Yup. Low wings look cool, but for plodder tourers are less than ideal in comparison. Take the PA-28, one door on Starboard to exit from. Try using that in a hurry!!!The AA5, one or two accounts of the canopy jamming after running off the end of the runway, trapping the occupants...I don't need to go into anymore detail.The tiddly Cessna C172. Two big doors, more room than you would expect. Easier to vacate from in a hurry, easier to load and unload. Better views. The "can't see whats on top" argument is a little unjustified. True Cessna pilots do need to lift a wing before turning but this soon becomes second nature. It took a few hours for me to stop once I transitioned to an AA5! However, in a PA-28 or AA5 top visibility is not that brilliant as the canopy or roof is opaque. Not only that but you can't get a 360 view like you can in the Cessna. When taking off in a Cessna in a crosswind It is very satisfiying to look back and see that you are still on the extended centeline...BONZA!Good airmanship counts for much regardless of the type flown.

>They each have their pros and cons. One thing you don't want>is a low wing flying above high wing. Heaven forbid what could>happen if they don't see each other. This is what happens when they don't see each other:http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC94FA075B&rpt=fiA friend of mine was the PA24 (Piper Commanche) pilot.Dan

I dunno, I'm biased, I have 1600 hours in Pipers, and have also enjoyed what few hours I have flying Cessnas. Of course my MEL was in a C-310, where the wing is on the bottom (why didn't they but the wing on top?) I really do not care about rain, just cracking my skull when I accidentally walk into the trailing edge of a high wing.So, I say: Where is the wing on the majority of light aircraft and commercial airliners, on the top or the bottom? It's on the bottom.How many of them need struts to hold up the wings?Where's the wing on a SAAB 340? Where is it on an ATR?Where is it on an turbo Commander? Where is it on a King Air?So, we can play this high/low debate game all day long, right?There's no debate; make your case and you can find a way to win.High wing has it's advantages on some designs and so does low wing. But why do all Boeing, Douglas, and Airbus commercial aircraft have the wing on the bottom? Speaking of Boeing, where is the wing on a B-52?Where is the wing on Concorde?Interesting to note that perhaps Douglas's biggest failure was the DC-5. Guess where the wing was?On top!Why does the most sucessful training aircraft in history, no, it's not the C-172 or C-150, but the Piper Cub, have the wing on top?Why did one of the greatest aircraft designers of all time, Ted Smith, put the wing in the middle? You should know what famous aircraft he designed.How 'bout a debate between Lycoming and Continental piston engines and, trust me, there could be a valid debate there also!As to the comments about low wing / high wing and mid-air collisions, speak not UNLESS you have experienced a real near miss, and I have had my share. NONE of them had to do with where the wing was, although in some cases it can certainly be a factor.Just last Saturday a C-150 and a Cherokee 140 bought the farm near KCDW. I have no idea if it had to do with where the wing was, even though a news reporter I was speaking to suggested it. I told him without hesitaton: "Not always so, and do not speculate".A couple hours after the collision, I and two friends were flying out to KBID for lunch, when my Garmin mode S transponder said the worst thing it ever says: "Traffic", while displaying an aircraft on my Garmin 430 that was right on top of me. I frantically looked around while remembering that I would have been dead months ago if I took that warning too much to heart.I saw the C-177 at 12:00, and he passed about 500' off to my left. I only hope he was descending through my altitude (hard to tell), for if he was not, then he was 1000' off legal altitude. He passed me going west at 3500'.High, low; whatever works for the aircraft's design. There is no better or worse, and for those of us "cursed" with paying for the real thing ($$$$$$$$$$), we fly what we need to, or fly what we are used to.For me, that's a plane with the wing on the bottom and one door on the right. It certainly keeps me quite agile!Hey, Geof? Don't forget to pay me a vist with your low wing when the weather gets cooler, we have a photo date! ;-)Regards,http://www.dreamfleet2000.com/gfx/images/F...RUM_LOUF_A2.jpg

I think the original context was with light a/c. With the TPs and Jets there are a veritible myriad of reasons for having the wings high and low. From my basic knowledge I'll try and answer. Maybe somebody else can fill in the gaps.High wings increase lateral stability. Low wings are laterally more unstable. Dihedral is used to increase stability in low wings. So first off it is a design choice. But where you put the wing then has a knock on effect onthe airflow over the tailplane. The benefits of a simpler design by placing the wing high now requires a T-tail to maintain a clean flow of air over the tail.With the jets, the reason is that swept wings are laterally, extremely stable as sweep behaves like diherdal. Swept wings are essential to travel efficiently (if at all) in the transonic range (about Mach .74+). Increaseing lateral stability further would degrade controlability. For example, one facet of swept wing design is the tendancy for dutch roll. This is countered with very large fins and yaw dampers. Dutch roll is due to excessive lateral stability when compared to directional stability. So the designers are faced with compromise all the time. Transport jets must have swept wings to be efficient in the cruise, but they must do what they can to maintain a good balance of lateral, longitudinal and direction stability. Where they can't solve the problem aerodynamically, they must add more systems to counter the nasty side effects.Aircraft such as the BAE 146, AN124 and C5 have high swept wings, you will notice that they are also anhedral (the opposite of dihedral) to reduce lateral stability. I think the reason for the high wings in those cases was to keep the engines clear of the ground because of the cruddy aerodromes or fields these aircraft were designed to operate out of.One major problem with high wings, is the sudden inherent lack of stability with flaps deployed (more so than for low wing). One reason why light Cessnas must never be sideslipped with flap - they tend to drop the downward wing rather suddenly and without warning. There are pilots who say they had no problems they couldn't handle, but one day...Cheers,Keff.

high wing low wing... settle this once and for all and just fly a helecopter or autogyro :)

Good points!I'll be visiting...... :-)http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

I'll stick with my low-wing hang glider, thanks.

Intetersting enough, the 747 originaly started out as a design with high wings for a transport for the US military. Boeing lost to Lockheed, who built the C-5. Boeing moved the wing to the bottom and changed the design to a commercial airliner. Military likes high wings to keep the engines high for landing on unimproved airstrips and not worry about engisting debris into the engines. Commercial airliners are low wing for safety, in case they have to ditch into the ocean. Something a high wing can't do very well at all.

How many high performance aerobatic aircraft are high wings? I don't count high wing airplanes such as Citabria's & Decathlon's as high performance. And you'll notice that aircraft such as the Pitt's bi-plane use a "low wing" to keep the top wing attached! :D L.Adamson ---- would like a high wing Aviat Husky for backcountry.... though

Many of the high peformance aerobatic planes are mid wings. Inverted or right side up it is all the same.

>Many of the high peformance aerobatic planes are mid wings.>Inverted or right side up it is all the same. Very true.............I guess this should be a high wing, low wing, "mid wing" debate! :)BTW---- my RV6A is a low wing.......... 'cause that's where "I" bolted it on... :)

"How 'bout a debate between Lycoming and Continental piston engines and, trust me, there could be a valid debate there also."Continental... because it sounds much more provincial.GregP.S. Glider pilots keep it up longer... and we don't need no stinkin' engine. :-)