High Wing vs. Low Wing

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:l_k2e.7246$H06.1275@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Like most aviation enthusiasts I consider the venerable old Cessna to be
> classically beautiful. But, this year I've been pondering why anyone
> would
> build a high wing as most pilots who have been around a while prefer low
> wings.
>
> Low wings offer a better view as the wing drops out of the way of the
> ground
> in a turn. Low wings don't have a drag inducing strut. Low wings don't
> need a ladder to fuel. Low wings can offer a wider wheel base as the gear
> extends from the wing and not the body.
>
> One might think high wings are more stable, but in practice that doesn't
> seem to be the case. Perhaps high wings are cheaper to build as they
> don't
> require the massive spar that low wings use?
>
> I don't know... Why did Cessna stick with the high wing?
>
> Dallas
>
Everything you say is true. I learned to fly on a low wing Piper and when I
got checked out in a Cessna it was so much easier to handle. I could do
better slow flying with the high wing than the low wing. It seemed attention
to speed (IAS) was more critical with the low wing especially on approaches.
The aerodynamic experts can add to this.

Bill

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote:

>Low wings offer a better view as the wing drops out of the way of the ground
>in a turn.

But a Cessna doesn't need to turn to offer superb downward visibility.
That's why aerial photographers prefer them.

Have you ever participated in a 'bomb' drop competition at your local
airport. (That's where competitors try to drop small pouches filled
with flour into a marked circle on the ground.) I wonder why most of
those pilots use high wing planes?? ;-))

>One might think high wings are more stable, but in practice that doesn't
>seem to be the case.

Is that so?!? With the center of gravity hanging below the lifting
structure, that alone seems to speak for greater stability.

High wings won't hit snowbanks next to taxiways or runways in winter.

How many low wing float planes have you seen?

How many low wing planes that have big barndoor flaps that can be
extended 40 degrees without scraping the ground have you seen?

Triangular cross bracing (i.e.: struts) is structually much stronger
than cantilever designs using the same material thicknesses.
A thicker spar adds to weight and therefore affects performance.

Besides, you can get high wing planes without struts (C210, C177).

>I don't know... Why did Cessna stick with the high wing?

People keep buying them!

-=tom=-

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
news:l_k2e.7246$H06.1275@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Like most aviation enthusiasts I consider the venerable old Cessna to be
> classically beautiful. But, this year I've been pondering why anyone
> would
> build a high wing as most pilots who have been around a while prefer low
> wings.
>
> Low wings offer a better view as the wing drops out of the way of the
> ground
> in a turn. Low wings don't have a drag inducing strut. Low wings don't
> need a ladder to fuel. Low wings can offer a wider wheel base as the gear
> extends from the wing and not the body.
>
> One might think high wings are more stable, but in practice that doesn't
> seem to be the case. Perhaps high wings are cheaper to build as they
> don't
> require the massive spar that low wings use?
>
> I don't know... Why did Cessna stick with the high wing?
>
> Dallas
>

Well I can tell you my real world experience with high wings. Many years
ago (1972) I got my private pilot. Can’t fly anymore because I can’t pass
the medical. So now I just play on the simulator and fly RC planes.

I always preferred high wings for two reasons. First I learned how to fly
with high wings (Cessna 150 and Piper Colt) and second my most favorite
plane in the world is a high wing, the Champion. I like all Champs from the
old Aeronca 7AC to the new Citabrias and Scouts. My Dad owned a Champ when
I was growing up and I guess that is where I fell in love with Champions.
Airport hopping on a Sunday afternoon was my idea of having fun. Flying has
gotten too expensive and I can’t pass the medical so I haven’t done that in
about 20 years.

I remember once getting caught in a severe thunderstorm while in a Cessna
172. It was raining so hard I had zero forward visibility. I literally
could not see beyond the nose of the plane. I was not IFR rated at the
time. However, I was at about 1500 feet and the high wing was acting as an
umbrella allowing me to see the ground as I looked down the sides of the
plane. So I had an outside reference until I could get out of the storm.
If I would have been in a low wing plane I would have had no outside
reference at all.

