High v. Low Wing

[ChrisConnor]

Wondering how many here have had the privilege of flying both low and high wing Tecnam aircraft. Personally, I've only flown the high wing. As a matter of fact, I've never flown a low wing anything. I've sat in the right seat, but that doesn't count. 

Thinking of visibility issues, sun, etc., and whether anyone notices a difference in handling. How about the hangar? Are low wings tougher to store since you can't walk under the wing? Are servicing the tires on a low wing more of a pain?

I don't expect much argument about which is a hotter looking aircraft. Pretty sure that'll be low wing.  

Let's hear the arguments for both.

[alan1234]

I have owned and flown both the Astore and P2008. Put about 30 hours on the Astore and now have 60+ hours on my P2008. I found the low wing more sporty-but it was really warm on a hot day. Also felt the cockpit looked a little more finished inside. The P2008 is rock solid like a 2 seat Skyhawk. Very easy to fly. Also love the ease of getting behind the seats. The Astore is a little tougher with the small loading door. Loved both planes. They really are the best LSA in my option.

[montanapilot]

Some thoughts:

First, I have no bone to pick. I've owned 18 airplanes, many of them high wing, many low wing and 5 with 2 sets of wings. So, I'm not a "low wing guy" or a "high wing guy".

Re visibiilty, it would seem that the high wing wins here because of the downward visibilty. I see it differently, especially given a certain quality of the Astore that differentiates it from most other low wing aircraft. In the Astore, your eyes are just barely aft of the leading edge, so the visibility downward (although not straight down) is excellent. That's not the case with most low wing aircraft (e.g. the Bonanza), and the downward visibility in this airplane is really quite surprising.

Regardless, we really don't spend a lot of time looking straight down when we're flying. We're mostly looking forward. So, "visibility" becomes a subjective perception and it has mostly to do with how much structure is in our direct and our peripheral vision. In the case of the Astore, that's not much. Aside from not having much wing in front of you, the airplane has a bubble canopy (again, unlike most low wings), so there's no roof right over your head and, therefore, it's not in your field of vision.

I can honestly say that when I'm flying the Astore, the visibility seems like that in a helicopter.

Another item, although this wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker or a deal maker - low wings guarantee great landings almost all of the time. The reason is that the wing gets into ground effect more quickly and more deeply. I think I could teach my dog to land my Astore. It's really quite hard not to make greasers in a low wing airplane.

The one area in which the high wing has an advantage is in the downwind-to-base turn, a critical segment of flight. The low wing blocks the view toward final approach. To compensate for this, I simply always make sure to plan my pattern so that I have enough of a base leg to take a good look out to final approach.

Hope this was helpful.

[ChrisConnor]

I'd say you favor low wings for sure.

I hadn't thought about the ground effect of a low wing, although I find it difficult to believe something could be easier to land than my P92. I feel the same way about teaching my dog to land it. Of course, half of my total time is in underpowered old taildraggers that are a handful to land.

On visibility, I've spent hundreds of hours in helicopters (EC135 & BK117), and I think my P92 has better vis, but it's all relative. Seems every time I'm looking for traffic, it's up behind my wing. I do like the shade my big wing provides. I always wonder about baking under a bubble.

[montanapilot]

Thanks for that, Chris. My post clearly bestowed blessings on low wings, but I don't actually favor either one. For me, it's all about the airplane. If I like the airplane, I really don't care whether it's high wing, low wing, biwing, taildragger, or tricycle gear. I love my Astore, and when it came time to buy a Tecnam, I preferred that one for many reasons, although there are also many reasons to prefer the 2008 such as ease of entry, and I think somebody noted easier access to baggage compartment, which is not easy in the Astore. In my opinion, the entire line of Tecnam single engine offerings are fabulous little machines, and it simply comes down to personal preference. I just wanted to discuss what might be misconceptions re visibility in low wing aircraft, primarily the Astore. As I noted, I've owned many of both high and low wings and 5 biwings, and I've enjoyed every one of them.

