high wing vs low wing for a private pilot

high wing or low wing ?

  • Total voters
    95
You forgot the third choice -- "Either." Unless you're a wheelchair pilot, in which case a strutless, large door Cessna 177 Cardinal or 210 Centurion is almost a practical necessity, it's entirely a subjective matter for which no single answer is right for everyone.
 
>>6. Need braces to prop the wing up when it's parked.

>Actually those braces hold the wing up in flight too.

Actually those braces hold the wing down in flight. :wink2:
 
tyndall said:
>>6. Need braces to prop the wing up when it's parked.

>Actually those braces hold the wing up in flight too.

Actually those braces hold the wing down in flight. :wink2:
Click to expand...

You only have 49 posts. You aren't allowed to point out technical discrepancies yet.
 
How the hell did you get more posts than me anyway?
 
Ron Levy said:
You forgot the third choice -- "Either." Unless you're a wheelchair pilot, in which case a strutless, large door Cessna 177 Cardinal or 210 Centurion is almost a practical necessity, it's entirely a subjective matter for which no single answer is right for everyone.
Click to expand...


I helped rig a plane for a paraplegic, Louie Rigo has an STC to put a hand control in a 36 series Bo and it worked out quite well.
 
Henning said:
I helped rig a plane for a paraplegic, Louie Rigo has an STC to put a hand control in a 36 series Bo and it worked out quite well.
Click to expand...

First owner of my plane had one leg. My CFI trained a paraplegic guy, he said the only thing that bothered him was the way he put his arm through the yoke to steer and pull on some sort of rudder mechanism, he was scared he'd break his arm if he had to "fix" something in a hurry.

file.php
 
j1b3h0 said:
Tailwheel or nosewheel is a more salient question. If you want to learn to fly, find an airplane that will help teach you to fly. Most trainers today fly like a Honda Civic drives. Find one that requires a pilot aboard.
Click to expand...

i fly tail wheel , i think i am flying a civic in stick shift . :wink2:
 
bartmc said:
Yeah, it's a fixed gear, low wing with a TSIO-550

Not exactly apples to oranges with low wing retract with an IO-360.

a 172/177RG would be more along the lines for comparison for a Cessna high wing vs Mooney Low wing debate.
Click to expand...

Competes does not equal comparison, Mr SZ:D
 
HerrGruyere said:
From my experience at ~30 hours and having flown a '99 172R, '03 172SP and a '98 Archer PA-28-181, I can give some general answers:

The 172 is a little more responsive on the controls. The Archer, like my CFI describes, flies like a Cadillac. It's super smooth (not that the 172 isn't) and requires smoother inputs. The Archer really enjoys being trimmed for level flight and the 172 is a little more forgiving in this aspect. One thing I like about the Archer is that the nosewheel has a direct connection to your rudder pedals. This makes taxiing a breeze. The 172 has bungees on the nosewheel. If they are worn out, you have to sort of anticipate the turn and use more differential braking.

The 172 and the Archer have different landing characteristics. You need to come in faster in the Archer and really be smooth on the touchdown. The Archer has a noticeable ground effect, but it goes away quickly. My CFI explained many pilots have a tendency to let the Archer slam into the ground because they are too high above the runway letting the ground effect bleed off. It can be hard to gauge where the wheels are in the Archer because you can't see them. The 172 is easy to land and is predictable in that matter.

If you really like looking straight down while in the air, the 172 is the way to go. I rather enjoy the view in the Archer. You can't look straight down, but you can see up into the sky and around on the ground. It was refreshing after flying the 172, since the 172 is kinda like wearing a baseball cap.

Personally, I found the Archer to be super comfortable in comparison to the 172. The 172 sits like a Ford Ranger while the Archer sits like my BMW. It's not like the 172 isn't comfortable. I just felt like I have more room and a better seating position in the Archer. Plus, this particular Archer I flew has some sweet seats. I'm actually trying to get myself checked out in the Archer so I can take it on a XC simply for comfort. However, the Archer burns way more gas than the XC and isn't all that much faster, so it isn't necessarily the better choice.

Most people start in the 172. I would fly that around and then once you are comfortable with flying, you should ask your CFI if you can take an Archer (or whatever you have access to) out for a flight. That's what I did.
Click to expand...





i have been told that the 152/172 are very easy to land and fly, but the low wing ones are smooth... i will go check out both airplanes out soon
 
I'm confused, I have a RV7 (low wing) a Supercub (high wing) and a N3n (biplane). I don't know what to vote for. Don
 
scarybus320 said:
i have been told that the 152/172 are very easy to land and fly, but the low wing ones are smooth... i will go check out both airplanes out soon
Click to expand...

172/152 and PA28's are all easy to land with proper technique. You'll learn that in training, then forget it after the check ride, then learn it again, and then forget it... Well you get the point.
 
Here's what I was doing Saturday. My friend Neil was out of town so I stole the N all day. As you can see the best of all combinations. High wing, low wing, tailwheel and round motor. Doesn't get any better on a warm sunny day. Don
 

Attachments

  • N3N 1.jpg
    N3N 1.jpg
    476 KB · Views: 8
  • N3N 2.jpg
    N3N 2.jpg
    236.1 KB · Views: 11
  • N3N 4.jpg
    N3N 4.jpg
    516.7 KB · Views: 16
I trained exclusively in high wing airplanes, C-152's. After I got my ticket I got checked out in a low wing, and never looked back.
 
