High wing VS low wing?

Pinstriper

Pinstriper

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
423
Location
Oroville California
Display Name
Display name:
Pinstriper
I just stumbled on this and since I'm a Cherokee 140 driver it seemed like something I should've watched before I bought mine.
 
High wings were designed because old farts couldn't get into low wings anymore.













:rolleyes2:
 
Thanks for posting the link to the video. One thing I'm surprised they didn't mention is how much easier it is to fuel a low wing.
 
Nice video. Good info for a new pilot.
 
Complete and total baloney.
Wait until you have a few thousand hours and you will just snort when someone starts agonizing over the position of the wing. It is meaningless.
 
I'll admit it. I just like the low wing looks better. Biggest factor in my purchase.
 
I find it much easier to get in the Ercoupe (low wing) compared to a bunch of different high wings that I've had to get into.
 
Dr. O said:
Complete and total baloney.
Wait until you have a few thousand hours and you will just snort when someone starts agonizing over the position of the wing. It is meaningless.[/QUOTE

Unless it's time to wash the plane :)
Click to expand...
 
Pinstriper said:
Dr. O said:
Complete and total baloney.
Wait until you have a few thousand hours and you will just snort when someone starts agonizing over the position of the wing. It is meaningless.[/QUOTE

Unless it's time to wash the plane :)
Click to expand...

When speaking of airplanes such as these, low wing and high wing mean a little more.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • HI-Max Avenger Justin 006.JPG
    HI-Max Avenger Justin 006.JPG
    1.8 MB · Views: 56
  • HI-Max Avenger Justin 001.JPG
    HI-Max Avenger Justin 001.JPG
    1.3 MB · Views: 64
Now I'm afraid of Cherokees, since they handle almost like an aerobatic plane.:lol: Wish I knew sooner I'd never have flown the high roll rate deathtraps.:rolleyes2:
 
MickYoumans said:
Thanks for posting the link to the video. One thing I'm surprised they didn't mention is how much easier it is to fuel a low wing.
Click to expand...

Ummm... yeah but what about preflight? That is where I really pay for my low wing. I have to make sure I wear crappy pants for all the crawling around on my knees. That and high wings have a built in rain shelter for getting in and out.

Having said all that, I will not ever buy a high wing until I am too old and creaky to get into a low wing anymore.
 
I think I got my Navion because the old guy who had it before me couldn't get up on the wing anymore.
 
Depends, do you want diamonds on your forehead or kneecaps?;)

It's not that big of a deal 97% of the time. The advantage goes to high wings for loading and unloading as well as camping.
 
I seem to subtly prefer the "ride" of a low wing.

Subjectively, it seems that sitting ON the wing feels different that dangling BELOW the wing. High wings seem to have a tiny bit of "pendulum" effect that low wings don't have.

Let me say that while my Sky Arrow has a high wing, it is so far back as to be virtually invisible to the pilot, and barely in the passenger's view either:

7425267502_94f5db3ce2_z.jpg


Kind of the best of both worlds!
 
What? No one has mentioned knocking yourself senseless or cutting your forehead by walking into a high wing?

The trailing edge of a C-150 wing has a serrated edge, and it is six feet high + 2 millimeters. So most of my body passes under the wing, but the top 2 millimeters pass over the wing.
 
tinerj said:
What? No one has mentioned knocking yourself senseless or cutting your forehead by walking into a high wing?

The trailing edge of a C-150 wing has a serrated edge, and it is six feet high + 2 millimeters. So most of my body passes under the wing, but the top 2 millimeters pass over the wing.
Click to expand...

Post 17...:D You bash your head or kneecap yourself, six of one, half a dozen....:D;)
 
ClimbnSink said:
Now I'm afraid of Cherokees, since they handle almost like an aerobatic plane.:lol: Wish I knew sooner I'd never have flown the high roll rate deathtraps.:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

More like an old fat cat....you gotta try and get them sideways:rofl:
 
They both fly. High wing provides better visibility for sight seeing. Low wing provides better visibility when turning in the pattern. Both get you off the ground. I have reasons other than wing placement to prefer a 182 over an Arrow.
 
I know where there is a Cherokee 235 that probably has every rib under the wing walk cracked because the owner is >300 pounds.
 
Dav8or said:
Yes, but what about a 182 vs. Dakota? What then?
Click to expand...