[montanapilot]

One item I will note that favors the P2008 (or other highwing) is that it takes a bit of acrobatics to get up onto the wing of the Astore, and if you have an older or overweight passenger, you will have some Three Stooges moments (with all due respect to Tony, who has a great pic of Curly as his profile photo). When we tried both airplanes, getting into the P2008 is just a matter of turning around with your back to the airplane and putting your buttski on the seat. I think that this ingress/egress issue is a consideration in choosing between the 2.

[ChrisConnor]

I've got to agree with you about the Tecnam line in general. They are just fantastic little airplanes! I shopped a lot prior to buying my first Tecnam in 2011. I really liked Tecnam then, and still do!

[John Crone]

When I was considering my purchase I drew up a list of pros and cons as follows -

Upper Wing:
Visibility down
More shading from sun
Wing strength with strut
Less likely to hit ground/obstacles with wing
Less ground effect ie not prone to floating on landing
No idiots stepping on wings in the wrong place
Rain shield when getting in/out and no leaking
Easier to clean under wing
Better for forced landing in scrub/crops
Potentially safer in tip over accident

Lower Wing:
Better flying experience
More visibility during turns especially of other aircraft in the direction you are turning
Easier access to fuel caps/filling ie don't need steps
Easier to clean top of wing
Easier to board - some upper wing cockpits quite difficult to get into for less flexible older people
Less crosswind effect on take-off/landing
Wings in ground effect longer - potential earlier lift off
Better in ditching - floats higher
Reduced drag with no strut
Non-strutted wing more flexible therefore better ride in turbulence

I had another list of retractable considerations as well, but unfortunately not much use for you US based folks!

[ChrisConnor]

Mar 3, 2019 21:26:59 GMT John Crone said:

When I was considering my purchase I drew up a list of pros and cons as follows -

Upper Wing:
Visibility down
More shading from sun
Wing strength with strut
Less likely to hit ground/obstacles with wing
Less ground effect ie not prone to floating on landing
No idiots stepping on wings in the wrong place
Rain shield when getting in/out and no leaking
Easier to clean under wing
Better for forced landing in scrub/crops
Potentially safer in tip over accident

Lower Wing:
Better flying experience
More visibility during turns especially of other aircraft in the direction you are turning
Easier access to fuel caps/filling ie don't need steps
Easier to clean top of wing
Easier to board - some upper wing cockpits quite difficult to get into for less flexible older people
Less crosswind effect on take-off/landing
Wings in ground effect longer - potential earlier lift off
Better in ditching - floats higher
Reduced drag with no strut
Non-strutted wing more flexible therefore better ride in turbulence

I had another list of retractable considerations as well, but unfortunately not much use for you US based folks!

Wow! That's a really good list. There's some stuff on there that didn't cross my mind. I sure wish that RG list did apply to us.

[ash31mi]

One more benefit for high wing is potential extra hangar storage: when I had a Husky my 27ft glider trailer would fit under the high wing in a T-hangar, but that's not possible with the Astore. Could be the same factor for other toys.

[ChrisConnor]

That's a good point about the storage. I have a car dolly stored under the wing of my Aeronca, and I routinely roll my Tecnam P92 right past our fuel cart. If I had a low wing, I couldn't do either. I don't think I'd base the purchase of the plane on that feature, but it sure is nice after the fact. LOL

[danal]

Great points.

I've flown and owned mostly high wing. I recently acquired an Astore, which is my first low wing.

Personally, the fueling thing is HUGE for me. I can't really articulate exactly why I trade everybody boarding/un-boarding, which happens more often, and is factually more complex on the low wing... why I trade that for fueling ease... but I do. I REALLY like fueling the low wing.

As several mentioned, it is really more about the airplane, I'd consider either... but if it happens to be low, I'm going to love fueling it.

[Ed Midgley]

I love my plane but, fueling is a bitch I have to agree.
Ed

[ChrisConnor]

I've got this parked next to my P92. It's got enough hose to reach either tank. Fueling a high wing made easy.

[Ed Midgley]

I have a similar setup in my hangar. That said in early March I fueled my plane in Anderson Indiana with the temperature at exactly zero degrees Fahrenheit and a twenty five knot wind. At the time the only thing I thought of was how much easier my Bonanza was to fuel.
Regardless of that I still love my P2008.
Ed