James

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

I don't think anyone is suggesting a 182 for Dogfighting. By the same token
no one is trying to make the Herc C-130 or the Galaxy and Starlifters to be
low wings. You got to use the right design for the right job.

As a Navy Pilot you should remember that the Hawkeye acted as the eyes and
ear to keep the fighters flying and the Fleet afloat was also a high wing if
I remember properly.

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com

"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ave8sF6f4sm8U1@individual.net...
> This is another one of Dalli/Varmit's clever threads. My personal view is,
> as an ex navy flier, that I cannot even understand how the high wing
> aircraft survive! I flew in low wing military aircraft for so long that
when
> I first sat in a Cessna 172 I felt completely inhibited, because the view
is
> so restricted. You can only look down when flying straight and level, and
> you can't look upwards at all!
>
> How anyone can prefer to fly under such a restrictive canopy beats me. I
> liken it to walking out with the choice of a hat with a huge brim or a
great
> big collar. Give me the collar every time, because over it you can see
what
> is going on. As Dalli says, as soon as you start a turn in the Cessna you
> restrict your view of the ground.
> How a P51 or a Spitfire pilot would have got anywhere with a high wing God
> knows!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Quilly
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Quilljar wrote:
> Phillip,
> Dear me, I never meant to imply that I was a navy pilot. I was an
> observer, the pilot was just the guy that drove us around to do the
> work. In the Royal Navy, after the biplane Stringbag in the 1940's, I
> don't believe we ever had a high wing carrier borne aircraft.
> My PPL came many years after I left the navy.
>
>

USN has had several, and still do, like the twin jet S-3 Viking for anti
sub duty, also used as a refueling tanker I believe.
http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/s3.htm
Here's the venerable old S-2 version, circa 1962, with yours truly
www.cox-internet.com/tazman/S2F.jpg
Bottom half show the view from my seat as radar operator on a carrier
landing (that little smudge behind the windshield wiper)
This airframe was also used for cargo/mail/personel transfers to the
carrier..

Hawkeye already mentioned:
http://www.history.navy.mil/planes/e2.htm

And don't forget the high wing fighter, F-8 Crusader! d:-> ))
http://www.pwam.org/f8crusad.htm


Cheers'n Beers'n Anchors aweigh melads........ [_])
Don

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

work. In the Royal Navy, after the biplane Stringbag in the 1940's,
>> I don't believe we ever had a high wing carrier borne aircraft.
>
> The Harrier doesn't count?
>
> Dan

Certainly not! The wing is well below the pilot's eye level :-)


--
Cheers,

Quilly

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

John Ward wrote:
> Hi Crash,
>
> Wow!!
>
> Did they fly biplanes from carriers in WW1? Yes but.....

Indeed, the RN flew the Fairey Swordfish, known affectionately as 'The
Stringbag' a rugged biplane through the whole of WW2 not WW1. Lt Cmdr
Esmonde won the VC for his squadron's attack on the Bismark from HMS Ark
Royal in 1941. He put a torpedo through the battleship's steering and
crippled it.


Quilly

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Also Sprach Quilljar <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk>:
> work. In the Royal Navy, after the biplane Stringbag in the 1940's,
>>> I don't believe we ever had a high wing carrier borne aircraft.
>>
>> The Harrier doesn't count?
>>
>> Dan

> Certainly not! The wing is well below the pilot's eye level :-)

But it's above the fuselage.

