re: atkahoe1's comments (page 1)

There's no inherent advantage or disadvantage to high vs. low wing on high DA days. It's true that an overloaded/underpowered low wing plane might be able to rotate into ground effect, and then be unable to climb out of ground effect, but the root problem in that instance is one of overloading/underpowering the airplane, not the wing itself. And as for getting a low wing dinged up by unimproved airstrips, as someone else pointed out, same thing happens to the empenage on a high wing airplane (probably more so, since on rotation or landing flare the tailfeathers are closer to the runway surface than is the bottom side of a low wing.

If the rocks or brush are tall enough on a backcountry airstrip to seriously damage the underside of the wing of a low wing aircraft, they're also tall enough to take out a high wing airplane's elevator/tail cone/tail wheel during takeoff rotation or landing flare. Not to mention what it would do to your main landing gear, unless you've got the monster bush wheels, which relatively few have mounted even on typical high wing/taildragger aircraft.

The bigger advantage of most of the high-wing/conventional geared airplanes typically used at mountain unimproved airstrips is the gear, not the wing .... the spring-steel mains on a taildragger are typically stronger than the main gear struts used on tricycle-gear aircraft, and the tail-low attitude on landing get the prop disk more out of harm's way. However, the latter advantage also goes away on the takeoff roll, where taildraggers usually pop the tailwheel off the ground very quickly.

It's also a mistake to assume or generalize that "low-wingers" are "inexperienced" and high-wingers are experienced. Bonanza-man would likely take issue with that!

In many parts of the world low-wing aircraft are regularly used in back-country applications, for med-evac purposes, airmail and airfreight, and air taxi operations. The Cherokee Six and the Senecas are very commonly used in such applications - even in Alaska, I understand. It's true that the backcountry mountain flying typically done in the western US is dominated by high wing, conventional greared aircraft, and for good reasons. But I am told that Johnson Creek (never having flown in there myself) is not a problem for a typical low wing, tricycle gear aircraft as long as the pilot knows his aircraft and its performance envelope, and pays attention to DA (which applies to any aircraft and its pilot). Ditto with many of the backcountry airstrips here in New Mexico, which tend to have much higher DA to contend with than you'll usually see in Idaho. Most of our mountain strips are at upwards of 7,000-9,000 feet elevation, and it gets hotter here than in Idaho (I know - I lived 8 years in Idaho).

Obviously the bottom line is experience of the pilot. You can have all the STOL bells and whistles on your plane and still not be able to fly it. Most of the 135 operators in Alaska are flying standard aircraft with very little mods except for big tires. In fact I would say that 80-90 of all aircraft in AK have at very least 850/10's if not 26 and up.

Never implied the experience Low vs High wing pilots. Thats a silly comment. Most GA aircraft in the low 48 are low wingers as the predominant application is going from point A to B on pavement. Heck, I just did a count here in Truckee and out of the 30 some planes parked here for the weekend, I see only 5 high wings. Every time we go for fuel people come over and start laughing at our tires and ask what we do with those things. Most look at the BC as not an option as they just dont think like most on this forum. If you found this forum, your obviously thinking like most do not.

I would argue the low wing aircraft flying into the bush as you mention however. Yes they do fly in and out of the more basic strips but not the bush. You just dont have the clearance. I agree with you on the tail feathers however. High wing / low wing, your gonna take a beating. You can minimize the rock damage by getting a bit of power and roll prior to full power.

A high winged aircraft is slower but with a stronger wing (not plane, just wing). You have a strut support. A low winged aircraft is faster but wing strength is not the same. You dont have the strut support.

Not that I am some super know how here, but my 40 years in Alaska, you just dont see low wings flying in and out of the country with low wings. JC and others are obviously different and we are not even talking about those. The Med vac planes, cargo, etc. your correct. But again they are not flying into the country that requires a high wing and to go even further, most BC planes in the world doing that type of work are the Caravan, 206, 207, Beaver, Otter, etc.

Anyhow, all very good airplanes High or low. Flying is flying. I just prefer the high wing so you can see what your flying over. Not much to look at above you.

