Airplane With The Nicest Handling

[Flyer517]

I haven’t flown a lot of types in my life, but was curious as to what folks here think is the best handling aircraft they’ve flown.

I have only flown GA types and learnt on a combination of typical American trainers like the 152, 172, PA28 and similar. The first time I flew a Bonanza it was a complete revelation in how much fun throwing an aircraft around the sky could be. The brisk and positive control responses were comparatively miles ahead.

Later on I had the opportunity to fly a Chippie and that was incredible. It still remains my favourite in terms of pure fun.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I found the TB20 Trinidad a dog. Great for going long distances at speed when I ignored the flying school’s 23 squared power recommendations and followed the book values, but an absolute dog when manoeuvring.

I appreciate there is a lot of experience here that eclipses my own, so would be interested to hear others thoughts.

Flyer

[Bergerie1]

Without doubt, a DHC Chipmunk. You won't get much better than that.

[Car RAMROD]

King Air.

Hands down.

close thread!


(followed by the bongo :})

[Fred Gassit]

You will go a long time trying to find something that flies nicer than a Chipmunk, its my personal favourite.
Vans RVs are nice, 400 and 500 series Cessnas are beautiful on the controls too. Someone mentioned Kingairs.
I personally like the feel of the (much) older SE Cessnas and Pipers too, maybe it was because they were generally lighter?
Another interesting list might be planes people don't enjoy flying..

[Olympia463]

As far as gliders go, of all the 22 types I flew the Olympia 463 was the best. The worst was the Slingsby Capstan two seater.

[redsnail]

Quite liked the Shrike Aerocommander.

[pulse1]

Olympia463, I totally agree. For light aircraft, if you don't want aerobatics, the Condor is nicer than the Chipmunk in my opinion.

[DaveUnwin]

The Bucker Jungmeister was the only aircraft (out of the 300+types I've flown) which was as good as I'd been told.

[Brookmans Park]

Singles the Chipmunk,multi the Dove

[compressor stall]

Shrike, followed by a B200 King Air.

[ACMS]

Any Aircraft they pay me to fly

[Checkboard]

Of the jets, in order (best to worst): BAe146, Westwind, 737-300, 737-700, A320
Haven't flown any turboprops.
Of the piston twins: Baron, Seminole, Navajo, Partenavia. Never flew a Commander series.
Of the singles, the Pitts surprised and delighted me. Haven't flown a chippie. I prefer Pipers to Cessnas for handling and training, but the Cessnas are more practical in the real world.

[Flyer517]

OK well it seems I’m not the only Chippie fan. The poor man’s Spitfire isn’t it?

[happyjack]

[QUOTE]Of the jets, in order (best to worst): BAe146, Westwind, 737-300, 737-700, A320/QUOTE]

I was waiting for someone to mention the BAe146. I have heard others say the same. I found it horrendous!!! Unresponsive, lazy, trim dependant. Then again I didn't fly the Boeing?

But the worst by far was........... wait for it.............. a Gulfstream 5. 'Looks wonderful. Handles like a p1g in sh1t! So utterly disapointing.

Best I ever flew? A Hawker Hunter.

[LeadSled]

Red,
The AC 500S, I'll second that!
Tootle pip!!

[Jet Jockey A4]

For a light piston powered twin engine aircraft, the Ted Smith Aerostar was wonderful.

[BSD]

I agree with everyone who has nominated the Baron, the Queen air and the Aero Commander 500. The Chipmunk too, though I'm heavily biased towards Chipmunks as I learned to fly on them and hey, you never forget your first love!

I'd also offer up the Cap 10 and the Stampe.

But, very little beats the delights of a simple J3 Cub, on a calm summer evening, low and slow, with the door open and preferably on floats. Sigh.

[pulse1]

I have almost no twin experience but I did fly a Baron, holding for 15 minutes at Hengistbuy Head. It was a delight, particularly as I wasn't paying for the fuel.

