I always find that alleged "visibility" advantage of high-wing aircraft very funny. When I got my licence in South Africa, I had a choice of training on a Cessna 172 or on a Diamond Katana. After an introductory flight on both, that was a no brainer. I wanted to enjoy the view, which is panoramic in a Katana, and severely restricted in a C172. Actually, in a C172, the only time you get decent FORWARD visibility is with full flaps! It became clearer as I started flying in more countries that this debate is actually very specific to the US and US-supplied countries, and probably emerging from the Cessna vs Piper debate. Mind you, none of these two aircraft has been designed with visibility in mind, and this is true of all major US designs of the same era, Mooneys, Beech and the like. Step in anything made in Italy, Austria, Germany or France, and you will realize that one can design an aircraft where the instrument panel does not obscure the view, so you don't really have to make turns in a climb to avoid mid air collisions; and you can actually have low wings that are not so much ahead of you that they impair your down vision. For that matter, I found my KR2 to have pretty good side visibility, and I now fly a Zenith CH-300 which is even better in that regard.
Serge Vidal Melbourne, Australia <<<<< Visibility is also a factor. Cheers. Pete.>>>>>>>>>
