High Wing vs. Low Wing

[dallas]

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

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

 

[william]

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

 

[Guest]

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
>
>

High Wing =
- Stay dry in the rain
- Shade from the sun
- Easier to sump the tanks
- Better viz of the ground
- Better ground clearance
- Gravity fed fuel system
- Struts are handy for pushing back into parking spot
- No spar running across cockpit/cabin

There are probably more, but I just got back from a non-cyber flight to
Sedona and back with light to moderate chop both ways. My arse is beat.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL / Sim Pilot Too
Chandler, AZ (KCHD)

 

[Guest]

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=-

 

[Guest]

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

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

> 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.

Not many low-wing ski/float/all-terrain aircraft.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 

[James]

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

 

[Guest]

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

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

 

[Guest]

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
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

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

 

[crash]

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

 

[Guest]

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

Also Sprach Quilljar <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk>:
> 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.

The Harrier doesn't count?

Dan

--
Welcome President Bush, Mrs. Bush, and my fellow astronauts.

-- Dan Quayle

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Guest]

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

"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.php?Location=AVSIM&Proto=file&ImageID=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=-

 

[Guest]

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.php?Location=AVSIM&Proto=file&ImageID=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

 

[Guest]

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.php?Location=AVSIM&Proto=file&ImageID=87245

-=tom=-

 

[crash]

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

Tom Orle wrote:
> But, hey, they do look similar )
> Big air scoop underneath the cockpit and high wings!
>

http://www.pwam.org/f8crusad.htm
Sure do! Must be the family resemblance... d:->))

The F-8 had folding wing tips for carrier duty, but only a few feet long.
While I was in the USN, back in mid last century (gawd that sounds
strange!!), they managed to launch one with the wings still folded (actually
I thing they just stuck up like Akita ears), and the thing flew!!! Even
landed!! They sent up someone up with a camera before the landing, and I
remember seeing the pictures in what ever aviation magazine they always had
laying around the ready room in those days.... I think it was a night
launch, but the pictures were in daylight as I recall - 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:->))

 

[Guest]

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=-

 

[Guest]

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

I dunno do I?
All I said was I prefer to fly a low wing...

Cheers,

Quilly

 

[James]

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

"Quilljar" <wykehill-flightsim@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3b0n3uF6bta46U1@individual.net...
>I dunno do I?
> All I said was I prefer to fly a low wing...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Quilly

Back in my flying days I was very fortunate to have belonged to a flying
club that had 11 aircraft and about 75 members. That may sound like a lot
of people for just eleven planes but if you were not choosey about which
plane you flew there was one available most of the time. We had 7 Cessna
(High Wing) and four Pipers (Low wing). We had 2 Cessna 150, 4 Cessna 172
and 1 Cessna 182. We had 3 Cherokee 140 and 1 Cherokee 6. In our club if
you were checked out in one type like the Cessna 182 it did not mean your
were qualified for the Cessna 150. You had to fly at least 1 hour every
month in that type to keep your qualification. For the 10 years I was a
member I stayed current in every plane they had except the Cherokee 6.

When I would go the club without reserving a plane in advance many times the
Low wing Cherokee was the only thing available (most people in the club
preferred the Cessna). So I got lots of time in both high wing and low wing
aircraft. Both have their advantage and disadvantage. Just as you prefer
the low wing I prefer the high wing. So that is why they will keep making
both. They both sell and money is what it is all about.



Club rates for 1972. Cessna 150 - $9.00 an hour (wet), Cessna 172 and
Cherokee 140 - $12.00 an hour (wet), Cessna 182 and Cherokee 6 - $16.00 an
hour (wet). Our club rates were a little less that half of the local
non-club rates. I can only dream about those days. Those days and prices
are gone forever. James

 

[Guest]

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

Hi Crash,

Wow!!

Did they fly biplanes from carriers in WW1?

Regards,
John Ward
"CRaSH" <sorry@aint-here.spam.com> wrote in message
news:chD2e.7374$Dz4.116@okepread01...
> 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
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

 

[crash]

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

John Ward wrote:
> Hi Crash,
>
> Wow!!
>
> Did they fly biplanes from carriers in WW1?
>
Yeah, but they were high/low wing.. d:->))

AND, the C-130 has landed on a carrier!

 

[Guest]

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
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

"Tom Orle" <xspam.torle@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6dkm419fsago223mvcc7vk4e8hvojptp2q@4ax.com...
> 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.

Maybe point it straight up and unfold the wings just before (or just as) it
lost forward/upward motion. It be plenty high enough with next to no air
moving over the wings to make it go crazy. If timed right it, the wingtips
would be in place before it started to fall back down and regain airspeed.

--

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