[Hamley]

Any Aircraft they pay me to fly

Work it baby

C402 by far but a little more HP pls

C210 forever in my heart ❤️

[Uplinker]

BAe146 lovely. Owing to the servo tab controls, you could really feel what it and you were doing. My best ever landing of all time was in a BAE146. A shocking tragedy that the new version, whose designation I forget, was scrapped. That would have been a World beater in its time.

A320 great

A330 fantastic

- but I had to teach myself how to fly Airbus FBW as no TRE I met knew how. (which is genuinely not meant to sound arrogant).

Dash 8-300 and Q400 turboprops both good. Some of us learned to land the Q400 one main gear at a time though, otherwise......., ker-bang !!

Shed, (Shorts 360 turboprop), surprisingly good, considering what it looks like, poor thing !

B737 Classic, terrible !

[Meikleour]

Best single piston in order: Chipmunk, RV6, Piston Provost Worst by far : Tipsy Nipper

Best Twin Piston - Dove, PA30 nice in the air but had "issues" for take-off and landing

Best Jet : A330 hands down Worst by far : B737-200

[Captain Fishy]

I’ve flown lots of the types mentioned above and concur that the Baron and King Air 90/200 were very nice. However, the one aircraft that stands out from all the many types I’ve flown, is the 747-400. It was sublime. How did they make such a large aircraft handle so well? Unfortunately to experience that now you’ll have to become a
freight dog or a Middle East Vip’s slave.

[semmern]

Bücker Jungmann and Saab Safir. Both designed by the same gentleman. After those, the Chipmunk.

[albatross]

Always liked the Beaver and Cessna 185 on either wheels or floats.
Only got about 1 hr in the Chipmunk and it was really, really nice.

[WHBM]

Never having handled one, what was it that was so nice about the Chipmunk ? Genuine question.

[LOMCEVAK]

I think that if this thread appeared on some other forums as well there would be aircraft from other categories that would appear. Within the scope of what has been said already I would agree with the Chipmunk for a light aircraft, the B747 for a large aircraft especially the -100, and the Hunter is my all time favourite aeroplane although whilst in some flight regimes it is outstanding in others it is challenging. For hand flying I have to say that the most unpleasant aeroplane for me was the Cirrus SR22 although as a fast, economical IFR aircraft with the autopilot engaged it was very good.

[Shaft109]

Never having handled one, what was it that was so nice about the Chipmunk ? Genuine question.

I can't find my 3822 (Air Cadet log book) right now but my first ever aircraft that I actually handled was a Chippy in 1994 at 12 AEF RAF Turnhouse near Edinburgh.

That's 27 years since I was first talked through a barrel roll pointing towards Edin, and honestly not having you on when I say I can still 'feel' the weighting, crispness of response and the harmonisation as I type this. Even in my inexperienced hands it was sensational.

Like car handling, some just have that little bit extra where you know exactly where you are with it - think an early Mazda MX5 vs a BMW Z4.

[Rocket Ron]

Beagle Pup 150… because I own one and it must surely be the easiest and overall delightful of planes to fly and look at.

It’s not fast, it’s not hugely aerobatic but it’s just fab.

[megan]

Limited FW time (500 hrs), soloed in a Chipmunk, 20 hrs in T-34 and 170 in T-28 and thought the three of them much of a muchness, of course the latter won out for the power, few hours in RV's, nice. Always thought the T-34 would have been a wonderful private aircraft, most bits were the same as a Bonanza. In the time in Cessnas thought the straight tail 172, 175, 182 were nice handling machines which were spoiled some how when they went to the swept fin, crowbar flaps too, and 40°, who said electric is progress?

[Dora-9]

That's easy - Chipmunk above all.

I appreciate that these are subjective, but I'm unsure how anyone can describe the B747 as "sublime" - having been made to convert back to the B744 from the delightful B777, I thought the former was a truck!

And if we're talking about twins, yes the Baron was very nice but my favorite is the F.27, noisy, cumbersome and a pig in a crosswind, but then there was the pleasure of knowing you were flying it well...

[Sidestick_n_Rudder]

The Chipmunk seems to be everyone's favourite - I can only concur. If only it had a bit more power...