Dan


--
Remember kids, if there's a loaded gun in the room, be sure
that you're the one holding it.
-- Mr. Greenfatigues

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Tom Orle" <xspam.torle@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mc7m415lqa8b1f4gbjg8j14iuu0ukgdvnf@4ax.com...
> "Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> work. In the Royal Navy, after the biplane Stringbag in the 1940's,
>>>> I don't believe we ever had a high wing carrier borne aircraft.
>>>
>>> The Harrier doesn't count?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>
>>Certainly not! The wing is well below the pilot's eye level :-)
>
> OK,does the Vought A-7 Corsair II count?
> http://library.avsim.net/sendfile. [...] geID=84285
>
> That plane had an unusual way of increasing the angle of attack by
> just tilting the forward end of the whole wing structure right out of
> the fuselage ;-)
>
> -=tom=-

Tom,

It was the Navy F8 Crusader that could vary the incidence angle this way,
not the A7.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Jay Beckman" <jnsbeckman@cox.net> wrote:

>It was the Navy F8 Crusader that could vary the incidence angle this way,
>not the A7.
>
>Jay Beckman

Jay thanks,

I stand corrected - it's been a while since I played with these
models.

But, hey, they do look similar :-))
Big air scoop underneath the cockpit and high wings!

http://library.avsim.net/sendfile. [...] geID=87245

-=tom=-

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"CRaSH" <sorry@aint-here.spam.com> wrote:

> - wonder if they had
>the poor sot circle for a few hours burning fuel and waiting for light??
>Probably waiting for the photo op! d:-> ))

They probably had to recertify the pilot to land a 'new' type of acft.
;-)
They didn't have any settings for the trap cables for a plane in that
configuration either - interesting situation ;-)

Or have him do some practice air-landings to see how it handled and
find out where the stall speeds were. I wonder if they considered
extending the wingtips in the air - go up to 35,000 ft and give it a
shot. That should be enough altitude to reverse the process if the
bird started to act weird.

Interesting story though!

-=tom=-

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Ah! Ok,..I misunderstood. Sorry..

--

Phillip Windell [MCP, MVP, CCNA]
www.wandtv.com


"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b0837F6g74ieU1@individual.net...
> Phillip,
> Dear me, I never meant to imply that I was a navy pilot. I was an
observer,
> the pilot was just the guy that drove us around to do the work. In the
Royal
> Navy, after the biplane Stringbag in the 1940's, I don't believe we ever
had
> a high wing carrier borne aircraft.
> My PPL came many years after I left the navy.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Quilly
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ave8sF6f4sm8U1@individual.net...
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:44:44 +0100

This is another one of Dalli/Varmit's clever threads.

Maybe not.

My personal view is, as an ex navy flier, that I cannot even
understand how the high wing aircraft survive!

I can!

I flew in low wing military aircraft for so long that when I first
sat in a Cessna 172 I felt completely inhibited, because the view
is so restricted. You can only look down when flying straight and
level, and you can't look upwards at all!

In a low wing, you can't see down unless you are in a turn. I don't know
about you, but flying from point A to point B making tons of right and
left turns don't cut it too well. And perhaps you never flew a Piper Cub
with a window in the roof.

And the Cessna 172 was easy to look up. As I would often pull back on
the stick and you had plenty of upward view. Also rolling 180 degrees
also gave you a great view up there too. And oops! That dang flight bag
is all over the cabin once again.

... As Dalli says, as soon as you start a turn in the Cessna you
restrict your view of the ground.

Only the view in the distance. The more important view of that is closer
to you and more important is clear as a bell. Not so with a low wing.

How a P51 or a Spitfire pilot would have got anywhere with a high
wing God knows!

I believe the opposite is true. For example, more Corsairs were lost
trying to land on carriers than were lost in battle in the beginning.
Although that improved when they stopped straight on approaches and
starting landing while banking. Not the best way to land, but it saved
many of them.


Cheers!


______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"BillW50"
> And I am amazed at all of the flying creatures
> upon this Earth. And you know, I know of no low
> winger in the bunch. I wonder why that is?

Because they have to have a place to tuck them in before they go to sleep?


