Message-ID: <367B1663.4D87@select-ware.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 21:58:43 -0500
From: m w grossmann <fries@select-ware.com>
Reply-To: fries@select-ware.com
Organization: select ware, inc.
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student,rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: Re: low wing vs. high wing
References: <75en53$p2a$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <01be2ae2$740ae880$fed84d0c@1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.240.142.184
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.240.142.184
Lines: 13
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!news-xfer.newsread.com!netaxs.com!newsread.com!news.inch.com!207.240.142.184
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:42294 rec.aviation.piloting:29989

Capt.Doug wrote:
> 
> There are lots of arguments in support of each, like, 'Did you ever see a
> low-wing bird?' In the end, they both fly well and the choice is a personal
> decision.

Maybe not, but I've never seen a high-wing 737 either!

Cheers-

mwg
who learned in a 172 but noticed that beyond single-engine, most planes
are low-wing.
