Low Wing Reputation

EdFred

EdFred

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 25, 2005
Messages
30,246
Location
Michigan
Display Name
Display name:
White Chocolate
Anyone who owns a low wing (or prefers renting them) and posts to this thread - which I only started as part of a shameless ply to drive the reputation points up of people who own planes with wings in the correct spot - will receive reputation points from me.

:D

What can I say, I'm bored and waiting on charts to get here for my trip - so my planning is limited.
 
Depends on the plane. I like Archers/Warriors/Cherokee 180/160s better than 172s, but I like my 182 better than the Cherokee 235/Dakota. I found the Dakota wasn't quite as stable in yaw, didn't climb as well, and doesn't have as much back seat room as a 182.

Other points:

Most passengers tend to like high-wing better, especially back-seat passengers.

I think the PA28-16x/18x series are a bit "sportier" handling compared to the 172, and the panel layout (except early-60s) is better ergonomically in Pipers vs. Cessnas.

In the end, I'm just happy to be in the air! :)

Jeff
 
Jeff -

You own a 182? NO SOUP FOR YOU!
 
Jeff Oslick said:
Depends on the plane. I like Archers/Warriors/Cherokee 180/160s better than 172s, but I like my 182 better than the Cherokee 235/Dakota. I found the Dakota wasn't quite as stable in yaw, didn't climb as well, and doesn't have as much back seat room as a 182.

Other points:

Most passengers tend to like high-wing better, especially back-seat passengers.

I think the PA28-16x/18x series are a bit "sportier" handling compared to the 172, and the panel layout (except early-60s) is better ergonomically in Pipers vs. Cessnas.

In the end, I'm just happy to be in the air! :)

Jeff
Click to expand...

Sean tells us he likes the Skyhawk better than the Tiger because he can see out of the back seat. He says all he can see out of the Tiger is the wing and a little bit behind it. Cathy and I both prefer the Tiger, though :)
 
I learned to fly in Cherokees in 1971. When I finally got back to flying in 2003 the only close planes available were C150s. Had a heck of a time learning to land them. Wonder if it had anything to do with my CFI weighing 295#? Nah. Anyway when the little 150 got bent up in an off field landing I was left with 3 choices, quit flying again, change airports and CFI's or buy my own plane. I bought my own airplane. Did I go for one of those high wing things? Not a chance, right back to Piper, this time a 200 Arrow. Been happy ever since.
Ron
 
N2212R said:
Anyone who owns a low wing (or prefers renting them) and posts to this thread
Click to expand...

I LOVE my Traveler. My kids love my traveler. My daughter likes that she can see from ANYWHERE in the plane. I love the fuel economy (although right now the oil economy ain't great :(). Flying her is amazing, very responsive ooooh lalal. Of course, if one is in a hurry, this aint the plane but for the same engine as a 172 i get there faster (-:

:blowkiss:
 
I've got one of each and plenty of time in both as well as biplanes, and FWIW, as long as they start and stay attatched I don't care where.
 
N2212R said:
Anyone who owns a low wing (or prefers renting them) and posts to this thread - which I only started as part of a shameless ply to drive the reputation points up of people who own planes with wings in the correct spot - will receive reputation points from me.

:D

What can I say, I'm bored and waiting on charts to get here for my trip - so my planning is limited.
Click to expand...

Well, I have owned a Low Wing, a Mid Wing, and one that had a High and Low wing, but never one that had just a high wing. So, does that get me 1,2, or 3 points?:dance:
 
lancefisher said:
I've got one of each and plenty of time in both as well as biplanes, and FWIW, as long as they start and stay attatched I don't care where.
Click to expand...

You know planes would be a lot faster if they didn't have those pesky wings hanging out there causing so much drag!
 
1 of the 4 planes I have the use of in our club is low wing. And, I'm using it next weekend for my annual review for the club. That Arrow is fun.
 
My experience is low-wings seem to handle turbulence better. My hours are half-and-half.

Signed,

172 owner
 
:target: What about me? Definitely high wing, plenty of 'em, but the danged things never stay still...
.l
 
In my opinion anything that gets you into the air safely is worthy of consideration. I happen to like both high wing and low wing aircraft. Does that make me bi-planar or some such thing?