Cessna Caravan handles excellently - I'm surprised it hasn;t been mentioned yet. I haven't flown her much, but seemed to be the most hamronized airplane ever. The control forces and control response are just right - not too high, not to low - perfectly balanced. Easier to fly than C-152

My all time favourite - Extra 330 SC - a hard riding Wh@re (to quote the late 'Duke Elegant'), she'll obediently do whatever you can imagine and then some stuff you can't... :}

Airliners:
- I'm surprised A330 got so many mentions - very docile and absolute pleasure to land, but at the same time awfully sluggish on the controls, esp. in roll
- A320 is fun to fly, except in gusty crosswinds. There are plenty of YouTube videos to prove it.
- 787 handles very nicely, tough in my opinion it neither flies like an FBW airplane, nor like a normal one. Haven't flown any other Boeings, so can't compare

Helicopters:
- Hughes 300 is beautifully responsive and handles like a dream. However due to small and light rotor it's not as good in autorotation
- Bell 47 is completely opposite. Handles like a slug, but awesome in autos

Havent had a chance to fly fighter jets - only F16 simulator. It handled surprisingly similar to the A320...

[POBJOY]

If we are talking 'handling' has to be the Druine Turbulent. (figertip control)

[Consol]

146. Just a big 172 with four fans. Great landings, not all of which I deserved.

[hei yu]

Chipmunk ….. definitely ! :D

[Switchbait]

C208 and AC680FL for me.

The AC500 was by far the best piston twin I flew, but the 680 is much lighter, and nicer on the controls.

Dash8-200 was very nice.

[ad-astra]

Aero Commander 500S on low level coastal surveillance and Fokker F-28 in PNG (sometimes just as low) 😄

[David J Pilkington]

I vote for the Pitts S-2C Welcome to Adobe GoLive 6 (http://www.airbum.com/pireps/PirepPittsS2C.html)

Some considerations described here https://www.kitplanes.com/back-to-school/

[Flyer517]

Never having handled one, what was it that was so nice about the Chipmunk ? Genuine question.

Good question. For me it was the lightness and directness of the controls. Almost as if you just need to think what you want it to do, and you were there. Not the world’s fastest aircraft but it feels very sprightly.

Can’t recommend it highly enough.

I’ve always heard good things about de Havilland aircraft. There are a few mentioned here. I wonder if it is a design ethos of the company. Same with Beechcraft.

[Capn Bloggs]

Mirage III. :E

[havick]

Mirage III. :E

This guy wins the internet for the day.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Airbus A380

[junior.VH-LFA]

DHC-1 Chipmunk for me. What a dream.

[ChrisJ800]

I agree on Chipmunk, first and best piston plane I flew. For gliders, the Slingsby Swallow was the most maneuverable glider and could get into a thermal core better than any other glider I flew. Worst glider was Olympia 401 (one off prototype).

[holdingagain]

For me, the Piper Apache and King Air 350

[SaulGoodman]

1. Cessna Caravan (Supervan) with Honeywell engine
2. Airbus A300-600 (didn’t get to fly the 310)
3. 747-400

[RetiredBA/BY]

Boeing 757, particularly when light !
Chipmunk, Spitfire, piston !

[lpvapproach]

Single PA28-181
Twin: Cessna 310Q

[ACMS]

Work it baby

C402 by far but a little more HP pls

C210 forever in my heart ❤️


oh alright……..A350 followed by 777

[Uplinker]

- I'm surprised A330 got so many mentions - very docile and absolute pleasure to land, but at the same time awfully sluggish on the controls, esp. in roll.

Nicest handling was the premise. We are obviously not talking about doing aeros in A330's, but it flies beautifully. It is not nimble, but I wouldn't say sluggish at all - we never need it to do snap rolls or anything like that !
I would call it majestic.

[Dora-9]

We are obviously not talking about doing aeros in A330's,

But the FBW system in an Airbus won't even let you do aeros! When I was doing my B777 course, part of the first simulator session involved doing aerobatics (to highlight the difference in FBW philosophies)!

[Dominator2]

Hunter F6 by far and away the best. Every pilot that I know walks away from a flight in a Hunter with a smile on their face.