182. For the mission that either of these planes fulfill, doors on both sides and a wing that can support a camping awning, as well as the ease of loading a full load, gives it the advantage. The only positive the Dakota has going over the 182 is ease of fueling.
 
In response to the video... Cessna trainer VS Cherokee trainer (essentially)


High wing

I don’t like refueling but I can usually find someone to do that for me if my feet aren’t up to it.

Mogas STC’s are inexpensive and don’t require additional fuel pumps, allowing owner access to cheaper fuels. I save around $2/gallon. STC was about $250.

Overweight passengers don’t break wing ribs when entering/exiting the airplane. Wing ribs are expensive to repair.

Don’t have to worry about careless passengers stepping in the wrong place or dropping things and damaging the wing. Don’t have to worry about losing balance and falling off the wing. Kids don't climb on the wings at airshows/fly-ins

Better downward visibility, could be very beneficial during an emergency.

More emergency egress options. Easier to get out of. Save precious seconds if there is cabin/cockpit fire. If my legs are broken at impact I can pretty much fall out and crawl to safely in a high wing.


Many consider the bungee type nose steering on the Cessnas superior.

High wing clear mailboxes, fence posts, lights, snow banks, brush, small trees.

The landing gear on Cessna 150/172/177/182 is much simpler to maintain than the any Cherokee. Torque link cracks on Pipers can get expensive; each gear leg has a set. Three chromed struts can get rock chips/corrosion and cause leaks. Struts get sticky and make taxing awkward. No need for high pressure strut pump to service the gear. Main landing gear steel brackets are fastened to the wing spar promoting corrosion, also landing hard with a flat main gear strut could cause serious damage to the wing.

Better shade.

Two doors, easier access and better cabin comfort & ground cooling, easier to maintain and perform alteration/repairs in the cockpit/cabin.

Its much easier to find something I dropped on the floor when getting out. I can open the door and scan the whole floor including under the seats in a few seconds.

Easier to work around the airplane when it’s in the shop. Can park stuff under the airplane in the hangar.

Last but not least, its pretty silly when you get all loaded in a one door plane like a Cherokee and the pilot looks at you and ask you to get out and you see him grab the nose wheel chocks.
 
Last edited:
I like my high wing CTSW, because I'd rather look at interesting stuff on the ground than mostly empty sky. The shade is not a bad thing here in Georgia either.

But all airplanes are good.
 
Dav8or said:
Yes, but what about a 182 vs. Dakota? What then?
Click to expand...

No time in a Dakota, so I can't say. My big problem with the Arrow is that there is something about the arrangement of seats, etc that kills my knees. 3 hours and it's all I can do to crawl out of that plane. I don't have that problem with a 172 or 182.
 
bnt83 said:
In response to the video... Cessna trainer VS Cherokee trainer (essentially)
Click to expand...

Obviously it comes down to personal preference on a lot of fronts, but a few thoughts on your list:

>I don’t like refueling but I can usually find someone to do that for me if my feet aren’t up to it.

Not all of us have quite so many willing friends; I'm lazy enough to prefer the low wing but not lazy enough to pay extra for full service when it is available.

>Mogas STC’s are inexpensive and don’t require additional fuel pumps, allowing owner access to cheaper fuels. I save around $2/gallon. STC was about $250.

A fair point about Piper PA28 vs Cessna 172, but not really a high wing vs low wing point. Also, it only works if you have practical way of getting ethanol free fuel to the airport.

>Overweight passengers don’t break wing ribs when entering/exiting the airplane. Wing ribs are expensive to repair.

Wing walk repairs are expensive, but virtually every plane has its life limited parts. As far as one off breakages, you'd need a pretty good size person--likely larger than would be comfortable in the plane!

>Don’t have to worry about careless passengers stepping in the wrong place or dropping things and damaging the wing. Don’t have to worry about losing balance and falling off the wing. Kids don't climb on the wings at airshows/fly-ins

True... in most cases I'd rather have my passengers walk into a high wing and hurt themselves than damage my low wing.
>Better downward visibility, could be very beneficial during an emergency.

Both low and high wings have their strengths in visibility, though there are cases where I want to see the ground and I need to maneuver a PA28 to see something.

