Interesting to see people nominate FBW aircraft in a handling discussion when so much feel is artificial and no trimming is required. I have recently trained a few ex Airbus pilots onto the 737 and it takes them a while to gain a feel for trim and pitch control. Trying to get them to marry up the HDG bug is a lost cause. I am not an Airbus hater, they are just different in basic handling. Sitting at the holding point over the years I have seen some very exciting crosswind landing attempts, especially on A320's. To be fair to our Airbus cousins the 737 is not a very nice aeroplane to fly either, very pitch sensitive and busy at times. The 727 was always my favourite, like sitting on a cannonball but it could be a cow in the flare if you didn't control the sink. People also hold the 747-400 in high esteem but I preferred the 300. The 300 didn't have a tendency to float and settled nicely after the flare. Plus I liked the three crew concept with the flight engineer. F/E's were great at organising room parties with the cabin crew! As for the Chipmunk, yes a nice aeroplane to fly, but one nearly killed me. With a large examiner in the back seat we had an aft C of G and managed to get into a flat spin complete with a stopped prop. We finally got it sorted out but bust our 'floor height'. Gave me a slight stutter for a few days that did.
A more interesting topic would be aeroplanes with poor handling qualities. Only Arnold Schwarzenegger could flare an empty Seneca 1 and then we had the Nomad, which tested a few aerodynamic theories to the limit. Interesting things aeroplanes and so many I would love to try. That F100 has always appealed to me for some reason. It just looks right. (The fighter not that Fokker without leading edge devices).