I’m Going to Do It: HW vs LW

[MauleSkinner]

I have no special knowledge in the area, but I think the answers are yes and no.

Pitts stall speed varies from 57 to 64 mph based on variant, with the flat wing S1C being the slowest and the S1S being the fastest. 57mph converts to 49.5 kts, above the old SP limit of 49 and below the MOSAIC limit of 59.

I mostly got aerobatics out of my system 35 years ago, but the ability to fly a Pitts as a Sport Pilot would certainly be worth the price of admission if I was aerobatically inclined.

 

[Brad Smith]

Gravity fuel flow is definitely an advantage vs. tank switching and boost pumps. That alone has probably saved many lives. Aesthetically, low-wings win 90% of the time.

 

[Flyhound]

I prefer a high wing for now because most of my flights are just for fun, and fun for me means checking out the world below me. A high wing provides a better view of the ground. That is particularly important when I land off-airport, and that is often my mission when airplane camping. I even have "observer doors" - doors with plexiglass from top to bottom) to further enhance that view downward. At some point, the hassle and risk of using ladders to fuel the plane may switch my vote. Until then, I'm a happy high winger.

 

[MauleSkinner]

My high-wing Maule allowed me to land where my uncle previously had his airstrip for several years longer, as the trees had to get taller to touch the wings.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Once upon a time, there was a self-described "airport bum," a kinda dorky/nerdy guy in his '50s who would fly his Cessna (I forget what flavor) on weekends and then lounge around the FBO lobby in his trademark beige JC Penney's coveralls, making what we now call "dad jokes" and drinking cup after cup of free coffee. He was known for heckling and interrogating unsuspecting student pilots, peppering them with arcane trivia as a way of displaying his superior aviation knowledge. You know the guy. One of his favorite stunts went like this:

Hey, junior birdman, what's better: high-wing or low-wing?

If the hapless victim chose low-wing, he was ready with a chuckle and a smirk: "Oh yeah? Ever see a low-wing bird?" But if the student chose high-wing, he'd come back with: "Ha! Well, didja ever see a high-wing fighter?" I guess his idea of a fighter was limited to Spitfires and P-51s, and I still remember how, on one occasion, his smug smirk rearranged itself into a grimace when his intended prey fired back with "How about the Fokker D VIII? But you're probably more familiar with the F-15, or if you're a Navy fan there's the F-8 and F-14 and, well, there's the Mig-25, and there must be others but I gotta go."*

It could be argued that some of those were actually configured with shoulder-mounted wings, but the challenger had nonetheless landed a haymaker and the champ was left sagging against the ropes dazed and confused.

*Reconstructed from fragments of memory; or in other words, based on a true story. Probably.

 

[Katamarino]

For the kind of flying I do, always high wing.

- Better views of the many different countries I visit, great for photography.
- Shade from the sun in places like the Middle East, shelter from the rain in places like Greenland and New Zealand.
- Better clearance on tiny bush strips with plants/termite mounds on the sides.