The REAL reason to choose high vs. low wing...

[Jack Tyler]

...is what?

 

This is such a fundamental question...and yet most of us seem to start from the perspective that one or the other choice is, for us at least, preferred. Most contributors here seem to have that same initial preference that I see expressed on other aviation forums...or for that matter, on sailing forums where most folks start with the 'given' that a monohull or a multi-hull is simply the preferred hull form for them.

 

But with such a distinct difference - low-wing to high-wing - surely there must be some fundamental and functional reasons for preferring one over the other, no? And by this, I don't mean the typical attributes or 'benefits' that are usually called out by those who already have an inherent preference, as e.g. when someone mentions the ease of fueling the low-wing or the ease of fuel sampling for the high-wing. For specialty uses, I can imagine wing placement being preferred - e.g. preferring a door-removable high-wing for some types of in-air photo work. But for the generic cross-country + currency flying that most of us do, what's to say one wing style is functionally better than the other?

 

Most of my early flying was done in the (for the USA, anyway) traditional GA training high-wing aircraft - C-150's and C-172's. When we moved to a family airplane and 3 pilots started expressing their preferences, the choice was driven in large part by wanting a more responsive plane than the Pipers & Cessnas (and a few other GA brands) offered, which is how we came to own a Grumman American AA-5. And because the flying was taking place predominantly in hot, humid Florida, the sliding canopy (which could be opened in flight as well as while taxiing) was seen as a highly desirable feature. We couldn't find these traits in a high-wing...but these attributes relate to our personal preferences, not to some fundamental structural or design benefit of one wing choice over the other.

 

It seems to me this is a good time to pose this question once again, as we stand at the front end of re-entering general aviation. Are there simply no basic, functional differentiators between the two wing designs? Is it essentially a matter of personal preference, which has always been my impression. Or am I missing something fundamental about the consequences of how the wing is hung onto the cabin structure & fuselage, at least for the smaller planes that are mostly discussed here?

 

BTW I'd welcome a referral to any threads which already tackled this topic. The search function didn't bring me anything definitive...but perhaps I missed it.

 

Jack

 

 

[John Nooyen]

Hi Jack.

 

Most of the choice is personal preference, although high-wing is a little more stable, due the Center of gravity being below the venter of lift.

 

High wing is much cooler in QLD. than a bubble canopy sauna.

 

High wing, also gives you somewhere to sit in the shade at Fly-ins, and keeps the showers off.

 

You are also less likely to hit low obstructions during an out-landing, such as stumps and fence posts.

 

High wing is less affected by ground effect, so you won't float down the strip on landing.

 

My personal choice "High Wing"

 

John N.

 

 

[Jack Tyler]

Yup, no doubt about it: Once one has a preference, any one can list the attributes of that preference to explain it. (I'm from a land of thunderstorms and rain showers; the low wing beats the high wing as a camping shelter (less driving rain)...so some traits can be ascribed to both wing forms!)

 

But my question is more fundamental. By virtue of the wing choice itself, is the designer given a wider range of decisions or is the builder enabled by that choice to do something significantly different and better?

 

Jack

 

 

[Guest burbles1]

Does the choice of high-wing vs low-wing come down to whether one design is preferred because of better aileron control at low speeds - that there is more authority in the ailerons when landing? I think it comes down to more a multitude of factors in wing design - dihedral, wing area, sweepback, winglets, length of ailerons, etc. and not just "high vs low-wing".

 

 

[HEON]

As I fly a bi plane, do I have the best of both worlds?

 

 

[GregF]

This is an interesting read:

 

High wing, low wing

 

HEON, according to this I'd say you have the 'Worst" of both worlds.

 

Cheers

 

Greg

 

 

[Deskpilot]

Another 'argument' often put forward is that of being able to see that airfield when in circuit. In this case, a high wing wins out, but, if you don't know where the field is, perhaps you shouldn't be flying ;-)

 

Personally, I like the way birds have developed so the wing is mid-to-high, with the pilot well forward of it. The best of all worlds?

 

 

[Tomo]

I fly both types on a reasonably regular basis - It does cross my mind when landing a low wing.... if I stuff this up and end up up-side-down, I could end up with a sore head, and an interesting exit!

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

For me, as a light fair skinned person I have noted in Australia that flyins that tend to be national in stature, and as such have people travelling for hours to get to them, tend to have 2 types of arrivals those coming in high wing who just look tired and glad to be there and those that arrive in low wing where in addition to being tired and glad to be there they also have that "Im sun cooked and not sure if I should book myself into the emergency room" look. I realise that is a generalisation and there are many examples of people with painted canopy tops etc...but in those cases many of the percieved benefits of a low wing to me seem to be lost. Heon, in your case you do have a high wing.....shame it doesnt protect you from the sun though, however in the case of rollover as Tomo mentioned it does look like it would prevent your scalp becoming a sacrifical rub plate

 

Andy

 

 

[HEON]

Thanks GregF...of course I must not agree...a glass half full or half empty situation.

