I’m Going to Do It: HW vs LW

Do wings go on the top or on the bottom?

  • Total voters
    60
flyingpreacher

flyingpreacher

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 20, 2021
Messages
643
Location
KIPT
Display Name
flyingpreacher
Home Airfield
KIPT
As pilots, we enjoy ribbing each other about various topics. (“I’m surprised nobody has said Bo’ yet!” etc.)

However, in the high wing versus low wing debate, I’m not interested in which side you’re on (although I’m including the poll so you can let us all know which side of the plane the wings belong on). What I want to hear from this thread is WHY you think that. Is it because of the aerodynamic qualities? Did you start flying one or the other and so that’s just what you’re comfortable with? Maybe you fly one, but your dream plane has the other?
 
Sigh. A forum or Google search would have answered this question, but here we go again. Here's a starter list:

High wing pros:
* Easy ingress/egress--especially important for mobility-impaired (think about older folks)
* Usually have doors on both sides
* Unobstructed view of the ground
* Nice to be able to sit or sleep under wings

High wing cons:
* Gotta climb up to fuel
* Gotta climb up to inspect upper wing surface during preflight
* Obstructs upward visibility

Low wing pros:
* Wings are in the correct location
* Easy to fuel
* Easy to check during preflight
* Unobstructed upward view

Low wing cons:
* Not as easy to ingress/egress
* Usually only have one door on passenger side
* Obstructs downward visibility
 
I first started my lessons with the 152, switched to the 172 after the first lesson. Did most of my primary training in the 172, but also had about 10 hours in the warrior. First airplane was the cherokee 140. I liked it better for instrument flying than the 172.
 
When it's right it doesn't have to be defended or explained ... kinda like a tailwheel.
 
Jim_R said:
Sigh. A forum or Google search would have answered this question, but here we go again.
Click to expand...
You’re 100% right. Google, ChatGPT, or the local flight line guy could give me a listing. I am asking for personal preferences. One of the example “reasons” I gave was “I started flying in a Cessna, so that is what is most comfortable to me.”

That doesn’t show up on a google search because the reasons I’m looking for aren’t necessarily objective.

So while I appreciate the list, which do YOU prefer, and why?
 
I’m pretty sure but not certain that I prefer low wings because I first learned to fly a low-wing.

But I’m not certain because my low-wing preference is still there 30+ years later although my instrument, commercial, CFI and CFII were all in high wings and I probably have more time in them.
 
I 100% prefer low wing. I learned in a high wing, then even owned two high wing planes after i got my license but the first time i flew a low wing, i knew that’s my favorite. now i own a Comanche and don’t think i’d ever want to trade it for any other airplane. Would i fly a high wing if that was the only thing available to me? Sure! But given the choice, i’d definitely take a low wing over a high wing in the same category 10 out of 10 times. Now, give me the choice between an Ercoupe and Cessna 182, i’d take the Cessna lol. That’s why i said “same category”.

As to why i prefer low wing: I don’t really know for sure. i feel like i land them better. i feel like i can handle them better in cross wind landings. they feel more stable to me. they look cooler to me.
 
The real reason I like low Wing airplanes.
Bias... They just kind of look cooler. When you think of the word trainer you kind of think of a 172.

Now a reason that I think actually matters is the wing is further from your eyes meaning it takes up less real estate visually.

That Cessna Wing blocks a much larger percentage of your visual field than a wing that is five feet below your eyes.

Flying a high wing to me feels like wearing a view limiting device.

Irrational things that would make me pick a high wing is that the landing gear is attached to the body instead of the wings I feel like a bunch of hard landings with the landing gear attached to the wings means one day the wingspar is going to give out. But I'm not aware of it happening. I'm also not aware of a gremlin actually ending up out on the edge of a wing and taking a plane down but that's a fear too.

It's easier to mount a GoPro on a high wing airplane. But let's be honest if you flew a high Wing why would you want to film it?
 
Chrisgoesflying said:
i feel like i can handle them better in cross wind landings.
Click to expand...
Ground handling, too. The Cherokees feel just fine in 30 knot winds, while the Cessna feels like it's going to blow over, wobbling around and even weathervaning.