Had the misfortune to fly both a KingAir and a Grob Tutor. IMHO both were equally appalling!

[e2_c]

Shrike, any of Beechcraft with the Bonanza type wing so Bonanza, Baron, Queenair, Kingair and I loved the Dash 8 200. It was a bit like flying a big Shrike. Loved every minute in all of them.

[Nose wheel first]

BAe146 lovely. Owing to the servo tab controls, you could really feel what it and you were doing. My best ever landing of all time was in a BAE146. A shocking tragedy that the new version, whose designation I forget, was scrapped. That would have been a World beater in its time.
The designation for the new version was the RJX. And you're right, it would have absolutely been a world beater. They'd had enough time to refine the design and most importantly put way better engines on it than the old 502's


For my 2 cents... I've loved flying everything really, even the old Cessna 207 gave a certain sense of satisfaction every time you came back from the bungholes alive :} But I guess my absolute favorites would have to be the Cessna 210, Cessna 402 (flew the A, B & C models and preferred the C over the other 2) the B200 King Air and the BAe 146.

[pithblot]

The Chipmunk seems to be everyone's favourite - I can only concur. If only it had a bit more power...

…… (to quote the late 'Duke Elegant'), …..


SSnR
I agree, the Chippie is a lovely aeroplane - IMHO much nicer to fly with the Gypsy Major than modified with a Lycoming flat six (can’t remember the model number and can’t be bothered to look it up).

Duke Elegant, now there is a blast from the pprune past.

Tales of An Old Aviator …. The Big Chill (http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/117465-tales-old-aviator-big-chill.html)

pithblot

[DaveUnwin]

Never seen a Chipmunk with a flat-six - most of the converted ones have O-360s. If anyone's interested, in next month's FlyPast magazine I compare flying the only airworthy prototype with the only airworthy Mk.23.

[SFCC]

G-IDDY had a 6 cylinder Lycoming engine.

[DaveUnwin]

Never saw it. What was it like to fly?

[PaulH1]

I think military aircraft have a distinct advantage as most are designed to be thrown about.
The civil aircraft with a military heritage can be very nice. The HS125 and Falcons are all a delight to fly. The Falcon 2000 gets my vote!

[anson harris]

The 747-400 had just the right level of automation while being an actual delight to hand fly. I have no idea how they got it just right.
Conversely the worst thing I've ever flown was the B737NG which is an absolute pig.

[AbsoluteFokker]

I had fun in Grumman Tigers - quite nimble

I'd happily fly circuits, nosewheel up, retract flaps, nosewheel still up, increase power, take off for another circuit.

For night circuits with absolute nill wind, pull back power to 1500 on base and flaps, trim, turn final, and, not touch a thing until flare.

With the canopy open 20cm on a warm Summer Perth night all the way it was like a dreamy haze of perfection.

Grummans were forgiving (in at least they had a reasonably size elevator) - if you were a bit out of trim it wouldn't break your arm figuring out the landing.

[Peter Fanelli]

Aircraft I'd like to fly again, Cessna 421B and Grumman Lynx.

[blimey]

The Hawk: like a toy. A chimp could fly it, though not necessarily as the military would like. Every pilot should be given a whizz in one just for the joy of it: to experience almost perfect control harmony and a sufficient amount of grunt.

Bigger: 747-300 - less ground effect, less flying wing on the runway than the 400.

Least satisfying handling, least involving: Airbus. Would they do it that way if they had the choice again?

Most satisfying rather than nicest handling would probably be the most demanding.

[Douglas Bahada]

Gazelle then Chipmunk, last airliners. Nothing could beat the agility and power to weight ratio of the mighty chicken leg. A true delight. No real military use though.

Those who have not had the opportunity to fly a helicopter without a stability augmentation system have missed out.

[deja vu]

Best L1011 worst Nomad N22

[Alice Kiwican]

For me it’s the C210, C402C, C404 and PC12.