I love my Cardinal because, in my opinion, it is the prettiest single engine aircraft Cessna ever built. My fantasy light airplane, the one I dream of flying, is the Turbine Legend formerly from Performance Aircraft. When I first saw the prototype at Oshkosh they probably had to keep cleaning my drool off of it. :)

A real thrill for me was the time at Sun-N-Fun when I flew the Glassaire Super II factory demonstrator aircraft. Wow, climbing effortlessly at over 2,000 feet per minute. Rolling from a 60 degree left bank to a 60 degree right bank in one second. My Cessna has never felt the same since.

I've spent some time in Pipers and a Bonanza as well. In my experience the wing dihedral in the low wing aircraft tends to make them a bit more stable in roll than most Cessnas which is a real plus when looking at charts without an autopilot. Cessnas that are a just little bit out of proper rig, not an unusual condition especially with rentals, require constant attention to keep the wings level. My Cardinal is much better in this regard. I think Cessna really had something with the Cardinal, too bad they stopped making them. It also appears to be much more aerodynamic than the other Cessna singles as well. Just my humble and somewhat biased opinion. when I bought the Cardinal I was looking for an entry level, economical retractable gear aircraft. The Cardinal was a great choice and I found one that was so well equipped I couldn't pass it up. King panel with HSI, RMI, GPS, RNAV, S-TEC 60-2 autopilot and WX-1000E stormscope (a real plus in Michigan). The former owner was a very wealthy man who spared no expense when it came to his airplane. He sold it because he was buying a brand new 182.

If I ever have to funds to buy another airplane it will most likely be a high performance (fast) low wing. After all, like I state in my profile, I often feel the need for speed.

Jeannie
 
Joe Williams said:
Sean tells us he likes the Skyhawk better than the Tiger because he can see out of the back seat. He says all he can see out of the Tiger is the wing and a little bit behind it. Cathy and I both prefer the Tiger, though :)
Click to expand...

Wait until he grows a little. The view from the Tiger's back seat is panoramic. I get positive comments from rear seat pax all the time about the view. Just make sure they don't take pictures at night. My wife scared the h*ll out of me by taking a pic w/ flash from the back seat one night. Thought it was lightning at first.
 
tom. said:
My experience is low-wings seem to handle turbulence better. My hours are half-and-half.

Signed,

172 owner
Click to expand...

Cessnas have lower wing loading than most low wing aircraft. Higher wing loading provides a better ride in turbulence. The trade off is glide ratio. The higher the wing loading the lower the glide ratio. The guy who ran an aero club that I once belonged to was a definite high wing enthusiast. He referred to Pipers and lead sleds. Obviously he liked the glide ratio of the Cessnas.

Jeannie
 
I own a 1976 Archer II, and I learned to fly in Cherokees. Low wing rules! Except in aircraft where the wing goes whoop-whoop-whoop over your head of course...
 
Anthony said:
Wait until he grows a little. The view from the Tiger's back seat is panoramic. I get positive comments from rear seat pax all the time about the view. Just make sure they don't take pictures at night. My wife scared the h*ll out of me by taking a pic w/ flash from the back seat one night. Thought it was lightning at first.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but for many non-pilots the items of interest are below the plane and unless you roll inverted, that panoramic view doesn't extend to that area.
 
Maverick said:
Cessnas have lower wing loading than most low wing aircraft. Higher wing loading provides a better ride in turbulence. The trade off is glide ratio. The higher the wing loading the lower the glide ratio. The guy who ran an aero club that I once belonged to was a definite high wing enthusiast. He referred to Pipers and lead sleds. Obviously he liked the glide ratio of the Cessnas.
Click to expand...

Actually AFaIK wing loading has no influence on glide ratio, only on the correct speed for maximum glide. Aspect ratio, wing shape, and parasite drag are the real factors in glide ratio. You are very correct though, in that high wing loading gives a more pleasant ride in the bumps.

My Baron has way more wing loading than my Porterfield and the difference in the ride is obvious. The Baron also has a considerably better glide ratio.
 
lancefisher said:
Actually AFaIK wing loading has no influence on glide ratio, only on the correct speed for maximum glide. Aspect ratio, wing shape, and parasite drag are the real factors in glide ratio. You are very correct though, in that high wing loading gives a more pleasant ride in the bumps.

