I have most of my time in the 172 but since starting Thrust and flying the Archer I prefer the LOW wing way more! Lan is a great instructor and fun to fly with!
I like flying anyway I can do it but I am ultimately #TeamLowWing. I trained in a 172 and then bought a Cherokee 180. First time I landed it, I knew there was no going back for me. The ability to see the runway while turning base-to-final is a huge plus. The wider and lower stance of the gear lends to better stability on the ground roll. And for me, I feel like the low wing is actually more nimble than what I experienced with the Cessna.
I started learning to fly a couple years ago. After 14 hours, my CFI became “too busy” to teach. The way you just talked about flying at night has inspired me to find another CFI. Thank you
Can you do a video about the effects of the planform on aerodynamics? Things such as instability of low wings on the base to final turn, aspect ratio, et cetera?
Thanks for the video. High wing gives more stability due to CG located lower on the fuselage so during roll there’s a pendulum effect. On the other side hand low wing is less stable but more controllable.
Low wing for me, don’t like to crouch to sump the fuel or relying on fuel pumps but I don’t need a ladder to fuel the plane and no spars to slow me down :)
I have a high wing but did most of my IFR training in a cherokee and the low wing just feels more stable and easier to shoot an approach, but thats just my opinion i do love my C175 though.
Love my Cardinal (high wing) and the fact that I can see final without turning, don't have struts blocking visibility, and always have good fuel pressure without auxiliary pump on....
Coming from the radio controlled model realm of things I’ve mostly looked at high wings as lazy boring trainers, that are typically stable and slow. On the other side i have seem low wing as nimble, spirited, more maneuverable, faster planes. Now as I’m looking to manned aviation while a lot of low wing planes are faster they don’t necessarily follow my same thoughts with model aviation. I still kinda see them as the cool kids, better looking overall plane. I don’t mind a high wing plane, but at least aesthetically I prefer a low wing. As for flying I’ve only done a discovery flight in a 172 which I took off and flew most of the flight, I’ve never been up in a low wing. I’d like too though. I don’t like the idea of walking on the wing to get into a low wing though.
You didn't touch fuel efficiency SOOO you deserve a question that you may knot (pun) have an answer to. I'm studying for my PPL (at home so far) but I'm also considering/searching as to what airplane that "I" should buy. Looking at a Cherokee 160 but I want to clean it up with upgrades so as to get near 180 performances but with 9 GPH fuel burn rather than the 12 GPH in the 180 Products that I'm inquiring about: #1 Power flow exhaust that adds 14hp (taking 160 HP up to 174HP) #2 all of the Knots 2U accessories which include: Wingtip extensions with Horner tips (for improved climb rate, better glide slope, reduced landing speed, better fuel consumption etc.) Sealing all of the control surfaces gaps including sealing the flap to fuselage gap (for efficiency, reduced landing speeds, and hotter controls). Additional streamlining components for the existing wheel pants (which look really good BTW). I think that there's a couple more knots 2U components for the 160 but you get my point. OK so "what have you heard about the Knots 2U" actual results of their efficiency complementing components and does compiling/stacking them keep adding up? I have my dream aircraft in mind but what's the reality of what I'm dreaming of? (A cleaned up, 174HP 160 "nearly" achieving 180 specs but with a much lessor fuel burn) Yes I realize that the resale price won't pay for the additions, just like when hopping up your automobile, it's for the persons likes, wants, desires, and there's no profit in them.
@@TheLegitRudy Thank you for the reply. I will have to get to a flight school eventually but for now I'm digging into the books. What I was really looking for was first hand or trusted 2nd hand information regarding all the offered mods of Knots 2 U, they're not cheap and them working as advertised is essential to my overall plans.
I have most of my time in the 172 but since starting Thrust and flying the Archer I prefer the LOW wing way more! Lan is a great instructor and fun to fly with!