[georgetw]

Nothing wrong with the DC3, best was the Ceres, then C Agwagan

[glofish]

On the lower end: Piper J3. As simple and pure as it gets. Reveals pilot skill in a split of a second.
In the middle: Twin Bonanza. The most stable IFR Trainer and its wing became the blueprint for the beautiful Queen and King Air
On the high end: DC-10. The intuitive CWS beats all the newer FBW. The Rolls Royce of airliners.

[camper]

B747-400, final answer!

[Capt Fathom]

Airplane With The Nicest Handling....

All of them it would appear!

[Mach1Muppet]

CT-4 is my personal favourite, longing to fly one again but such a beautifully handling aircraft

[FL235]

Surprised no mention of the Falco and its’ big brother the SF260. Feels like powered controls, really light. Aerobatic, but still stable. Fast enough, maybe 150 - 160 kts depending on engine. Just watch Vne if you let the nose down. Only difficulty is slowing for circuit. My preference was the old “buzz & break”. Cruise speed low over threshold, close throttle and pull up into a pattern that puts you at circuit height and speed for downwind, flap and gear, continue a turning base/final, level the wings just before the flare. Most satisfying when you get it right, don’t do it in front of a flying school, some instructors fear it may give students ideas. You can always say you were doing a runway check,

Obviously room for the Chippy and Turbulent, both great fun. For day to day liveability I have a soft spot for the much derided Aztec. Our C model, much modified and turboed for mapping photo had a ceiling above 30,000’, they will carry ridiculous loads in and out of ridiculous places.

There will always be differing opinions, depending on personal taste and experience. The C185 is a great bush plane, but you will work hard & use full control travel for serious work. The advent of the C206 changed the game in PNG, practically eliminated the ground-loop problem for new hires,but it doesn’t rate handling for mine

[zac21]

There has been a few that liked the Beech wing which is great, but I don't see the little Beech Debonair mentioned, it is a delightful airplane to fly, extremely well balanced. [even if it was near 50 years ago] !

[sangiovese.]

Hawk. First solo aged 21. Felt like the king of the world. Memory stays so vivid. Turned out I wasn’t as good as I thought but omg that aeroplane. Perfect

[The late XV105]

+1 for the Chippie.

[PeterJG]

The Buccaneer

[Pinky the pilot]

Singles; Robin DR400; Fy it as a Glider tug in Japan, and, whilst underpowered when towing ASK 21's or a heavyish Single, the handling is superb. Only use a thumb and two fingers on the stick!

Multi: The Seminole is a goody. Don't mind the Chieftain either.

(followed by the bongo https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif)

Car RAMROD; You haven't been taking your Medication again now, have you?:E:ooh::D

[FullOppositeRudder]

I've only flown gliders; the best was the Ka6cr. Standard Libelle was pleasant enough, although somewhat cramped. No complaints about the L-13 Blanik either. There were a few which I thought were awful, but that's somewhat outside of the terms of reference ...

[Miles Magister]

Chipmunk
Jet Provost
Hawker 801

[Quietplease]

Vampire 5 and 9
JP4
737 200

[Teddy Robinson]

Chippie for sure, B200, but where is the Pup 150 ??
And as for "I was waiting for someone to mention the BAe146. I have heard others say the same. I found it horrendous!!! Unresponsive, lazy, trim dependant." .... probably best you disengage the autopilot next time :rolleyes:
You didn't mention the roll rate for starters .. it's a very honest beauty to fly with a few neat tricks up it's sleeve.

[Flyer517]

There has been a few that liked the Beech wing which is great, but I don't see the little Beech Debonair mentioned, it is a delightful airplane to fly, extremely well balanced. [even if it was near 50 years ago] !

Bingo! Absolutely loved the Debonair. What a gorgeously wonderful aircraft to fly. Controls so harmonised. Don’t think I flew it in a straight line for more than 30 seconds.

[cattletruck]

The Chippie was the first aerobatic plane I flew (dual and after a long inoculation of PA28s). In my very first hour I was doing barrel rolls, loops and knife-edges, you'd think they had finally cut the string tether off this fly. A very graceful aircraft in all unusual aspects of flight, but I had done my thorough research beforehand by reading a book called Flying Aerobatics by Robert T. Bowring which was also beautifully illustrated by Jim Prendergast.

