Dissing the other type

[9 lives]

Recently there has again been a discussion, in which posters make a specific point of dissing other types, apparently because they don't like the way they fly. Yup, the accused types certainly can be found guilty of lack lustre handling, some 58 years since first certified, and in production. They must have something going for them! I entirely accept that the proposed [nice handling] types are very nice to fly - no argument about that from me.

But, is the group better because a type or group of types are put down? Nope! Sure, every plane is a compromise, something gives so something else is adequate, and the plane fills its intended role somewhat. No plane does everything well. As planes are different, so are pilot/owners. Perhaps some pilots/owners are looking for different strong points in a plane - great, they're looking! We, our small fragile and diminishing industry, do not get better because people are divisive, and put others down - including their choice of aircraft type.

Sure, there are necessary discussions about characteristics, strong points, and weaknesses in a design/type. It is a vital element here that experience and tribal knowledge are circulated, particularly to new, and eager to own pilots - they will keep our industry alive!

Knocking one type, because you don't care for it serves no benefit to our pastime, it discourages and confuses potential owners - who we would all like to attract! Our collective best success, is a new owner joining our ranks, who is truly happy with their aircraft choice, having broadened their consideration to their personal needs based upon good discussion here.

I myself, have flown 81 different types of GA aircraft. I could find something to like about every one of them, and would delight in boasting about it if I though that information would be useful in supporting someone to make a good decision about a purchase. I have stumbled into some real "gotcha's" with some types, and will warn prospective owners if asked, 'cause those characteristics could wind up being rather expensive for that otherwise idyllic plane. Fine, if you're prepared to pay when the time comes, as long as you knew to ask as you considered purchase, not after.

But generally, certified GA types all have something to offer which a pilot can appreciate, and all it takes is objective and encouraging presentation to grow our ranks. So why diss the other guy's choice of plane in general? Say what you know about the type, good or bad if it needs to be said, and answers the question asked. But how about leaving the other owners feeling as proud about their choice, as you are about yours?

I chose one of my planes 29 years ago, and I'm as proud of that choice today as I was then. More proud... during that time, new paint, OH engine, interior, and avionics new - better now that when I bought it! And, it was fully paid for 29 year ago, and I don't even think about the cost to operate it! My other plane is newer to me, and would horrify the flying purists with its terrible ailerons, but you should be along for the Step Turn it can safely do on the water. It needs the oversized, heavy, unbalanced ailerons for the water handling - the designer knew he had to compromise! It has a 123 MPH Vne - because there are no aileron balance weights to prevent flutter - they'd be too heavy! I did not select it for nice aileron feel, I did select it because of what it does well on the water.

So how about not only be proud of our plane, but also the choices made by all the other owners who also support our industry.....

[Gertrude the Wombat]

Originally Posted by Step Turn

I did not select it for nice aileron feel, I did select it because of what it does well on the water.

"Once you get it in the air, a floatplane flies just like any other aeroplane. Apart from perhaps ..., and ..., and ... ... ... . In fact it's completely different from a landplane." I don't remember where I read that.


I'm in the process of re-reading Faure - chapters 1 to 10 take you to the take-off, chapter 11 (all of six and a bit pages long, including pictures) is about actually flying, y'know, like, in the air, chapters 12 to 21 start with trying to land the thing, and the book includes the information that the second safest place for a floatplane is in the air. (The safest place being in the hangar.)

[9 lives]

So, SSD, I'm not huffing, I'm reminding. In the past, I might have spoken poorly about a type, then someone who knew a lot more about it than I did showed me something charming about it! I learned that I looked silly and narrow mindely petty, and I stopped doing that!

I'll put my 150 up against a Chipmunk for carrying my wife, two small bags, and two bikes, from a cold Canadian winter to the Bahamas in two days, and for less cost than the two airline tickets would have cost - but that's just me, and the way I like to fly (and by the way, landed on the beach on the way). I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the Chipmunk either, it's just a different plane. But I can also loop and roll my wife and bikes international carrier (with good arm muscles).

If you leave your Chipmunk floating where I leave my heavy aileron flying boat floating, my flying boat will still be floating there in the morning, not so much for the Chipmunk! I'm not dissing a Chipmunk, I'm eager to fly one, and enjoy the experience. I'm not going to walk up to you, and yours on the apron, and point out the oil spots on the ground between the shadows of super great ailerons, I'm going to smile and try to charm a ride in it. Would you like to borrow the extra bike I just flew in to that airport in my 150? Or come for a splash in the local lake?

I don't need to huff, as I'm proud, to own and to brag that I own a 150! (and a really nice one!) and I fly wherever, whenever, without a worry about it letting me down, or being beyond my budget to maintain. If you can't be happy that I'm proud of that modest accomplishment in personal aviation, don't worry, I'm still proud that you're here, singing the praises of a fine Canadian product, and encouraging that genre of aviation!

For Gertude:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

....I'm not going to walk up to you, and yours on the apron, and point out the oil spots on the ground.....

.....If you can't be happy that I'm proud of that modest accomplishment in personal aviation....

You see, right there, Step. Right there is where you're huffing instead of listening to what I said.

If you had, you'd know it wouldn't worry me one bit that you point out my Chippy drips oil, has only 18 gallons of fuel, no luggage space or whatever. I love it for what it is, not for what it isn't. I offer it for you to love as well, but if you don't, that's OK.

And I'm happy as Larry that you have owned a C150 for 3 decades that you find rewarding to own and operate. Really I am.

Just don't expect that I will like it as you do! Is all!

