High wing vs low wing in the sun - is it really a big deal?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Brisbane
Age: 47
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High wing vs low wing in the sun - is it really a big deal?
Lots - I would think easily most - of the LSA and homebuilt aircraft have low-set wings and big bubble canopies. I don't like the thought of sitting under a big perspex bubble in the Australian sun but I've only ever flown the Skyhawk, which really isn't that comfortable on a hot day anyway.
Is a low wing really much worse?
What are the experiences of those who have flown both these types of aircraft?
Is a low wing really much worse?
What are the experiences of those who have flown both these types of aircraft?
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've flown quite a few different high and low wing aircraft over the years, including the usual Cessna and Piper singles. My current aircraft is a low-wing Tecnam P2002JF, which has a bubble canopy (but with better roll protection than most of today's offerings). There is a noticeably higher UV dose than when flying a C172 etc. and I never fly in the summer months without sunscreen on my face. I do have some suction sunshades of a type similar to those I used in a Grumman many years ago but I love the view so much that I don't like using them! I certainly didn't have to be as careful slopping on the sunscreen when I owned a Cessna, but the view wasn't nearly as good, either. I fly mainly for fun these days and I love the bubble canopy. But there's no doubt a high wing is very practical in keeping out some sun (and the rain when you're loading and unloading), and I might go in that direction for a charter or similar operation. By the way, when actually aloft, with the vents blasting air through the cabin, I don't think there's a huge temperature difference but you do need to watch that UV.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've actually got three things going on here.......
High Wing
Low Wing
Bubble Canopy.
High Wing Vs Low wing i.e cessna vs piper, i say pffft. not a real difference, as you still have a roof over your head. It's not an issue until you get into some of the twins, even the 337, which have large front screens that let a serious amount of light in...these types can almost be treated as bubble canopies.
I've done the red centre in all 3 types, and didn't notice a difference between the 172 or archer in terms of comfort/hydration/sunburn. The travel air trip i certainly consumed more water and was more readily reaching for the sunscreen.
Bubble canopies...........ouch! spent my youth in gliders, did my minimum 5 hours for the Silver C in a glider equipped with a tinted canopy. Water use over the 6.5 hour flight was just over 14 litres....and I was pretty fit back then. A terry-towelling hat was mandatory equipment.
Take from that what you will.
Cheers
Jas
High Wing
Low Wing
Bubble Canopy.
High Wing Vs Low wing i.e cessna vs piper, i say pffft. not a real difference, as you still have a roof over your head. It's not an issue until you get into some of the twins, even the 337, which have large front screens that let a serious amount of light in...these types can almost be treated as bubble canopies.
I've done the red centre in all 3 types, and didn't notice a difference between the 172 or archer in terms of comfort/hydration/sunburn. The travel air trip i certainly consumed more water and was more readily reaching for the sunscreen.
Bubble canopies...........ouch! spent my youth in gliders, did my minimum 5 hours for the Silver C in a glider equipped with a tinted canopy. Water use over the 6.5 hour flight was just over 14 litres....and I was pretty fit back then. A terry-towelling hat was mandatory equipment.
Take from that what you will.
Cheers
Jas
Having recently flown the Texan Club LSA -a delightful little aircraft - I must say the huge bubble canopy gives a green house effect and must surely cause heat exhaustion as well as the well known worry of potential for skin cancer. I am surprised that some sort of overhead internal sliding canvas cover is not supplied to minimise these problems.
Ventilation is more important.
172s have those good ram air vents in the supports each side of the windshield. Whoever thought they weren't necessary in a 210, I will take great delight in hanging, drawing and quartering them.
Slowly.
Very slowly.
172s have those good ram air vents in the supports each side of the windshield. Whoever thought they weren't necessary in a 210, I will take great delight in hanging, drawing and quartering them.
Slowly.
Very slowly.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compressor Stall
We put up with the high cabin heat in our C210 for years. Then one day Mrs RA in her wisdom just after TO opened the window to chase out a pesky fly--as you do
The noise was terrific and there was a little extra washing that night .Recovering from the WTF moment we realised how much cooler the cabin had become. That night (waiting for the washing to finish ) I looked up the flight manual and discovered there was no speed restriction on flying with the window open. Now our SOP is windows open until start of TO roll then about 500ft open as required to dump the built up hot air.Normally only about 10 seconds is required. The naturally cooler air as you climb then takes over. By removing that initial cabin full of hot air the cooling process is much quicker. Cheers RA
PS High wings for sun protection (especially tracking N or S ) ,for loading in sun or rain, for cabin integrity in a rollover, for ingress and egress ,for sightseeing , for taxiing past low trees fence posts etc
Low wings for fueling,for washing, for keeping the runway in sight during a turn.