 

As for statements regarding the sun one should not be completely general in comments. I also own and fly a highwing (Drifter) which all would admit has zero sun protection for the pilot. In addition I also own and fly a lowwing (Lightwing Speed) which has a roof excluding the sun from my increasingly sparse head coverage.

 

As for Tomo's comments I also am concerned on the roll over protection of formed plastic without crash protection. I personally will not own one due to this (and a wife who thinks I have three too many aircraft now!)

 

Andys@coffs comment regarding the Petrel's sun protection is not completely accurate either as the upper wing actually extends forward over your head thus the sun rearly only hits the head when flying into it (at a distance of course!). As the engine mount is in the upper wing support(=strong) roll over protection should be good...although a demo aircraft I am trying (very hard) NOT to demo this.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

I looked around for an aircraft for my personal needs. Originally I settled on a 230 kit due to price, performance and fuel loading.

 

I have since purchased a factory 230 for the same reasons.

 

The fact that it is a high wing never came into consideration except for what I think is a better looking craft. Some remind me of WW11 fighters.

 

Summing up. I wouldnt mind owning one but it would not suit my needs as there is a lot of space between fuel stops where I can explore with space for luggage.

 

I recently did a couple trips (tagalong) to Cape York and Kimberly etc and the fuel stop divertions by two of the low wing planes whilst OK were I think a pain for the pilots.

 

So its not just High V's Low. Depends what you need.

 

Phil.

 

 

[Bandit12]

How much is it either an attachment to what we originally trained in, and perhaps even earlier dreams? I chose to start in Tomahawks and Warriors, and only flew the 152 and 172 later. I did feel that the high wings were a little easier to land, and having a little more sun off my head was a nice thing too. However....I chose low wing because I grew up on stories of WW2 aircraft, and one might suggest that a low wing looks a touch more like a fighter than a high wing.

 

Taking that a step further, I adore biplanes, and have a little time in a Pitts and a joyflight in a Tiger Moth. As a youngster, I read a lot of Biggles books, so to me, a biplane was the real dream (more so than the Spitfires etc of WW2). I would agree that the bipe can have the worst of both worlds, but to me it is worth it. That's why I have a set of plans for a bipe waiting for the time and space to come available.

 

 

[Derby]

Hi I read somewhere, that a high wing is more efficient than a low wing and a low wing is more efficient than a mid wing.

 

Rory

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

....As the engine mount is in the upper wing support(=strong) roll over protection should be good...although a demo aircraft I am trying (very hard) NOT to demo this.

Heon

 

Not as hungry for sales as some would be, surely a roll over demo is just the thing you need to sell more of an amphibious plane... of course mr QBE might of course see it more your way than mine :big_grin:

 

Now that you point it out I can see that the wing does provide some shading...I gues in addition to thinking hemispherical levels for east and west you now have to think go west in the morning and east in the arvo....

 

On a more serious note I noticed in a newsletter for the lightning aircraft (and by association esqual) that was referenced on these forums a few days ago that someone had an issue, and apparently its a not uncommon issue, where the panel was smoking, close to ignition, due magnifying lens affect of the open canopy. Apparently not an issue when closed. Exactly why it isnt an issue is beyond me, other than focal length is beyond anythings distance when closed...but that doesnt change the fact that the light intensity per square whatever must be greater than without the convex canopy.... Something a highwing generally doesnt need to worry about.... As if there arent enough things to screw you in an aeroplane without needing to feel like the ant under the magnifying lens.... Not saying all low wings suffer from that issue but worth considering.....

 

Andy

 

 

[Tomo]

Good point Andy, I was taught to always leave the canopy down for that reason on (aircraft with canopies, obviously!)

 

Something to do with the angle of it, doesn't seem to effect it when down, as apposed to up.

 

 

[frank marriott]

I think Bandit has hit the nail on the head with - what you learn to fly in. Talking to many pilots, all of whom by now having flown multiple types of GA and some RAA aircraft, they all tend to lean towards the type the originally learnt in [myself included - I own a Jab 230 for many other reasons but prefer the handling of a low wing aircraft].

 

Frank

 

 

[farri]

High Wing Versus Low Wing.

 

Anyone who is realy interested in this question, go have a look at this.

 

High wing, low wing

 

Frank.

 

 

[Galpin]

I really think Jack is looking for something more fundamental than sunshine, rain etc. I found his questions excellent, but sadly I cannot answer them. I too would like to hear something of substance from those in the know.

 

 

[farri]

I really think Jack is looking for something more fundamental than sunshine, rain etc. I found his questions excellent, but sadly I cannot answer them.

 

Ok,fair enough,I may not have found the best explaination to why a designer would choose their design and I don`t have an answer to Jacks question either but there are many versions of high wing and low wing AC,all designed with a purpose in mind,therefore, in my opinion we would need to focus on the particular AC to understand why it was designed that way.

 

Frank.