Dallas

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

We may not be talking about the same thing here. Wherever the wing is placed
on bird or aircraft, I prefer the pilot's eye to be above the wing for a
better view. In most cases this is also true of birds, The wing may be high
but the bird's eye is usually above its own wing it in flight.
I would have no problem with the Cessna 172 if I could be sitting with my
head about a foot above the cockpit canopy! Just like a bird!


Quilly

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Besides, in many accidents where low and highwing acft tangle with each
other on landing - it seems that the low wing more often than not, is the
one plopping itself on top of the high wing acft."

Or more realistically, it is the high wing aircraft, which can't see what's
above it, that flies into the path of the low wing aircraft.

And keep this in mind when you are flying in airports with a lot of mixed
traffic, keep in mind that with the exception of the Cessna's and the Cubs,
everybody else, from the 757's down to the Warriors has good visibility
upward, and poor visibility downward.

So, if everybody else is clearing upward, and you can only clear downward,
you're in a somewhat hazardous situation.

It's analogous to the situation on a highway; it's not speed that kills, its
variations in speed among the vehicles that kills.

Intrinsically, there is no real safety advantage to either wing location,
its the variation in wing location that's the problem...





"Tom Orle" <xspam.torle@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:re9051h1mb2vif07vr006q14295cu2d3uh@4ax.com...
> "Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The wing may be high
> >but the bird's eye is usually above its own wing it in flight.
> Seems to me that birds usually have their eyes ahead of the leading
> edge of their wings. Besides many can also fold their wings in flight
> if desired. So, there's really no comparison. And when they flappther
> wings - half the time the eye is above, the other half below a big
> portion of the wing.
>
> But why do you want to have a more unobstructed view up anyway?
> There's a lot more going on below you than above where you might only
> see other aircraft, birds or a bunch of clouds.
> When flying landing patterns you need to look down, not up.
> If you need to use a hwy as a navigation aid (as in scud running!) -
> that hwy better not be above you!!
> (Looking over the nose and down may not help if you have limited
> forward visibility - then you fly parallel to the hwy and look down to
> the side of you).
>
> Besides, in many accidents where low and highwing acft tangle with
> each other on landing - it seems that the low wing more often than
> not, is the one plopping itself on top of the high wing acft.
>
> In a C-177 you almost had both because the pilot's head was pretty
> much at the leading edge of the high wing (if you had short legs and
> pulled the seat up, you were actually ahead of the leading edge!) -
> giving you a good forward and upward view as well as unrestricted down
> since there were no struts either.
>
> -=tom=-
>

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Lakeview Bill" <bdentonchi@hotmail.com> wrote:


>its the variation in wing location that's the problem...

I never heard controllers cursing at a mix of planes that have
different wing locations - but they certainly do get excited when a
Lear doing around 160kts comes up on a Piper doing 70 on final.

What I'm saying there are issues that are more important in flying
than wing location. That is a personal preference, IMHO.

-=tom==-

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

Oh gosh! Here is another plane landing on a truck! This one was a high
wing and a pickup truck.

http://www.local6.com/news/2920823/detail.html

And one drunken pilot clips a van.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/07/10/pilot.dui/



Cheers!


______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000


"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message news:qKY3e.28864$hU7.18563@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

"Lakeview Bill" <bdentonchi@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:B%X3e.14667$ZB6.2120@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 20:04:49 GMT

"Tom Orle" <xspam.torle@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:re9051h1mb2vif07vr006q14295cu2d3uh@4ax.com...

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

In this age of low priced video cams couldn't you just put in a a camera
above or below you AC with a small monitor. I can't see how to do this
in a sim though.