My Baron has way more wing loading than my Porterfield and the difference in the ride is obvious. The Baron also has a considerably better glide ratio.
Click to expand...

As I think about that I tend to agree. I was thinking more in terms of rate of descent in an engine out situation. All other factors being the same, the airplane with the higher wing loading will descend at a faster rate than the other. But that will not necessarily mean the airplane with the lower wing loading will glide farther.

Jeannie
 
lancefisher said:
Actually AFaIK wing loading has no influence on glide ratio, only on the correct speed for maximum glide. Aspect ratio, wing shape, and parasite drag are the real factors in glide ratio. You are very correct though, in that high wing loading gives a more pleasant ride in the bumps.

My Baron has way more wing loading than my Porterfield and the difference in the ride is obvious. The Baron also has a considerably better glide ratio.
Click to expand...

Ditto what Lance wrote. My Mooney has much greater wing loading than Piper Warrior/Archer/Arrow et al but also has a phenomenally better glide ratio. The friend with the disdain for Pipers was referring to their brick emulating aerodynamics, not their wing loading.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
. The friend with the disdain for Pipers was referring to their brick emulating aerodynamics...
Click to expand...

well that's pretty accurate, making it hard to transition at first to my not-so-bricklike bird.
 
Steve said:
I suspect a rigorous analysis of the statistics would demonstrate that people tend to favor the aircraft configuration they initially trained in.
Click to expand...

I did all my primary training with the exception of 2.2 hours in high wings. And I much prefer low wings.
 
Steve said:
In every normal distribution are always a few out-liers... (as opposed to out & out liars):rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don't know what all the high wing/low wing stuff is about.

All airplanes are great as long as the main wing is in the back where it's supposed to be;)
 
First off I like to see where I'm turning, so it low wings for me,(Tiger & Archer) until of course I win the Sporty's 172. Beggars can't be choosers



Anthony said:
Wait until he grows a little. The view from the Tiger's back seat is panoramic. I get positive comments from rear seat pax all the time about the view. Just make sure they don't take pictures at night. My wife scared the h*ll out of me by taking a pic w/ flash from the back seat one night. Thought it was lightning at first.
Click to expand...

Anthony, you know I love the Tiger but I have to tell ya it ain't the most comfortable rear seat for a 5'10" 190lb adult. Being a pp I don't sit rear seat pretty much ever now except when I flew Ron back to SBY with my CFI after he dropped of his cougar at PNE. That decision was a no brainer. The heat and air don't circulate to well in the back. That being said I usually sit up front so who cares, I love the plane!
 
AdamZ said:
Anthony, you know I love the Tiger but I have to tell ya it ain't the most comfortable rear seat for a 5'10" 190lb adult. Being a pp I don't sit rear seat pretty much ever now except when I flew Ron back to SBY with my CFI after he dropped of his cougar at PNE. That decision was a no brainer. The heat and air don't circulate to well in the back. That being said I usually sit up front so who cares, I love the plane!
Click to expand...

Everything is a compromise, but I've had two decent size teenage boys back there and never heard a complaint. And, let me tell you, if teenagers find something wrong they COMPLAIN. :)

The only comments I heard, were:

Are we there yet?

Why is it taking so long? (2.5 hour flight vs. 10+ hour drive)

Why can't we just leave instead of you (meaning me the pilot) having to check everything so much before we go?

Basically, I find most rear seat passengers and many front seat sleep the whole time. Sigh.
 
AdamZ said:
First off I like to see where I'm turning, so it low wings for me,(Tiger & Archer) until of course I win the Sporty's 172.
Click to expand...

I like to see in the direction of my turn as well and in my Cardinal I can. The Cardinal wing is set far enough back that I can look ahead of the leading edge. :)

Jeannie
 
Last edited:
My Mooney is the fun-est plane I've ever flown, well, except for the T-34 that is.
 
I'm with Ed, I did all my initial in a C152. No low wing time at all, until I bought the Archer. Putting the wings on top is akin to training wheels, no cool kid rides around town with training wheels. Mark me down for the low wing and tell me where I can cash in my reputation points on something retractable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top