[dazza 38]

I am not to fussy i fly both. As mentioned in previous posts.Up here in sunny QLD.Shade from a high wing is a plus. On the minus side.Harder the refuel a high winger. Both have there advantages and disadvantages.

 

 

[Yenn]

The high wing is good for general load hauling and its main drawback is higher drag than low wing. If you aren't trying to get max speed the high wing gives you a strong wing and easier loading, as well as the sun shade. It is easier to get a strong wing using a strut in tension as per high wing, rather than a strut in compression as per most strut braced low wing planes. In the case of a forced landing I would prefer to have a low wing with that spar between me and the ground. Todays news showed a wheels up landing on King Island in a low wing, it could have been horibly different in high wing, although the the pilot could esily see the wheels on a high wing. Maybe that is the biggest difference.

 

 

[Steve Donald]

hiya guy's i have owned both currently fly high wing, i find the high wing the only choice in the heat and if you go bush a lot, High wings taxi through farm Gates easy, very important feature, low wings just go crunch and block the gate , underwing shade and camping much better, but like everything pros and cons for both, but in the bush in summer cant beat a high wing in my opinion.

 

 

[Jack Tyler]

Well, so far I think we can all see that the appeal of one wing design vs. the other tends to be related solely to personal preferences. And there's nothing wrong with that, altho' I am interested in understanding if there aren't some more fundamental considerations when a designer and/or builder chooses a given wing design which will need to later be built with affordability and marketed and sold to the pilot population.

 

I'm trying to position this Q as it relates to LSA-type aircraft, as that's where the newer and more varied design efforts lie, where the builder has more freedom in the construction of the aircraft, and where my current interest lies. And that aircraft category mitigates some of the functional reasons given earlier in this thread. To illustrate:

 

-- Old view: High wings have less visibilty but better sun protection. New view: Some high wings have better visibility than some low wings, and some high wings (the current version of the Kitfox is an example) have virtually no sun protection and excellent viz in all 3 dimensions.

 

-- Old view: High wings have a stronger wing structure because of the strut, but also more drag because of the strut. New view: Some high wings rely on a cantilevered wing design with no strut.

 

Re: the 'best fits my mission' rationale, as I look at the current crop of LSA models it strikes me that the most common mission - a mix of cross country plus local currency flying - can be accomplished in multiple models of either design. And let's remember, the two LSA models that recently flew successfully around the world were (wait for it...) a high wing with a Swiss crew and a low wing with a SA crew.

 

I'm hoping to attend the Sebring Expo in January - anyone else here attending? - where ~50 LSA-certified models supposedly will be on display. Most will probably be exhibited by distributors, who are likely not to have been involved back at the decision making stage where the design was chosen, but others may be represented in part by their designers and builders. I'm looking forward to hearing them respond to this question, assuming I can pry them off their 'my wing design is better because...' pitch.

 

BTW for you Aussies here, has there been any traction in your marketplace for the Sling model? Some folks I know well (including a pilot who's done a record-setting Circle in her Mooney and is planning another Circle via pole and pole, and also a NASA engineer who's building a Highlander) had a chance to look at the Sling and were very impressed by it. That was at Oshkosh 1.5 years ago, as it was on its way around the globe. The Sling builders have just chosen their USA distributor so its presence in this marketplace is zero so far...but what about down in Oz?

 

Thanks for the contributions, so far. An interesting discussion, even if we haven't cracked it yet... <s>

 

Jack

 

 

[Spin]

Jack, I reckon you're coming at this from the wrong angle - there is nothing very rational about aircraft ownership for the majority of people, it is emotionally driven and I suspect that the decision making process re configuration is no different (tongue lodged firmly in cheek)

 

As to the Sling, I've been keeping a close eye on developments - seems to me the manufacturers are being quite conservative in their marketing, for example they are being quite choosy about overseas agents which will probably serve them well in the long run. If they can deliver on pricing and performance I think they have a winner. Back to the emotion thing again - the D6 Sling "just looks right" imo.

 

Cheers Carl

 

Photo from Oshkosh during the round the world flight

 

 

 

[Jack Tyler]

Thanks for that, Carl...and I agree re: your observation about the Sling. I was very impressed by their choice to immediately begin extensive and unmandated testing of production unit #1 right after it finished flying around the world, when they could instead have leaped into production mode while their publicity was fresh. And I *very* much agree with your other observation about the Sling: it really does look 'just right'. Unlike some low-wings with their bubble canopies that remind me of the Sunday comics. (Oops, I didn't say that out loud, did I?)

 

Re: my initial Q (and despite its overly rational nature): I'm not asking why people choose the planes they do. My Q is about what significant design feature(s) distinguish one from the other, either for the builder or the pilot. This of course could be just one big snipe hunt (aka: fruitless search) and there is no significant functional difference. Just doesn't strike me as a logical conclusion to draw, however, given how distinctly different one is from the other.

 

Do CFI's in Oz make their students wear hats when in the cockpit, just like in the other schools? Just wondering...

 

Jack