low wing vs. high wing

[cforst513]

is there an advantage in learning how to fly in low-wing aircraft vs. high-wing (or vice versa)? maybe tomahawks and archers vs. 152's and 172's. what do you guys prefer, or what did you learn on?

 

[VNugget]

I learned in cessnas... at one point I scored a free hour in an arrow, and now i'm a little... bi-curious... if you will.

 

[rumpletumbler]

Low wing will handle a good bit more crosswind than high.

 

[Lead Sled]

is there an advantage in learning how to fly in low-wing aircraft vs. high-wing (or vice versa)? maybe tomahawks and archers vs. 152's and 172's. what do you guys prefer, or what did you learn on?

It doesn’t really make any difference at all. There are those who will say that “high-wing” trainers such as the Cessna 152 or 172 are easier to fly and are more stable. Others will say that the “low-wing” aircraft such as the Pipers are better. The truth is that either type is just fine. Each type has its particular “pros” and “cons”. There might be some argument for using a high-wing trainer if someday you dream of owning a Cessna 210 or a low-wing trainer if someday you plan on buying a Bonanza or other high performance low-wing aircraft. However, when all is said and done it doesn’t really matter. You can safely base your decision on what “strikes your fancy” and where you can make the best deal. What does matter is who your CFI is. Take some time and find a good one.

'Sled

 

[rumpletumbler]

Unless you are tiny then I'd stay away from a 152. I feel like I'm flying an ultralight when I'm in one and they are so small its uncomfortable. I'm flying the Alarus now and even though its a 2 seater its 6.5 inches wider than a 172 in the seating area so its more comfortable. Much more roomy than even the 172 much less the 152.

 

[Doug]

Hey, I fly a 152

And yes it is small and cramped. Thing is the 152 is $70 and hour, but everything else like the 172 and the Piper Warrior are ~$100 and up. I just don't know that it's worth the money.

Thing is I guess I don't mind small and cramped, I love small cars too, and would never be able to drive a large car. To each his own.

Other thing is, the school has 3 152's, but only 1 warrior, and a couple 172's but some are IFR and even more expensive, etc.

Once I get my ticket, I will certainly learn to fly the warrior, and the 172...but right now, I just can't see burning the money in those planes when the 152 will teach me the same thing...and I would imagine it would make me better at dealing with x-wind landings than a 172 would

In fact you guys will all think I am insane, but I am leaning toward purchasing a 152 to build time when I get my ticket. I personally have no problems with the 152, and don't plan to ever really do any long distance travels, I got into flying for something to do on a nice day...I like to see the world from above.

 

[rumpletumbler]

We rent the Alarus for $78 an hour. I'll bet it is far better equipped and much newer than your 152 as well.

http://www.newplane.com/amd_files/Alarus-2005-13Ss.jpg

 

[Vector4fun]

It's easier to put gas in a low wing than a high wing. That's about the biggest difference. Beavers are an exception....

 

[noslonlo]

I think Doug has the right idea. Unless you're really a big person, fly a 150 or 152. The savings can really add up.

Also, if someone has trained in a smaller airplane with less power, I notice that their takeoffs are smoother. They smoothly set a pitch attitude and let the airplane fly itself off the runway. You can't jerk a 152 off the runway like you can a 172 or warrior.

This is just my personal observation and I'm not trying to say that 152 pilots are better than others. Sorry to get off the subject of low wing vs. high wing.

 

[Frmr Avro Drvr]

We rent the Alarus for $78 an hour. I'll bet it is far better equipped and much newer than your 152 as well.

http://www.newplane.com/amd_files/Alarus-2005-13Ss.jpg

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.

 

[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