Cessna 150 for $6000!!!

[Fozzer]

Now comes an interesting choice, especially as regard to Trainers...

High wing,
..versus...
Low wing.

The good-old Cessna 150/152 Trainers are high-wing types, where the aircraft hangs nicely under its "umbrella"... ...!
It has its drawbacks regarding visibility when banked over turning into "Base", but otherwise the downward visibility is excellent, and the aircraft are extremely stable and predictable, especially for the  trainee Pilot... ...!

Now, the low wing Tomahawks, etc, are low wing types with excellent visibility turning into "Base", and general banking maneuvers, but poor overall visibility downwards.

Now that the old high wing Cessna Trainers are getting a bit too long in the tooth, and getting past their "Use By Date", they seem to be getting replaced by various Low-Wing Types, many of them falling into the Microlight/Ultralight category!

So....

What do you reckon, High wing/Low wing for the new breed of Trainers...?

....Indeed, what are your overall views of high-wing versus low wing, all purpose, aircraft... ...!

Paul....Fond memories of high wing "Cessna 152's"....(Including my old Army "Auster Aiglet" ).... 8-)...!

[beaky]

Now comes an interesting choice, especially as regard to Trainers...

High wing,
..versus...
Low wing.

The good-old Cessna 150/152 Trainers are high-wing types, where the aircraft hangs nicely under its "umbrella"... ...!
It has its drawbacks regarding visibility when banked over turning into "Base", but otherwise the downward visibility is excellent, and the aircraft are extremely stable and predictable, especially for the  trainee Pilot... ...!

Now, the low wing Tomahawks, etc, are low wing types with excellent visibility turning into "Base", and general banking maneuvers, but poor overall visibility downwards.

Now that the old high wing Cessna Trainers are getting a bit too long in the tooth, and getting past their "Use By Date", they seem to be getting replaced by various Low-Wing Types, many of them falling into the Microlight/Ultralight category!

So....

What do you reckon, High wing/Low wing for the new breed of Trainers...?

....Indeed, what are your overall views of high-wing versus low wing, all purpose, aircraft... ...!

Paul....Fond memories of high wing "Cessna 152's"....(Including my old Army "Auster Aiglet" ).... 8-)...!

Overall, I don't think there's much difference, because the pros and cons of each pretty much cancel each other out. I flew a Tomahawk on my first "discovery flight" but the school I ended up at only had Cessnas (they did get a Cherokee eventually, but I didn't want to waste training time getting used to a new type)... and I won't say I fall into either camp, really.
But:

The visibility thing with high-wings is not an issue if you lift a wing briefly before maneuvering, or in the case of turning in the pattern, have a good look before you turn, and have a rough idea what your compass heading should be when you finish the turn- it could be argued that Cessnas force new pilots to get into the habit of noting headings at all times, which can save your bacon in a marginal-VFR situation.
And although the Tomahawk has superb overhead visibility, not all low-wings do: Cherokees, for example, have a pretty substantial roof, and on my few Cherokee flights I didn't feel I had more to see directly overhead than in a Cessna. And I don't like not being able to look "over the side" for landmarks or even just sightseeing, although Piper drivers learn to compensate for this just as Cessna drivers compensate when turning.

So what else is there? Oh yes, the fuel system. High-wings have simple gravity-feed systems, as reliable as gravity itself,but one is required to climb up on the wing to check the fuel quantity or fill the tanks. Annoying.

Low-wings are easier to check and fill, but sumping the tanks and checking the landing gear and aileron hinge pins requires you to pretty much crawl on the ground, no fun in rain or snow... and if the fuel pump sh*ts the bed in flight, the fan will stop.

Low-wing Pipers have manual flaps, though- no motors to fail there. Smart. But any competent pilot can land a Cessna anywhere without flaps, if necessary... or even continue flying safely if the flaps fail to retract. And although it's terrific to have flaps available if one has lost electrical power, I guess a manual system could jam or whatever, even though that's less likely than electrical failure.

Speaking of rain and snow, Cessnas provide a nice roof overhead when getting in or out, providing some protection from sun or precipitation, for occupants and the interior of the plane.
 With a low-wing, when the door is open, the rain can get inside the cabin... and pilot and pax have to put on/take off their coats or whatever while fully exposed to the elements.
Some Cessnas even have a nice "courtesy light" under the wing, very handy on a dark ramp.

But these are minor points (excepty maybe the fuel-feed thing), so let's talk handling:

I don't feel the "pendulum effect" is very pronounced in Cessnas- technically they behave differently from low-wing types when turning, etc. but I consider that a non-factor. Cherokees and Tomahawks make fine trainers- their relative "instability" hasn't been a problem for most students, apparently. Pilots who cut their teeth in low-wing Pipers tend to remain loyal fans of that type.

