Am I a Low-Wing Snob?

[In Altissimus]

Just casting around for opinion, so no flames about spam-cans please!

I've been offered a place in a 172 syndicate, it's well maintained, well equipped, good value, close to home, and I know someone already in the group who is very happy with it.

It's just that...

...after my intial 30-odd hours in a 152, moving to an Archer seemed a great step forward (OK, I have regressed to a Warrior of late) and some things seemed a lot easier/safer with a low-wing; cross-wind landings, and, err, well landings in general really:rolleyes:

Is that all in my imagination? Should I just go for it? (Paying the club £££'s for a clapped-out Warrior is beginning to lose its appeal.)

[FlyingForFun]

With a whole 2 hours on Cessnas, and none at all on Archers, I can't really compare the two. But as for high-wing vs low-wing, and their relative safety, it all depends on what you're used to.

The Super Cub has far lower cross-wind limits (both demonstrated and practical) than the Warrior. But by the end of a period of a couple of months during which I'd flown it almost every day, from an airfield with only one runway (well, two actually, but they were parallel so that didn't help cross-wind ops) I was far more capable of landing it in a cross-wind than I've ever been in the Warrior, which I've rarely flown more than once a week, and usually fly from an airfield with 3 different runways to choose from.

If a 172 is the right type of aircraft, then go for it! (BlokeInA172 doesn't have quite the same ring to it though....)

FFF
--------------

[Chilli Monster]

I did the opposite. Went from renting a 172 for most of my landaway type flying to buying a share in a Warrior. I still like the 172 though.

As FFF says in his post - if it's going to be suitable for the sort of flying you want to do and it's as nice as you say then do it. Nothing beats the flexibility of having a share in your own aircraft and even though the 172 is 5-10kts slower than the PA28 it has its pluses too. A demonstrated x-wind limit of 18kts verses 17kts (not much - but hey, it's better) and an incredibly slow approach and landing speed. If you want to get in and out of short interesting strips and airfields that's the aircraft to have. If it's got the long range tanks fitted too you'll find the only limitation you have is your bladder - not the aircraft.

If it's that verses a tatty rental whenever it's available, with the subsequent limitations on how often you can take it away then go for the share - and enjoy your touring :) (You'll get a lot more distance for your money too don't forget ;))

[AerBabe]

It depends very much on which aircraft too... I did 99% of my PPL in a C152 and then got checked out on the club Cherokee. I wasn't too impressed with that and still preferred the Cessna. However, the chippy is great to fly and handles really well.

It sounds like you've found a good group to join so I would make the most of it. If you find you really don't like it, sell up and move on.

[foghorn]

I did my PPL and first 100 hours in low wing types.

However I did the simple bit of my CPL course in a 172, and have over the years also flown 152s and 172RGs.

However I still have something against high wing types. Now I'll admit I don't like the 152 for reasons of cabin space (I'm a big chap), but I've got no real reason for disliking the others, apart from irrational anti-high-wing prejudice. Moreover the 172RG was a really lovely aircraft to fly, but I'd still choose a low wing type any day.

Strange how one can get set in one's ways, isn't it?

cheers!
foggy.

[bluskis]

Are you going to fly across water? High wing planes are not too good for water landings.

[Kingy]

FFF

Don't agree about the X wind limit in a Cub... I've done 18-20kts quite happily as long as it's not too gusty. I must admit you've got to be right 'on it' though ;)

As for my contribution to this debate... not having flown either I'm gonna be trite and say.. High wing, low wing? Have both - buy a biplane! :D :D

Kingy

[Tall_guy_in_a_152]

There is more to this than just the position of the wing.

I trained in a C-152 and now rent either a 152 or Archer II depending on the number (and size) of my pax. I have also spent a couple of hours in the right hand seat of a C-172.

One of my greatest pleasures from flying is watching the world go by beneath me so high-wing is definitely preferable for that.

However, on longer flights the comfort of an Archer far exceeds
either of the high-wings under discussion here. Admittedly, at 6ft4 and a bit, my requirements for comfort may be slightly different from the norm.

If you have made the decision to join a syndicate with a touring a/c and the opportunity that you describe has arisen then, personally, I would jump at the chance.

[WorkingHard]

It is a question that has perplexed many, myself included. so, I sought advice from a wise old sage who said " If it rains you dont get wet under the wing of a Cessna getting in and out." I suggested this was a poor reason for a choice and duly met with the response " And when did you last see a low wing bird flying?"

[Genghis the Engineer]

I confess I prefer low-wing....

Except when washing it, or trying to get into a short field.


At the end of the day, the PA28 and C172 are both perfectly good aeroplanes, depends what you want out of your flying.

G

[High Wing Drifter]

I'm with Tall_Guy. What's the point if you can't see the ground?

:p

[rustle]

I'm not :p

What's the point if you cannot see what you are turning "into".

