Fozzer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2007 at 7:10am:


Overall, I don't think there's much difference, because the pros and cons of each pretty much cancel each other out. I flew a Tomahawk on my first "discovery flight" but the school I ended up at only had Cessnas (they did get a Cherokee eventually, but I didn't want to waste training time getting used to a new type)... and I won't say I fall into either camp, really.
But:

The visibility thing with high-wings is not an issue if you lift a wing briefly before maneuvering, or in the case of turning in the pattern, have a good look before you turn, and have a rough idea what your compass heading should be when you finish the turn- it could be argued that Cessnas force new pilots to get into the habit of noting headings at all times, which can save your bacon in a marginal-VFR situation.
And although the Tomahawk has superb overhead visibility, not all low-wings do: Cherokees, for example, have a pretty substantial roof, and on my few Cherokee flights I didn't feel I had more to see directly overhead than in a Cessna. And I don't like not being able to look "over the side" for landmarks or even just sightseeing, although Piper drivers learn to compensate for this just as Cessna drivers compensate when turning.

So what else is there? Oh yes, the fuel system. High-wings have simple gravity-feed systems, as reliable as gravity itself,but one is required to climb up on the wing to check the fuel quantity or fill the tanks. Annoying.

Low-wings are easier to check and fill, but sumping the tanks and checking the landing gear and aileron hinge pins requires you to pretty much crawl on the ground, no fun in rain or snow... and if the fuel pump sh*ts the bed in flight, the fan will stop.

Low-wing Pipers have manual flaps, though- no motors to fail there. Smart. But any competent pilot can land a Cessna anywhere without flaps, if necessary... or even continue flying safely if the flaps fail to retract. And although it's terrific to have flaps available if one has lost electrical power, I guess a manual system could jam or whatever, even though that's less likely than electrical failure.

Speaking of rain and snow, Cessnas provide a nice roof overhead when getting in or out, providing some protection from sun or precipitation, for occupants and the interior of the plane.
  With a low-wing, when the door is open, the rain can get inside the cabin... and pilot and pax have to put on/take off their coats or whatever while fully exposed to the elements.
Some Cessnas even have a nice "courtesy light" under the wing, very handy on a dark ramp.

But these are minor points (excepty maybe the fuel-feed thing), so let's talk handling:

I don't feel the "pendulum effect" is very pronounced in Cessnas- technically they behave differently from low-wing types when turning, etc. but I consider that a non-factor. Cherokees and Tomahawks make fine trainers- their relative "instability" hasn't been a problem for most students, apparently. Pilots who cut their teeth in low-wing Pipers tend to remain loyal fans of that type.

Landing, however, is another story: a low-wing with a low stance (short gear legs) like a Cherokee is somewhat easier to land than a Cessna... but on the other hand, with a low-wing, the chances of scraping a wingtip are increased when trying to land in a gusty crosswind situation...


I guess I lean towards high-wings for reasons other than "it's what I'm used to", but I'm sure Piper, Diamond, and Cirrus fans could think of a few compelling counter-arguments.

But  the debate will rage on, because Cessna is sticking with high wings, as seen on its next-generation 4-seater and Light Sport Aircraft designs.

Fozzer wrote on Jan 18^th, 2007 at 7:10am:


Low wing. Most air to air incidents I've heard about in GA have involve a high wing aircraft (Cessna) in a turning manouvre, where visibility really matters. You can clear an area beneath you quite easily by lowering a wing - more difficult to thoroughly clear an area in a turn in a high wing. This is particularly pertinent in the circuit, when really you shouldn't need to worry about anything underneath (traffic taking off/landing would be seen as they would be laterally displaced as you'll be flying on the deadside, and visability laterally and in the turn is important for keeping situational awareness on the exact location of all the other aircraft in the pattern.

beaky wrote on Jan 18^th, 2007 at 11:53am:


Indeed, however these should also be irrelevant in this argument as they should be applied at all time anyway regardless, or the pilot shouldn't be licenced. 