Chrisgoesflying said:
they look cooler to me.
Click to expand...
Same. That and the fact I learned to fly in Cherokees are probably the biggest reasons.

I do feel a little "exposed" in the Cessna. It's nice to look down at the ground, but it also makes me feel a little uncomfortable. For some reason sitting on top of the wing in a Piper makes me feel more secure. My wife reports the same feeling as a passenger.

Fueling is another big one for me. Not even so much the actual fueling, but the ease of visually checking fuel level. I never get tempted to just trust the gauges. If a gas cap is missing or not properly secured, it's immediately obvious.
 
I grew up on approach to a busy class B, and loved airplanes since I was a little kid. Low wings just look like real airplanes to me, so when it came time to look, my partner and I pretty much started looking at low wings only. But, I can appreciate the things high wings are good for, and honestly a good 182 or 206 could appeal to me at some point.
 
Before I started my flying lessons, I assisted a low wing Piper owner replace the brake pucks on his plane. Winter, and windy.

My Commercial and Instrument training was in Cherokees. Checking brakes, tire inflation, and sumping fuel is a dirty chore. I prefer hauling a small tripod step to check the fuel, rather than on my knees under a wing.

I always sump and check brake pads, and usually wear good clothes when flying.

I do not like speed fairings on the landing gear either. They are useful to have when selling the plane, but degrade safety practices.

Now that I am older, I find climbing back out is a challenge, and if the pilot is in the left seat of a Piper, he cannot get out to help me....
 
Last edited:
I have the option to train in either, I've always preferred the look of the low wing.
When I began looking both planes over while trying to choose I became aware that the Cherokee only has one door.
I prefer as many exits as possible so will most likely train and fly high wings.
 
I’m a geologist. One of my professors had a 180 and used it for aerial viewing. I love to look out and down. And I mostly flew a 152 in primary training.
 
I explained my reasons for preferring low wings a while back, so, being lazy, I'll just quote my earlier answer.

Half Fast said:
I prefer low-wings for several reasons, but reason number (1) dwarfs the others: when I am holding short at an uncontrolled airport, waiting to take the runway, I want a clear and unobstructed view of the sky, especially a view of anyone who might be on final. I absolutely hate the restricted view a high-wing provides in that situation.

My other, less important, reasons are:
(2) Ease of entry. At my diminutive size, entering a high-wing requires stepping onto a landing tire or a strut or some such. Stepping onto the wing of my Beech is much easier, and I can set things like a kneeboard or headset on the wing while I sit in the seat and get things sorted in the cockpit.
(3) Ease of fueling. Dragging a fuel hose up a ladder, or even just climbing up to stick the tanks, is a royal pain.
(4) I've knocked my head on a high wing so many times that I'm convinced the only reason people like them is that they now have brain damage from one too many knocks.
(5) I don't like the way a high-wing obstructs visibility in the direction of a turn. This includes obscuring the runway during turns in the pattern.
(6) Low-wings look better. Don't believe me? Try to envision a high-wing version of a P-51. Just doesn't work, does it? Or a high-wing F-16, F-35, SR-71, etc., etc.?
(7) Low-wings are faster. Ever seen a supersonic high-wing?
(8) Low-wings fly higher. Ever seen a high-wing that will fly higher than the space shuttle?

YMMV, of course. Or you just might be in denial.
Click to expand...
 
Half Fast said:
II prefer low-wings for several reasons, but reason number (1) dwarfs the others: when I am holding short at an uncontrolled airport, waiting to take the runway, I want a clear and unobstructed view of the sky, especially a view of anyone who might be on final. I absolutely hate the restricted view a high-wing provides in that situation.
Click to expand...
That's funny. After earning my private in a Tomahawk, I checked out at another airport in a 172. My very first high-wing impression was actually about looking down. When I made my first downwind to base turn in the pattern, my first thought was, "where the heck did the runway go?"
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's funny. After earning my private in a Tomahawk, I checked out at another airport in a 172. My very first high-wing impression was actually about looking down. When I made my first downwind to base turn in the pattern, my first thought was, "where the heck did the runway go?"
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Exactly. #5 on my list.
 
I have hit my head way too many times on a high wing. I am just the wrong height, at 5' 10", I am not tall enough for the wing to be in eyesight range, and just tall enough to hit the wing or things hanging down from it.
That is my primary grievance against a high wing. Everything else is noise.