I was watching an F111 do a slow low level (warm-up) display with the wings fully swept back and was quite surprised how effortlessly nimble it was, seemed to be able to turn on a dime. Any pig drivers out who can confirm this?

[Mach E Avelli]

Generalising a bit, but the Poms seemed to make sweet handling aircraft, even if their cockpit ergonomics were sometimes messy. Thinking Heron MK 2 with original Gypsy Queens, HS 748 ( though the manual pressurisation was a pain for the FO), Viscounts (if you could stay ahead of the tail ice and didn’t flog it through turbulence) and the delightful BAE 146, the sweetest flying almost bulletproof commercial jet ever built (but not for the technically challenged). Of every type I ever flew, I think the 146 would be the easiest to handle.
Still generalising,Yank ‘airplanes’ seem agricultural. The DC3 was a wondrous thing for its time, but anyone who says those ailerons make for good handling must have only flown some crude Russian biplane before. Metro, an effective, likeable enough dog. MU2 ( yes I know, it’s actually Japanese) slippery little sucker. King Air? Cockpit an ergonomic disaster, pissy little control yoke, handling OK for amateurs, which was its original market. C 441 flew way better than any King Air and you could find stuff where you expected it in the cockpit. B737 - best was the 200, provided it had dash 15 or 17 engines; later versions went downhill after that. But my wooden spoon for handling goes to the Convair 580 as the worst contraption to come out of the USA since the war, with its interconnected control system. What WERE they thinking to fit a Piper Tripacer system into such a beast? Also, with the worst cockpit ever built, the CV580 made the Viscount look positively modern. The Dutch were no slugs with their F27 control harmony, which they really worked on to get just right, though F27 ground handling took practice.
The Brazilians did a great job with the Barbie jet, too. Certainly it had nicer handling than anything I flew that the Yanks had built up until that time, and considering it did not speak English, had good ergos.
Another non-English speaking aeroplane, the ATR 42 was good, 72 not so, which often happens when an original design is stretched to please the bean counters.
At bugsmasher level, Beech straight tail Bonanza sweet, also Baron, then most Cessna 400 series and old Citations if you didn’t mind the fact it wasn’t a ‘real’ jet. All Pipers too bland for me; sent me to sleep with boredom, even as a student. The only Piper that did it for me was the Cub, though those heel operated brakes bothered me any time there was a crosswind.
I did not do enough Chippy time to make meaningful comment, other than that if it looks right, it probably is right.

.

[T54A]

The Buccaneer

That's cheating

[T54A]

I enjoyed the B200 and the B1900C. The B1900C was lovely stable platform. B727 was a blast, but a bit of a cow to land. Alouette 3 was like strapping a back pack on. You just wore it. The Denel Oryx, once you got used to the size, was an unbelievable machine to fly. It felt like it had no limits. I hated the B58 Baron.

[oldmacdonald757]

The best 777
The easiest A320
The worst 787
Most fun Zlin 242

[His dudeness]

MP: Dove but ONLY in air, a real dog on the ground
TP: B200
Jet: Citation C650

[Spunky Monkey]

C150 Texan - a nice tailwheel twist on a benign aircraft.
Cessna CJ3 - twin jet - lovely handling and characterises - really forgiving and capable.
Gazelle Heli - ticks every box
Robin DR400 - a delight to fly and teach in
Fokker 100 - Great old school flying
Always found the Tiger Moth, Cub and Pitts Special exciting to fly in not the most pleasant ways!

Great aircraft you have mentioned.
Best cockpit ride was in an RAF VC10 - next level aircraft.

[W9SQD]

My favs, by decade F4D, L-1011, Bae-146, G550. 😉

[Rhody Flyer]

Best piston single BE36
Best piston twin D55
Best turboprop P180. Was an absolute dream to fly (4500hrs in it)

[Direct BAMES]

[QUOTE]
But the worst by far was........... wait for it.............. a Gulfstream 5. 'Looks wonderful. Handles like a p1g in sh1t! So utterly disapointing.

