Which is better, high wing or low wing? Stick or control
yoke? Tricycle or taildragger? These are just some of
the questions I get asked on a regular basis. Personally,
I must admit that I don't mind either way, in each scenario.
Let's take the question of high wing or low wing. Aerodynamically,
there are no advantages of one over the other. The amount
of wing protruding out from the fuselage produces exactly
the same result whether it is above or below the fuselage.
In fact, even the Piper Aerostar, which has a mid-fuselage
wing, has very few aerodynamic advantages over other more
normal configurations. The final reason for going into
production was that it looked different and would perhaps
attract customers. All it in fact did was drastically
reduce the amount of space inside the cabin. The aircraft
was indeed fast, but for reasons other than the mid-wing.
There are however other pro's and con's to either a
high or low wing configuration. A high wing offers the
obvious bonus of shade from the sun.
This may seem like a trivial plus but, believe me, when
the trip is long and the sun bearing down relentlessly,
you will simply love the shade offered by a high wing
aircraft. One of the drawbacks however is that the main
wing spar needs to run right through the cabin at about
head height, exactly where the pilot and front passenger
sit, unless the wing is braced, as in a Cessna 152. This
then usually makes for limited headroom or an unusually
tall fuselage. An advantage of a low wing aircraft is
visibility whilst turning which is especially useful in
the circuit area. A drawback of the low wing is that,
should the door pop open in flight, it is well nigh impossible
to close it again due to the low pressure on top of the
wing sucking the door outwards. Also, a low wing provides
a good place to put the main undercarriage whereas in
a high wing aircraft this is somewhat of a problem. A
low wing however, provides little ground clearance when
landing on unimproved airstrips, whereas a high wing excels
in this realm. Mmmm! What's it to be then? All a matter
of personal choice I suppose.
What about stick or control yoke? Which is better? A
stick is usually mounted on the floor, between the pilots
knees and frees up a lot of control panel space but it
does take up a lot of floor space. It also makes it awkward
to enter and exit the cockpit. A yoke offers a convenient
place to clip on a let-down chart and also has more space
to put buttons and stuff, whereas a stick offers limited
space for such things. A stick is of course easier to
hook up to the cabling system, whereas a yoke has a complicated
system of pulleys, cogs, and chains, all taking up valuable
space behind the control panel. Which is easier to fly?
Again, a personal choice.
Which type of undercarriage is better, tricycle or taildragger
configuration? This one has strong proponents and detractors.
The older generation will tirelessly expound the virtues
of training in and flying a taildragger whilst the younger
generation would rather have none of this taildragging
stuff. Give 'em a nosewheel and they're happy little pilots,
but put them in a taildragger and they would rather be
tanning. I know quite a few pilots who steadfastly refuse
to convert to any aircraft with a tailwheel and consistently
fail to provide suitable reasons why.
A tailwheel configuration is of course easier to manufacture
due to there being no strengthening of the engine mount
needed and altering of the nose cowling. A tailwheel is
also nice and easy to bolt on. A taildragger offers less
profile drag due to there being only two large wheels
hanging in the airflow, whereas a tricycle wheeled aircraft
is by far easier to taxi, take-off, and land. Sissy aeroplane,
some would say. There is no doubt about it though, a pilot
trained in a taildragger is by far a superior manipulator
of controls than one that has been trained on a tricycle
type aircraft. In a taildragger you land properly or you
crash. Simple as that. No if, but, or maybe. In a tricycle
however, you can land on grass, in a crosswind, and just
let go of the controls and the aircraft will track straight
down the runway. Some aircraft, like the Sukhoi, have
to have a taildragger configuration in order to provide
the ground clearance needed for the large diameter propeller.
Both the take-off and the landing are accomplished by
strictly keeping the tailwheel on the ground at all times.
Failure to do so will result in a very expensive (and
noisy) prop strike. Sukhoi pilots would rather not go
there. So, which is better? Again, all a matter of personal
choice.
Me? I like 'em all!