Landing, however, is another story: a low-wing with a low stance (short gear legs) like a Cherokee is somewhat easier to land than a Cessna... but on the other hand, with a low-wing, the chances of scraping a wingtip are increased when trying to land in a gusty crosswind situation...


I guess I lean towards high-wings for reasons other than "it's what I'm used to", but I'm sure Piper, Diamond, and Cirrus fans could think of a few compelling counter-arguments.

But  the debate will rage on, because Cessna is sticking with high wings, as seen on its next-generation 4-seater and Light Sport Aircraft designs.

[Brett_Henderson]

Edit:

[C]

What do you reckon, High wing/Low wing for the new breed of Trainers...?

Low wing. Most air to air incidents I've heard about in GA have involve a high wing aircraft (Cessna) in a turning manouvre, where visibility really matters. You can clear an area beneath you quite easily by lowering a wing - more difficult to thoroughly clear an area in a turn in a high wing. This is particularly pertinent in the circuit, when really you shouldn't need to worry about anything underneath (traffic taking off/landing would be seen as they would be laterally displaced as you'll be flying on the deadside, and visability laterally and in the turn is important for keeping situational awareness on the exact location of all the other aircraft in the pattern.

[beaky]

What do you reckon, High wing/Low wing for the new breed of Trainers...?

Low wing. Most air to air incidents I've heard about in GA have involve a high wing aircraft (Cessna) in a turning manouvre, where visibility really matters. You can clear an area beneath you quite easily by lowering a wing - more difficult to thoroughly clear an area in a turn in a high wing. This is particularly pertinent in the circuit, when really you shouldn't need to worry about anything underneath (traffic taking off/landing would be seen as they would be laterally displaced as you'll be flying on the deadside, and visability laterally and in the turn is important for keeping situational awareness on the exact location of all the other aircraft in the pattern.

True, and yet...there's more to it that that. Vigilance and consistent application of proper procedures overrides all design factors, IMHO. Case in point:

Scariest and most annoying pattern encounter ever occurred for me earlier this year at my home (uncontrolled) field, when a Bonanza that had been asking for runway-in-use info (with no postion report) just a minute before suddenly appeared in front of me as I was about to turn base- he was dropping onto base from about 100 feet above TPA, and not a fucking word of warning from him!!  
Believe me, when he called initially, I was looking for him, but didn't spot him until he was right there in front of me, passing to the left with everything hanging out , and dropping right through TPA.

In this case, aside from his outrageous arrogance, the problem was that because he was in a low-wing above a high-wing, we were in each other's blind spots.

Had I been a little farther along in my circuit, he would probably have dropped right on top of me... the jerk.

[C]

Vigilance and consistent application of proper procedures overrides all design factors, IMHO.

Indeed, however these should also be irrelevant in this argument as they should be applied at all time anyway regardless, or the pilot shouldn't be licenced.  :)

[beaky]

Vigilance and consistent application of proper procedures overrides all design factors, IMHO.

Indeed, however these should also be irrelevant in this argument as they should be applied at all time anyway regardless, or the pilot shouldn't be licenced.  :)

Well... yes and no. The action of the Bonaza pilot in my little story helped make my point about design: if I'd been flying a low-wing, unless it had a bubble canopy, I'd have had the same experience.
My broader point is that better visibility inside a turn doesn't make for safer pattern ops; better pilot technique and decision-making outweigh visibility. I could be wrong, don't know the figures offhand... but  I don't really trust statistics. They may be accurate in terms of the data, but not necessarily in terms of the conclusions.

Consider the BRS debate: on the one hand, having a parachute for the plane is an excellent ace-in-the-hole, can't argue with that, but I have yet to hear of a BRS being deployed in the event of an unforeseen major structural failure, midair, bird strike, or catastrophic engine failure... so far, they've been used in situations where the crisis was very preventable (loss of control in cruise, in VMC and IMC; fuel exhaustion or starvation, etc.). The results of their deployment have been fairly mixed, too- not a fun ride, and quite dangerous in many cases.

And BRS-equipped planes have crashed just like any other mis-handled planes, without deployment of the 'chute. In fact, the overall safety record of ships like the Cirrus is not so hot, especially considering it has a parachute. True, the BRS has saved lives, but so have well-executed off-airport landings in ordinary bug-smashers. And if you can get your stricken Cessna into a field or onto a road, chances are good it will fly again. Can't say the same for any 'chute-equipped bird, really.

Personally, I'd rather take the 100 or so pounds of fuel over a 'chute...

The reason more glass or gizmos like parachutes don't enhance the annual safety record is that so many other, more commonplace factors go into air mishaps, and the vast majority of those factors are avoidable with diligence from pilots.

Design characteristics really don't figure into it much- not since the old days of questionable designs, anyway.

