Here’s a question that I know some straightdopers will love to answer - in my pre solo exam I need to describe the effect of a cross wind on high wing as opposed to low wing aircraft during taki, take-off and landing.
Why are the effects more or less pronounced on the differently configured aircraft?
Are they different in the different aircraft?
Unless it’s a trick question, which I doubt.
This is just a tad embarassing… I fly both high and low wing aircraft and I’m not sure I can answer this question :o
In taxi, I don’t recall there being much difference, if any. Low wings are more affected by ground effect, but that’s not the same thing as a crosswind. And techniques are a little different for taildraggers vs. tricycle gear airplanes, but that’s not the question, either.
About the only time I can think of it making a difference is when landing a Cessna high wing vs. a Piper low wing – the position of the flaps on a Cessna is such that the more flaps you use the less rudder authority you tend to have, which makes correcting for a crosswind more difficult. So in the high wing Cessnas I go to a no-flap, side-slip technique for better control in a strong crosswind where in the low wing Piper I am more likely to stick with flaps. Also, you’re not supposed to side-slip the C’s while using flaps, and doing so in the low wing P’s is not a problem. But I don’t know, 100%, if that applies specifically to those airplanes or if those rules apply to ALL high wings and low wings.
Correcting for crosswinds is one of those things I do almost automatically now, I think about it in actions, not words.
I think that it would apply to most high wings. Since the flaps are going to be inboard on the wings their activation interrupts the ariflow back over the vertical tail, something that does not happen with low wings. Another thing it MIGHT be, is that I think you get more of a roll effect from a high wing. You have a larger moment arm from your effective pivot point on the ground, thus a high crosswind is more likely to result in a larger roll moment on the ground.
I’ve been hunting around and one reference I can find says this;
What does anyone think about this?
First off, what a great pre-solo question. Like your going to walk out to the ramp and the Instructor’s going to say “Oops, the Cessna 150 is down for maintenence. You’ve got almost fifteen hours total pilot time, take the Piper Tomahawk instead.”
My guess: Low-wing configuration is generally regarded as less stable about the longitudinal axis (more likely to roll.) I alway thought of it as the weight (fuselage) sitting on top of the wing, as opposed to the high wing configuration, where the weight hangs below the wing.
Of course, every low wing I’ve ever been in has a dihedral wing (wings point up slightly, like a shallow “V” ) to increase stability.
I think this person should come out to my airfield and watch dust and debris skittering across the surface of the pavement where there is “supposed” to be zero wind. Yes, the air slows down at the surface, but it doesn’t stop.
Yes, the low wing/high wing difference makes a difference when you’re talking about ground effect - that is a real and obvoius difference. But we’re talking about crosswinds.
It’s 2 in the morning here and I don’t think my husband would appreciate me banging around digging up my information on airplanes right now, so I’m going by memory… but gosh darn if I can recall a significant difference in stall speed or landing speed between the C172 and PA-28. If the difference is even as great as 5 knots … at your point in training I don’t think your skills are polished enough to take advantage of the difference. That’s not a slam at you, that’s just a statement that a student pilot doesn’t have the skills of someone whose been flying for several years. You’ll get to that skill level - but not at your first solo.
Yes, the Pipers carry a little more payload… if that hasn’t been eaten up by a lot of avionics. Most Pipers I’ve seen carry more instruments than the Cessnas I’ve flown. Maybe that’s a statistical fluke. Every Piper I’ve flown has had double radios, double VOR’s, two of them an ADF (never saw one of those in a Cessna, although I’m sure some have them), and so on. The Cessnas I’ve flown have typically had just 1 VOR, no ADF, and about half the time single radios. One did have a GPS - ironically enough, it was a 1963 model, not the 1976 and 1977 versions. Avionics will quickly add up in weight, cancelling out much, if not all, of those differences.
The upshot here is that, from the pilot’s seat, I haven’t found much difference between them in regards to crosswinds. I could sit here and dredge through the logbook looking for minute differences but in the real world… just not that much difference. Really. It occurs to me that, given the flaps/rudder authority situation you could find it easier to land a Warrior at a slower airspeed in a crosswind than a Skyhawk, which sort of contradicts one point of the article you quoted. If you’re landing the Warrior at 65-70 knots in a crosswind, but the Skyhawk at 75-80 because you aren’t using flaps, just who is “punching through” the turbulence at that point?
You’re absolutely right so no offence taken at all. I know just enough to know I know nothing at all 
The question seemed odd to me in that I’ve only ever flown C152s and the school has no low wing training planes - so it’s not like I’d even notice or be interested in the difference for another 20-30 hours. Maybe one day when I take the Socata cross country 
I shall inquire, casual-like, when next I see my instructor. Thanks for your replies.
Well, you never know…
I took all my general aviation training in C150’s, then, just before my checkride, one plane was down for a major overhaul and the other got busted. So it was either wait 6-10 months for the C150’s to be fixed and flyable, or switch to another airplane.
I transitioned to the Warrior and took a checkride in one with only 6 hours of Piper time total.
It things like that, that convince me that yes, I really do know a little bit about this thing called flying…
It also shows that there isn’t a huge difference in flying techique between the two. I’m not the world’s best pilot (jus trying to be the world’s safest) and there are folks who can make than jump quicker and easier than I did.
If you do ever switch to a low wing the really important thing to keep in mind is that ground effect really is a bigger factor. If you don’t have the airspeed where it should be you will float…float…float…float… down the runway. I’ve seen more than one high-wing pilot moving to low wings do a number of go arounds because they ran out of runway before they ran out of float. Low wing pilots moving to high wings, of course, do the opposite - they tend to slam the plane down on the runway the first few landings. You start understanding why your instructor kept trying to pound precision and accuracy into your head.
