low wing vs. high wing

[rumpletumbler]

Just be careful when you step on the step to get on the wing or the tail will be sitting on the ground. Also be careful not to stick your hand through the skin.

It flew all right but seemed cheaply made. That was in 2000. I don't know if they are any better now.

Well the skin is aluminum so I'm not sure what you mean. Also if a fat person gets on the step and doesn't transfer their weight to the wing pretty quick, yes it will sit on the tail.

 

[Goose Egg]

Whichever one is cheaper!

Seriously though, there really isn't much difference between the two, and the only advice I would offer is to get as much time in both as you possibly can.

-Goose

 

[Frmr Avro Drvr]

Well the skin is aluminum so I'm not sure what you mean. Also if a fat person gets on the step and doesn't transfer their weight to the wing pretty quick, yes it will sit on the tail.

I was just being a pain in the a$$. The demo pilot did admit the aluminum was a thinner gage than most aircraft to save weight.

I also did make the aircraft sit on the tail because as I stepped up the Chief Flight Instructor called me across the ramp so I never did make it to the wing. My 200 lb butt was enough to make it shift. The next time I got on I made sure I didn't spend much time on the step.

It flew pretty much like a warrior if not a little higher climb rate and was more comfortable but the instrument panel and general appearance weren't that refined. It was better than the fake wood grain of the old C-172 though.

 

[rumpletumbler]

I wasn't aware of it being thinner. I'll have to ask about that. Seems like a strong airplane to me. The guy who owns the flight school I work with landed one in a 37 kt x-wind. I don't care to try that but he said it did fine. Taxing was harder than the landing. If you recall the plane has more rudder than any plane ought to. I'm not sure why.

 

[FADECtoBLACK]

In addition to being a bit more squirrelly in high crosswinds, I've found high-wings tend to be a bit more dramatic in full stalls. The nose on a C-172 will drop more dramatically compared to a Warrior or Archer.

I've found that using the same method for a power-on stall (clean config) in a 180hp C-172 and in a 180hp Archer, the C-172 will always stall completely with the nose dropping below the horizon while in the Archer, the nose will not drop even with the yoke at the aft stops. The Archer seems to hang in the air right on the verge of a stall.

Warriors that I've flown (150-160hp) do react more as one would expect with the nose drop, but still not nearly like what I see in 152s and 172s.

"...and two cents is your change."

 

[Lead Sled]

...but I am leaning toward purchasing a 152 to build time when I get my ticket.

If you want to build time cheaply, consider a vintage taildragger. They're reasonably affordable to buy and cheap to operate. They'll teach you what your feet are for and make you an argueably better pilot. Finally, one nice thing about them it that they tend to appreciate. Back when I was working on building time, I bought a Luscombe 8-F and flew it for a couple of years and 300 or 400 hours. When I sold it, it had appreciated enough to cover my operating costs. You can do the same thing if your careful.

'Sled

 

[Doug]

Thanks for the advice Lead Sled

I always have to remember too that if you purchase an airplane, it will actually be worth something when you go to sell it, unlike a car.

Whatever I end up purchasing it will be something that is not terribly expensive, and that 1 person (me) can afford to maintain. I don't know that I am into purchasing a 1/2 or 1/3 of a more expensive plane...I want to be able to fly when I want to, and if I want to carry more than 1 other person I can always rent a 4 seat...but those times would probably be few and far between.

This is afterall a hobby to me, so I have to keep my purchase reasonable. Just like learning in a 152. Sure I guess paying $30 more an hour is no big deal if you are rolling your flight training into a big loan, and aiming toward a career in aviation. But for someone like me who is paying the entire thing out of pocket, that $30 an hour makes a difference.

I do find it funny though, how life somehow always remains the same. I remember back when I was in my teens dreaming of a car I could call my own...even if it wasn't the greatest car in the world.

Now years later, I am basically dreaming the same dream, just with a plane instead of a car...

 

[Goose Egg]

Now years later, I am basically dreaming the same dream, just with a plane instead of a car...

And your all the better for it!

That vintage taildragger idea is a good one except for one thing: I don't think that I'd be able to part with an airplane like that! Look at me letting emotion muck things up again!

-Goose

 

[JAFI]

I learned on both - no preference.

The best argument I ever heard was "did you ever see a low wing bird"?

I vote for the tail dragger. IMHO pilots who learn on a tail dragger have much better rudder control than their tricycle gear brothers. As an Instructor I could usually tell them apart.

JAFI

 

[Lead Sled]

As long as we're talking about aircraft to train in...

If I were king of the universe, I would make it mandatory for PPL candidates to have logged time in both taildraggers and gliders. Once you get on speaking terms with those everything comes easy. Oh, and I would also require some basic aerobatic training as well.

'Sled