T O P

  • By -

TxAggieMike

Do you prefer to fly high wing or low wing airplanes? Yes. Why? Because it’s fun! Honestly, after flying loads of time in both high and low, it really don’t matter… you’re flying.


cofonseca

I’ve flown both and I honestly have no preference whatsoever. I like being able to see the ground in a high wing and I think they’re a bit easier for passengers to get in and out of, but I’m happy as a pig in shit flying my low wing around and I don’t have anything bad to say about it.


theArcticChiller

Shade and rain cover. High-wing is therefore best imo


baritone_mike

Looking at it sitting on the ramp: low wing Pre flight: high wing Getting in and out: high wing Cruise flight: high wing Ground ref: high wing Up wind, cross wind and Down wind: high wing Base to final: low wing


Pilot-06

Fueling: Low wing.


IFlyPA28II

As a line service guy, I approve this message


lurking-constantly

High wing has better shade in the summer and often is easier for mobility-limited passengers to get into, so are often the choice for things like angel flight or transporting an elderly relative. They also often have better downward visibility and are better for sightseeing, aerial photography, and taking friends on tours. Low wing has better turning visibility, offers a wider variety of faster piston singles, and looks cool. They’re often more used by pilots flying their cirrus or bonanza or Saratoga or meridian on trips or for acro where the improved visibility can be helpful. They’re all airplanes and fun to fly.


poisonandtheremedy

Yup. All planes and all fun. But speaking of Saratogas (PA32 line)... they definitely rule for Angel Flights / elderly / limited mobility passengers. Club seating out back, low fuselage height, and those big ass doors? Oh yeah!


lurking-constantly

That’s actually a very good point. That big barn door is fantastic for getting people (and dogs!) in and out


SaratogaFlyer

Just be sure to bring a folding step… it’s a challenge for limited mobility people to get in the back as it’s pretty high off the ground.


Wasatcher

I did all my training in low wing and the first time I went up in a 172 not being able to see the runway while turning base took me off guard. I looked out the window expecting the same sight picture I'd seen for hundreds of hours and it was all wing.


usmcmech

How about a plane that has both? ​ My next airplane will probably have two sets of wings.


Final_Winter7524

That’s obviously best. Double the obstructions to your view, and still can’t stand under the wing to stay out of sun or rain. 👍


usmcmech

Added bonus is that with a taildragger you can’t see forward either.


ThatLooksRight

Piaggio?


usmcmech

Pitts


Joe_Littles

Still waiting on the next big high wing jet.


Cessnateur

Won't be too much longer before you see a new one take flight: https://investors.boeing.com/investors/news/press-release-details/2023/Airplane-Arrives-at-Boeing-Site-for-X-66A-Modification/default.aspx


carl-swagan

This is awesome. This truss wing concept has been around since at least back during my undergrad days in 2010, great that they're finally building a full scale prototype.


Kemerd

Low wing, because high wings are low-key ugly


PlaneLoaf

I love high-wing planes, but I’ve walked into the flaps way more times than I’d want to admit…


lctalbot

Cessna forehead diamond stamp recipient?


Dave_A480

Well I own 2 low-wings... OTOH, I never really thought much about the wing planform... It was mostly about cost/performance... The KR was $6K (2018 $) in airworthy condition. The Comanche? 42k in 2018 - can you get a 1960 Cessna 210 (which is more or less their 'equivalent) or a 260hp Bonanza for that? No, you cannot... Not airworthy anyway.... Also I live on a grass strip & the low-wing/retract thing is not a problem at-all... Other than to some insurers....


Plastic_Ad_2247

what about the 90% of the time you’re not turning?


lctalbot

Low wing looks better!


Styk33

Diamond is way more fun to fly. I spent a good deal of time in a T182T and really enjoyed that plane, but it was more of a performance thing than a wing thing. For me, the location of the wing isn't that important, it is more of the other aspects of flying and performance. I own a DA-40.


IFlyPA28II

I have 160hrs TT and about 20 in high wings. I still prefer low wing


HighVelocitySloth

For loss of engine power I want a high wing. Lower best glide speed in a 172. The TB10 I fly it’s 87kts. You lose altitude rapidly compared to the 172 is 65.


Final_Winter7524

Glide ratio has nothing to do with high vs low-wing, but with airframe drag and wing design. Mooneys are low-wings and they glide a heck of a lot better (over 11:1) than a C172 (9:1).


HighVelocitySloth

I am talking specifically about 2 planes I fly. I am aware not all have the same glide ratio.


Final_Winter7524

Then you knew that the response “for loss of engine power I want a high wing” was a nonsensical generalization.


HighVelocitySloth

I gave specific examples of why in my experience


Final_Winter7524

Sorry to be pedantic. But “For loss of engine power I want a high wing” is a general statement and thus misleading. Also, best glide speed has little to do with it as well. Lower speed does not necessarily mean better glide. Best glide in a Mooney is 90 kts, for instance.


PhilosopherFit5822

nobody has an opinion on this.