Dissing the other type
I get to fly a number of types. I own a Jodel. If asked which aircraft I'd have, given the choice, I say I've made my choice. It floats MY boat.
If I could stretch to a second aircraft, I have a soft spot for the Cherokee Six 300. Only for longer trips though.
The rest are all rubbish.
If I could stretch to a second aircraft, I have a soft spot for the Cherokee Six 300. Only for longer trips though.
The rest are all rubbish.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other thread I wrote a humorous comparison with women in our lives but JetBlu seemed to take offence so I deleted it (maybe He didn't ))
Some aircraft that stand out in my mind were quite simple like the Grumman Tiger and in twins the Baron 55
Others leave you cold. You can have the most beautiful aircraft in the world yet it leaves you cold! There has to be a chemistry with the aircraft in your life too
What makes that chemistry is hard to put your finger on hard to identify
I would not call the Chipmunk beautiful. It has a Beauty for sure with its character and slightly Retro look
A new word which seems to be coming into play more nowadays is Retro
Retro for me means a number of things
Style, classic, quality of a past era and the Chipmunk has that
Beautiful aeroplane? Have to think on that as there are two types. Universal beauty as seen by many and in the eye of the beholder
Pace
Some aircraft that stand out in my mind were quite simple like the Grumman Tiger and in twins the Baron 55
Others leave you cold. You can have the most beautiful aircraft in the world yet it leaves you cold! There has to be a chemistry with the aircraft in your life too
What makes that chemistry is hard to put your finger on hard to identify
I would not call the Chipmunk beautiful. It has a Beauty for sure with its character and slightly Retro look
A new word which seems to be coming into play more nowadays is Retro
Retro for me means a number of things
Style, classic, quality of a past era and the Chipmunk has that
Beautiful aeroplane? Have to think on that as there are two types. Universal beauty as seen by many and in the eye of the beholder
Pace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never really considered it a great aircraft, that will always be my opinion, sorry if it disagrees with yours but we are each entitled to our own - and it should never have been brought into that particular discussion!
What I find disagreeable is the notion that one person might feel the need to discourage another person's choice of type needlessly - like by introducing it out of nowhere as the antithesis of the nice plane being discussed, and then the 150 seems to be presented as the shining example of dull. I'm not saying that the 150, or many other similar economy, mass produced aircraft have any particular merit as being charming to fly, they just get the job done. But for someone who is content to simply be safely and economically airborne, "getting the job done" is the goal - they are happy, and aviation is growing!
Or... the fellow who has rented a modest 150 for an afternoon stops by another airport to rub shoulders in the advanced flying environment of his dreams, and is rebuffed just because of his choice in type. He feels unwelcomed, returns the plane, and decides that MSFS is a better use of his time. WE loose if that happens - we depend upon a sustained GA industry, which demands new blood...
I can think of many young pilots I have known who plied the skis in worn out looking spam cans and rag bags, and in my opinion, earned my respect by safely soloing extensive and multiple long journeys to build experience. Many I can think of have piloting jobs now which many would envy. But, if they sold their modest aircraft and left GA, we loose. GA recedes.
I was an airport kid, back when there were low fences and that was easy to do. Now we in aviation suffer because attracting newcomers is more difficult higher fences and higher costs. So I come here, hoping to type my part in encouraging newcomers that they would be welcomed in our ranks. That's more difficult, if the establishment is outwardly knocking what they are aspiring to, flying now.....
I accept that posters here are not offended by me flying my 150 with pride, but someone's 150 seems to have attracted scorn....
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Gone
Posts: 1,665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace
"I wrote a humorous comparison with women in our lives but JetBlu seemed to take offence so I deleted it (maybe He didn't ))"
I didn't take offence. I thought it was rather funny.
From recollection, my only gripe was that you were insistent with getting my name wrong, although that seems to remain unchanged.
My only other comment to 'that' deleted post would be don't knock operating two high performance birds simultaneously until you've tried it.
