Ever flown an airplane you just don't like?

ah 1900 was a fun airplane to fly..Piaggio has a lot of a**traps for you to catch yourself in...don't mind the hawker.. id say my least fav was when I was instructing and one of my students owned a Cherokee 140 (I think) downright scary in the summer at 100ft per min
 
Everyone saying the 172, I actually found myself a lot more bored in the PA28 Warrior. "Hershey Bar" wing + massive dihedral = forgiving aerodynamics and stall characteristics to help the weekend warriors not kill themselves, but it was pretty damn unremarkable in the process.
 
ppragman said:
I could stop the 1900 in 1500' or less with a full load without flat-spotting the tires if I reefed it up into reverse and used good shortfield technique, for a 16,600lb turboprop that's pretty damn good. The 99 I could consistently stop in 1000'. For a 10,000lb airplane that's pretty good. Honestly, the only complaint I'd have about the C model is throwing boxes with a bent back over the wing spar. The rest was child's play.
Click to expand...
And I used to do that with 37 pax and full cargo in a Dash-8 with no problems. Most larger Beech products aren't very good.
 
The C-414. Although I actually like the concept of it and is good looking, the one I had the chance to fly was LN12 and had too many quirks and glitches. This obviously was to be airframe specific.

This one took me into two back-to-back engine-out situations due to fuel starvation (selected the aux tank, but apparently it did not transferred - particular of this LN12 where you had pull some circuit breakers, lower the gear, then up, order coffe, don't drink it, accomplish a medium-level sudoku and finally engage high pressure pumps, before selecting tanks - It did not like to switch tanks). Oh, the fuel gauges did not work, and fuel flow instrument was on PPH and the tank selector on USGals. Plus it pressurized at...1.3psi, awesome!


Never flew it again.
 
Crop Duster said:
AZTEC. AZTEC. AZTEC. Now let's start in on the APACHE. :cry:
Click to expand...

I actually liked the Aztec with one exception. I hated our F model with the squared off stabilator and long range tanks. Granted, it was great at altitude, but down low where we routinely flew... major piece of crap!


BobDDuck said:
Just be careful about using too much trim in the flare in case you end up doing a balked landing or something. That little bit of nose up at slow speed and idle power will turn into a whole lot of nose up at go around power.
Click to expand...

We have people on the Saab that when you look at the trim gauge after exiting the runway, the trim indicators are full up....

Autothrust Blue said:
There are specific airplanes at work that, for whatever reason, don't seem to fly 'right' or have quirks that are annoying enough that when they roll up, I roll my eyes - "Oh, it's this airplane." So yes, there are planes I just don't like.
Click to expand...

No kidding...

It's funny when you fly certain airframes enough that just by looking at the release, you know you are in for a fun day.
 
ctab5060X said:
I actually liked the Aztec with one exception. I hated our F model with the squared off stabilator and long range tanks. Granted, it was great at altitude, but down low where we routinely flew... major piece of crap!




We have people on the Saab that when you look at the trim gauge after exiting the runway, the trim indicators are full up....
Click to expand...
Yeah, no.



No kidding...

It's funny when you fly certain airframes enough that just by looking at the release, you know you are in for a fun day.
Click to expand...
"That pack is probably not supposed to sound like a dubstep album."
 
A150K said:
Fwiw, I've never met a blimp pilot who actually enjoyed flying blimps.
Click to expand...

And honestly, I don't think you ever will. The physical aspect of flying them (especially cross-country) is exhausting. You have to literally manhandle the flight controls to get the airship to do what you want. Now imagine doing this continuously for 8-12 hours, single pilot, no autopilot. Not only are the flights long and tiring, but the scariest takeoffs/landings I've ever made in my aviation career have been in airships.

Don't get me wrong, I've scared myself a few times in fixed-wing aircraft, but there were several occasions in the blimp where I literally think poo came out.

Going back to fixed-wing has been glorious.
 
Apophis said:
And honestly, I don't think you ever will. The physical aspect of flying them (especially cross-country) is exhausting. You have to literally manhandle the flight controls to get the airship to do what you want. Now imagine doing this continuously for 8-12 hours, single pilot, no autopilot. Not only are the flights long and tiring, but the scariest takeoffs/landings I've ever made in my aviation career have been in airships.

Don't get me wrong, I've scared myself a few times in fixed-wing aircraft, but there were several occasions in the blimp where I literally think poo came out.

Going back to fixed-wing has been glorious.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth. I've had a couple incidents that made me pucker up in a fixed wing, but nothing like some of the stuff I did in airships. Quite frankly, I had more than one landing that without having a team of guys who knew what to do on the ground, I'd be checking the incident/accident box.
 
The DHC2. Only a few hours in it, but it was built for little, tiny Frenchmen, and I am neither little nor tiny. Not a lot of confidence inspired in the control surfaces.
 
I was in aircraft sales for about 2 years and I got quite a sampling of the GA market.

The one(s) that really stick out in my mind as rather unlikeable were the AC114/112.
5483871674_3a813cd42d_m.jpg


Comfortable enough cabin, but the flying characteristics were uninspired. Not much power, not much speed, dull handling. And it existed in a market segment where the Bonanza and the 210 had it totally outclassed. No wonder the 2 aircraft we had generated little interest.

Some other ones that come to mind:
Twin Comanche- Duchess/Seminole performance with a tiny cabin. Landing perspective was terrible too.
C206- I can appreciate that this is a utilitarian airplane, but it lacked any kind of fun.
Navajo (not Chieftain)- Granted, I only flew AMF Hos, but they just didn't fly as well as I thought they should. The Chieftains seemed noticeably stabler and the extra power was nice too. Of course I flew them day in and out for over a year, so I might have just gotten used to them. But I do recall my first flights in the PA31 as being unimpressive. Again, AMF experience only.
CE525 (CJ1)- I spent a couple hundred hours in the bigger straight wing Citations (II and Ultra) and I just thought the CJ1 was awful. Horrifically tiny cockpit and I recall the airplane just being severely limited in a lot of ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top