Cessna 172: Very familiar. you just sorta sit there and the scenery goes past you. Know most things about it and no matter where I went, I could be flying one after a 45 minute checkride.
New Cessna 182: Just goes up and up and up! Takes the gusts and turbulence easily. Autopilot. Fits everyone on board.
Grumman AA-1: Engines cut out on the landing roll if you're not careful. Too comfy for comfort. Stall, spin, crash, burn die. Richard owns one.
Ardmore's Cessna 150 tailwheel: Even more 'comfy' than the Grumman. Tail will snap off if you're not careful when landing (tailwheel conversion doesn't include strengthening aft fuselage). Takes 25 miles to climb to 3000' (at 55mph).
DC3 - didn't fly it for very long, but it was wonderful fun. Slow as a slow thing though. Pretty dangerous taxiing downwind in a strong breeze. You always got wet when it was raining - we used to wear waterproof overtrou when there was rain around (water came in around windscreen seals).
B25 Mitchell - sort of a tricycle DC3 with a lot more power and the ability to carry bombs! The one I flew was a camera ship, so was always light and consequently a lot of fun. Nice having a flight engineer to look after gear and flaps too!
Harmon Rocket/RV-4 - lots of grunt and fun to fling around.
Rockwell Commander - not fast, but comfy!
Mooney Rocket/Missile - all that power made the lack of space and solid undercarriage worthwhile...
PA38 Tomahawk - thought they were an OK trainer until a friend told me to look behind me when in a spin. So I took a student up for spinning lessons and looked behind me - never have I seen a tail moving around so much while still being attached to the rest of the airframe...
Piper Apache - felt like it always had an engine failed, although both props were turning... no power at all.
Beech Sundowner - poor copy of a Cherokee. The Duchess that was based on it wasn't much better.
I'm sure lots won't agree but hate the Cherokee six, bad for loading and just a horrible bit of junk IMHO
Didn't mind the cherokee six really, was just a bit of a pain when it had a bit of weight in the back combined with that long nose... almost like taxiing a tail-dragger.
Someone else has already said it, but I'll say it again the PA32-RT (turbo lance) was a horrible aircraft IMO. Performance was a real disappointment and could potentially bite you on the arse if not flown properly.
A lot of people here don't seem to like them but I have a soft spot for the c172, especially the later SP models with the 180HP Lycoming. Have also flown the XP model and that was better once again. Much prefer a 172 over a warrior (got lots of time in both).
Loved the A36 Bonanza though, an absolute delight to fly.
Probably had the most fun flying an RV7A, but the RV10 was also very impressive (and comfy too Jaba!)
Coolest thing I ever flew... Gyroflug SC-01 Speed Canard (bit like a long-ez but roomier and factory built)
Like Fokker F27 friendship, No one has mentioned the old bird, so I just have. Wonderful to fly, rides bumps where modern Aircraft would remove your fillings. Nice comfy roomy wheelhouse. Easy to land, rock solid for IFR work. A very sedate genteel affair all round. Most of all i like all the noise and smoke but it would be nice if just some of the numberous Litres per hour consumed actually generated some power. C185, But i would say that lived with them all my life and own one. Dislike Seneca 1, complete POS Metro, of course, thats what they are for
Lots of good aircraft out there, some stand out like the Chippy as a nicely coordinated machine to fly, and of course the C180.
Unlike many posters I have always liked the Cherokee Six and always found it more useful and comfortable than the venerable C206. (except of course for scenics, where the low wing just doesn't cut it.)
Also Doc, I don't see what you've got against Austers...I've owned a couple, flown many more, and while they aren't everything to everybody, they do their job reasonably well and are well harmonised on the controls and pretty easy to fly.
So, I used to think that there weren't any real bad aircraft out there until I came across the Cresco. The Cresco looked good until I got to fly it and there the experience was like chatting up a gorgeous blonde, taking her out and then finding out that it was a transvestite in drag......total letdown. Noisy....with ailerons lifted from a Mack Truck without the power steering and systems as reliable as a used Ferrari.
Slightly off topic but I love purposeful tough aircraft like the Beaver,185,Cub and I've never been in one but the Caribou just looked the part and such impressive stol capabilities. Plenty others out there but I can't mention them all. Anyone out there have any Caribou time?
In terms of Cherokee six vs the 206, no competition the 206 all the way.
Remoak , how responsive is the B-25 ? What's the outstanding qualities that make it a favorite
It was pretty responsive at the weights we were flying it at, pretty good roll rate - one of our flights was a display for a group of USAF WWII vets, we were doing wingovers, high/low speed passes etc - the wingovers were pretty crisp. I don't have any similar aircraft (ie same era/military) to compare it to, other than the Dak. It felt a lot more responsive than the DC3.
I guess the thing I liked most about it was sitting in what was essentially a glasshouse (the cockpit roof is green-tinted perspex), with a fantastic view and two nice big meaty radials just outside the windows. The advantage over the Dak (for me, anyway) is that the tricycle gear made the whole experience relatively painless. I just don't get what is so wonderful about taildraggers...
Fokker F27 friendship, No one has mentioned the old bird