Just my take on it- I'll admit I am not fully up-to-date on the actual figures, so i may be wrong about the ratio of "necessary" to "Silly" BRS deployments in production aircraft.


Here's something interesting, though: check out this list of succesful BRS deployment incidents in ultralights...

http://www.ultralightnews.ca/brs/brs_saves.htm

[beaky]

Creeping steadily off-topic here, but here's more of interest on airplane parachutes. The Cirrus system is called CAPS, and it's been deployed 11 times so far (from Wikipedia; there are NTSB report details for some incidents listed there):


#1 October 2002, Texas: detached aileron
#2 April 2003, British Columbia: loss of control in turbulence (aircraft C-GEMC), 4 uninjured
#3 April 2004, Florida: instrument failure in IFR conditions, 1 uninjured
#4 September 2004, California: loss of control in high-altitude climb above clouds, 2 uninjured
#5 January 2005, California: parachute deployed above design limits, pilot fatality (unknown if intentionally activated)
#6 June 2005, New York: pilot incapacitated from undiagnosed brain tumor, 1 injured
#7 January 2006, Alabama: loss of control after pilot flew into icing, 3 uninjured
#8 February 2006, South Dakota: pilot reported disorientation, 2 uninjured
#9 August 2006, Indiana: parachute deployed three miles from departure end of runway, aircraft landed in retention pond, parachute was deployed by a passenger because the pilot had fainted, pilot fatality, 3 passengers injured
#10 September 2006, Jamaica: pilot activated parachute under unknown circumstances, 4 uninjured
#11 September 2006, Colorado: Plane destroyed with 2 fatalities after reports of icing problems at 14,000 feet. A preliminary report from the NTSB contains the sentence "A witness in the area observed a portion of the fuselage being drug by the deployed aircraft recovery parachute.

Okay... out of these eleven, I'd class four as pilot error (weather or simple loss of control), four as the kind of save the system was made for (sudden medical problems, instrument or structural failure), and three as unknowns (which probably means pilot error, although who knows?)

So... it's about 50-50 so far. Not exactly a home run for my argument of good sense vs. built-in safety, but it doesn't defeat it, either.

It should be noted that in two of these cases (#5 and #11), the chute didn't do much good at all (both of these cases probably were due to pilot error, either due to flight into ice and/or total loss of control), and in one case (#9), one of the occupants died, although it was probably because he was unconscious and couldn't brace himself.

#9 is a great example of how planning and common sense really make the most of built-in safety: the pax who pulled the handle had obviously been briefed on what it was for before the flight; excellent choice by the pilot or whoever it was.

[Brett_Henderson]

Indeed, however these should also be irrelevant in this argument as they should be applied at all time anyway regardless, or the pilot shouldn't be licenced.  

This is where the motorcycle analogy comes in. Doesn't matter how vigilant you are, when someone else is not. Since in or near the pattern is where most "visibilty" negligence takes its toll; it brings up something we talk about quite a bit..  Pattern entry/exit.

On entry; I'm from the "whatever leg your already on" school. Going out of your way to enter 45 degrees into the downwind is not the best method. It creates  a focal point for collision.

Lets use a left-hand pattern and a 09/27 runway landing on 27:

The first thought (no matter where you enter) is to be at pattern altitude as soon as possible. Everyone can see each other better that way and planes already in the pattern will stand out. Now, obviously, if you're approching from the SW quadrant, by all means, announce and enter 45 on the downwind. However, if you're entering from the NE quadrant, what most people do is announce an overflight with the intention to turn around and enter on downwind. This creates that focal point. If you're NE, go ahead and get to pattern altitude and announce/enter on the UPWIND. If you're more north than east ..  just announce enter on the crosswind. And (no matter what you've been taught), it's OK to announce enter base too. Any of these are safer than going out of your way to get on that downwind. Flying over at higher than TPA and then descending is what can lead to the hi/low wing visibilty conflict.. AND put you nose-to-nose with a KingAir (they fly slightly higher and larger patterns). And almost as dangerous as descending into a pattern, is to linger around its perimeter (flying all the way around to get to that darn 45-downwind)(another place where that hi/low-wing visibilty conflict can rear its ugly head). The only "leg" entry that you want to avoid at a busy, uncontrolled field, is flying straight in. Although, if you're at pattern altitude a few miles out; hear/see no other traffic; it's still better than going out of your way (with every other student) to funnel into that 45-downwind. If in doubt flying straight in, just make it an upwind entry.

Leaving a pattern is a little simpler. Just announce and extend the leg that you're on... EXCEPT a crosswind leg (that will have you cutting across the dread funnel). Go ahead and continue on to the downwind and then exit. Any exit other than the leg you're on will have you "turning your back on a pattern".. a big  NO NO. If the KingAir behind you feels a need to overtake; he'll be doing it "outside" of you, and if you decide to exit.. welllll, you get the picture.