Anyone in the Tahoe / Reno area (high or low wing) please come see us. We have a great flying circuit here. Lots of dirt here for everyone.

nmflyguy wrote:re: atkahoe1's comments (page 1)
...
And as for getting a low wing dinged up by unimproved airstrips, as someone else pointed out, same thing happens to the empenage on a high wing airplane (probably more so, since on rotation or landing flare the tailfeathers are closer to the runway surface than is the bottom side of a low wing
....

One small advantage is the horizontal stabilizer on a high wing is significantly narrower than the wings on a low wing so the former would be able to operate on a narrower track than the latter.

Personally, I think it's cool to see someone fly a bird that many would consider completely inappropriate, like a mooney for example, into the backcountry.

aktahoe1 wrote:A high winged aircraft is slower but with a stronger wing (not plane, just wing). You have a strut support. A low winged aircraft is faster but wing strength is not the same. You dont have the strut support

Sorry that is totally incorrect, the strut is there because the wing isn't strong enough without it. Been a whole lot more wings with struts fail than Mooney wings for example. The center section on a strut supported 210 for is about 1/5 the size of the non strut center section. And there is way more to the speed story that where the wing attaches.
not to high jack the thread but lets not get to far away from reality with all this theory.

Johnson Creek is a double wide freeway with the nicest turf found anywhere, 2/3rds of mile long and tons of room to maneuver. High/low wing is about the last variable I'd consider in this mystery. Next.

• Water-leeching ethanol laced fuel picked up on XC from some airport deep in the California corn empire?
• Condensation in the mags? (never even heard of that one...)
• Simultaneously failing condensers, pick your favorite ignition malady.
• Carb heat on.
• Full rich.
• Full rich + carb heat on.
• Fouled plug(s).
• Full rich + carb heat + fouled plugs + obscured vision due to difficulty peeking out from inside own anus.
• Fast taxi and stuck throttle at 20% power.
• Parking brake.

There are tons of possibilities. Nobody knows, maybe even not the Lance pilot. Wait for the report. Glad they're alive.

1SeventyZ wrote:

• Full rich + carb heat + fouled plugs + obscured vision due to difficulty peeking out from inside own anus.

That one gets my vote, and I'll add "prop set for cruise" to the list.

I'm really glad everyone's OK. If the guy had just scanned the pattern properly before attempting to take off, regardless of his radio issues and all his other possible screw-ups, this wouldn't have happened. Being a low wing, he should have had an easier time than most checking the pattern.

A good check list might be in order. Even in a high wing taking off runway 35 @ JC you should be able to see enough of the downwind, base & final to make a go no go decision as far as traffic is concerned.

What amazes me is that the lance was going soo slow it couldn't fly, yet it was going soo fast that the 180 driver never saw it until he almost landed on it .
And even more amazing is how many people are fixated on the lack of radio transmission !?!?!? Always assuming that someone is about to land / leave NORDO, works a whole lot better than hoping everyone is on the appropriate freq...

Holsh@t is exactly what I was thinking...

Rob wrote:What amazes me is that the lance was going soo slow it couldn't fly, yet it was going soo fast that the 180 driver never saw it until he almost landed on it .
And even more amazing is how many people are fixated on the lack of radio transmission !?!?!? Always assuming that someone is about to land / leave NORDO, works a whole lot better than hoping everyone is on the appropriate freq...

Holsh@t is exactly what I was thinking...

Exactly right.

gb

1SeventyZ wrote:Johnson Creek is a double wide freeway with the nicest turf found anywhere, 2/3rds of mile long and tons of room to maneuver. High/low wing is about the last variable I'd consider in this mystery. Next.

• Water-leeching ethanol laced fuel picked up on XC from some airport deep in the California corn empire?
• Condensation in the mags? (never even heard of that one...)
• Simultaneously failing condensers, pick your favorite ignition malady.
• Carb heat on.
• Full rich.
• Full rich + carb heat on.
• Fouled plug(s).
• Full rich + carb heat + fouled plugs + obscured vision due to difficulty peeking out from inside own anus.
• Fast taxi and stuck throttle at 20% power.
• Parking brake.