Mike

Lakeview Bill wrote:
> "Besides, in many accidents where low and highwing acft tangle with each
> other on landing - it seems that the low wing more often than not, is the
> one plopping itself on top of the high wing acft."
>
> Or more realistically, it is the high wing aircraft, which can't see what's
> above it, that flies into the path of the low wing aircraft.
>
> And keep this in mind when you are flying in airports with a lot of mixed
> traffic, keep in mind that with the exception of the Cessna's and the Cubs,
> everybody else, from the 757's down to the Warriors has good visibility
> upward, and poor visibility downward.
>
> So, if everybody else is clearing upward, and you can only clear downward,
> you're in a somewhat hazardous situation.
>
> It's analogous to the situation on a highway; it's not speed that kills, its
> variations in speed among the vehicles that kills.
>
> Intrinsically, there is no real safety advantage to either wing location,
> its the variation in wing location that's the problem...
>
>
>
>
>
> "Tom Orle" <xspam.torle@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:re9051h1mb2vif07vr006q14295cu2d3uh@4ax.com...
>
>>"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The wing may be high
>>>but the bird's eye is usually above its own wing it in flight.
>>
>>Seems to me that birds usually have their eyes ahead of the leading
>>edge of their wings. Besides many can also fold their wings in flight
>>if desired. So, there's really no comparison. And when they flappther
>>wings - half the time the eye is above, the other half below a big
>>portion of the wing.
>>
>>But why do you want to have a more unobstructed view up anyway?
>>There's a lot more going on below you than above where you might only
>>see other aircraft, birds or a bunch of clouds.
>>When flying landing patterns you need to look down, not up.
>>If you need to use a hwy as a navigation aid (as in scud running!) -
>>that hwy better not be above you!!
>>(Looking over the nose and down may not help if you have limited
>>forward visibility - then you fly parallel to the hwy and look down to
>>the side of you).
>>
>>Besides, in many accidents where low and highwing acft tangle with
>>each other on landing - it seems that the low wing more often than
>>not, is the one plopping itself on top of the high wing acft.
>>
>>In a C-177 you almost had both because the pilot's head was pretty
>>much at the leading edge of the high wing (if you had short legs and
>>pulled the seat up, you were actually ahead of the leading edge!) -
>>giving you a good forward and upward view as well as unrestricted down
>>since there were no struts either.
>>
>>-=tom=-
>>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"mike wheelock" <wheels2@twmi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:6614e.4757$tI6.3200@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 01:53:06 GMT

In this age of low priced video cams couldn't you just put in a a
camera above or below you AC with a small monitor. I can't see how
to do this in a sim though.

Hi Mike... I see no reason why not. As we put video cams on our radio
control crafts. You can actually fly them from the monitor just like a
sim too.


Cheers!


______________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Dallas" <Cybnorm@spam_me_not.Hotmail.Com> wrote in message
newsM24e.2820$EE2.2115@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 03:46:29 GMT

Is this what we're talking about?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/ [...] ating2.jpg

Hehehe... How did you find that one?


Cheers!


___________________________________________
Bill (using a HP AMD 1.2GHZ & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news2r18e$dqq$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:26:38 +0000 (UTC)

Tom Orle wrote:
> But why do you want to have a more unobstructed view up anyway?
> There's a lot more going on below you than above where you might only
> see other aircraft, birds or a bunch of clouds.

I really do not want to pursue this any further, but Tom, you seem
to have missed the point altogether. It is the high wing aircraft
that has the WORST view below... Unless you are flying straight and
level that damned wing comes down and obscures your view of the
ground the moment you turn. Haave you flown a Cessna IRL? If so you
must know how restricted it feels. With a low wing, the steeper the
turn, the easier it gets to spot what is on the ground.

Why would you want to make a steep turn just to see the ground? As I
take my camera along and I always get the best pictures of the ground
out of the window going straight or in a turn in a high wing. In a low
wing in a turn, to see below me say 15 degrees, I have to bank about 75
degrees to see the ground that well.

That's insane! In a high wing, I don't even have to bank to see 15
degrees down. Or I could bank 75 degrees and still see 15 degrees down.
What a large extreme range with a high wing. Although a low wing,
everything looking down is really limited unless you are almost or past
a 90 degree bank.

I still like flying low wingers though for aerobatics. And most high
wing aircrafts are generally terrible for aerobatics.


Cheers!


