What do you not like about _____________ (airplane)?

///AMG said:
I'm on my second now, and they aren't that bad Mike :) Actually, I guess it was really BAE who made #1, and Big Mac Air who made #2 so maybe my point is moot.....
Click to expand...

Blasphemy!!! Wash your mouth out boy!

The Hornet is no more a "Boeing" product than any other modern fighter. The "Boeing" F-15 Eagle? Heresy!

And the "Boeing" AH-64 Apache???? The Apache is a HUGHES product through and through, and always will be.
 
Since I've really only flown 172s... I really hate the fact that the newer ones feel the need to have THIRTEEN friggin' sump points for the fuel system. I've heard somewhere this is the result of a lawsuit that came after a crash due to fuel contamination. Does anybody know if that's just the myth or if there really is a legitimate need to cause that much aggravation during a preflight?
 
JordanD said:
Since I've really only flown 172s... I really hate the fact that the newer ones feel the need to have THIRTEEN friggin' sump points for the fuel system. I've heard somewhere this is the result of a lawsuit that came after a crash due to fuel contamination. Does anybody know if that's just the myth or if there really is a legitimate need to cause that much aggravation during a preflight?
Click to expand...

I forgot all about that. That is rather annoying.

I can't stand how the CRJ-200 looks. The lack of nose gear doors sticking out when the gear is down is a big one for me. Anything smaller than a Boeing needs to have nose gear doors that stay down with the gear. It just doesn't look right otherwise.

I also severely dislike the CRJ-200 refueling system. The gauges lag, and when you get done they'll show right on what was requested, but if you come back in 5 minutes, they'll be 200 lbs short on each side. WTF? Now, I just calculate how many gallons I need and put that in so I don't have to deal with stupid fuel panel.

Fueling ERJs are somewhat sucky in that they don't have individual fuel SOVs for each tank. So, if the tanks are imbalanced, you have to put the requested amount in the preselector and pray that it works. Though most of the time, you have to overwing the low tank to get it within acceptable levels anyway.

Towing any Mooney sucks.

Beechjets suck. Loud, always want a GPU and don't forget to topoff the trunk!

Fuel panels that have gauges in kilograms are annoying.

The autopilot with the Pro Line 21 is starting to get a little annoying too. Dutch roll, localizer intercept is less than savvy, etc.

I wish the King Air 200 could carry both fuel and passengers, not one or the other.
 
JordanD said:
Since I've really only flown 172s... I really hate the fact that the newer ones feel the need to have THIRTEEN friggin' sump points for the fuel system. I've heard somewhere this is the result of a lawsuit that came after a crash due to fuel contamination. Does anybody know if that's just the myth or if there really is a legitimate need to cause that much aggravation during a preflight?
Click to expand...
I thought there were 12 until my private pilot ride...I was then informed of the location of the thirteenth by the DPE. Life's somewhat embarrassing moments...

That might not even be enough. Recent SAFO came out reminding us to actually sump the tanks, too...even to the point of "sump some from the center drains with left and right selected on the fuel selector valve."

I haven't had my dose of haterade for the day, but that's overboard. (so to speak...)
 
JordanD said:
Since I've really only flown 172s... I really hate the fact that the newer ones feel the need to have THIRTEEN friggin' sump points for the fuel system. I've heard somewhere this is the result of a lawsuit that came after a crash due to fuel contamination. Does anybody know if that's just the myth or if there really is a legitimate need to cause that much aggravation during a preflight?
Click to expand...

The the wing tanks have baffles in them and each sump is the low point of each baffle, 5 each. Then 3 under the nose for the fuel selector, reserve tank and fuel strainer. It is annoying! Just flew an older skyhawk for fun this afternoon....I was looking for more sumps, lol. One on each wing just didn't seem right.

Whoever said about towing Mooneys I agree with! such a small turn radius
 
CRJ

1. Dinky landing gear, so it it lands like a rinky dink toy in a crosswind
2. To land aim straight down, also rinky dink and unlike any other transport airplane.
3. Conditioned air sucks in every configuration for everybody on the airplane
4. They keep stretching it and making the walk to the dinky stinky lav longer
5. It leaks and drips water on you from the strangest places
6. Rotates at flaps 8 in the summer at high DA airports at like 170 knots
7. Other than the avionics and jet engines, seems and feels inferior to every other airplane I have ever flown.
8. Uncomfortable seats, for everybody.

Cheers!
 
Hootie said:
CRJ

1. Dinky landing gear, so it it lands like a rinky dink toy in a crosswind
2. To land aim straight down, also rinky dink and unlike any other transport airplane.
3. Conditioned air sucks in every configuration for everybody on the airplane
4. They keep stretching it and making the walk to the dinky stinky lav longer
5. It leaks and drips water on you from the strangest places
6. Rotates at flaps 8 in the summer at high DA airports at like 170 knots
7. Other than the avionics and jet engines, seems and feels inferior to every other airplane I have ever flown.
8. Uncomfortable seats, for everybody.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
And the APUs are loud as all hell!
 