I like flying anyway I can do it but I am ultimately #TeamLowWing. I trained in a 172 and then bought a Cherokee 180. First time I landed it, I knew there was no going back for me. The ability to see the runway while turning base-to-final is a huge plus. The wider and lower stance of the gear lends to better stability on the ground roll. And for me, I feel like the low wing is actually more nimble than what I experienced with the Cessna.
I'm a traitor.
I started learning to fly a couple years ago. After 14 hours, my CFI became “too busy” to teach.
The way you just talked about flying at night has inspired me to find another CFI. Thank you
Can you do a video about the effects of the planform on aerodynamics? Things such as instability of low wings on the base to final turn, aspect ratio, et cetera?
High wing gaves better shade on sunny days. 😆
I thought it would give us an answer based on aerodynamical science, not which one will give us a better view.
Thanks for the video.
High wing gives more stability due to CG located lower on the fuselage so during roll there’s a pendulum effect. On the other side hand low wing is less stable but more controllable.
I'm no pilot, but he's got a moustache, so he must know what he's talking about.
Low wing for me, don’t like to crouch to sump the fuel or relying on fuel pumps but I don’t need a ladder to fuel the plane and no spars to slow me down :)
Currently training in a Warrior, so low wing baby. Plus they look cool like a ww2 fighter 😂
I have a high wing but did most of my IFR training in a cherokee and the low wing just feels more stable and easier to shoot an approach, but thats just my opinion i do love my C175 though.
High wing with a skylight over me and 31's below me.
I’m training in a 172 but plan on buying a low wing for the simple fact I can fuel it easier than the high wing.
Love my Cardinal (high wing) and the fact that I can see final without turning, don't have struts blocking visibility, and always have good fuel pressure without auxiliary pump on....
Coming from the radio controlled model realm of things I’ve mostly looked at high wings as lazy boring trainers, that are typically stable and slow. On the other side i have seem low wing as nimble, spirited, more maneuverable, faster planes. Now as I’m looking to manned aviation while a lot of low wing planes are faster they don’t necessarily follow my same thoughts with model aviation. I still kinda see them as the cool kids, better looking overall plane. I don’t mind a high wing plane, but at least aesthetically I prefer a low wing. As for flying I’ve only done a discovery flight in a 172 which I took off and flew most of the flight, I’ve never been up in a low wing. I’d like too though. I don’t like the idea of walking on the wing to get into a low wing though.
High wing! Have flown both try a good xwind landing in a low wing! Easier with High wing
just take the mid wing.
Low Wing = Swagger. High Wing = Trainer
You didn't touch fuel efficiency SOOO you deserve a question that you may knot (pun) have an answer to.
I'm studying for my PPL (at home so far) but I'm also considering/searching as to what airplane that "I" should buy.
Looking at a Cherokee 160 but I want to clean it up with upgrades so as to get near 180 performances but with 9 GPH fuel burn rather than the 12 GPH in the 180
Products that I'm inquiring about:
#1 Power flow exhaust that adds 14hp (taking 160 HP up to 174HP)
#2 all of the Knots 2U accessories which include:
Wingtip extensions with Horner tips (for improved climb rate, better glide slope, reduced landing speed, better fuel consumption etc.)
Sealing all of the control surfaces gaps including sealing the flap to fuselage gap (for efficiency, reduced landing speeds, and hotter controls).
Additional streamlining components for the existing wheel pants (which look really good BTW).
I think that there's a couple more knots 2U components for the 160 but you get my point.
OK so "what have you heard about the Knots 2U" actual results of their efficiency complementing components and does compiling/stacking them keep adding up?
I have my dream aircraft in mind but what's the reality of what I'm dreaming of?
(A cleaned up, 174HP 160 "nearly" achieving 180 specs but with a much lessor fuel burn)
Yes I realize that the resale price won't pay for the additions, just like when hopping up your automobile, it's for the persons likes, wants, desires, and there's no profit in them.
@@TheLegitRudy Thank you for the reply. I will have to get to a flight school eventually but for now I'm digging into the books. What I was really looking for was first hand or trusted 2nd hand information regarding all the offered mods of Knots 2 U, they're not cheap and them working as advertised is essential to my overall plans.