Ever flown an airplane you just don't like?

z987k said:
Ya the navajo is 2x the plane the 402 is. In every way, from cockpit layout to ice carrying to useful load and the engines on the wings.

As for the airplanes I've flown that I just hated, well that would be every single beechcraft product I've ever personally flow. Every one is just pure awfulness in mechanical form.
Click to expand...

1900 is an awesome airplane. 99 is ok (not great, but meh). Be55 Baron is nice.
 
ppragman said:
1900 is an awesome airplane. 99 is ok (not great, but meh). Be55 Baron is nice.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine a 1900 being somehow better than the 200. The 200 in an abortion of an airplane IMO, though not at much as the 99. I also die a little every time I have to turn a gen off to start the other engine.
 
Last edited:
z987k said:
I can't imagine a 1900 being somehow better than the 200. The 200 in an abortion of an airplane IMO, though not at much as the 99. I also die a little every time I have to turn a gen off to start the other engine.
Click to expand...

The 1900 was great. Ample power, simple systems, easy to fly, fun to fly, minimal BS. You could cross gen start the 1900 without blowing a current limiter like in the King Air / 99 too. Great airplane.
 
ppragman said:
The 1900 was great. Ample power, simple systems, easy to fly, fun to fly, minimal BS. You could cross gen start the 1900 without blowing a current limiter like in the King Air / 99 too. Great airplane.
Click to expand...
Ya I guess they're those things, but they handle and fly like a Mack truck. Stop like one to, at least in comparison to the commander. They burn more fuel and go slower than other things that accomplish the same mission. Just not a fan, at all.
 
z987k said:
Ya I guess they're those things, but they handle and fly like a Mack truck. Stop like one to, at least in comparison to the commander. They burn more fuel and go slower than other things that accomplish the same mission. Just not a fan, at all.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
Sorry, at this point there is nothing you can say to convince me that beech makes a good product. I hate them.
 
Piper Seminole. I know a trainer isn't supposed to be a fantastic performer, but come on. Also, most of the ones I flew had the garbage known as the Entegra up front.
 
I generally agree with what everyone is saying about the Cessnas, but then I look at the plane and think about its heritage and reliability. I think to myself, there has to be far worse than a 2007 model Cessna 172R....
 
Caelum Deus said:
The piper arrow sucks! Low wing, super hot in the summer, only one door and no window on the instructor side, no brakes on the instructor side, drops like a rock, and pisses me off when I look at it.

I do love the 152, 5000 hours in that thing
Click to expand...


+1 for the Arrow, a nice dose of Carbon Monoxide at High AOA, and touch and goes ate up more runway than a Seminole. Doing a power off 180 it's not unusual to be pointed pretty much straight at the ground,

C-152, nice, I have 100+ hours in the AZ Summer in one.
 
Thus far I've had fun flying everything I've flown, only GA for me though. I have a lot of fun flying 172s, I honestly get bored in cruise on XCs in any plane, but when I'm actually flying, I'm having fun flying whatever airplane I can get my hands on. Though I'll admit, I bring friends with me everytime I rent so sharing that with them probably helps me not get tired of piston singles.
 
The only planes I truly despise are the 152 and the 310. Couldn't stand the slow, small 152 plus the fact I was teaching in it, and the 310 I thought was just the most unstable airplane I've ever flown, granted it was just an hour of differences training. Love the 402C, my current ride. Love the Tomahawk. Soloed and got my private in that thing, and for nostalgia's sake I took a ferry contract in on from AZ to FL. Like most here, I'm a bit indifferent to the 172. No feelings on it one way or the other, it just is what it is. Loved the Arrow and 208. Didn't much like the 207 but did like the 206, guess that was cause of the different operations. I guess I would fly every airplane I've ever flown again except the 152 or 310. Hate those things.
 
Crop Duster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where should I start?
$1,500 for the panel light rheostat cluster
The magnesium tail surfaces. Hello corrosion city.
Aft CG like a mother
Vacuum pumps on a turboprop? Is this an A90 King Air?
265 gallons of gas, burning 30 an hour while waiting in line at TEB.
265 gallons of gas, burning 75 an hour in cruise
150-160 gallons max with seats full
ORF to TEB, going by PHL at 5,000 feet, burning 75 gal/hr, because you're still a "prop"
Watching the ETE INCREASE as you descend because of the reduction of TAS
197 knot Vmo, because yellow arcs don't exist in turbine aircraft
Retractable step that breaks while you're standing on it
Flap limit switches that always break
Flap actuator rod attachments that tear the flap skin, leading to symmetric extensions
Feeling like you're in a washing machine any time the wind blows.

Anything else @mikecweb?
 
Screaming_Emu said:
The 172 is the Chevy Cavalier of airplanes. Meets every minimum standard, but just barely.
Click to expand...
Yup, I cannot stand the things.

"Teaching the world to fly - poorly!"

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.
 
TFaudree_ERAU said:
Where should I start?
$1,500 for the panel light rheostat cluster
The magnesium tail surfaces. Hello corrosion city.
Aft CG like a mother
Vacuum pumps on a turboprop? Is this an A90 King Air?
265 gallons of gas, burning 30 an hour while waiting in line at TEB.
265 gallons of gas, burning 75 an hour in cruise
150-160 gallons max with seats full
ORF to TEB, going by PHL at 5,000 feet, burning 75 gal/hr, because you're still a "prop"
Watching the ETE INCREASE as you descend because of the reduction of TAS
197 knot Vmo, because yellow arcs don't exist in turbine aircraft
Retractable step that breaks while you're standing on it
Flap limit switches that always break
Flap actuator rod attachments that tear the flap skin, leading to symmetric extensions
Feeling like you're in a washing machine any time the wind blows.

Anything else @mikecweb?
Click to expand...
I think that's about it.
Well and wingskin that just mysteriously cracked for no apparent reason. :)
 
ppragman said:
The navajo > the 402. Every day. The navajo flies better with both running and OEI, carries a bigger load and is simply "nicer" in terms of cockpit layout and all the amenities.
Click to expand...
I did a ride along in I believe the Chieftain version. Can't speak intelligently about the 'jo first hand, but its reputation certainly precedes itself-in a good way!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top