Hootie said:
CRJ

1. Dinky landing gear, so it it lands like a rinky dink toy in a crosswind
2. To land aim straight down, also rinky dink and unlike any other transport airplane.
3. Conditioned air sucks in every configuration for everybody on the airplane
4. They keep stretching it and making the walk to the dinky stinky lav longer
5. It leaks and drips water on you from the strangest places
6. Rotates at flaps 8 in the summer at high DA airports at like 170 knots
7. Other than the avionics and jet engines, seems and feels inferior to every other airplane I have ever flown.
8. Uncomfortable seats, for everybody.

Cheers!
Click to expand...

But it's a JEEEEEEEEEET...I dun wanna fly on one of those little rinky dink propeller planes*!

* No matter how not rinky-dink or not little the turbopropeller plane is.
 
TwoTwoLeft said:
Because they're garbage. They look like garbage, fly like garbage and they even stay around forever like garbage....
Click to expand...

So quite possibly the most successful airframe in history is 'garbage.' Hummm, Ok. What aircraft can do the same thing but better for the same ease of operation and reliability?

As for hate: I pretty much hate everything about the stupid Alarus thing. Not only is it Canadian, it is total piece. My business partner wanted to add one to the fleet, the only reason I could come up with was, look at it, it sucks at everything.
 
Codyjp said:
So quite possibly the most successful airframe in history is 'garbage.' Hummm, Ok. What aircraft can do the same thing but better for the same ease of operation and reliability?

As for hate: I pretty much hate everything about the stupid Not only is it Canadian, it is total piece. My business partner wanted to add one to the fleet, the only reason I could come up with was, look at it, it sucks at everything.
Click to expand...

I'd have to say, Canucks make some pretty damned good airplanes.
 
Codyjp said:
So quite possibly the most successful airframe in history is 'garbage.' Hummm, Ok. What aircraft can do the same thing but better for the same ease of operation and reliability?
Click to expand...

There's no denying they're one of the "safest" and most economical training aircraft out there. They just fly like a slug. All the fun was engineered out of them. C150s & C182s are just a few branches apart on the family tree and are nicer flying airplanes with more of a "fun factor". However, when cost & utility come into play in the flight school/rental world, you're stuck back with the 172...
 
dhc2tacksby said:
I'd have to say, Canucks make some pretty damned good airplanes.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, unfortunately de Havilland was located in the wrong country. Can't blame them though.

TwoTwoLeft said:
There's no denying they're one of the "safest" and most economical training aircraft out there. They just fly like a slug. All the fun was engineered out of them. C150s & C182s are just a few branches apart on the family tree and are nicer flying airplanes with more of a "fun factor". However, when cost & utility come into play in the flight school/rental world, you're stuck back with the 172...
Click to expand...

Fair enough. It isn't sporty but it really is a good airframe and it is tough to beat. Now the 182, talk about a boring slug built for a good mission. The thing it a pig but it does the job reliably.
 
CRJ-200- (we will do this by system)

Electrical- Have to swap the GENs after start and before shutdown or your whole plane does a weird gradual powerdown until the APU Gen takes over.

Fuel- WAYYYY to easy to imbalance the fuel tanks and WAAAYYYY to hard to re-balance them.

Flight Controls- The flaps suck so much a** it isn't even funny. We should not be allowed to fly planes that average 2-3 FLAP FAILS A WEEK for 70 airplanes! I am fairly certain any Boeing averages 2-3 a YEAR per carrier. Also, due to these aweful flaps, we have so many rules and conditions to meet before we can take off, put flaps down, shoot approaches, Alternate airport criteria etc!
- Have a crazy AD procedure that has to do with runaway trim that involves pulling circuit breakers in flight. Again, should not be flying an airplane with that kind of messed stuff.

Hydraulic- Was a decent system until Bombardier had to F this up too. Now we are no longer allowed to have brake accumulators on our planes because of a bolt that was firing off under 3000psi and tanking your other systems. Again, should not be allowed to fly this plane with that condition.

Air- This is the worst thing on this plane. The engines cannot give us enough pressure at idle to run the packs so we have to run the APU for it. So when your APU is MEL'd you either freeze or heat stroke. Again, Bombardier didn't think to add a gasper fan?

Engines- Great engines, but need to be bigger for our plane. Cannot safely use enough bleed air to run the packs and use anti-ice at the same time so must have the APU for that as well....

Anti-Ice- Goes hand and hand with the engine issues. Also, because of our stupid clean wing and a hand full of pilots that didn't know what they were doing we now have to operate our wing and cowl anti-ice at the most rediculous times you have ever seen! (example: 5C clear day, no ground contamination...WING ICE ON!)<----Doesn't make sense!

Water and Waste- Lav is waaayyy too small!

Currently, we have 13 ADs on the airplane that are day to day items that need to be addressed. Personally, that is an insane number and this plane should not be flying. So that is what I have for now. I am sure some other RJers can add to it. It would take me all day to come up with all the weird things for this plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top