There are tons of possibilities. Nobody knows, maybe even not the Lance pilot. Wait for the report. Glad they're alive.

aw, c'mon, Zane ... don't be a spoil sport! Hangar talk is all about spouting off, hip-shooting, and endless speculation. Debating the cause of an accident is what pilots do on boards like this. Besides being normal, talking about stuff like this generates thinking about assumptions, concepts, and the challenges of safe flying ... which is to say, it ain't a bad thing.

That's why about half of any given aviation publication in print today is usually given over to accident reports, accident cause analysis, and yes, spouting off, hip-shooting, and endless speculation.

If there's one thing pilots don't lack at any given time (besides runway in front, and altitude below), it's opinions!

Tom just got back to Boulder City ,NV. today around noon . Molly wants a doggy bath and Tom wants to sleep in a real bed after 3 1/2 weeks on a air mattress . Mech. that did the job on his tail was a 2 1/8 on 10 scale sheet metal repairman. Insurance company way overpaid for this incident. I'll send some pictures of his handy work. Understand there was a 185 driver at (A&P /I.A>) parked at Johnson Creek who helped Tom put the tail back on airplane -while mr. sheetmetal -brick in one hand-hammer in other watched . I should have gone to Johnson Creek that morning rather than Emmitt (S78) and home.

Sorry this threads has gotten off track. No doubt...thankfully everyone is ok.

Maybe this needs to be a new thread Zane as it could go on and on...

I do stand corrected on the strength of High vs low however not completey, You add the strut and the wing becomes very strong. This argument has gone on for years....

Lift to weight ratio...ever see a low winged bird?

The strut-braced wing is much lighter than the strutless cantilevered design. When all the loads are carried within the wing, the wing spar is much heavier and stronger and the attachment and carrythrough structures are also heavier. A strutless high-wing (like the Cessna 177 or 210) has a sturdy set of bulkheads in the fuselage, since all the weight is suspended from the wing rather than being largely lifted from below at the strut attachment.

There are some low winged aircraft out there but not many...The tow planes, I believe the Stits Playmate, but have never seen one.

-The Cessna wing generally uses struts to transfer some of the load to the fuselage, rather than relying on a heavier cantilever construction. This allows the primary structure of the wing to be built lighter than a non-cantilevered structure.

-Also, the wing does not have to bear the loads associated with the landing gear, as these are applied directly to the reinforced structure around the cabin of the aircraft.

-With the fuselage "hanging" off the wing, most of the loads in the reinforced cabin structure are tensile rather than compressive. Since most materials used in aircraft construction generally have a greater tensile strength than compressive strength, this allows for a lighter, more efficient structure.

Cessnas for example, when compared to their low-wing rivals, tend to have lower empty weights for a similar amount of performance. A good example of this is the comparison of the Cessna 206 and either the Cirrus SR22 or the Beech Bonanza. In both cases, the Cessna has a lighter empty weight, yet carries more useful load.

As mentioned abovre the High wing / Low wing could go on forever as it has since the invention of the airplane. Look at the Wright Bro's they couldnt agree.

Well it's not a mystery who's at fault here... "landing traffic has the right of way"... Ask any tower personnel...Same holds true at Johnson Creek... I've sat waiting for someone who reported over Yellow Pine to land...It's what you do!!!!!

aktahoe1 wrote:
Cessnas for example, when compared to their low-wing rivals, tend to have lower empty weights for a similar amount of performance. A good example of this is the comparison of the Cessna 206 and either the Cirrus SR22 or the Beech Bonanza. In both cases, the Cessna has a lighter empty weight, yet carries more useful load.

As mentioned abovre the High wing / Low wing could go on forever as it has since the invention of the airplane. Look at the Wright Bro's they couldnt agree.