Think of the fuselage sides pushing air onto the wing surfaces. If you’re sideslipping, the fuselage has a “forward-facing” and “aft-facing” side. The forward-facing side of the fuselage, if it is under the wing, will tend to push air under the wing and thereby increase its lift. The aft-facing side will tend to pull air away from that wing’s underside, decreasing its lift. As a result, the plane will tend to roll toward the side the nose is crabbing toward. On a low-wing plane, the opposite effect occurs. The forward-facing fuselage side will push air onto the *top * of that wing, *decreasing * its lift, etc, and induces a roll *away * from the direction the nose is crabbing.
That’s why high-wing planes, like the C-5 and C-141, have “drooping” wings, called *anhedral * rather than the more-familiar dihedral on low-wing aircraft. It’s to help provide yaw stability. On either type, the differential lift caused by the wing angle induces a roll which tends to offset the roll induced by sideslip.
Of course, our resident Starlifter jock will shortly explain why all this is caca. Broomstick, try some sideslip tests and tell us what happens, willya?
Could it be a bit more simple since we are looking at a pre-solo student type question?
In general, an high wing will feel the cross wind more while taxiing.
In general, more control imput will be needed in light high wing trainers than light low wing trainers. Both during take off and landing.
Side loads on nose wheels are bad on both type, how is the best way to prevent that? The trade off between cross control and rotation speed and wing down between high wing and low wing need to be somewhat different. I think that is where his instructor is more apt to be coming from. YMMV
If he is getting any tail wheel time, cross wind work is much more important in the pre-solo area.
Control position for taxi with the wind from here or there is different from tail dragger to trike in some cases.
Then there is free castor tail wheels, those with locks and … and …
Don’t forget that rudder authority in swept tail VS straight tail C-150 is very notable.
The whole Cherokee line suffers from a lack of rudder authority IMO. The Cherokee Six sucks rocks in this area. IMO
YMMV
What? Your explanation seemed fine to me! (If I’m the one you’re referring to - but I’ll have you know it’s been 6 years since I flew the mighty Starlifter! I just can’t seem to detach it from my name… 
)
For those who are wondering (all two of you) the reason the C-5, C-141, C-130, C-27 and now the C-17 have high wings is for ease of cargo loading. Just lower the ramp in back and drive whatever you want onto the airplane. When you land you open up the back, drop the ramp and drive the HUMMWV/Fuel truck/Tank off the airplane and start using it. In the case of the C-5, the nose opens up as well and you can drive stuff off through it. For comparison, look at similar sized airplanes and compare their “floor” height: the KC-135 and the C-141. Note that in the KC-135 the wing structure goes through the fuselage and the usable floor is about on the “US Air Force” line. In the C-141 picture, the troops are walking right onto the floor of the airplane.
As far as the anhedral wing goes, it works. I went from the C-141 to the T-1 (a low-wing aircraft) and my crosswind-landing technique survived unharmed. FTR, we used the “cross-control” or “wing-low” method: bank into the wind until the drift stopped, then use opposite rudder to straighten out the nose.
The only time the anhedral wings became a problem was during aerial refueling, especially behind a KC-135. During refueling our wings were right under the -135’s exhaust. (That’s a KC-10 in the picture - I couldn’t find one of a 141 behind a 135.) When in position this had almost no effect, but if you drifted out of position (right or left), the “wrong” wing (drifting right = right wing is “wrong”) would pick up more lift from the high-speed exhaust from the tanker. This would cause the wing to rise, spitting you out in the opposite direction. For example, drift right and make no correction, eventually the right wing will rise enough to completely spit you out to the left. To prevent this, you had to do things that were counterintuitive. If you started drifting right, you put in RIGHT aileron - in anticipation of the increased lift from the right wing. Once you encountered the extra lift, you released the extra aileron input and (hopefully) settled back into position. It was tricky stuff, and there were guys in my squadron who never got their A/R qual because of this very reason. Difficult stuff, but also just about the most fun you can have in a C-141!
Except I have never had a CFI discuss this - it’s always been approached from a “make sufficient input to provide the necessary correction” stance. I’ve never seen a CFI launch in a technical lecture on the differences between the two types. Sure, there are always exceptions…
And some things can be compensated for in the design of the airplane. I mean, a low wing “should” be top heavy and less stable in roll than a high wing… except low wings are built with sufficient dihedryl to compensate. In fact, I’d say that the Warrior is more stable in roll than the small Cessnas… because it was designed that way, not because low wings are inherently “better” or more stable on that axis.
But how does dihedryl affect all that? The Piper low wings are built with a noticeable upswing to the wings… I think the Cessna 150 has a whopping 1 degree of dihedryl on one side and none on the other. The C172 is simillar, if not identical. Sure, both planes will weathervane if you let them… but I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about here.
Until you put in 40 degrees of flaps… in that case the rudder authority DOES suffer noticeably.
Which is why if I ever have to land in a 20 knot crosswind I’ll take a flaps-up landing in a Cessna over a landing in a Cherokee.
Sure, in theory there might be all these differences between high wing and low wing, and it might be good to note that these tendencies exist, but after all the other tweaks and twaddles are done to a design other factors may well off-set some, or all, of these differences.
As someone who flies both fairly regularly, I don’t notice that much difference in handling in real world conditions. But then, I don’t go out trying to see if I can fly in gale force winds, either, and that’s where the differences will be most apparent.