Note: I am "light sensitive" so I almost always have a baseball cap and sunglasses on, making the chance of hitting my head much higher than likely is normal.

Tim
 
My choice was dictated by my need case: Primary, and non negotiable, was the need for my aged father (now 89yo) to be able to get into the plane. Any climbing on the wing is a no go due to physical limitations. Secondary non negotiable need was a 3hr +1hr reserve fuel payload of 850lbs minimum. A bonanza would have made the cut on the payload need but a no go on the ingress/egress for my father. When he is no longer flying with me, I will have more options. For now, the T210N fills the bill exceptionally well, and has amazing load distribution tolerances. Tomorrow I will be flying up to OKC for a rifle match. I will be traveling with a team mate with all of our gear. We will be just under 1000lbs in the cabin. With 522lbs full fuel, I will still have near 100lbs of UL remaining. I'll suffer the high wing for that. :)
 
Last edited:
tspear said:
I am just the wrong height, at 5' 10", I am not tall enough for the wing to be in eyesight range, and just tall enough to hit the wing or things hanging down from it.
Click to expand...

Try a Tecnam LSA. I'm 5'3 and I banged my head into the flaps so many times I have a permanent crease in my forehead.
 
I agree with low wing being better for visibility, but for passenger comfort and ease of access, high-wing is king. Shade in the Texas sun, 2 doors and no need to climb on a wing to get in.
 
Half Fast said:
They float too much after landing....
;)
Click to expand...
I would argue it's impossible for an amphib to float too much after landing. Anything less than 100% floating is a real problem.

Piper offered a Cherokee 6 seaplane. They only built two or three, and I don't think there was ever one actually on floats beyond the prototype. PA-32S-300. Only differences were float mounting points, stainless control cables, and a door that hinged 180 degrees so you could climb off the front of the wing to dock it. When I was plane shopping there was one for sale and I wanted it so bad, but it sold before I could move on it.

Was that the only ever low-wing light GA floatplane? The only other low wing on floats I've seen is the DC-3.
 
MacFlier said:
I agree with low wing being better for visibility, but for passenger comfort and ease of access, high-wing is king. Shade in the Texas sun, 2 doors and no need to climb on a wing to get in.
Click to expand...
Definitely much cooler than the low wings I've flown. I'm about to have icing on my cake; my 210 is going to Montgomery, AL in 4 weeks to have a Kelly Aerospace electric A/C installed. It will add 64lbs to my BEW...but, I have plenty of UL as is. It will also widen the load envelope when flying 2 up front with no cargo; the 210, like the 182 and 206, is a bit nose heavy at fuel fuel with nothing in the back.
 
Jim K said:
Piper offered a Cherokee 6 seaplane. They only built two or three, and I don't think there was ever one actually on floats beyond the prototype. PA-32S-300.

Was that the only ever low-wing light GA floatplane? The only other low wing on floats I've seen is the DC-3.
Click to expand...
Piper Nomad- Aztec on floats. Southern Seaplanes out of Belle Chasse, LA (suburb of New Orleans) has one. I've heard that they are a great seaplane. The corrosion protection on the Aztec line is outstanding. The plane that Southern operates is flown to the barrier islands on the east side of the delta and the water has plenty of salinity.

https://www.southernseaplane.com/part-141-de-havilland-beaver.html
 
robin ardoin said:
Piper Nomad- Aztec on floats. Southern Seaplanes out of Belle Chasse, LA (suburb of New Orleans) has one. I've heard that they are a great seaplane. The corrosion protection on the Aztec line is outstanding. The plane that Southern operates is flown to the barrier islands on the east side of the delta and the water has plenty of salinity.

https://www.southernseaplane.com/part-141-de-havilland-beaver.html
Click to expand...
I guess there's a couple beech 18s on floats as well. At least one member here got a commercial-multi- engine-sea rating in one.
 
Jim K said:
I would argue it's impossible for an amphib to float too much after landing. Anything less than 100% floating is a real problem.
Click to expand...
Do you mean like the old Volkswagon Beetle?
It will definitely float.
But not Indefinitely.
1760643874774.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top