Low wing versus high wing

To each his own of course, but for me flying has evolved into the enjoyment of good views.

There is no doubt that high wing is superior in that regard but only when one wants to look straight down while flying wings level, unless you are flying a jet of course, or a (motor) glider.

But to me iit’s not about viewing straight down only. It’s about having a general unobstructed view as much as possible. So a bubble canopy comes to mind. Diamonds (in particular the DA40) is almost unmatched in that sense, added by the fact that the front seat occupants are seated relatively forward in relation of the wing. My little Bristell comes close, and by the way has a cockpit that is 130cm wide, so no issue of ‘feeling cramped in a low wing’ as mentioned in earlier posts.. How wide are your cockpits?

Of course tandem seaters are even better. Being able to look out down/forward on either side and the pilot up front being seated even a bit more forward in relation to the wing compared to side-by-side makes for a special experience in my view. Well, depends a bit on which type of tandem-seater maybe.

Shoulder wing aircraft may even be better, shame there are not many of them.

Either high-wing or low-wing, I’ve come to realize that all non full bubble canopy aircraft don’t offer what I like. It struck home to me again recently when doing some flying in such aircraft recently. The Cessna’s still have a big A-post in the way and you can’t really look upwards. Most Pipers add a bar in the middle of the windscreen to that. And various Mooney’s also have these bars just ahead of the windscreen. And the same goes for low wing ULM’s with a sliding canopy which requires a pretty solid bar blocking the view, like in Tecnams.

Of course the TB20 is pretty good. Need to be friendly to the boss..

Peter wrote:

Sweating like a pig in the nylon “airline pilot” uniform is a standard thing

As a joke, some friends bought me a “Pilot Shirt”… which was nylon…Which I just dont understand as I was always told from day one learning to fly to always wear cotton clothes when flying, preferably with long sleeves…And Ive always tried to do this, with the exception of a few really hot summer days when I wear a T-shirt.

Oh, And having learned in a C152, then moved onto a PA28…. My eyes were literally well and truely opened when I started flying Robins in France.
Low wing-Bubble canopy style for me all the way now, by far the best seat in the air

Regards, SD..

Low wing-Bubble canopy style for me all the way now, by far the best seat in the air

I really enjoy that kind of flying now too, but do miss the security of roll over protection of a triangulated truss structure provided by strut braced overhead wings. I forgot that one in my earlier post. On a practical level, I think high wings are very good.

Good ventilation plus climbing keeps bubble canopy temps under control. On the ground opening the canopy to allow the fan on the front to do its thing works, but it can still get hot in direct sunlight.

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!

Yes, access to the baggage compartment is indeed a problem with some high wing aeroplanes:

Indeed, it depends on what you look for in an airplane. I look for a flying SUV/MPV.

I say I prefer high wings but if/when I own an airplane in Europe, I may choose a low wing because water crossing are quite common. Much more than in the continental US.

We’ve discussed this “low wing better for ditching” OWT before, but Bertorelli’s findings are worth re-stating:

Myth 2: If I Have to Ditch, I’m Better Off in a Low Wing Than a High Wing Airplane

High Wing, Low Wing, HeloYou won’t convince us of that. Of the 179 ditchings, 87 involved high wing airplanes (49 percent), 73 were low wings (41 percent), and the rest were helicopters.

Yet, in the subgroup that involved fatalities, high wing airplanes were noticeably underepresented: Although they were involved in 49 percent of all the ditchings, they represent only 27 percent of the fatalities. On the other hand, low wing airplanes represent 41 percent of the total ditchings, but accounted for 68 percent of the fatalities.

We don’t make a great deal of this finding due to the small actual numbers involved, other than to note that it doesn’t at all support the widely held notion that high wing airplanes sink to their struts and trap the occupants. If high wing airplanes are more difficult to get out of in the water—and we think that’s debatable—it certainly doesn’t keep people from getting out of them

Edit to add another comment from Bertorelli’s article:

How to avoid going into the water in the first place? Don’t run out of gas and/or make sure the gas you have isn’t fouled with water or other debris. At least a third of all ditchings are caused by fuel exhaustion, mismanagement, or contamination. These are, quite simply, absolutely avoidable

Psersonally I prefer low wing, simply because I am one of those people that will bash his head on anything there is to bash one’s head on. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve walked into a pitot tube. I’m surprised I haven’t got a hole in my forehead.I like Cessnas and the C152 was one of the first planes I ever flew but flying it I had regular headaches.

Peter wrote:

I reckon this higher fatal ditching rate for low wing is due to the majority of low wings flying are single door types, and if you have a person next to that door who for whatever reason can’t move, then nobody is getting out and everybody will drown.

Exactly. To me, that’s one very big reason why I don’t like them, over water or land.