From: len@Tandem.com (Len Fishler)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: High-wing vs. low-wing training
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:59:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: tandem.1992Oct5.225906.14860
Organization: Tandem Computers

In article <1992Oct5.163229.187@ccad.uiowa.edu>, yiannis@ccad.uiowa.edu (Yiannis Papelis) writes:
|> In some article tmark@wbst845e.xerox.com (Ted Markowitz) writes:
|> > 
|> > Does anyone have any opinions or experience on the relative merits of
|> > learning on a high-wing plane (e.g., C172) vs. a low-wing?  I received
|> > some lessons as a gift and the instructor recommended a low-wing which
|> > seems alright by me, but some advice would be appreciated.  Thanks.
|> 
... stuff deleted 
|> High wings
|>     Better view of underneath land, great for sight seeing
|>     No ground effect on landing -> easier landing

there are some times I wish I had that ground effect cushion with my 210 (:-})

|>     Wing obscures runway during the base-to-final, makes me uncomfortable
|>     Checking tanks is harder due to their location

most of the high wings have a Both tanks position, makes fuel mgmt. easier
high wing keeps you dry in the rain ( 1/2 :-))

|> 
|> Low wing:
|>     Good view of runway during pattern work
|>     Easy access to tanks, but hard access to drains

cheap aluminum 3-legged folding step stool works just fine, plus a calibrated
fuel stick for high wing

|>     Ground effect on landing -> more challenging

strictly a matter of airspeed management, nail your airspeed, no problems

|>     There is something about walking on the wing -:)
|> 
> 

Well, I've got a moderate ammount of time (500 hours), with about 1/2 in low 
wings, mostly Pipers, but some Beech, Tiger, & Mooney time, and the rest in 
high  wings, including C-152, C-172, C-182, C-182RG, C-T182RG, C-210. My 
personal observation is that the Piperoids based on the PA28 airframe (Warrior, 
Archer, Arrow) are more similar to each other than the family resemblance
of the Cessnoids.  So, if you're training and expect to move up to higher
performance aircraft sooner than later, I'd say go for the Piper.  

However, what I never liked about the Pipers is the single door on the co-pilot 
side only.  It's awkward getting in and out, and I've always preferred to have 
more exits in an emergency.  The other thing is that the overall visibility
feel of the Cessnoids from a passenger's standpoint, esp. the rear seats, is
better.  The Pipers seem much more closed in in the rear.

The handling of the Cessna family seems to vary a fair ammount as
you go through the members, with the pitch heaviness becoming much more
pronounced in the larger members, with attendant need to trim.  This stands to
reason, as, unlike the Pipers (except the 6/300 or Saratoga), the Cessnas are
based upon different airframes.  The Cessnas are also what some would call
sluggish in handling compared to the PA28s, though the roll forces in the
C-172 seem lighter to me.  I think the Cessnas tend to be somewhat more
stable in pitch, which would tend to make them slightly easier as instrument
platforms.  

Speaking as someone who actually started out learning on Cessnas,
then switched in the middle of private training to a Warrior, I would suggest
waiting to switch until after you've got your private.  At the time, the
additional workload of learning another plane's feel and numbers and 
emergency procedures set me back a bit.  Once you're past the private, it
would be much easier to switch.  

The bottom line on your choice, assuming that you stay with a particular type,
should be more based upon availability at the club/fbo you choose, quality
of the equipment (radios, seats), and most importantly, quality of the
aircraft (how well is it maintained, are squawks attended to promptly).

- Len Fishler -
fishler_len@tandem.com
PP-ASEL-IA
Centurion N3784Y RHV