NoPolitics: Airplanes you like that no one else does

Plus you crash better than anyone you know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
You are correct, sir. I fly that loud airplane. And there aren't many out there!

You nailed it. Whenever I fly with delerium tremons, it's almost always in a Porter.;)
 
I guess the closest I have would be the Navajo. Fun airplane to fly, kept you busy, reasonably quick, quite capable, absolutely splendid instrument platform. Many of the folks on here flew them for Ameriflight so I think their opinions are a little colored.
 
Typhoon, because despite its engine being too cranky to make it a good point defense fighter it was a monster at what it ended up doing.

Osprey, because screw you it’s still safer than the death trap underpowered tandem disaster that was the Phrog.

S3 Viking/ES-3 Shadow, because being really damn good at a job isn’t a popularity contest on airliners.net and we never replaced the type outside of the role as a buddy tanker.

PA-28R Arrow, because screw performance it’s the first retract and complex prop I ever flew and has a special place in my heart same as rolling rock was the first crappy beer I ever drank and I love it too.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Re 175 love - it's a nice comfy office, but nice avionics??
- can't track a vor
- no friggin line between the airplane and the heading bug on mfd
- no banana bar (how hard would that be??)
- no altitude gates on profile view (even Garmin got that right with G3000), just eyeball it
- can't fly from a waypoint. Like at all.
- FD that could only be useful in monochromatic HUD, except most 175s don't have HUDs

It's a good airplane, but some things were done better elsewhere
 
Blackburn Buccaneer.
Well, if we're going that way, I'll add the DeHavilland Venom. Never felt more Slim Pickens in Dr. Strangelove than flying that thing.

Full disclosure: I've always had a thing for Olivia's cousin's airplanes. Truth told, the DHC 2 & 6 are probably my actual favorite aircraft (if I could only have 2, lol)

Image 1-4-21 at 21.32.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re 175 love - it's a nice comfy office, but nice avionics??
- can't track a vor
A what?
- no friggin line between the airplane and the heading bug on mfd
Who needs this?
- no banana bar (how hard would that be??)
Again, who needs this? The FPA draws on the profile view.
- no altitude gates on profile view (even Garmin got that right with G3000), just eyeball it
Not sure what load you guys are on, we has this.
- can't fly from a waypoint. Like at all.
FROM BOXES SUCK.
- FD that could only be useful in monochromatic HUD, except most 175s don't have HUDs
I quite liked the meatball.

It's a good airplane, but some things were done better elsewhere
 
I don't remember not being able to do a PBD and fly "from" being an issue. And if I can't remember it being an issue, it's obviously not that important anyway.
 
I'll add, Partenavia P-68. All the brilliance of Italian engineering, the two 172 engines which seemed more problematic than the Italian parts, a cockpit made for the exact fit of a 5'6 average Italian person, "nonstop service to the scene of the crash" performance if you lost an engine, and if you flew the observer the priveledge of finding out what it felt like to be a plant in a greenhouse. But damn if it wasn't some easy multi engine time that was actually kind of fun.
 
I'll add, Partenavia P-68. All the brilliance of Italian engineering, the two 172 engines which seemed more problematic than the Italian parts, a cockpit made for the exact fit of a 5'6 average Italian person, "nonstop service to the scene of the crash" performance if you lost an engine, and if you flew the observer the priveledge of finding out what it felt like to be a plant in a greenhouse. But damn if it wasn't some easy multi engine time that was actually kind of fun.

Apparently, they're really hard to keep level, too! Even without a crosswind!
Frame-04-01-2021-22-00-44 copy.jpg
Frame-04-01-2021-22-02-40 copy.jpg
Frame-04-01-2021-22-03-40 copy.jpg
Frame-04-01-2021-22-04-21 copy.jpg
 
Back
Top