"I wrote a humorous comparison with women in our lives but JetBlu seemed to take offence so I deleted it (maybe He didn't ))"
I didn't take offence. I thought it was rather funny.
From recollection, my only gripe was that you were insistent with getting my name wrong, although that seems to remain unchanged.
My only other comment to 'that' deleted post would be don't knock operating two high performance birds simultaneously until you've tried it.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyingmac
[If I could stretch to a second aircraft, I have a soft spot for the Cherokee Six 300. Only for longer trips though.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, an old Cherokee 6 300 is exactly what I fancy if I was gonna buy a second plane as a cruiser. I recently stopped over in Jersey and that model appears to be breeding like rabbits on the Island, everywhere you looked there was a Cherokee six/Saratoga. Must be good kit if there using them down there for Island hopping.
[If I could stretch to a second aircraft, I have a soft spot for the Cherokee Six 300. Only for longer trips though.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, an old Cherokee 6 300 is exactly what I fancy if I was gonna buy a second plane as a cruiser. I recently stopped over in Jersey and that model appears to be breeding like rabbits on the Island, everywhere you looked there was a Cherokee six/Saratoga. Must be good kit if there using them down there for Island hopping.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like by introducing it out of nowhere as the antithesis of the nice plane being discussed
As for
But for someone who is content to simply be safely and economically airborne, "getting the job done" is the goal - they are happy, and aviation is growing!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 23, Railway Cuttings, East Cheam
Age: 68
Posts: 3,115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My only criteria for an a/c is can it get me and a mate/couple of mates into and out of a 500 mtr ish strip. I couldn't care less what it is I'm flying (or not flying at the moment) TBH. The view is more or less the same out of all of them which is what floats my personal boat.
I do find it wearing when the 'You can't aero a 172' , or more frequently in this forum 'Try gliding, it's the cure for everything from piles to dry rot' brigade pitch up in a thread. We all get different things out of flying, which is just as it should be, just the same as we all like different food in a restaurant. I'm not interested in the aileron response of a 150 cf a Vans or whether it can fly upside down while whistling Dixie, couldn't care less. I like to fly for the views and the pub at the end of that grass strip on a summer's day, any aircraft at all that can facilitate that is good to me. That's why I fly and the myriad reasons that other people fly are absolutely fine too.
I do find it wearing when the 'You can't aero a 172' , or more frequently in this forum 'Try gliding, it's the cure for everything from piles to dry rot' brigade pitch up in a thread. We all get different things out of flying, which is just as it should be, just the same as we all like different food in a restaurant. I'm not interested in the aileron response of a 150 cf a Vans or whether it can fly upside down while whistling Dixie, couldn't care less. I like to fly for the views and the pub at the end of that grass strip on a summer's day, any aircraft at all that can facilitate that is good to me. That's why I fly and the myriad reasons that other people fly are absolutely fine too.
A very interesting thread. I've flown 45 types over the years, although about a third of those flights were just a "bit of poling around" while a passenger.
I've enjoyed flying everyone of those types and if they had some less than perfect handling characteristics, that was a very minor drawback compared to the magic of being in the air.
I always leap at the opportunity to try out new types. Most recently, I had the opportunity to fly a Nanchang and this summer, I'm looking forward to a checkout in a DH-82c - not a type renowned for its handling characteristics.
pb84,
I had always looked a bit askance at the Maule, but after our flight together, I changed my opinion. A lovely aircraft, although a couple of inches more cockpit width would be good.
It's a shame it doesn't have sticks and the swept-back fin has always struck me as anachronistic on a bush plane.
I've enjoyed flying everyone of those types and if they had some less than perfect handling characteristics, that was a very minor drawback compared to the magic of being in the air.
I always leap at the opportunity to try out new types. Most recently, I had the opportunity to fly a Nanchang and this summer, I'm looking forward to a checkout in a DH-82c - not a type renowned for its handling characteristics.
pb84,
I had always looked a bit askance at the Maule, but after our flight together, I changed my opinion. A lovely aircraft, although a couple of inches more cockpit width would be good
. It's a shame it doesn't have sticks and the swept-back fin has always struck me as anachronistic on a bush plane.