Maybe a trifle unfair. A truck certainly and very capable in every other respect.

The best was the Falcon 2000 very closely followed by the Falcon 900.

The most challenging and therefore the most satisfying, the LR35.

[LawrenceD]

Robin aircraft I’ve always found a delight to fly. The 2160 is relatively pathetic at aerobatics but the only aircraft I’ve really felt at one with in the flare.

Part-own a cirrus, great cruiser on autopilot, fairly horrible to hand-fly.

[carib man]

1) l1011/500, 2)md83, 3)b777/300, 4) a340/500

[Old Boeing Driver]

Boeing 727........although no 2 landings were ever the same......

[Crosswhinge]

What an interesting tread.
Seem the Chipmunk wins the peoples choice even though it may not have been common in the "first to leave" colony in the British Empire.
As a low time PPL years ago my vote is for the C210.
The term harmonisation wasn't mention until post #27. A mysterious combination of balance, response , authority, feel and ???? I remember on a check flight in a Piper Warrior whinging to the Instructor about the awful squishy controls.
The term also applies to sailing boats. Joshua Slocum the first man to sail solo around the world went days without input. That is in the days before auto-sailors. His must have been a very balanced boat.
I had a couple of minutes on the side stick in the back seat of a Rutan Long-ez. A delight. The aircraft seemed to be an extension of my arm.

[zlin77]

Enjoyed the F28-4000, delightfully light ailerons in a Transport Category Aeroplane, next type was the Bae146, totally unimpressed!

[43Inches]

The term also applies to sailing boats. Joshua Slocum the first man to sail solo around the world went days without input. That is in the days before auto-sailors. His must have been a very balanced boat.

I thought pre autopilot you just lashed the helm so it went more or less where you left pointing. That being said pre GPS and satellite communications solo ocean sailing was something for the brave.

As far as aircraft, I liked Piper Warriors, Arrows, Seminole, for their simple flying ability, easy to just jump in and circle the air with not much brain power. Cessna was similar, but apart from the 152 all felt a bit tractorish. Favorite is the Chieftain, just liked its solid feel and stability, I've had some beautiful experiences in the ole PA31 types. I liked flying drifters at an early age, they were fun and free, nothing special performance wise, although you could switch off the engine and soar in updrafts which was like chill surfing in the air. Jabirus just way too tight for me, but would be a nice sporty thing for small humans. I found baron 55s twitchy and awkward, 58s were ok, fast but expensive and nothing real special. Bonanza seemed ok, but Lance or Saratoga was cheaper and flew quite well also. Never liked Cirrus or Tobagos or similar. Put floats on anything, it will handle like a dog, but it was some of the most fun I've had, with a few close calls you don't get in other modes of flying. Least liked airplane, P68s, Partbananas are horrible machines, from getting in and out to just the mush it calls control.

I've flown much bigger than the chieftain, but transport category are nice, but relatively boring.

[Jerry Springer]

We need to say what we mean by Good Handling first....
Stability is ‘good handling’ in some applications, but terrible for other needs.

I haven’t flow many types, but of the ones I have:
For being docile to the point where you can fly it with your eyes closed: Cessna Caravan
For being able to get in and out of tight spaces on rough terrain: Twin Otter and Super Cub (depending on how much stuff you want to shift)
For being twitchy as heck: Sukhoi Su-29
For being able to turn a tight radius, kick around trees, and go under power-lines: Air Tractor 502

[Jerry Springer]

transport category are nice, but relatively boring.

Yep! they don’t make A to B aeroplanes exiting to fly! The more boring they can make them, the better the design.
For most the most part in aviation, success in aircraft design and operational procedures results in making it as uninteresting as possible for the pilots.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I was watching an F111 do a slow low level (warm-up) display with the wings fully swept back and was quite surprised how effortlessly nimble it was, seemed to be able to turn on a dime. Any pig drivers out who can confirm this?

