high wing or low wing

RobinHood

RobinHood

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jun 1, 2014
Messages
23
Display Name
Display name:
Prince of Thieves
i have come to a cross in the roads regarding the choice of the high wing or the low wing single engine aviation

the bryan six pappa charlie has explained me a great many details of why the low wing is superior to the high wing but i must get the opinions of you all folks as my mission is at least 2 trips a month to alberta
 
Mid-wing that is up high:

convaircar.gif
 
Try both.

It's a personal choice.

I find myself flying high wings a lot more than low wings, as it's a whole lot easier to get a photo without a wingtip in it.

Low wings (at least the common Piper trainers) are easier to fly in several regards, but high wings are more comfy for passengers.

High wings are easier to find for rent.

Cost, difficulty, speed, fuel consumption, fuel capacity, etc., are comparable for directly competing models. Switching between the two is not difficult, but it's a distraction prior to check ride.

Frankly, to fly to Alberta from Texas, you'll want a low wing with two turbine engines and a funky looking US flag on the vertical stabilizer. That's a really long way in any light aircraft.
 
Last edited:
piper makes the aviation plane that can fly to alberta no
 
Didn't we have this discussion (again) just last week in another thread? :rolleyes:

High wings are best for pilots that like the wing on top and low wings are more suited for pilots that like the wing on the bottom. :D
 
RobinHood said:
i have come to a cross in the roads regarding the choice of the high wing or the low wing single engine aviation

the bryan six pappa charlie has explained me a great many details of why the low wing is superior to the high wing but i must get the opinions of you all folks as my mission is at least 2 trips a month to alberta
Click to expand...

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1456552&postcount=41

Also, heavier people tend to crack wing structures under the wing walk...
 
Last edited:
Wings are important. You can keep a better eye on them in a low wing.
 
To steal an idea from last week's thread:

Fly a biplane, and try them both at the same time.
 
Just climb in a couple, see how they feel, and go with the one you feel most comfortable in.
 
RobinHood said:
piper makes the aviation plane that can fly to alberta no
Click to expand...

Piper makes a lot of airplanes.

Any airplane CAN fly to Alberta. They don't just drop out of the sky when leaving Montana. Whether it should is another story. Are you good at filling Gatorade bottles?

A Warrior cruises at about 100 knots. Dallas to Calgary is about 1800 nautical miles. 18 hours in a Warrior? Are you SURE you want to do that regularly?

I think you substantially overestimate the utility of a light aircraft.
 
I have a high wing that I keep hangared. I never realized how big an advantage that was till I visited a friend that has a low wing in his home hangar. It is a pain in the butt to have to walk all the way around the wing to get to the back.
And I like a plane that has two doors instead of one. Every Time!
Of course, a low wing is easier to fuel.

But that is all on the ground. In the air the difference is the same as 6 or a half dozen.
 
I have a low wing with a hangar. It's not nearly as much of a pain in the ass as some new to low wings seem to think. You quickly get used to it.

I learned to fly in high wings, bought a low wing (Mooney). My biggest concern was "how well will I be able to see the ground?".

pretty well:
 

Attachments

  • outwindow.jpg
    outwindow.jpg
    217.6 KB · Views: 40
Why "or". Embrace the brilliance of "and".
 
I can't think of too many high wing airplanes I'd care to fly that far. Maybe a pressurized 210, but they have a reputation for being problematic.

You're going far and need to go high, I do believe an airliner is the right tool for the job.
 
I fly in FL and so far have preferred the high wings, especially during the summer.
 
Airliners have wings bottom and birds have wings on top. Ur choice, both get the job done.
 
Hard to do this with a low wing!
ypu7ydan.jpg


But seriously, get what you want, who cares what we think?


-VanDy
 
VanDy said:
Hard to do this with a low wing!

But seriously, get what you want, who cares what we think?


-VanDy
Click to expand...

Nah...
image.jpg

Heck, when the rain hit there were at least 20 people hiding under my wing, and I was at the end of I-195 with 2 rows of classic Cessna high wings to hide under.:D
 
Either way, each has advantages and disadvantages. I think the C-177 RG makes the best of view, shade, weather protection getting in & out.... As for structure, safety, handling, either is fine. In all honesty, I don't really care except for biplanes which are the worst of both worlds plus really draggy.
 
Henning said:
Either way, each has advantages and disadvantages. I think the C-177 RG makes the best of view, shade, weather protection getting in & out.... As for structure, safety, handling, either is fine. In all honesty, I don't really care except for biplanes which are the worst of both worlds plus really draggy.
Click to expand...

Never flown one, but with 7 years of 177FG flying under my belt, I gotta say the absence of wheel pants on the 177RG is intriguing. When I start doing interior work, say instrument replacement, first thing I do is pull a wheel pant. That gives me plenty of space to roll right up there without bumping into anything. Plus, no hunting for valve stems if there are no wheel pants. Sure its not a big deal to do so, but I appreciate all minor conveniences.