I think we are very tribal, each wanting to think we have made the best choice.
Years ago flying turboprops for a living, light singles for fun and learning to fly helicopters, I was constantly told that turboprops were not real airliners, the 152 was not a real aeroplane and all the fixed wing people looked in great doubt at the R22 as did many helicopter pilots.
These days I fly 737s for a living and a Cub for fun I abandoned the helicopters after a few years because I wasn't enjoying them, still I'm told the 737 isn't a real jet, that my cub is inferior to x,y or z and I still don't pay any attention.
Fly what you enjoy, try to experience other types and class of machin and above all else respect other people's choices.
Fly safe
Years ago flying turboprops for a living, light singles for fun and learning to fly helicopters, I was constantly told that turboprops were not real airliners, the 152 was not a real aeroplane and all the fixed wing people looked in great doubt at the R22 as did many helicopter pilots.
These days I fly 737s for a living and a Cub for fun I abandoned the helicopters after a few years because I wasn't enjoying them, still I'm told the 737 isn't a real jet, that my cub is inferior to x,y or z and I still don't pay any attention.
Fly what you enjoy, try to experience other types and class of machin and above all else respect other people's choices.
Fly safe
I think this thread is really a subset of a more general discussion of good posting etiquette.
I think it is perfectly appropriate to provide an opposing opinion on the merits of a particular aircraft. What is not appropriate is to post that opinion in a manner that implies that poster expressing a positive opinion is a less accomplished aviator because of that opinion.
There are certain posts that I think definitely cross that line.
The same applies to the type of flying one does. I like formation and aerobatics but that does not mean I should disparage others who don't want to do that type of flying.
A variety of opinions make the site more interesting and ultimately more valuable. Chasing away those deemed to be unworthy due to their aeronautical preferences is not in pprunes best interests.
BTW the first airplane I owned was a Cessna 150. I taught my wife how to fly in it and enjoyed 4 years of cheap fun flying. I only sold it so that I could join a floatplane syndicate.
I think it is perfectly appropriate to provide an opposing opinion on the merits of a particular aircraft. What is not appropriate is to post that opinion in a manner that implies that poster expressing a positive opinion is a less accomplished aviator because of that opinion.
There are certain posts that I think definitely cross that line.
The same applies to the type of flying one does. I like formation and aerobatics but that does not mean I should disparage others who don't want to do that type of flying.
A variety of opinions make the site more interesting and ultimately more valuable. Chasing away those deemed to be unworthy due to their aeronautical preferences is not in pprunes best interests.
BTW the first airplane I owned was a Cessna 150. I taught my wife how to fly in it and enjoyed 4 years of cheap fun flying. I only sold it so that I could join a floatplane syndicate.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
... and if there were, my money would be on the Super Cub: the one I flew went considerably faster on the water than the 4mph that narrow boats are allowed.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4S, just to restore you self esteem, I think Cubs are great. Proper J3s and L4s that is, not those Super Cub thingies you fly from the front seat.
You mentioned earlier that to operate a Chipmunk, without the aid of a group, the person had to be in the super rich bracket. Not true, I owned and operated mines for over ten years, single handed, and I certainly am not in the Super Rich league. I have also owned YAK50, YAK52, fly jointly an L4, own a Super Cub, and my beloved Bonanza.
So, dissing other types. By all means add comment, add constructive comment regarding the type, preferably through experience gained in actually owning and flying them, and then add constructive comment, which should aid fellow interested owners and operators. In my view there is no perfect type, all are a compromise of some description, but calling them Spam Cans, a truly derogatory term, which a number on here use with regular monotony, the irony being they are generally in one themselves, and then slagging off someone's else's aeroplane, is just not cwicket my dear chaps.
But, each to their own. Now to the performance of a J3, to an L4, to a PA18-150. Night and day guys, night and day. If you wish to fly the PA18 from the back, to give that, TRuE CuB feeling, stick some spam in the front. Works absolute wonders.