[C]

Indeed, however these should also be irrelevant in this argument as they should be applied at all time anyway regardless, or the pilot shouldn't be licenced.  

This is where the motorcycle analogy comes in. Doesn't matter how vigilant you are, when someone else is not. Since in or near the pattern is where most "visibilty" negligence takes its toll; it brings up something we talk about quite a bit..  Pattern entry/exit.

On entry; I'm from the "whatever leg your already on" school. Going out of your way to enter 45 degrees into the downwind is not the best method. It creates  a focal point for collision.

Ahh, the joys of military circuits. If everybody joins in a standard place (unless specifically requested, ie, for a PFL) it makes it so much easier . People also forget that often you best aid to your eyes when joining the circuit is your radio - listen-out being as important as lookout - that way when you join the circuit you can know exactly where each other aircraft is. And of course you can't beat an aeroplane with a nice low wing and big bubble canopy, but then again, one may just be slightly biased...

As for CAPS - where pilot in capacitation is involved, I'm all for it, as long as the Pax are briefed thoroughly on its use and limitations. Same for structural failure - there's nowt else one can do to be fair.

Loss of control in IMC - Unusual positions? I'd expect the pilot to at least try and recover the UP - as I assume he ought to know how otherwise why was he IMC? If not recovered by whatever the minimum safe altitude for deploying of CAPS is, then fair play.

Loss of control outside of IMC - I hope again that the pilot, as part of any conversion, would know how to regain control, or even better, not put the aircraft in a situation where he/she would lose control in the first place.

Engine failure - I think I'd like to be in command of where I put the aircraft down, and of course the eventual landing, unless of course there was no suitable landing area.

[Brett_Henderson]

Ahh, the joys of military circuits. If everybody joins in a standard place (unless specifically requested, ie, for a PFL) it makes it so much easier

Are you talking about military circuits, as in, military pilots/aircraft ?..  Or, "military", as in, everybody following the drill   (everybody and their brother (no matter what course or altitude) trying to hit that 45 on downwind) ?

[C]

Ahh, the joys of military circuits. If everybody joins in a standard place (unless specifically requested, ie, for a PFL) it makes it so much easier

Are you talking about military circuits, as in, military pilots/aircraft ?..  Or, "military", as in, everybody following the drill   (everybody and their brother (no matter what course or altitude) trying to hit that 45 on downwind) ?

Military circuits, Upwind and downwind legs, but a nice 180degree turn at each end rather then four 90s... Much easier to find everyone, and generally everyone joins in the same place, unless specifically requesting a base leg/downwind join if traffic permits...

[beaky]

Ahh, the joys of military circuits. If everybody joins in a standard place (unless specifically requested, ie, for a PFL) it makes it so much easier

Are you talking about military circuits, as in, military pilots/aircraft ?..  Or, "military", as in, everybody following the drill   (everybody and their brother (no matter what course or altitude) trying to hit that 45 on downwind) ?

Military circuits, Upwind and downwind legs, but a nice 180degree turn at each end rather then four 90s... Much easier to find everyone, and generally everyone joins in the same place, unless specifically requesting a base leg/downwind join if traffic permits...

I've often though an oval would make more sense than a rectangle... and although I'm OK with a crosswind entry, it would be better if everyone entered at the same point (or at least didn't "drop in" on the base leg...grrr!).

[C]

I've often though an oval would make more sense than a rectangle... and although I'm OK with a crosswind entry, it would be better if everyone entered at the same point (or at least didn't "drop in" on the base leg...grrr!).

I'm used to them - the last time I flew a square pattern has to be some time ago (2-3 years!). It's nice as generally everyone joins through "initials" - a point about 3-4 miles on the extended centreline of the runway in use, to then join on the deadside or do a nice run in and break (more fun - but you have to know exactly were everyone is, but useful in that you can squeeze in in front of people who are already in the circuit if they are further upwind or turning at the upwind end).

For some flights we do base leg joins, turning for what in civilian terms would be quite short finals as we can keep the speed up and slow down to approach speed at the last minute just so we can get more out of the trip, or to squeeze in infront of heavier traffic. In any case, the pertinent thing with thatjoin is to do it so you don't screw up the spacing of anyone on the downwind leg...

[Brett_Henderson]

I'm still a fan of entering the leg that you're already on..

As long as it's announced, it's safer for a pilot who's already on an extended base to enter that base... as opposed to angling over (where every body else is converging) to wedge into a downind that will just put him back where he already was (three, view blocking turns later)..

I have to ask again about this military stuff. I've been flying on/off for almost 30 years.. aint heard that before. And if it is military (Army Navy Airforce Marines), wouldn't it be a towered field anyway ? .. Or if it's several military aircraft, wouldn't there be a TFR ?

(or is this a European thing ?)