Not quite. First you really can't compare a 206 to a Bo or SR22, not really fair. Beech does not compete with Cessna in the 206 class, the more fair comparison is with the 210. However if you want to force the comparison I have a 64 S35, first of the 6 seat models and therefore a greater empty weight than all the V tails before it, on average. My empty weight is 2037. Using Google a 206H has an empty weight of 2146. Now we all know that empty weights will be all over the map so we can only use that as a general guide.
What do you consider to be similar performance? The 6 seat part? The 206 will get off the ground using approx 20% less runway than me when the planes weigh the same. My Bo will have probably 40-50% better rate of climb and 40-50 knots greater speed, and therefore far better gas mileage, with the same engine. That may or may not be important. I could, with mods, get my gross weight within either 50 or 100 pounds of the 206(3600#), can't remember which as I'm not interested. There are several for the Bo's that increase GW....tip tanks, VG's, etc. Part of the reason for the gross weight is the wing. Put a fatter one on there that generates more lift and you can carry more but you'll lose in other areas.
Cessna is known for making the lightest possible aircraft for a given mission. My Bo weighs about 200 pounds more than the 67 182 I used to have, again not a fair comparison, but similar to going from a 182 to a 206.

I am thinking of my last 100 hrs of flying. I went into one strip in Utah that no Bonanza could get into unles they scrapped it afterword. In my last 50 hrs a Bonanza would be just fine. Most of my flying now is familly related and a Bonanza would be preffered because of speed. I hope that changes soon.

But my home strip (2620 ft elevation) is at my ranch with 2300 ft of grass and barb wire at each end and pretty bumpy in the middle (lava rock reef). I have taken off one day after flood irrigating the field. I always leave early cus it is cooler. Sometimes I get home in the late afternood with the temp at 95 deg. My approach speed is 60 mph indicated.

I will not say that a Bonanza would be a bad fit for me cus I do not know. What would be the approch speed of the Bonanza and what would be the role out for 95 deg.

For what a Bonanza is designed to do, they can claim to be the best. I am sure a few 210 guys would say no to that.

This is off the subject but who cares.

Tim

qmdv wrote:I am thinking of my last 100 hrs of flying. I went into one strip in Utah that no Bonanza could get into unles they scrapped it afterword. In my last 50 hrs a Bonanza would be just fine. Most of my flying now is familly related and a Bonanza would be preffered because of speed. I hope that changes soon.

But my home strip (2620 ft elevation) is at my ranch with 2300 ft of grass and barb wire at each end and pretty bumpy in the middle (lava rock reef). I have taken off one day after flood irrigating the field. I always leave early cus it is cooler. Sometimes I get home in the late afternood with the temp at 95 deg. My approach speed is 60 mph indicated.

I will not say that a Bonanza would be a bad fit for me cus I do not know. What would be the approch speed of the Bonanza and what would be the role out for 95 deg.

For what a Bonanza is designed to do, they can claim to be the best. I am sure a few 210 guys would say no to that.

This is off the subject but who cares.

Tim

Here's a landing of mine last year in Laurel, MT. 94 degrees, no wind, 1200 foot runway at 3500 MSL. Total runway used about 650-700 feet. I was at about 2400 pounds, 900 under gross, that's what I'm at with myself and 30 gallons. The takeoff was probably at about 80 degrees later that day after a storm passed thru.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn1dD_A1ojE

View from the cockpit landing on the same runway, different day. Sorry for the shaky camera, I was still experimenting with camera mounts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpO_uHiQjw0

As you can see no obstacles except the barb wire fence.

My short final speed, or as Beech calls it in the POH the 50 foot speed, is about 68 MPH. Rough strips don't worry me. The gear on my plane is the exact same gear as on that years Baron which has a gross weight 1700 pounds more than mine and I have more prop clearance than the 182 I used to have. But I would worry about holes as I have a 5.00x5 nose tire. So your strip being 1000 feet lower elevation would drop the runway needed a little bit.

A few questions...

Were the winds calm wind at 0800? Was it a strait tail or a ground-liking t-tail? I've never landed at JC, but plan to next year. Is it one way in and out?

tkearns wrote:A few questions...

Were the winds calm wind at 0800? Was it a strait tail or a ground-liking t-tail? I've never landed at JC, but plan to next year. Is it one way in and out?

At 0800, the winds were most likely calm, as is the norm.

As for the question on one way in or out, see this comprehensive thread on JC operations. It's long but there are good things all the way to the end, so I suggest reading it all.

http://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5686

Nice landing Bonanza Man...you are an exception to most Bo drivers that I've seen.
HC

tkearns wrote:A few questions...

Were the winds calm wind at 0800? Was it a strait tail or a ground-liking t-tail?

It was calm and it is a T-tail.