(Not turning into, but turning "towards" if you see what I mean)

I've always found the turning "blind-spot" in a high wing much worse that in a low wing, but maybe that's just me :O

[carb]

I've flown 152s and latterly PA-28s and the main difference I noticed was not the wing position (other than cosmetically) or cabin room (ergonomic) or fuel system (procedural) but the handling responsiveness -- the Warrier still feels, to me, like flying a 747 without hydaulics, whereas I can rotate a 152 with my fingertip!

So what I want to know is, does the 172 handle like the 152 or is it a flying bathtub more like the PA-28s?

By the way, those who think PA-28s are easier to land, generally yes, but, I'm ashamed to report, not necessarily: recently, 30 days since last flying, I managed to make one do a slightly dodgy landing resulting in a highly irregular roll-out -- nothing is 100% fool-proof!

[LowNSlow]

BlokeInAnArcher I did my PPL on a mixture of ARV, C152, AA5-A, C150, C172 and generally preferred the greater all around visibility of the ARV and the AA5-A.

Post PPL my flying has been predominantly in high wing types, Aerobat, Cub and Auster, all of which have had windows in the roof. I've rented Warriors a few times and was amazed at how Piper managed to restrict vision with the junior ATPL glareshield and the low topped side windows. I also found the seats less comforatable than the C172 (I'm 6'and "chunky"). Personally, I found the 172 more pleasant to fly and as long as you remember to lift the wing you are going to turn towards, the visibility is superior to the PA-28 (especially the earlier 172's). Also the 172 doesn't float like a PA-28 and finally you don't get that horrible tin can BOIIING noise from a slightly "firm" landing, not that I've ever done it of course) :D :D

blueskis the cabin of a 172 may be under water when the wings are on the surface but at least you have two wide doors to get out of. Never fancied getting out of the single door of a PA-28 in an emergency :(


I'd take a good C172 over a Warrior anyday but my real favourite fixed gear single would be an AA-5A or B.

[bluskis]

Low&Slow

Good point on the doors, unfortunately not much consolation if you can't open them. Personally I prefer not to land on water regardless of where the wings are.

[Bodie]

I have to agree with some of the comments here about the PA28's handling abilities. When I went from C152-PA28 I was majorly disappointed (Especially cos I'd bought the share!) It felt like a flying tank compared to the C152. However, now I'm used to it, it's a great aircraft.

Getting in and out of the PA28 is no where as easy as the C172. The whole "one door out to the wing" bit can be annoying. You can quite happily slip in and out of a C172 from both sides, no problems. (Same can't be said for the C152!)

IMHO the PA28 is much more comfortable in the cruise, less noisy and has better performance. Also, I find the C172 quite nose heavy.

Having said that, I'd still be happy to own a C172 share.

[poetpilot]

I'm in the strange position of owning a 172 but predominantly flying an Archer ('cos the 172 is leased to a club and is booked up most of the time!).

I won't repeat most of the points made 'cos they're all good and relevant. I enjoy the variety and like to feel that I can swop types and enjoy them for their own characteristics. I've taken the Archer into small strips - it demands more care on speed control, W&B and flap use than the 172 to operate safely from strips but it's OK. The C172 flaps make spot landings a doddle though.

C172s have less ADs and don't require periodic wing spar inspections. From that aspect they are a little cheaper to operate privately, so I'd say if the group & the a/c are good, go for it. You can always rent low wing to enjoy the Archer's virtues from time to time.

[Monocock]

After flying 300 hrs in a 172 and then selling it to buy a PA28 that I have flown 60 hrs in heres my pound of flesh...........

172 great for: Short strips, cheap maintenance, robust, roomy and gains value quicker than PA28.

172 bad for: Draggy design, not as attractive as low wings.

PA28 great for: General cruise comfort (wider but sadly shorter inside), looks great, faster.

PA28 bad for: Fiddly oleos, more AD's, rear passenger leg room.

My vote..........if it's a bomb proof lugger you want go for the 172, if it's a comfy cruiser you want go for the PA28.

[Kolibear]

I did my training in a 152, had an hour in a PA-28 and now fly a Koliber - which is a low wing. The Koliber is the best of the three, but as you've all realised by now - I'm biased!!

The 152 always felt 'trembly', as though every light gust was affecting it, whereas the PA-28 felt a lot more stable & steady. The downward view from the Cessna was better than the PA-28, but the upward view is but in the PA-28. Cessna has two doors, PA-28 on has one. (Koliber has sliding bubble canopy so scores on both points).

So its swings and roundabouts, but if you are happy with the group, the condition of the aircraft, its location and the price - go for it. I did and it was the best thing I could have done.

[FlyingForFun]

Kingy,

Not sure why you say you don't agree with me re. the Cub's limits - it sounds to me like we agree!

