it's pretty simple. I prefer the more upright seating in the 172. The Cherokee was harder to get into and I never really felt comfortable in the seat in that plane.
 
Get the one that suits your mission best. I've flown many kinds. Flying off my farm, I like my Champ.
 
I feel strongly both ways;-)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0961.jpg
    IMG_0961.jpg
    114.9 KB · Views: 10
I always think the ground is better to look at than empty sky, and I like the shade here in Georgia, so high wing for me. Now that I have one though, I do wish I could see into a turn better.
 
I've flown planes I love of both, but my general preference is high wing for the decreased float, non hard surface landings (which I do pretty often), and the view under me.

A lot is dependent on the type rather than wing mounting. For example, I find a 172 to be "sportier" more fun to fly than a Cherokee, but not as much as a Diamond.
 
Henning said:
There were 2 a couple of years ago, one was a Bassler turbine.
Click to expand...

Not long ago the recip float dc3 at moose lake was taken out of service. The owner reported his was the last one flying at that time. I can't imagine why anyone would invest in an expensive turbo conversion as the DC3 on floats is very impractical. Very hard to get passengers or cargo on board on dry land , ( extension ladder) or even on the water. Very slow, tremendous drag and gigantic fuel burn. To what end would they possibly convert it?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top