Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Low wing versus high wing

For a fun day flying, no preference.
For serious touring, taking loads of stuff, Bikes etc, and allowing for time at and around the aircraft in scorching sun or pouring rain? High wing please.
We’ve had delays in sun, so sat in folding chairs in the shade.
We’ve had to do a complete reroute including phonecalls and accommodation arrangements, and were able to stand out of the rain with the doors open and seats pushed out of the way to form a workspace.
Loading in the rain is easier too.
We managed this with our low wing, but had no idea how nicely these options work with high wing until in practice.
Obviously in Grenoble and Venice it’s nice to sit in the lounge too.

United Kingdom

kwlf wrote:

Does anybody prefer the opposite of what they trained on?

Yes – me! I trained on Pipers and for many years have flown almost exclusively Cessnas, which I vastly prefer.

I simply don’t like the single door and the cramped feel of most low-wing SEPs. Recently sat in a Bonanza (V-tail, on the ground) and was surprised how claustrophobic it felt. Give me a C210 (which is what I mostly fly these days) any day of the week. Also, I’m rather tall (6’2" / 188cm) so even a TB20 which otherwise is a great airplane feels tight.

No question, low wing on top

Last Edited by aart at 06 Mar 19:16
Private field, Mallorca, Spain

I did my IR in a C172, so it’s my second highest hours aircraft I think. I feel claustrophobic in a high wing. Might be different in an Extra400 where it seats back from the cockpit.

EGTF, LFTF

Ditched aircraft is likely to float due to air in the wing. Low wing gives the oportunity to get liferaft etc on wing before it sinks. High wing the doors are submerged.
A wood-and-fabric Jodel is rumoured to have been found floating next day after the occupants were rescued. Baltic??

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

I prefer low wing because one can see properly when turning, especially during steep turns.

It is a pity that Mooney and Piper have created single-door planes which are harder to get into and – in the rental scene in particular – result in the interior getting damaged by people climbing all over the seats. There is no need for this and nobody doing a design in the last few decades would have done a single door.

High wing is much better for photography, getting in and out (vastly better for people who have movement and flexibility problems, or who are just very large) and makes landings easier because there is less ground effect so if you arrive with excess speed you have a better change of getting away with it. I think they also have generally larger cockpits; a lot of low wing cockpits are an exercise in yoga especially the ones in the recently introduced 450kg/600kg class.

A wood-and-fabric Jodel is rumoured to have been found floating next day after the occupants were rescued. Baltic??

That appears possible only if it had empty fuel tanks We did that e.g. here.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Cantilever low wing for high wing loading planes with lots of power and likely some ‘systems’ that low wing tends to require. Bubble canopy optional but possible.

Strutted high wing for low wing loading, simple planes that you might regularly slip to land, and which won’t need fuel pumps. Flaps optional and manual if fitted.

Despite its very simple construction the Wittman Tailwind was one of the best at getting the best of both worlds. The Andreasson/SAAB/Bölkow 208 derivatives as posted above too, but differently.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 08 Mar 15:59

High wing: ugly.
Low wing: pretty.

Last Edited by EuroFlyer at 08 Mar 21:41
Safe landings !
EDLN, Germany

For me, it’s like camera, the best one is the one you have access to :-)

ENVA, Norway

GA_Pete wrote:

For serious touring, taking loads of stuff, Bikes etc, and allowing for time at and around the aircraft in scorching sun or pouring rain? High wing please.

To me it’s an underwear problem.

I fly both on long distance trips (2-3 weeks). The Cessna (172 SP) is very difficult to manoeuvre a full size suitcase into due to the smaller baggage door. you have to slide the bag in and up at the same time and it invariably snags the carpet as you do it. The bag has to stand vertically and it’s impossible to open it in the plane, which is a real issue if you are trying to retrieve some clean socks on a windy day!

The Warrior luggage door is positively cavernous in comparison and allows all sorts of underwear juggling without having to remove the bag from the plane and then have to chase the contents across the runway in a strong wind! And on a less windy day you can put one bag on the wing walk while ferreting in the other. Another bonus is that the rear luggage compartment is easy to access, whereas anything put in the equivalent place in the Cessna slides right to the back and involves dislocation of one’s arm to reach.

All this applies to baggage management in the US, where a golf cart will transport your bags to the FBO terminal (favours Cessna with luxury repacking at the hotel) vs. Europe where you have to drag multiple bags yourself across 1/4 mile of rough dirt, grass or mud while being watched by insolent yellow jackets (Favours Piper, repacking at the aircraft).

Just an observation.

EGBW / KPRC, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top