Favourite Aircraft or Favourite Training Aircraft?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: England
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Favourite Aircraft or Favourite Training Aircraft?
For me it's PA28, PA38 and the PA34. As I first learned to fly on these planes, I still love to fly the PA38 Tomahawk to this day, as I think there a real pilot's plane. No GPS, just VFR flying.
For commercial aircraft it be A320 and Q400.
I just would like to start a thread on what people's favourite aircraft are.
For commercial aircraft it be A320 and Q400.
I just would like to start a thread on what people's favourite aircraft are.
How many people post here? That is probably how many different types will get posted!
The answer for me is it depends..... For touring, training, bimbling, whatrver?
For all round flying pleasure and superb handling I would choose a glider, the standard Mucha SZD 22. For most other flying the Super Cub. But if I'm teaching you to fly then it would be back to gliders, the ASK 13. If it's flying training with an engine then it would be the Jodel 112.
I won't choose any airliner, any more than I would specify what type of bus I would like to find at the bus stop. I don't like being a passenger.
The answer for me is it depends..... For touring, training, bimbling, whatrver?
For all round flying pleasure and superb handling I would choose a glider, the standard Mucha SZD 22. For most other flying the Super Cub. But if I'm teaching you to fly then it would be back to gliders, the ASK 13. If it's flying training with an engine then it would be the Jodel 112.
I won't choose any airliner, any more than I would specify what type of bus I would like to find at the bus stop. I don't like being a passenger.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No GPS, just VFR flying.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll admit to being a terrible interviewee for this one, as the favourite aircraft (incl. glider, etc.) tends to be the one that gets me in the air on any given day. Like PC, I think it's very mission dependent and I'd also add that, in a life of flying, it can be rather epoch dependent, too. Experiences that come as revelations at one time of life can be pretty hum-drum later on.
But I'm going to take the bait anyway and declare a few favourites. The humble DR400, flown off grass runways in France 25 years ago, was a revelation for an Aussie trained on Wichita spam cans. It seemed at the time to violate the opposing principles of agility and stability.
Later on, a much-loved PA24-260 was just about the bee's knees for touring Australia. Never a big fan of Pipers, but this one made me think much better of them. Then there was the slick little Decathlon that convinced me for a little while that I knew about tail-wheel aircraft, until the next flight in the Auster or DH82 at least. And hard to beat the trusty little C150 on a power-off approach into a bush strip on a frosty morning, the grey kangaroos looking puzzled at the intrusion. Or a slick C172 for a landing on a deserted beach in Southern Tasmania, or a a flight over the volcano in Hawaii. For gentleman's aerobatics the Airtourer 160, or an RV6 come to mind.
These days? Depends on the mood but am still smiling after the morning bimble in the P2002JF. An hour's fun at 100 kt on 3/4 jerry can of premium mogas. As an old pilot friend used to say "you wouldn't be dead for quids, boy!"
But I'm going to take the bait anyway and declare a few favourites. The humble DR400, flown off grass runways in France 25 years ago, was a revelation for an Aussie trained on Wichita spam cans. It seemed at the time to violate the opposing principles of agility and stability.
Later on, a much-loved PA24-260 was just about the bee's knees for touring Australia. Never a big fan of Pipers, but this one made me think much better of them. Then there was the slick little Decathlon that convinced me for a little while that I knew about tail-wheel aircraft, until the next flight in the Auster or DH82 at least. And hard to beat the trusty little C150 on a power-off approach into a bush strip on a frosty morning, the grey kangaroos looking puzzled at the intrusion. Or a slick C172 for a landing on a deserted beach in Southern Tasmania, or a a flight over the volcano in Hawaii. For gentleman's aerobatics the Airtourer 160, or an RV6 come to mind.
These days? Depends on the mood but am still smiling after the morning bimble in the P2002JF. An hour's fun at 100 kt on 3/4 jerry can of premium mogas. As an old pilot friend used to say "you wouldn't be dead for quids, boy!"
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant contribute much here, but would be interesting to hear opinions in high wing v low wing aircraft. When I decided to start training, I had the option of several aircraft, PA28, Tecnam or C172. So the tecnam is out because I am a big lad, so its PA28 or C172. The reason I decided to start flying (besides my long term interest in aviation) was after a R44 scenic flight in New Zealand. So the reason I went with the C172 was simply because I like the fact its great for checking out the scenery. Can confirm this from my recent trip to Noumea over their barrier reef. Just as good as an R44 (better actually, because I was flying it!) Added bonus is high wing aircraft provide good shade from the Aussie and NZ sun.
Actually, to be honest, I want to learn in a heli first, till I did the maths on it. Too expensive.
