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]

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:

K-qlS_9ROII

[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. :ok:

[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. :p

[9 lives]

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

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.]

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

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.

[Flyingmac]

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.

[Pace]

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 :ok:

Pace

[9 lives]

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!

Rest assured that anyone having a preference of one aircraft type over another does not disagree with my opinion - I have about 80 different opinions on what I think a nice aircraft is, based upon varied first hand experience. The fact that a person has an opinion at all about their preference of aircraft is great, it means that people are flying! What would worry me about type opinions would be if they were being expressed here based upon having "flown" the Microsoft FS version of the aircraft!

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....

[Jetblu]

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. ;)

[piperboy84]

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.

[foxmoth]

like by introducing it out of nowhere as the antithesis of the nice plane being discussed

It was not out of nowhere, you refered me to posts in that thread, if you read #40 it was introduced there and my post was a reply to that.

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!
I have already agreed with that!

[thing]

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.

[India Four Two]

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.

[4Screwaircrew]

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:ok:

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

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. ;)

[Piper.Classique]

That's Ok, SSD, We can agree to differ about Super Cubs. Personally I would rather not have time to eat breakfast during take-off
:)

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

I never found T/O to be lengthy. What peed me off was being overtaken by narrow boats on the Shropshire Union Canal!

[PDR1]

...during the take-off run...

PDR

[Big Pistons Forever]

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.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

I never found T/O to be lengthy. What peed me off was being overtaken by narrow boats on the Shropshire Union Canal!
Are there really any bits of the Shropshire Union that are wide enough and straight enough and free enough from wires, bridges, trees, ect ect, to allow a Super Cub to take off?


... 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.

[maxred]

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.

Not content with upsetting the 150 crowd, we are now moving swiftly to the Super Cub owners, unless SSD, that was tongue in cheek, rather than you banging on about what little you now about these types.

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.