___________________________________________
Bill (using a HP AMD 1.2GHZ & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

So, what it really all comes down to is what one is looking for.

Since the odds are that something WILL NOT suddenly spring up from the
ground and strike your airplane (unless you are flying over a military
missile installation, in which case one of the jet jockeys air-to-air's will
take you down first), the ability to look down and take pictures makes no
contribution to safety.

But if you are in the typical traffic mix found at a medium to large
airport, the ability to clear the same airspace, relative to your airplane,
as is being cleared by all of the other traffic, puts you in a much safer
position. And since most of the other traffic is low-wing, flying a low-wing
aircraft would be safer, to some degree.

If you are in a high wing aircraft, flying out of a small airport where most
of the other traffic is high wing aircraft, you might be slightly safer in a
high wing than in a low wing.

But then again, you have to look at the speeds involved.

In a mixed traffic medium to large airport, you will have jets, turboprops,
and high performance singles and twins, all of which fly and land at much
higher speeds than does a 172.

But at a small, mostly high wing airport, the speed of most of those
aircraft is so slow (relatively speaking) that one would be hard pressed to
deliberately run into another airplane.

So you cannot make a definitive statement that either high wing or low wing
is safer than the other. You also have to consider the traffic mix, and the
speeds of the other aircraft in the traffic mix.



"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message
news:qF84e.29131$hU7.19029@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news2r18e$dqq$1@titan.btinternet.com...
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 09:26:38 +0000 (UTC)

Tom Orle wrote:
> But why do you want to have a more unobstructed view up anyway?
> There's a lot more going on below you than above where you might only
> see other aircraft, birds or a bunch of clouds.

I really do not want to pursue this any further, but Tom, you seem
to have missed the point altogether. It is the high wing aircraft
that has the WORST view below... Unless you are flying straight and
level that damned wing comes down and obscures your view of the
ground the moment you turn. Haave you flown a Cessna IRL? If so you
must know how restricted it feels. With a low wing, the steeper the
turn, the easier it gets to spot what is on the ground.

Why would you want to make a steep turn just to see the ground? As I
take my camera along and I always get the best pictures of the ground
out of the window going straight or in a turn in a high wing. In a low
wing in a turn, to see below me say 15 degrees, I have to bank about 75
degrees to see the ground that well.

That's insane! In a high wing, I don't even have to bank to see 15
degrees down. Or I could bank 75 degrees and still see 15 degrees down.
What a large extreme range with a high wing. Although a low wing,
everything looking down is really limited unless you are almost or past
a 90 degree bank.

I still like flying low wingers though for aerobatics. And most high
wing aircrafts are generally terrible for aerobatics.


Cheers!


___________________________________________
Bill (using a HP AMD 1.2GHZ & Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within Word 2000

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>Why would you want to make a steep turn just to see the ground? As I
>take my camera along and I always get the best pictures of the ground
>out of the window going straight or in a turn in a high wing. In a low
>wing in a turn, to see below me say 15 degrees, I have to bank about 75
>degrees to see the ground that well.

The only issue I see him having is if he's in a left hand rather tight
pattern for landing and has to make at least 2 90 degree left turns -
downwind to base to final.

Yeah - sometimes the view get's obstructed - but heck, you can always
lift the wing a bit if you need to for orientation purposes.

-=tom=-

Archived from groups: alt.games.microsoft.flight-sim (More info?)

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

> Although I
>have to admit, I don't think I would be as good as a pilot today if it
>wasn't for him. <grin>

That I agree with - but actually turning off the ignition is overdoing
it a bit, IMHO.
Mine did that once but reminded me that it wasn't a good idea mainly
because it wasn't healthy for the engine. The engine block would cool
down too fast and put some stresses on it. And under some conditions
you might get it flooded and have a restart issue. That'll give you
some pucker power on the other end for sure.

But mine taught me to do spins which are no longer required by the
FAA. Now I'm hooked on them and love to show them off - which may be
the reason I often get to fly alone :-(

-=tom=-