In this case, I just pulled the seat stops and rolled the front seats aft instead of taking them out for access.

 
Last edited:
simtech said:
Smarty:D
Click to expand...

Sorry. I'm really just jealous that I'll will never have to deal with this question, although I've been raised in a "high-wing" family with concessions that the best would be either the Cardinal or Skymaster.

If only the 177 really did replace the 172 way back when and all Cessna's were now based on that... :(
 
Out of curiosity, what is the ballpark useful load on the cardinal?
I have a goal to buy myself a plane on my 40th birthday (2.5 years from now :yikes:) and I like the way those look.

I have been thinking 182 as I have been in one and I can carry they whole clan as the kids get heavier but the 177 is a little more eye catching to me.

Edit: I know I can just google this stuff but you guys are more fun.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Out of curiosity, what is the ballpark useful load on the cardinal?
I have a goal to buy myself a plane on my 40th birthday (2.5 years from now :yikes:) and I like the way those look.

I have been thinking 182 as I have been in one and I can carry they whole clan as the kids get heavier but the 177 is a little more eye catching to me.

Edit: I know I can just google this stuff but you guys are more fun.
Click to expand...

Specs available on the Cardinal Flyers Online website. CFO is the online type club for the Cardinals and an excellent resource.

http://www.cardinalflyers.com/prep/specs/_specs.php
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Weird. Useful load went down 200 lbs between 71 and 72
Click to expand...

see SMS msg I sent you....

If you get serious about Cardinals, consider attending one of the Owners Clinics.

One of the type guru's, Guy Maher, frequently puts on a weekend seminar about the specs, details, care, feeding, and flying of Cardinals. I attended one 2 years ago before joining Metro Flyers (when I was considering purchase) and found it to be of tremendous value. I have the seminar book still and can loan it to you.
 
AggieMike88 said:
see SMS msg I sent you....

If you get serious about Cardinals, consider attending one of the Owners Clinics.

One of the type guru's, Guy Maher, frequently puts on a weekend seminar about the specs, details, care, feeding, and flying of Cardinals. I attended one 2 years ago before joining Metro Flyers (when I was considering purchase) and found it to be of tremendous value. I have the seminar book still and can loan it to you.
Click to expand...

Got your text. Weird that you dot your I's with hearts Mike.
Seriously though, I would be interested in learning more about them.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Got your text. Weird that you dot your I's with hearts Mike.
Click to expand...
I told you yesterday, that per the new signature photo, "Toucha, Toucha, Touch Me" is one of my favorite songs.
Seriously though, I would be interested in learning more about them.
Click to expand...
I'll put the seminar book in the car so I have it next time I see you.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Out of curiosity, what is the ballpark useful load on the cardinal?
I have a goal to buy myself a plane on my 40th birthday (2.5 years from now :yikes:) and I like the way those look.
Click to expand...

The 177RG I have access to will hold 1000 lb useful load. HOWEVER, the W&B is more difficult than usual and some of that has to go to ballast if the back seat is empty. Typically, me and a right seat adult passenger requires 90 lb in rear baggage. There happens to be a free sandbag station next to the airport.

Straight leg 177s apparently aren't so screwy. But the older ones are underpowered; 177B's not so bad. The very earliest ones got a rep for tail strikes and PIOs related to the big ass stabilator.

The drawbacks of that airplane are (1) the windows don't open (except for a useless little vent window that you can't use at high speed), and (2) those Buick-like doors like to fly open in the wind.

A 182 is a much better platform for photos (the windows open at any airspeed below Vne), and it will haul a lot more. Some of them come with turbochargers and/or retractible gear. No one needs 75 gal of fuel in one of those. That's over 6 hours duration, including reserve. My bladder hurts just thinking about that.
 
Don't we already have a ton of threads on this?
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Out of curiosity, what is the ballpark useful load on the cardinal?


I have been thinking 182 as I have been in one and I can carry they whole clan as the kids get heavier but the 177 is a little more eye catching to me.
Click to expand...

Another Socata owner here reported a crazy low useful load a while back.

The 1968 is ~875 (burns auto gas) 150 Hp with Fixed pitch (been flying one over 7 years)

1969 - 180 horse with fixed pitch
1970 and on are 180 with cs prop

The 1978 that I physically weighed myself, is ~815, puffy leather seats, thicker windshield sound proofing throughout the airplane, dual nav coms, ARC 200 autopilot etc. (100LL only, 180 horse with constant speed (I maintain and fly a very nice one that belongs to a friend)

I prefer the handling of the 68 over the 78.



The 1968 have an airfoil much like the late model 210's. The 1970 and newer ones have an airfoil more like a 172. You can see the difference in wing thickness.
 
Last edited:
If I had choice between a 180 HP cardinal and a 182, I'd probably choose the 182 and burn mogas.

If it was a newer 182 were a mogas stc is not available, I'd rather have the cardinal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top