We put up with the high cabin heat in our C210 for years. Then one day Mrs RA in her wisdom just after TO opened the window to chase out a pesky fly--as you do
The noise was terrific and there was a little extra washing that night .Recovering from the WTF moment we realised how much cooler the cabin had become. That night (waiting for the washing to finish ) I looked up the flight manual and discovered there was no speed restriction on flying with the window open. Now our SOP is windows open until start of TO roll then about 500ft open as required to dump the built up hot air.Normally only about 10 seconds is required. The naturally cooler air as you climb then takes over. By removing that initial cabin full of hot air the cooling process is much quicker. Cheers RA
PS High wings for sun protection (especially tracking N or S ) ,for loading in sun or rain, for cabin integrity in a rollover, for ingress and egress ,for sightseeing , for taxiing past low trees fence posts etc
Low wings for fueling,for washing, for keeping the runway in sight during a turn.
Rutan....
Yes, spent many hours with the window open. Not good with pax tho.
The exception, however, was one century heat humid January day from Halls Creek to the old Kiwikurra with five 'locals' who'd been causing trouble and had been in a police divvy van most of the mornin. They were ripe. Even the copper commented on the stench as he handed them over for boarding.
Yes, spent many hours with the window open. Not good with pax tho.
The exception, however, was one century heat humid January day from Halls Creek to the old Kiwikurra with five 'locals' who'd been causing trouble and had been in a police divvy van most of the mornin. They were ripe. Even the copper commented on the stench as he handed them over for boarding.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, but any truth in saying that low wing light aircraft are easier to land smoothly due to ground effect, compared with high wing aircraft? Or is that just an old wives tale? About 20% of my piston time is on the PA44 - don't recall doing anything other than greasers with the PA44 ...
Seasonally Adjusted
Somebody mentioned the C337 earlier...
To a certain extent, they offer the best of both worlds...the wing is set back about a foot from the cockpit, so the runway is still visible during a turn.
And you still have all the other benefits of high wing...ground clearance in the bush, shelter when loading etc.
Stallie....I conveyed a ripe, recently departed, out of Tjukurla in a 210 many moons ago. There was no where to hide, and opening the windows just made it worse!!
To a certain extent, they offer the best of both worlds...the wing is set back about a foot from the cockpit, so the runway is still visible during a turn.
And you still have all the other benefits of high wing...ground clearance in the bush, shelter when loading etc.
Stallie....I conveyed a ripe, recently departed, out of Tjukurla in a 210 many moons ago. There was no where to hide, and opening the windows just made it worse!!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking about open windows reminds me that I could have added that the P2002 can be flown with the canopy open, subject to some obvious limitations. Not terribly practical for many operations but good Sunday afternoon fun!
Last edited by tecman; 25th Apr 2013 at 01:31.
Returning to the thread a little - maybe we should refer our poster to one of the plethora of sunglass threads?
Seriously, sunblock, sunglasses and go flying. Low wing, high wing, biplane, choppers, gliders. They are all fun.
Seriously, sunblock, sunglasses and go flying. Low wing, high wing, biplane, choppers, gliders. They are all fun.
Last edited by Old Akro; 25th Apr 2013 at 01:53.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: wheelyubarrabackcreek
Age: 55
Posts: 36
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
High wing verses low wing.
"I've done the red centre in all 3 types, and didn't notice a difference between the 172 or archer in terms of comfort/hydration/sunburn."
With respect,Low wing singles might be OK in the temperate regions of Australia,however from your post I don't think you have much experience in the NT,FNQ or The Kimberley.
Single engine Cessna's outnumber low wing singles by a huge margin, the shade from the wing and the ability to open the windows during ground ops in 80% humidity at 35°C is priceless.
With respect,Low wing singles might be OK in the temperate regions of Australia,however from your post I don't think you have much experience in the NT,FNQ or The Kimberley.
Single engine Cessna's outnumber low wing singles by a huge margin, the shade from the wing and the ability to open the windows during ground ops in 80% humidity at 35°C is priceless.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Cooma
Age: 48
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 210 airventing problem can be easily fixed by removing the air duct from the air box in front of your feet, and cable tying it in so it points straight at you. 160kts of air straight from outside.....not so good if a bee comes in but ill take the risk. And we got an EO to modify the rear door with an air vent to let the air out down the back. Makes it much more pleasant.
The airvan is a prick of a thing, the wing being behind you doesnt help but the air ventilation is atrocious.
The PAC750XL has even worse ventilation....but when you get the aircon option it turns from a cockpit of misery to a dream to fly.
The airvan is a prick of a thing, the wing being behind you doesnt help but the air ventilation is atrocious.
The PAC750XL has even worse ventilation....but when you get the aircon option it turns from a cockpit of misery to a dream to fly.
