During a recent discussion on glider design, a quandary arose over what the aerodynamic effects of moving an otherwise unchanged wing from the top of an aircraft to the bottom would be.
One claim was that it would reduce "self righting" characteristics due to a change in the interaction of the relative wind to the upwind wing/fuselage root and reduced effect on the lift of the downwind wing. This would be the equivalent of increased "anhedral effect".
Another point of view was that lowering the wing lowers CG, increasing area above the CG, which (as an upright tail fin or fuselage component) would increase tendency to roll away from a side wind, or increased "dihedral effect".
In the mean time, high wings and low wings continue to fly on in abundance, with passionate arguments supporting the virtues of each.
With so much ambiguity, even after more than 120 years of aviation to sort things out, is it possible that both designs still exist because one really does not have a significant aerodynamic advantage over the other?
Landing considerations of long winged aircraft are obvious considering the dangers of catching a wing tip and "cartwheeling". Increased dihedral and a high wing position help prevent this. Others state low wings are easier maintenance.
In the air, are they really closer than we think?