Actually, to be honest, I want to learn in a heli first, till I did the maths on it. Too expensive.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgot to agree with SP that PA38's are under-appreciated. Sadly, the spar issues will probably see them die off quietly. Oh, and also forgot those fantastic Lancairs.....
Once you go bubble canopy, it's hard to go back to an enclosed cabin - claustrophobia sets in. And in many of the better bubble designs, the pilot sits pretty well forward of the wing, so the view below is good and, of course, the view around is superb. You can use deployable sunscreens if you want but even that starts to impinge on your view of the world after a while - so a pump pack of SPF50 lotion in the hangar is my preferred solution.
But flying verandahs are useful, too. Keeps the rain off while you're loading up. Allows the tent to be pitched under the wing. Used to be good for supporting Cessna barn-door flaps until the lawyers got involved and crippled the new models.
No one aeroplane is all things for all missions. But it's fun to keep looking!
Once you go bubble canopy, it's hard to go back to an enclosed cabin - claustrophobia sets in. And in many of the better bubble designs, the pilot sits pretty well forward of the wing, so the view below is good and, of course, the view around is superb. You can use deployable sunscreens if you want but even that starts to impinge on your view of the world after a while - so a pump pack of SPF50 lotion in the hangar is my preferred solution.
But flying verandahs are useful, too. Keeps the rain off while you're loading up. Allows the tent to be pitched under the wing. Used to be good for supporting Cessna barn-door flaps until the lawyers got involved and crippled the new models.
No one aeroplane is all things for all missions. But it's fun to keep looking!
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tecman
Forgot to agree with SP that PA38's are under-appreciated. Sadly, the spar issues will probably see them die off quietly. Oh, and also forgot those fantastic Lancairs.....
Once you go bubble canopy, it's hard to go back to an enclosed cabin - claustrophobia sets in. And in many of the better bubble designs, the pilot sits pretty well forward of the wing, so the view below is good and, of course, the view around is superb. You can use deployable sunscreens if you want but even that starts to impinge on your view of the world after a while - so a pump pack of SPF50 lotion in the hangar is my preferred solution.
But flying verandahs are useful, too. Keeps the rain off while you're loading up. Allows the tent to be pitched under the wing. Used to be good for supporting Cessna barn-door flaps until the lawyers got involved and crippled the new models.
No one aeroplane is all things for all missions. But it's fun to keep looking!
Once you go bubble canopy, it's hard to go back to an enclosed cabin - claustrophobia sets in. And in many of the better bubble designs, the pilot sits pretty well forward of the wing, so the view below is good and, of course, the view around is superb. You can use deployable sunscreens if you want but even that starts to impinge on your view of the world after a while - so a pump pack of SPF50 lotion in the hangar is my preferred solution.
But flying verandahs are useful, too. Keeps the rain off while you're loading up. Allows the tent to be pitched under the wing. Used to be good for supporting Cessna barn-door flaps until the lawyers got involved and crippled the new models.
No one aeroplane is all things for all missions. But it's fun to keep looking!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy, my agreement with SP was in regard to the PA38 Trauma-hawk (spin one enough times and you'll at some point understand the nick-name).
The PA28 is a good war-horse and by all means do a check ride on it. Not a bubble canopy, although the newer ones do have more glass than the earlier ones. In an effort not to speak ill of any aeroplane, I'll just say that our group owned an Archer 2 for quite a while; it was reliable and didn't cost us much in maintenance money.
The PA28 is a good war-horse and by all means do a check ride on it. Not a bubble canopy, although the newer ones do have more glass than the earlier ones. In an effort not to speak ill of any aeroplane, I'll just say that our group owned an Archer 2 for quite a while; it was reliable and didn't cost us much in maintenance money.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's got to have good handling, good looks, character, each of those factors ruling out any spam can. So, in this order:
1) dH Chipmunk
2) Stampe
3) Beagle Pup / Bulldog
Strangely, although it can't be said to have 'good handling', the basic J3 / L4 Cub is terrific fun to fly if you aren't in a hurry.
1) dH Chipmunk
2) Stampe
3) Beagle Pup / Bulldog
Strangely, although it can't be said to have 'good handling', the basic J3 / L4 Cub is terrific fun to fly if you aren't in a hurry.
Last edited by Shaggy Sheep Driver; 16th Mar 2014 at 11:25.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Oz
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tecman
Andy, my agreement with SP was in regard to the PA38 Trauma-hawk (spin one enough times and you'll at some point understand the nick-name).
The PA28 is a good war-horse and by all means do a check ride on it. Not a bubble canopy, although the newer ones do have more glass than the earlier ones. In an effort not to speak ill of any aeroplane, I'll just say that our group owned an Archer 2 for quite a while; it was reliable and didn't cost us much in maintenance money.
