High Wing vs. Low Wing

HOTDOG

HOTDOG

New Member
I'm a student with a private and instrument rating. All I've flown are 172's, but for my commercial training, I will be flying a Piper Arrow.

That being said, you can say that I'm a low-wing virgin and it'll be a new experience for me.

So, I'm curious, what do you guys prefer, High Wing or Low Wing or don't care and why?
 
Same as you, my first low wing after the 172 was an Arrow. I was a bit nervous. There was no reason. I actually find it easier to fly and the landings are a cakewalk.

This is an old Hershey bar wing Arrow though. It has a significant sink rate compared to the 172 and I carry power all the way to ground.
Newer Arrows have the exact opposite; tapered wings that float you down the runway if you carry to much power.
 
You'll notice a slightly different feel in the flare with the Piper -- you're sitting a little closer to the ground, and the wing loves to float in ground effect.

Other than that...same-same.

I much prefer the low wing personally.
 
Arrows, Warriors, and Tomahawks have been my catalyst when flying. The few times I fly a 172 to maintain proficiency, I don't feel all that proficient.

For me, it's simply the visual presentation that's different.
 
Personal preference. Here are my thoughts:

IMHO

The Cessna has a better "feel" handling wise. For VFR ground reference stuff it is a lot more fun to fly. Need to get a few take offs and landings in for currency? Do it in the Cessna.

The Cherokee family seems to trim out better and has a "heavier" feel than the Cessnas. This stability makes it better for cross country flying and instrument work.

The main difference though has to do with their handling in the landing flair. It breaks down like this.
A new pilot can make an average landing in a Cherokee before they can in the Cessna. But and intermediate to experienced pilot will make more greasers in the Cessna.
The Cherokee wants to land at one airspeed, if too fast it floats and then stalls all at once and is done flying as soon as it hits the pavement. The Cessna can be 'flown' onto the runway at a broader speed range. To a student this means P.I.O. and the Humpty- bump-weeble-wobble you see on Sunday mornings when the weekenders get out. I guess it has to do with the stall characteristics of the different airfoils used on the two types (classic D-section vs. laminar) and definitely ground effect. I like both equally though, for different reasons.
 
MFT1Air said:
Arrows, Warriors, and Tomahawks have been my catalyst when flying. The few times I fly a 172 to maintain proficiency, I don't feel all that proficient.
Click to expand...

Yep....I'll take a Warrior or Arrow any day of the week................great airplanes to train in........

Although, I did my CFI training in a 172 "Gutless"....oops...i mean Cutlass...;)
When doing maneuvers in the Pipers, you don't need anywhere the amount of rudder input you do in a 172 R/G. My instructors we always telling me..."more right rudder, more right rudder"
 
LoadMasterC141 said:
Same as you, my first low wing after the 172 was an Arrow. I was a bit nervous. There was no reason. I actually find it easier to fly and the landings are a cakewalk.

This is an old Hershey bar wing Arrow though. It has a significant sink rate compared to the 172 and I carry power all the way to ground.
Newer Arrows have the exact opposite; tapered wings that float you down the runway if you carry to much power.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the information, my flight school will have the older one (the Hershey bar wing) so, I'll be interested to see the difference in the sink rate.
 
LoadMasterC141 said:
Same as you, my first low wing after the 172 was an Arrow. I was a bit nervous. There was no reason. I actually find it easier to fly and the landings are a cakewalk.

This is an old Hershey bar wing Arrow though. It has a significant sink rate compared to the 172 and I carry power all the way to ground.
Newer Arrows have the exact opposite; tapered wings that float you down the runway if you carry to much power.
Click to expand...

Oh and btw, I'm also the same as you, from Rochester NY, now living in Arlington TX :)
 
Gumps said:
Personal preference. Here are my thoughts:

IMHO

The Cessna has a better "feel" handling wise. For VFR ground reference stuff it is a lot more fun to fly. Need to get a few take offs and landings in for currency? Do it in the Cessna.

The Cherokee family seems to trim out better and has a "heavier" feel than the Cessnas. This stability makes it better for cross country flying and instrument work.

The main difference though has to do with their handling in the landing flair. It breaks down like this.
A new pilot can make an average landing in a Cherokee before they can in the Cessna. But and intermediate to experienced pilot will make more greasers in the Cessna.
The Cherokee wants to land at one airspeed, if too fast it floats and then stalls all at once and is done flying as soon as it hits the pavement. The Cessna can be 'flown' onto the runway at a broader speed range. To a student this means P.I.O. and the Humpty- bump-weeble-wobble you see on Sunday mornings when the weekenders get out. I guess it has to do with the stall characteristics of the different airfoils used on the two types (classic D-section vs. laminar) and definitely ground effect. I like both equally though, for different reasons.
Click to expand...

Thanks for those details Gumps...that really helps in knowing what to expect.
 
