low wing/high wing and closed minds

[gotyacovered]

notice, the thread title is not high wing VS low wing....

ok, so some of you have been following my 206 thread and it is a whole 'nother deal. PITA.

disclaimer: i am not brand/type loyal--i like what works. i have had ford, acura, GMC and Chevy. my avalanche was my fav. some days i like daylight donut coffee, some days delish, some days folgers. i am open minded and understand, fully--diff strokes for diff folks.

but... i need some of you people to explain this human behavior to me, specifically in this regard.

for me the following parameters in order of importance (to me) with a $90k budget:

1. payload
2. updated engine... looking for SNEW/SFRM/SMOH
3. well equipped avionics. lookin' for /G and an AP
4. fixed gear
5. ins/mx/ops cost
6. 6 seats
7. speed

with those items, in that order... and not making 6 seats an absolute requirement... there are only a few planes that fit the bill. C-182, C-206, PA-28-236 (RNC--is that right?) PA-32's and maybe the commanders.

so that is what i like, and airplane that closely matches the 6 factors listed above. in my opinion the 206 is going to do those things,in that order the best--which is why i like em... not because they have a "high wing".

if someone came to me and offer a partnership in a PA-32 fixed gear (Cherokee 6) i wouldn't hesitate. same is true for the 182/PA-28-236...

all that lead for this:

in the last couple days i have discovered, i am a rare breed. you low wing guys are loyal, to extremes. i believe there are people out there (i met one yesterday) that will not consider a high wing, period. in fact, i dont think that if all things completely equal (mx, ops cost, acquisition price), he would take and archer over a 182 or a 206. self proclaimed to be pre-disposed to a low wing airplane.

please explain.

[bvillepig]

notice, the thread title is not high wing VS low wing....

ok, so some of you have been following my 206 thread and it is a whole 'nother deal. PITA.

disclaimer: i am not brand/type loyal--i like what works. i have had ford, acura, GMC and Chevy. my avalanche was my fav. some days i like daylight donut coffee, some days delish, some days folgers. i am open minded and understand, fully--diff strokes for diff folks.

but... i need some of you people to explain this human behavior to me, specifically in this regard.

for me the following parameters in order of importance (to me) with a $90k budget:

1. payload
2. updated engine... looking for SNEW/SFRM/SMOH
3. well equipped avionics. lookin' for /G and an AP
4. fixed gear
5. ins/mx/ops cost
6. 6 seats
7. speed

with those items, in that order... and not making 6 seats an absolute requirement... there are only a few planes that fit the bill. C-182, C-206, PA-28-236 (RNC--is that right?) PA-32's and maybe the commanders.

so that is what i like, and airplane that closely matches the 6 factors listed above. in my opinion the 206 is going to do those things,in that order the best--which is why i like em... not because they have a "high wing".

if someone came to me and offer a partnership in a PA-32 fixed gear (Cherokee 6) i wouldn't hesitate. same is true for the 182/PA-28-236...

all that lead for this:

in the last couple days i have discovered, i am a rare breed. you low wing guys are loyal, to extremes. i believe there are people out there (i met one yesterday) that will not consider a high wing, period. in fact, i dont think that if all things completely equal (mx, ops cost, acquisition price), he would take and archer over a 182 or a 206. self proclaimed to be pre-disposed to a low wing airplane.

please explain.

Gotya
I started my training in a high wing Cessna 172. I have about 25 hours in the 172. I did not get into the high wing low wing controversy because I did not have any experience. I am not a brand guy either.

I made a decision early to buy an airplane and train in what I bought. I emailed Cessna and Piper on the same day to explain my story. I never heard from Cessna. I did not know that Cessna had a dealership 30 miles up the road from me.

Piper called me two days later and set up a demo in an Archer III.

Here is where things changed.

I had a lesson at Jonesboro in the Cessna 172 which only had 80 hours on it. We had some pretty nice winds that day and I had some normal issues that an older low time pilot would have.

I also was not comfortable the way the Cessna stalled. Mainly because on my second lesson I did not get enough rudder in and as it broke the wing dropped. My young instructor who loved this type of stuff grabbed it and said joyfully. That was real close to a spin.

So after the lesson I drove straight to Blytheville where the demo Archer showed up. As we taxied out I was amazed at the difference in feel. The Archer was much easier to stay on the center line and felt rock solid. The demo instructor asked me what I would like to do. I told him I wanted to go do some stalls and then just fly. We took off and climbed to the practice area. 

We did a power on stall and here is how I would describe it. When the archer stalled the nose dropped with 0 tendency to roll. It immediately recovered. Stall nose drop recover.

We did some maneuvers and came back in with the same winds as earlier. I was amazed at the difference in the feel. I felt like a pilot instead of a parachute is how I would describe it.

I was sold and of course have had two low wings. As a low time pilot it made a difference with me however now that I have 1800 hours I am not sure it would make that much.  Cessna makes a very good airplane.

One plane I would not rule out is the piper Comanche.   My IFR instructor had one. I called him a couple of weeks ago because I did not know a lot about the plane and was offered a Comanche and Cash for my Saratoga. I began to study that plane  and found out a heck of a lot.  The 260 HP has a very high payload Cruises 155-160 on about 14 GPH and is built like a mini tank. Most take out the 5th & 6th bench seat in back and that leaves a huge luggage area. Payload was in the 1400 lb range.