The PA28 is a good war-horse and by all means do a check ride on it. Not a bubble canopy, although the newer ones do have more glass than the earlier ones. In an effort not to speak ill of any aeroplane, I'll just say that our group owned an Archer 2 for quite a while; it was reliable and didn't cost us much in maintenance money.
My favorite is the Pawnee. I treasure the hours I spent towing and miss it horribly. What a great workhorse - tug the glider up, split S off tow, run downhill fast, spiral if you are close to the airport, and a gentle taildragger to boot. I have even flown it straight and level on three occasions. Once to break in new cylinders, once on a long aero retrieve, once flying to a contest. On the good ridge days we would fly in fierce winds, until a grownup came along and told us to knock it off. I have done a couple retrieves out of small farm strips. Much fun.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doesn't do it for me Shaggy, although I'm sure it's great to fly. Similar with Cubs, bloody ugly looking things. Might be the tandem layout that I don't like. Shape of the fuselage looks all wrong to me with a tandem cockpit. Apart from exotica like two seat P51's etc.
Now this is a pretty aircraft IMO. I'm sure others would find it as ugly as sin.
Now this is a pretty aircraft IMO. I'm sure others would find it as ugly as sin.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is too hard a question to give a simple answer to. I don't like regular PA28s, although the PA28R is acceptable.
Best trainer - C152 takes abuse well, is honest and capable. If the student or instructor ate a couple of pies, then the C172 is fine.
Love the Decathlon, and for real tailwheel I love the Pitts family. The Chipmunk has one of the nicest harmonisation of flying controls.
For "real" flying you can't beat a proper Cub.
For general all purpose filling your boots, can't beat a tailwheel RV; pretty much tick all the major boxes.
For multi-engine I guess my favourite based on limited experience is the Duchess, but I only have a few twin types to choose from.
Best trainer - C152 takes abuse well, is honest and capable. If the student or instructor ate a couple of pies, then the C172 is fine.
Love the Decathlon, and for real tailwheel I love the Pitts family. The Chipmunk has one of the nicest harmonisation of flying controls.
For "real" flying you can't beat a proper Cub.
For general all purpose filling your boots, can't beat a tailwheel RV; pretty much tick all the major boxes.
For multi-engine I guess my favourite based on limited experience is the Duchess, but I only have a few twin types to choose from.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few favorites come to mind as I read the question. Can't narrow it down to one, as there are different tasks for different airplanes I have flown. There may be some cross-categorizing, but that's aviation...
Airliner: DC-8-72
Turboprop: L-382G
Twin: Twin Otter (learned in a Twin Comanche, so that has good memories)
SE XC: C-210 (Comanche's are good, but I like flying in the shade)
Utility: C-185, Beaver, C-206, Super Cub
Trainer: I learned in 150/152's, and the basics were conveyed properly.
ME trainer: Piper Aztec (a solid platform)
Steam gauge rules. Glass, besides my iPad, leaves me cold.
Airliner: DC-8-72
Turboprop: L-382G
Twin: Twin Otter (learned in a Twin Comanche, so that has good memories)
SE XC: C-210 (Comanche's are good, but I like flying in the shade)
Utility: C-185, Beaver, C-206, Super Cub
Trainer: I learned in 150/152's, and the basics were conveyed properly.
ME trainer: Piper Aztec (a solid platform)
Steam gauge rules. Glass, besides my iPad, leaves me cold.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Favourite has to be a Spitfire, but on a more realistic level Extra 300, then properly affordable - RV8, non of these are suitable basic trainers though, so looking at Chippie and Bulldog for that.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox - I haven't flown any of those first three so can't comment directly. I do know a few folk who've flown the Spit and the Chippy; they report (pretty unanimously) that they both enjoy superbly harmonised handling (the Chippy maybe having the edge in the limited speed envelope of that aeroplane) but the Spit stiffens up its ailerons at the sort of speeds no Chippy will ever see.
I'd love to find out for myself, and of course the Spit is.... a Spit, with that fabulous engine and enormous power. I'm afraid the nearest I've come is the Yak52 which I part owned for few years. Far more power than the Chippy, and more usable power with CS prop, and much more powerful controls (consideraby faster roll response etc). Felt like a warbird. Sounded superb. But not as nicely harmonised handling as the dHC 1.
I'd love to find out for myself, and of course the Spit is.... a Spit, with that fabulous engine and enormous power. I'm afraid the nearest I've come is the Yak52 which I part owned for few years. Far more power than the Chippy, and more usable power with CS prop, and much more powerful controls (consideraby faster roll response etc). Felt like a warbird. Sounded superb. But not as nicely harmonised handling as the dHC 1.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox - I haven't flown any of those first three so can't comment directly.