>More emergency egress options. Easier to get out of. Save precious seconds if there is cabin/cockpit fire. If my legs are broken at impact I can pretty much fall out and crawl to safely in a high wing.

Agreed. I don't know if there is any statistics to show it making a difference, but it certainly seems like in certain situations it could.

>Many consider the bungee type nose steering on the Cessnas superior.

I've met very few of these many. The Piper system offers better turn performance with less use of brakes and feels more solid overall. The only people I know who don't like it have lots of Cessna time and very little Piper time; those who have used both extensively tend to prefer Piper.

>High wing clear mailboxes, fence posts, lights, snow banks, brush, small trees.

True.

>The landing gear on Cessna 150/172/177/182 is much simpler to maintain than the any Cherokee. Torque link cracks on Pipers can get expensive; each gear leg has a set. Three chromed struts can get rock chips/corrosion and cause leaks. Struts get sticky and make taxing awkward. No need for high pressure strut pump to service the gear. Main landing gear steel brackets are fastened to the wing spar promoting corrosion, also landing hard with a flat main gear strut could cause serious damage to the wing.

Having worked with fleets of both, the difference in gear is a rounding error. On the flip side, I prefer the stability of the wider track and lower CG of the PA28 series when taxiing and in crosswind situations.

>Better shade.

True. A T-tail Arrow would be nice though...

>Two doors, easier access and better cabin comfort & ground cooling, easier to maintain and perform alteration/repairs in the cockpit/cabin.

Very true. I can get in and out no problem, but when it comes to maintenance in the cockpit the Cessna wins hands down. Two doors and no wing in the way make a big difference there.

>Its much easier to find something I dropped on the floor when getting out. I can open the door and scan the whole floor including under the seats in a few seconds.

Never noticed a major difference in this regard between the types.

>Easier to work around the airplane when it’s in the shop. Can park stuff under the airplane in the hangar.

Though I agree with this in regards to work in the cabin, the high wing can be a pain to work on. Try pulling a Cessna fuel tank, then try it on a Piper. See what is easier!

>Last but not least, its pretty silly when you get all loaded in a one door plane like a Cherokee and the pilot looks at you and ask you to get out and you see him grab the nose wheel chocks.

Not really good in any airplane if your forget the chocks...
 
bnt83 said:
Many consider the bungee type nose steering on the Cessnas superior.
Click to expand...

Who are these "many"? (although this isn't a "high-wing/low-wing issue" anyway, it's a manufacturer issue)

I have significant time flying and teaching in both, and have yet to find anyone who likes the Cessna system where you push the rudder pedal and then it gradually thinks about turning the nose wheel. Much more solid and immediate in the Pipers.
 
RussR said:
Who are these "many"? (although this isn't a "high-wing/low-wing issue" anyway, it's a manufacturer issue)

I have significant time flying and teaching in both, and have yet to find anyone who likes the Cessna system where you push the rudder pedal and then it gradually thinks about turning the nose wheel. Much more solid and immediate in the Pipers.
Click to expand...

Meh, Six of one, half a dozen of the other to me, I can drive down the yellow line and spin either on a wheel when needed. I don't even consider this in a decision between planes. The difference in a Castering vs Steerable gear, that's something I would consider though. Free Castering Tailwheel on Twin, that's the funkiest I've worked with making taxiing the Beech 18 the most tricky thing about operating it.
 
Here's all that matters on the subject-

  • If you want to land on lakes, or gravel sandbars, get a high wing.
  • If your business is aerial photography, get a high wing.
  • If you're an old geezer with stiff legs, get a high wing.
  • If you want to go fast, get a low wing! :D
I'm still waiting for the day a high wing takes the gold at Reno. (Biplanes don't count, those guys are hedging their bets!)
 
Dav8or said:
Here's all that matters on the subject-

  • If you want to land on lakes, or gravel sandbars, get a high wing.
  • If your business is aerial photography, get a high wing.
  • If you're an old geezer with stiff legs, get a high wing.
  • If you want to go fast, get a low wing! :D
I'm still waiting for the day a high wing takes the gold at Reno. (Biplanes don't count, those guys are hedging their bets!)
Click to expand...

Velocity with the side doors looks about as pilot and passenger friendly as it gets.

Might not be tooo bad to work on either.
 
If I could just get people to stop putting their hands on my polished wing struts, I'd be a happy camper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top