Creeping steadily off-topic here, but here's more of interest on airplane parachutes. The Cirrus system is called CAPS, and it's been deployed 11 times so far (from Wikipedia; there are NTSB report details for some incidents listed there):


#1 October 2002, Texas: detached aileron
#2 April 2003, British Columbia: loss of control in turbulence (aircraft C-GEMC), 4 uninjured
#3 April 2004, Florida: instrument failure in IFR conditions, 1 uninjured
#4 September 2004, California: loss of control in high-altitude climb above clouds, 2 uninjured
#5 January 2005, California: parachute deployed above design limits, pilot fatality (unknown if intentionally activated)
#6 June 2005, New York: pilot incapacitated from undiagnosed brain tumor, 1 injured
#7 January 2006, Alabama: loss of control after pilot flew into icing, 3 uninjured
#8 February 2006, South Dakota: pilot reported disorientation, 2 uninjured
#9 August 2006, Indiana: parachute deployed three miles from departure end of runway, aircraft landed in retention pond, parachute was deployed by a passenger because the pilot had fainted, pilot fatality, 3 passengers injured
#10 September 2006, Jamaica: pilot activated parachute under unknown circumstances, 4 uninjured
#11 September 2006, Colorado: Plane destroyed with 2 fatalities after reports of icing problems at 14,000 feet. A preliminary report from the NTSB contains the sentence "A witness in the area observed a portion of the fuselage being drug by the deployed aircraft recovery parachute.

Okay... out of these eleven, I'd class four as pilot error (weather or simple loss of control), four as the kind of save the system was made for (sudden medical problems, instrument or structural failure), and three as unknowns (which probably means pilot error, although who knows?)

So... it's about 50-50 so far. Not exactly a home run for my argument of good sense vs. built-in safety, but it doesn't defeat it, either.

It should be noted that in two of these cases (#5 and #11), the chute didn't do much good at all (both of these cases probably were due to pilot error, either due to flight into ice and/or total loss of control), and in one case (#9), one of the occupants died, although it was probably because he was unconscious and couldn't brace himself.

#9 is a great example of how planning and common sense really make the most of built-in safety: the pax who pulled the handle had obviously been briefed on what it was for before the flight; excellent choice by the pilot or whoever it was.

Brett_Henderson wrote on Jan 18^th, 2007 at 1:42pm:



Ahh, the joys of military circuits. If everybody joins in a standard place (unless specifically requested, ie, for a PFL) it makes it so much easier . People also forget that often you best aid to your eyes when joining the circuit is your radio - listen-out being as important as lookout - that way when you join the circuit you can know exactly where each other aircraft is. And of course you can't beat an aeroplane with a nice low wing and big bubble canopy, but then again, one may just be slightly biased...

As for CAPS - where pilot in capacitation is involved, I'm all for it, as long as the Pax are briefed thoroughly on its use and limitations. Same for structural failure - there's nowt else one can do to be fair.

Loss of control in IMC - Unusual positions? I'd expect the pilot to at least try and recover the UP - as I assume he ought to know how otherwise why was he IMC? If not recovered by whatever the minimum safe altitude for deploying of CAPS is, then fair play.

Loss of control outside of IMC - I hope again that the pilot, as part of any conversion, would know how to regain control, or even better, not put the aircraft in a situation where he/she would lose control in the first place.

Engine failure - I think I'd like to be in command of where I put the aircraft down, and of course the eventual landing, unless of course there was no suitable landing area.

Brett_Henderson wrote on Jan 18^th, 2007 at 2:28pm:



Military circuits, Upwind and downwind legs, but a nice 180degree turn at each end rather then four 90s... Much easier to find everyone, and generally everyone joins in the same place, unless specifically requesting a base leg/downwind join if traffic permits...

beaky wrote on Jan 18^th, 2007 at 3:04pm:


I'm used to them - the last time I flew a square pattern has to be some time ago (2-3 years!). It's nice as generally everyone joins through "initials" - a point about 3-4 miles on the extended centreline of the runway in use, to then join on the deadside or do a nice run in and break (more fun - but you have to know exactly were everyone is, but useful in that you can squeeze in in front of people who are already in the circuit if they are further upwind or turning at the upwind end).

For some flights we do base leg joins, turning for what in civilian terms would be quite short finals as we can keep the speed up and slow down to approach speed at the last minute just so we can get more out of the trip, or to squeeze in infront of heavier traffic. In any case, the pertinent thing with thatjoin is to do it so you don't screw up the spacing of anyone on the downwind leg...