Crisp and responsive roll control (no pendulum delay like a high wing)
Absolute sex appeal (high wing is what fishermen use in Alaska)
And, let’s face it, all the fast planes are low wing.
High = practical, stodgy pickup truck ride
Low = thrilling, fast sports car handling
All good arguments in favour of high wing, but in this age of social inclusion we must respect and support the low-wingers, trans-wingers and non-binary-wingers among us. 
Jacko wrote:
All good arguments in favour of high wing, but in this age of social inclusion we must respect and support the low-wingers, trans-wingers and non-binary-wingers among us.
Queer-winger?
The problem with low wing aircraft and ditching: too many of them have only one door, and many of them with better egress/ingress facilities have a hinged canopy instead (should you be unfortunate enough to flip either on dry land or in the water, you may not be able to get the canopy open).
Jacko wrote:
All good arguments in favour of high wing, but in this age of social inclusion we must respect and support the low-wingers, trans-wingers and non-binary-wingers among us.
Don’t forget biplanes
Does anybody prefer the opposite of what they trained on?
Yes (C152 vs M20K). But, to be honest, I very much doubt that high vs. low wing has anything to do with it. ;)
kwlf wrote:
Does anybody prefer the opposite of what they trained on?
“L’herbe est toujours plus verte ailleurs” as we used to say…
This been said, I didn’t really choose:
kwlf wrote:
Does anybody prefer the opposite of what they trained on?
I would gladly go back fly a low-wing “Bravo” (FA AS202) for local fun: +6/-3 G aerobatics, 260HP, 125kts cruise, 2pob with 50kg bags each
Though at same price/engine specs, I dream of another low-wing “Bravo” (Mooney M20M/TLS) with 220kts cruise
Definitely high-wing, I get so many more Instagram likes when the pitot is part of the frame !
Cessna doors open automatically in case of hard landing