Definitely low wing. Much easier to land, better stall characteristics (at least in the common trainer/entry level class, YMMV in higher performance). Wider gear track gives better ground handling characteristics. No ladder/climbing up the side of the airplane during pre-flight. In a water ditching where the airplane doesn't flip, you don't have to try and find your way out from under the wing.
 
i like the ones where the aileron and elevator moves when i move the yoke around
 
I currently fly 172/182 and Pipers in roughly equal measures.

I find that the high wings are a little more forgiving (I can be more lazy flying the 172 than I can the Arrow), but that the low wings are more stable and comfortable in cruise. Landing a low wing can produce incredibly soft touchdowns that are very hard to achieve in the high wings, but at the same time, it also is true in reverse (it's easier to slam hard with the low than with the high if you're not paying attention). I think it's related to the extra/earlier "cushion" in ground effect that is created by the low wings.

I am happy to fly both. I am very likely to buy a low-wing soon, but because the PA32 platform is significantly cheaper than the Cessna alternative (being the 210) rather than a flying preference.
 
cavmedic said:
This is like 9mm vs .45

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Less comparison there than in high wing vs. low wing. A .45 is a real gun, a 9 mm, not so much. :D

High wing / low wing. They both get me in the air. I have other reasons to prefer the high wing aircraft I have access to over the low wing aircraft I have access to. However, if the Arrow is the only thing available, I'm flying the Arrow.
 
A cub on floats is at least as good and the wind doesn't beat quite as much.

yakdriver said:
High wing, low wing, tailwheel and round motor. Doesn't get any better on a warm sunny day. Don
Click to expand...
 
I vote high wing. Not for any particular high wing advantage, but because i dislike the one door design of almost all low wings. Drives me nuts trying to crawl into a Piper.

I own a 172, but i spent quite a bit of time in Cherokees.
 
Ghery said:
Less comparison there than in high wing vs. low wing. A .45 is a real gun, a 9 mm, not so much. :D
Click to expand...

Bad comparison. 9mm is a good CCW choice, .45 isn't a good choice for anything. If you've got room to carry a big ol' .45, you really should be carrying a 10mm! :)
 
After slamming my head on the lowered flap of a 172 during preflight, I now prefer low winged aircraft.
 
Ghery said:
Less comparison there than in high wing vs. low wing. A .45 is a real gun, a 9 mm, not so much. :D
Click to expand...


So guess you'll be volunteering to stand in front of a 9MM +p, hollow point?

:D

I prefer how turbulence are transmittied in a low wing vs. a high wing. My CFI explained it to me long ago. If riding over a very bumpy road in a truck trailer where would you rather be sitting? On top of the trailer bed or hanging underneath it?

I got checked out in the Warrior that day.
 
having strapped a 9 for 18 years - 9mm

sometimes i think the vis is better in a low wing - might just be a mental cue where you're not all covered in by the wing. feels a little claustrophobic, especially in that base to final.
 
Low wing. They don't make a high wing RV! :rofl: Yet. :eek:

I think it is illegal to do overhead breaks with a high wing. ;)
 
Just get a Bonanza, you knw you want one anyway. :D
 
Geico266 said:
Low wing. They don't make a high wing RV! :rofl: Yet. :eek:

I think it is illegal to do overhead breaks with a high wing. ;)
Click to expand...


Probably don't want to tell the old Crusader pilots and other jet jocks who had high wing planes that....;) How do you know you have a douchebag in an airplane? Single ship overhead break in a recip...:rolleyes2:
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
How do you know you have a douchebag in an airplane? Single ship overhead break in a recip.
Click to expand...

But, but, when they are coming into the pattern in a 250 Knot dive, that's the only way for them to land.

My favorite radio call, "Three fire breathers (RV's) five out for the break, clear the pattern"

I understand after flying your first single ship break into a busy pattern, you get a complimentary Nomex jumpsuit, and a LARGE Breitling.:dunno:
 
Alexb2000 said:
But, but, when they are coming into the pattern in a 250 Knot dive, that's the only way for them to land. :
Click to expand...

Drop it to the deck 1/4 mile out, close the throttle and pull 6g to vertical, should put you at a good speed at a good altitude to land out of.;)
 
Anthony said:
So guess you'll be volunteering to stand in front of a 9MM +p, hollow point?

:D
Click to expand...

I wouldn't stand in front of a .22lr (or even air rifle!).
 
Anthony said:
So guess you'll be volunteering to stand in front of a 9MM +p, hollow point?
Click to expand...


Sure, what's it pay? I pick the shooter, BTDT demoing body armor, 9mm won't knock me down where .40 cal will. Which do you think I carry?;)
 
No pistol caliber will "knock you down". Sorry, just does not happen.
I've treated all types of gunshot wounds. Not much difference in low velocity pistol calibers.
Shot placement is the key in all types of pistol calibers. Ammo type is even more important then caliber.
High velocity rifles are a different horse.

Henning said:
Sure, what's it pay? I pick the shooter, BTDT demoing body armor, 9mm won't knock me down where .40 cal will. Which do you think I carry?;)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top