Under-rated airplanes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roger, Roger
  • Start date Start date
Having flown the C177RG nearly 9 hours in one day, my only complaint is the horrific lack of climb performance. On the way out it took us almost 50 miles to climb from 6300 to 10500...I also still have a tendency to land it a bit on the flat side since it sits so nose high on the ground.
 
braunpilot said:
Gets too hot?
Click to expand...

The tub itself surrounds the cockpit sides and bottom. The forward windscreen is bullet resistant glass up to about 23mm, though 12.7mm is more realistic. The problem comes in the low-level flying that was once the only place we operated. Whereas the front windscreen is bullet resistant, the actual canopy itself is simple plexiglass. So a hit to the sides of bottom of the cockpit would be resisted by the bathtub. However in a low-level turn with a large bank, such as a ridge crossing, if a round came through the canopy, the titanium bathtub now became a titanium catchers-mitt, with my pink fleshy body in the middle of it.

So while the bathtub was a good design, it did have its limitations, just like anything does.
 
A150K said:
Having flown the C177RG nearly 9 hours in one day, my only complaint is the horrific lack of climb performance. On the way out it took us almost 50 miles to climb from 6300 to 10500...I also still have a tendency to land it a bit on the flat side since it sits so nose high on the ground.
Click to expand...

I've heard that about the 177RG's...I'd love for Texas Skyways to come out with a IO-540 conversion for the 177RG. 230-235hp in that airplane would make it quite desirable.
 
I think the Navajo is often over looked. If I wanted to make money with a twin thats what I would use.
 
MikeD said:
The tub itself surrounds the cockpit sides and bottom. The forward windscreen is bullet resistant glass up to about 23mm, though 12.7mm is more realistic. The problem comes in the low-level flying that was once the only place we operated. Whereas the front windscreen is bullet resistant, the actual canopy itself is simple plexiglass. So a hit to the sides of bottom of the cockpit would be resisted by the bathtub. However in a low-level turn with a large bank, such as a ridge crossing, if a round came through the canopy, the titanium bathtub now became a titanium catchers-mitt, with my pink fleshy body in the middle of it.

So while the bathtub was a good design, it did have its limitations, just like anything does.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, glad it didn't happen to you. Makes sense about the design when they planned on your diving down on a T-50 (or modern equivalent) on a European front. Still a neat airplane though. I honestly cannot wait until they have NVG's that show a true 180 degree plus field of view. Thanks for the info though.
 
trafficinsight said:
Cessna 150 ;)
Click to expand...

The OP asked about under rated, NOT under powered! ;)

The Shorts 330. Ugly, but a real performer when it comes to cargo and people hauling. It's like walking with a sheet of plywood on a windy day when it comes to high crosswind landings!
 
Itchy said:
Queen Air? Really?

I'll add Be18, since I spent years in them. They were cheap to buy, great work horses.
Click to expand...

KLB said:
The Corsair.
Click to expand...

Be18 and the Corsair can't really be underrated because I don't know anyone that doesn't think they are kick ass.

For underrated I'll add a Luscombe. MU2. Commander 114's were a pretty nice airplane. Norduyn Norseman never got enough credit in my opinion.
 
Many mentioned the PC12? under-rated?? I don`t really think so. It`s one of the most succesful single engine trubine ever made, it is also a pretty new design. It only has one problem that in most of Europe it can`t be opertaed IFR part 135, that`s a huge market since it`s a pretty cheap plane to fly in the expensive european aviation. For sure it`s not uder-rated in the US, since 90% of all the PC12 ever made are flying there.

As far as the C207 goes, well I dunno, I hate it, maybe it works well in Alalska, but here when it`s hot it does not climb, we get about 1/2 the performance of the C206 in the same weather conditions at MTOW.
 
For WWII era I say the Bell P-39 Airacobra. It may not be so under-rated as little known.

147540891_e826e5b4bf_o.jpg
 
I agree the Corsair was slightly underrated, the TV show Ba Ba Blacksheep brought some good things to the aircraft. While most may argue I do think that the DA40 was and still remains underrated. Here's why, great four seat airplane. You have lots of forward visibility, G1000 equipped, and if you have two plus a bag for each, you can go over 4 hours and while on autopilot get there safely. The only thing that airplane truly lacks is FIKI. If they were to put TKS or something else on it, you have have a great airplane that can get up and go for smaller fuel burn than a C182.
 
I think most aircraft that operated in the Pacific theater during WWII are overlooked/underrated by most people who are not historians. For whatever reason the European air war is more glamorous and those aircraft get all the attention. I believe the most underrated fighter plane is the F6F Hellcat. It had a 19:1 kill ratio(I think that’s the best ratio for any piston powered fighter?) and accounted for something like 60-70% of all aircraft downed in the pacific by the Navy.
 
braunpilot said:
I agree the Corsair was slightly underrated, the TV show Ba Ba Blacksheep brought some good things to the aircraft. While most may argue I do think that the DA40 was and still remains underrated. Here's why, great four seat airplane. You have lots of forward visibility, G1000 equipped,.
Click to expand...

Get the best of both worlds......a G1000 equipped F4U Corsair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top