PA18 has a max demonstrated x-wind limit of 12kt, but a good, current pilot should be able to handle about 20kt like you say (less if it's gusty). When I was very current on PA18s, I was perfectly happy in this kind of wind.

The PA28 has a max demonstrated x-wind limit of 17kt. Because I've never had a period of really intensive flying in it, my personal limit, even when I flew it regularly, was around 17kt. But a good, current pilot may be able to handle much more - probably around 25kt.

The point that I'm trying to make is that my limits in the PA18, when I was current on it, were higher than in the PA28. This is nothing to do with the limits of the type (which are actually the other way around) but purely to do with my currency. And I suspect that the reason Bloke prefers low wings in a cross-wind is purely because he is more current in them.

FFF
---------------

[Thrifty van Rental]

This entire thread is a bit like asking whether you prefer the colour orange, or the colour pink.

They both have their good points, and you can say rude things about both of them too.

For flight into a rough strip on a routine basis, your money would probably be on the Cessna. For easy flying in busy airspace with the need for good all round visibility, your money might be on the PA28.

There are better aircraft around than either of them, and for less money too. But I guess that would be a more interesting question. ;)

[Kingy]

FFF

I'm glad we agree, you are a good man! being a bit of a .. ahem.. Cub nut, I'm always quick to dispell some of the myths the aircraft has obtained over the years - lack of X wind capacity being a big one. Hell, even the Clacton PA18 check list has max Xwind at 8KTS... 8KTS! I'd never fly if that was the real limit....:D

Yours

Kingy (..keeping that wing down at all costs:= )

[Circuit Basher]

Having spent around 30 hrs in a C172 and 80 in a PA28 (+25 in a C150 and 25 in other assorted varieties), I don't disagree with much of the previous.

My personal votes for / against PA28 and C172 are:

PA28
For
Good visibility in circuit
Low seating / High coaming
Oleo legs (to minimise bounces)
Ease of checking fuel visually
Generally a nicely engineered aircraft
Good upward visibility

Against
Poor 'ground spotting + camera ship' for passengers
A bit rough on bumpy strips
Reliance on fuel pump
Single Entry Door
Uncomfortable seat (I broke my back 13 yrs ago, so this is maybe harsh)
Lack of rear passenger legroom
(personal) I find them easy to get on the back of the drag curve

C172
For
Good for passengers who want view
Pilot sits so he can see over coaming
Good strong undercarriage for grass strips
Two door access
No reliance on fuel pump
Good room for rear passengers / baggage

Against
Older ones can be draughty!
Bit prone to post-landing relaunches!
Cessna seat rail locking stinks (personal opinion)
Can feel a bit 'tinny' and less solid than PA28.
Poor visibility in circuit / above
Bit tricky to do visual fuel checks

Having said all that, if I were buying one for myself, I'd probably opt for a C172 - it was what I flew my first 25 hrs in and I just like the feel. Passengers tend to prefer the access / view / camera ship features.

[edited shortly after posting 'coz the formatting of the bullet list looked cr@p once the vB code was translated and edited again to remove errors!]

[Monocock]

Circuit Basher

I'm intrigued to know why you are against a good upward visibility????? I find it great especially when in a tight turn or looking for a/c descending deadside etc.

[In Altissimus]

Thanks for all the considered advice guys. It certainly helped to put things into perspective... I'm going to go for it:D

Now I really will have to get a new PPRunE user-name.

[MLS-12D]

I think that you're making the right decision. I don't know what your 'mission' is, but assuming that you just want a simple aircraft that will carry 3-4 people a reasonable distance at a reasonable speed, the 172 should work out fine. Of course, if you want something fancy with retractable undercarriage, c/s prop, etc., then the 172 won't suit; but you already know that.

When buying into a syndicate, I would be concerned about the overall condition of the aircraft, its general availability, and my compatibility with the other syndicate members. It sounds as though you're okay on those points, so I vote yes.

Two things are beyond debate: (1) the 172 is relatively easy and cheap to maintain; and (2) the 172 is a definite 'name brand' and if you decide to sell your share, it should be fairly easy to find a willing buyer [let's hope that you will be happy with the 'plane and the syndicate, but it's good 'insurance'].

P.S. Here is a link that you should read: http://home.tampabay.rr.com/flyer/owner.htm

[Monocock]

MLS-12D, that was the most sensibly written article I have seen for a long time about the pro's and con's of a/c ownership.

I've owned for 8 years now and have never regretted it, and I am by no means rich!

The benefits of ownership (as mentioned in the article) are all very real and if anyone out there is wondering whether they should go for it or not just make sure you buy something "normal" such as a Piper or Cessna and I guarantee you will not lose money on it. If you show it some TLC you will actually make money, I have done on 3 a/c now.

Think of it as an investment like a house, thats the kind of appreciation you might well see if you're lucky.

[Circuit Basher]

Monocock - oops - a gremlin that crept in after a major format edit; sorry (I'll re-edit it to change it!).