Always good to hear from you and hope I was not to long winded.

[GusMcRae]

Commanches are retract, but I've heard good things about them too.
I overheard a conversation between 2 Piper pilots a while back, one of them was part of a partnership group or worked for an outfit that had PA-32 Piper Cherokee Six, and a Lance, and this guy was a fan of the Six over the Lance. 

I've flown primarily High Wing Cessnas but would not be opposed to a low wing some day.  I keep looking at the Six, they seem to be cheaper than most C-206's, similar performance numbers. 

I think I've gotten spoiled to no fuel management with a high wing.  Leave it on "both" all the time.  Switching tanks and messing with the fuel pump is something that I've just grown accustomed to not having to deal with.  I'm sure it becomes 2nd nature before long.

[bvillepig]

Gus
It does become second nature but I also program the Garmin 430 with a reminder to tell me every 20 minutes to switch fuel tanks. Very easy to do.

So every 20 a message pops up "Change Fuel Tanks" However most of the time I have already switched. I try to keep each wing withen 6 lbs. Not as bad as it sounds. Switch tank when I get to cruise alt.  Then burn 12 gallons and switch to opposite.  Repeat.

I demoed a 206 which is a very good airplane. The thing I noticed different from a Six or Toga was that the back two seats were not very adult friendly. I also did not like the way the doors opened in the back. However I was only around that airplane around an hour so maybe thats not a very fair evaluation.

[gotyacovered]

Gotya
I started my training in a high wing Cessna 172. I have about 25 hours in the 172. I did not get into the high wing low wing controversy because I did not have any experience. I am not a brand guy either.

I made a decision early to buy an airplane and train in what I bought. I emailed Cessna and Piper on the same day to explain my story. I never heard from Cessna. I did not know that Cessna had a dealership 30 miles up the road from me.

Piper called me two days later and set up a demo in an Archer III.

Here is where things changed.

I had a lesson at Jonesboro in the Cessna 172 which only had 80 hours on it. We had some pretty nice winds that day and I had some normal issues that an older low time pilot would have.

I also was not comfortable the way the Cessna stalled. Mainly because on my second lesson I did not get enough rudder in and as it broke the wing dropped. My young instructor who loved this type of stuff grabbed it and said joyfully. That was real close to a spin.

So after the lesson I drove straight to Blytheville where the demo Archer showed up. As we taxied out I was amazed at the difference in feel. The Archer was much easier to stay on the center line and felt rock solid. The demo instructor asked me what I would like to do. I told him I wanted to go do some stalls and then just fly. We took off and climbed to the practice area. 

We did a power on stall and here is how I would describe it. When the archer stalled the nose dropped with 0 tendency to roll. It immediately recovered. Stall nose drop recover.

We did some maneuvers and came back in with the same winds as earlier. I was amazed at the difference in the feel. I felt like a pilot instead of a parachute is how I would describe it.

I was sold and of course have had two low wings. As a low time pilot it made a difference with me however now that I have 1800 hours I am not sure it would make that much.  Cessna makes a very good airplane.

One plane I would not rule out is the piper Comanche.   My IFR instructor had one. I called him a couple of weeks ago because I did not know a lot about the plane and was offered a Comanche and Cash for my Saratoga. I began to study that plane  and found out a heck of a lot.  The 260 HP has a very high payload Cruises 155-160 on about 14 GPH and is built like a mini tank. Most take out the 5th & 6th bench seat in back and that leaves a huge luggage area. Payload was in the 1400 lb range.

Always good to hear from you and hope I was not to long winded.

Thanks for the post. I've got to fly a 172 sometime. I own the smallest airplane I've ever flown... With one exception... My cousins Cherokee 180. By numbers alone given the choice between the 180 and a 172, no brainer--Cherokee. I can't for the life of me understand why Piper ditched the Dakota line...

http://www.airbum.com/articles/ArticleSkylaneDakota.html

I think if your staying fixed gear, its a hard choice between the 206 and Cherokee 6. Start sucking gears up the choice becomes easy... Saratoga. That extra 20kts is big time. Comanche is one of the only piper planes my dad likes. Suckers fast, good payload and sturdy.

[gotyacovered]

Forgot to mention... The back 2 seat are def for small people. One of the reasons i may have to give the nod to the 206 (for my personal situation) is I don't need 6 seats, I need the space and payload capabilities...

[Pistol Pete]

My priorities would be like this...

1. Avionics for safety
2. Avionics for comfort
3. Avionics for resale
4. Payload
5. Speed
6. Overall costs-hull-fuel-ins.
7. Low time components
8. Low wing for ease of refueling

[gotyacovered]

My priorities would be like this...

1. Avionics for safety
2. Avionics for comfort
3. Avionics for resale
4. Payload
5. Speed
6. Overall costs-hull-fuel-ins.
7. Low time components
8. Low wing for ease of refueling

sounds like you need a cirrus

i didnt forget about you BTW, sent a reminder to them today.