Hacker15e said:
You'll notice a slightly different feel in the flare with the Piper -- you're sitting a little closer to the ground, and the wing loves to float in ground effect.

Other than that...same-same.

I much prefer the low wing personally.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the note on the flare.
 
I have never flown a low wing, but I love high wings for the view. Nothing like cruising up Lynn Canal and spotting whales. Then comes the practice of turns around a whale:)
 
HOTDOG said:
Thanks for the information, my flight school will have the older one (the Hershey bar wing) so, I'll be interested to see the difference in the sink rate.
Click to expand...

It is really not all that bad. I prefer it because a 172 seemed very susceptible to wind, whereas the Arrow does not. It does sink though. Engine out in the pattern...turn as fast as you can for the runway and keep your patterns tight. No power that sucker drops compared to a Skyhawk.
 
MFT1Air said:
Arrows, Warriors, and Tomahawks have been my catalyst when flying. The few times I fly a 172 to maintain proficiency, I don't feel all that proficient.

For me, it's simply the visual presentation that's different.
Click to expand...

I am training on the Tomahawk. I flew in my frineds 172 and it was seriously, really freaking easy, very draggy, less sensitive. I could hardly stall the thing, really trying to.
 
Cessna:

- Don't have to worry about switching fuel tanks
- Better ventilation (windows open)
- 2 doors, not one
- Better view down for ground ref maneuvers
- Less susceptible to ground effect (less float on landing)
- High wings give shelter in the rain when preflighting
- High wing blocks the view in a turn - important when turning base to final

Piper:

- Need to switch tanks/use fuel pump
- One tiny window-ette
- One door - have to climb over to left seat
- Better view up - you feel like you're part of the sky
- Has a more "solid" stable feel - good for cross countries
- Likes to float
- Have to crouch under wings during preflight
- Low wing blocks view of ground, but view opens up in a turn
 
I did primary training for my ppasel in 152's and 172's, then bought a '67 Cherokee 140/160 (160hp STC). Although I've not flown a taper-wing Cherokee (1973 models+ I think...), I can vouch for the straight wing or Hershey Bar wing Cherokee having a heavier sink rate during landing, and it also effects takeoff rotation, or at least it did in mine. I could never pull 24W off the runway the same as I did cessnas. It was more like a quasi-shortfield technique, nudge it off the runway, let it eat for a moment and then climb. When I was doing 5 hrs dual w/ CFI in it after first bringing it home (insurance req) the CFI fell victim to the sink rate when were doing some night work and he wanted to land... he flared too high, it dropped out banged onto the runway pretty robustly. Metco wingtips do a lot to help the straight wing Cherokees behave a little better in the flare and on takeoff. A guy named Art Mattson up in Northern Illinois (?) used to also have an STC for vortex generators for the straight wing Cherokees that were reputed to in combo w/ Metco tips greatly improve the low speed characteristics.
 
From an aerodynamic standpoint, the high wing airplane is more stable in roll than a low wing airplane. Of course, designers can use things like dihedral to equal out the "feel" of each design for the pilot. So you probably won't notice a whole lot of difference as an end result.

The high wing is located above the airplane's CG...and the sideslip force causes an "upwash" on the lowered wing. This creates an increase in lift of the lowered wing that creates a restoring moment in roll.

The low wing is below the airplanes CG...so the upwash on the lowered wing is not present...and actually causes a destablization in roll.

As a consequence, you'll see little dihedral in high wing planes...and lots of dihedral in low wing planes.

As a rule of thumb, the restorative sideslip moment of a high wing mounted airplane is equal to about 3 degrees of dihedral.

A low wing mounted airplane would be worth about 3 degrees of anhedral.

Again, bottom line, after the dihedral has been added to the low wing...I don't believe you will notice much difference in roll stablity
 
B767Driver said:
From an aerodynamic standpoint, the high wing airplane is more stable in roll than a low wing airplane. Of course, designers can use things like dihedral to equal out the "feel" of each design for the pilot. So you probably won't notice a whole lot of difference as an end result.

The high wing is located above the airplane's CG...and the sideslip force causes an "upwash" on the lowered wing. This creates an increase in lift of the lowered wing that creates a restoring moment in roll.

The low wing is below the airplanes CG...so the upwash on the lowered wing is not present...and actually causes a destablization in roll.

As a consequence, you'll see little dihedral in high wing planes...and lots of dihedral in low wing planes.

As a rule of thumb, the restorative sideslip moment of a high wing mounted airplane is equal to about 3 degrees of dihedral.

A low wing mounted airplane would be worth about 3 degrees of anhedral.

Again, bottom line, after the dihedral has been added to the low wing...I don't believe you will notice much difference in roll stablity
Click to expand...

Sounds like we're getting technical...

The high wing is far superior because it has less interference drag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top