[Jetblu]

Step

After very careful analysis and consideration [during many threads] i am now of sound opinion that you enjoy the sound of your own voice. Sorry, but true.

In eight [8] paragraphs it would appear that SSD has broken your heart by stating the bleedin obvious. It's human psychology Step in its simplest terms that one owner might not think much of the other owners aircraft.

Didn't your Mum or Dad ever buy you a bicycle as a child, or is it something deeper that you may not want to share with us?

Fill yur boots with the 150 on floats if that is what really floats your boat.

[9 lives]

Didn't your Mum or Dad ever buy you a bicycle as a child, or is it something deeper that you may not want to share with us?

Hmm, My dad built my first bike from bits and pieces, while I watched and learned. My mum taught me to build and fly model planes, and paid for my first few flying lessons, I appreciate them both for that - I'm proud to share! I am lucky to fly with the freedom I do, and proud to share that too, so yes, I like the sound of my own voice being proud of aviation, and trying to draw other in by inclusion, what's wrong with that?

I occasionally encounter people who may focus on what's wrong with what other people do. That emboldens me to stand up for what's right about what people do to participate in aviation. I like the sound of that, so yes, I guess I like to hear it, even if it's just me...

I'm delighted that people enjoy other types, and prefer them, that's what makes us all great, unless we're dissing the other person in the process. You can be proud of what you do and like, without taking a shot at the other person in the process - right?

So yeah, I guess it breaks my heart a bit that people who come here for a common interest, arrive here, and start taking shots at the other for no reason I can figure - it's not at all obvious to me! Sorry, I'm just a simple 150 owner!

Would posters here honestly stand around the airport coffee shop, pointing out to the apron, and dissing various planes they see? Not in any airport group I frequent!

Quiet comment: My 150, and my boat that floats are two different planes, but don't worry, they both have poor ailerons for light crisp flying, and I freely admit to that!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

You're tilting at windmills,Step. You're seeing ghosts in dark corners where none exist.

Read my last post.

[Jetblu]

Well, your lungs are good so let's hope you enjoy another 30 years flying.

In the meantime, my opinion remains unchanged and I still think the RV is an ugly bird, so now what?

[9 lives]

and I still think the RV is an ugly bird

Ah, but they [RV4] are soooo nice to fly! I really like the look of a Wilga, and Fiesler Storch, so there we are!

[Jetblu]

I think they are ugly too. It's got to be a taste thing Step. Enjoy.

[9 lives]

It's got to be a taste thing Step. Enjoy.

I entirely agree!

[Jetblu]

....yet the Chipmunk still pi**es over them all IMHO so there we are.

[9 lives]

....yet the Chipmunk still pi**es over them all IMHO so there we are.

I was really hoping that George Neal would take me for a fly in his (the white and blue one, with the sleek canopy). I was pestering him at lunch last fall, hoping for an opportunity this spring, but he sadly passed away, so I missed out! It's still on my wish list.... along with the Storch...

[foxmoth]

Step, I think the problem was more that you put the C150 up against the Chippie, up til then it had really been a discussion about aircraft that handle well (Chippie v RV and mentions of the Spit) with the merits of nostalgia v convenience and speed - sorry, but the C150 does not compete there, as I said, if a machine that gets you around with minimum interference from the pilot is what floats your boat then fine, but putting a 150 into a discussion about good handling will just not cut the mustard!
The 150 does its job fine, though to me there are other spamcans that do it way better, but it should never have been in that discussion!

[9 lives]

Fox, if I may politely refer you to posts #41 & #43 of the "Should I" thread, and then my first post at #54. I had chosen to remain a bystander to a thread whose topic I had little to add to, until I felt that I needed to defend the honour of the maligned spam can.

I entirely agree that the Chipmunk and 150 have nearly nothing in common, nor should be considered in the context of each other, other than history has brought two seat legacy trainers into a common context that they are each an aircraft which a person could choose to purchase for personal use. The person considering that, and possibly considering the 150 as an alternative to a Chipmunk (though I don't see why) would begin to compare them. Not me, I was staying out of it out of respect to the OP and thread drift....

[piperboy84]

I've heard and read many times that the model of Maule I have is an ugly duckling or a monstrosity of design, but every time I walk into the hangar I think to myself "There you are you good looking bastard". And before anyone asks, no there are no mirrors anywhere in the hangar.

[Sillert,V.I.]

Originally Posted by Jetblu

....yet the Chipmunk still pi**es over them all IMHO so there we are.

IMO the saddest thing of all is that, with less than a month before the 70th anniversary of its first flight, no one has produced its equal.

[foxmoth]

my first post at #54

My apologies, I was thinking it was you that had introduced the 150 into the discussion. I learnt on the 150 myself and in its day it did a great job for cheap training, though I always thought there were nicer aircraft that did not quite make it because the schools did not take them up in the same numbers, but having flown Chippie in the air cadets beforehand 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!

[Pace]

i learnt Donkeys years back in a 150 and having been used to poling around the skies in jets and in CAS my introduction back into the 150 years later was a delight

There was something raw nostalgic about being back in that type. Low and slow reminded me of many pleasures lacking in what I fly now

Recently renewed my expired SEP and a return to a PA28 also seemed strange but nice
I can remember only too well going from the 150 to the PA28 which then seemed such a performance machine in comparison but the reintroduction it felt so light so tiny

Character is hard to pin down. I too have been lucky to fly many types in the past. Some stand out in your mind others not so much but there will always be a place in my heart for the simple Cessna 150

faster Higher quicker doesn't always mean better

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Faster, higher, quicker sure ain't the lovely Chippy! Its magic lies elsewhere.