Ever flown an airplane you just don't like?

USMCmech said:
There is not a single Cessna product that I really enjoyed flying after the first 20 hours.

Most of them were good planes that did their job very well, but they handle like trucks, don't go very fast, and are made out of cheap matterials and generally display shoddy workmanship.
Click to expand...
Everything said here is the absolute truth especially the last part.
 
arkflyr said:
LOL, if it was operated by company that started with a certain 4 letter word that starts with O, they had an uncanny ability to take something that should be good (757s and Learjets) and absolutely ruin it in the name of being the cheap skates that they were.

T-tailed Arrow and Seneca II for me, just never liked them.
Click to expand...
You nailed it. Glad to have that place in my rearview. :)
 
Most of my hate or love is based on the operation, which may or may not be fare to the airplanes.

Wasn't a fan of the 99. It was just so damn boring. I thought it was fun for a visual at an uncontrolled field though. @Boris Badenov, disagrees I'm sure, but he flew an A model. The C model's pitch trim was slightly more friendly. :)

I think my least favorite airplane ever was the 210 though. I covered more miles every night in that thing than any of the routes AMF covers(except for the LMI runs) and it was just too damn slow for that. The very large wing for it's size made it quite unpleasant in turbulence too. The previous isn't the planes fault I suppose. Operationally, it was just a ton of work that wore on me a bit.

172s are indeed the MOST boring I've flown though, but the operation I used one for was challenging, so I don't hate it too much.
 
DHC-2 aka frigin truck with the most unergonomic cockpit design
172, not sure if anything more boooring ever left the ground

T-tail Arrow? Dunno, not a huge fan but didn't hate it either.
 
Phenom 100. Slow, no power, crappy brakes, no TRs or spoilers. No payload with full fuel, no range without full fuel.
 
We dabbled with a Partenavia once, it was awful, but I've never flown another one to find out if it was just that one or all of them. Light in roll, ridiculously heavy in pitch, small and uncomfortable inside, crap useful load, wouldn't climb on one engine at sea level, slow for all the fuel it burned.
 
Roger Roger said:
I dont understand why any of the Cessna singles are as popular as they are. They're all boring to fly and over-engineered. Though at least the engines on the 172s are mostly painted the right color, unlike the 206/207/210 family (a set of airplanes that I loathe).
Click to expand...

The turbo 206 I got to fly for a while was actually pretty badass. Really. @Rocketman99 ?
 
mikecweb said:
Turbine Duke as a corporate airplane was a headache with a junkpunch as an appetizer. Sorry @TFaudree_ERAU After that I'd say Hawkers.
Click to expand...
I enjoy flying the XPs. The A model just sucks. Bad avionics and no thrust reversers.
 
mikecweb said:
Turbine Duke as a corporate airplane was a headache with a junkpunch as an appetizer. Sorry @TFaudree_ERAU
After that I'd say Hawkers.
Click to expand...

You didn't like the Royal Duke? OK, so the folks that own them are sometimes difficult. But the plane? A little short on range perhaps, and maybe a wee tad cramped, but I found it joy to fly. Rotate, count to 21/2, push nose down and pull power or you'll be overspeed on downwind. What's not to like? Well, ok. There was the whole fueling Rubicks Cube and the gear, but still, it flew great.
Do you like the LRJ?
 
hammerhat said:
DHC-2 aka frigin truck with the most unergonomic cockpit design
172, not sure if anything more boooring ever left the ground

T-tail Arrow? Dunno, not a huge fan but didn't hate it either.
Click to expand...

Dis the Beaver? The Beaver?!? You know they put that whole oil assembly inside 'cause its cold outside. That there is Canadian ergonomics. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top