The 111 was a lovely jet to fly, but with the wings fully swept, it really didn’t turn on a dime. Ever. :)

[Old Akro]

I'm really surprised the Tiger Moth didn't feature more strongly. Its a delight that rewards gopod airmanship. It teaches rudder control. The J3 cub is best for the pure joy of messing around on a nice day. The Single seat Pitts is the only aeroplane that has ever really felt like an extension of my body. Think it and it does it. Wonderfully benign in the air. Fearful on the ground. The Stearman is great. But its like flying an armchair. Smaller and more responsive is better. The aitourer (150 / 160 Hp) is a greatly under-rated aeroplane. Its the most fun to land. Loved the time I've spent in a Maule on floats, but you need to be somewhere like Florida where you can lake hop.

Worst? I find it hard to find any redeeming qualities in the Auster.

[4runner]

I’m surprised to see the 73 getting so much shade. I think the -500 and -700 are great. I much prefer those to the 76. I’m also the only one that feels this way. I second the king air. The -100 especially wirh geared garret power. I also throw some shade at barons and bonanzas. I think they’re overrated.

[rjtjrt]

I'm really surprised the Tiger Moth didn't feature more strongly. Its a delight that rewards gopod airmanship. It teaches rudder control. The J3 cub is best for the pure joy of messing around on a nice day. The Single seat Pitts is the only aeroplane that has ever really felt like an extension of my body. Think it and it does it. Wonderfully benign in the air. Fearful on the ground. The Stearman is great. But its like flying an armchair. Smaller and more responsive is better. The aitourer (150 / 160 Hp) is a greatly under-rated aeroplane. Its the most fun to land. Loved the time I've spent in a Maule on floats, but you need to be somewhere like Florida where you can lake hop.

Worst? I find it hard to find any redeeming qualities in the Auster.
I suggest you try a Stampe SV-4. I can't compare it to a Tiger, but it is nice to fly.

[P51D]

Beech F33A Bonanza. A Bonzer unit with power and beautifully harmonized controls.

[lucille]

Falcon 200. Dassault make nice handling jets. Not flown a 20 but hear they’re pretty good too.

[NZFlyingKiwi]

I would add a vote for the Chipmunk - I've never had the good fortune to fly a Spitfire but if the Chipmunk is the 'poor man's Spitfire' then the Spit must be pretty special. ;) I'd also like to suggest the Slingsby T.67 - lacking in roll rate (and power in some versions) but that is another aeroplane that seems to respond almost telepathically. I would suggest the Extra 300 but unlike the aforementioned two that is significantly more likely to bite if you get something a bit wrong...

[Eric Janson]

Nothing wrong with the DC3, best was the Ceres, then C Agwagan

Another vote for the DC-3 - there's still nothing to replace it.

[Bergerie1]

By nicest handling I think we mean that the controls give the right response in roll, pitch and yaw for the deflection and stick forces involved, and to do so throughout the speed range, and with little or no friction in the control circuits. I am not a test pilot, but John Farley wrote, "The boffins used to say that a good starting point for harmonisation was aileron forces increasing with IAS, elevator forces with IAS squared and rudder with IAS cubed".

The Chipmunk may have lacked power but the control response was excellent and, despite what some have said, it was still good on instruments. I was lucky enough to get my PPL on a Tiger Moth, followed by about 150 hrs at Hamble on the Chipmunk. And even its spin characteristics were good, provided one stuck with the correct recovery procedure.

[Lazyload]

There’s a few types missing. Does anyone have an opinion of the Rockwell 114? And in biplanes, what’s the Waco and the Stearman like to fly?

[Des Dimona]

L1011 Tristar best large aircraft I have flown. Great to fly, and typical Lockheed, built like a tank.

Chipmunk is the standout light aircraft for me.

[VORDME2]

767-300er the best handling followed very closely by the 777.
Then of course the 737-200 (not the 300 400 etc), and the DC10🥰.
i didn’t like to fly the 757,bae146

[waldopepper42]

And another vote for the Chippie.

For the most fun - Extra 230. Fun aeroplane with no vices (that I could ever find)! In the early days, a mishandled spin recovery (forgot to take off the anti-spin rudder - DOH!) simply resulted in a power-off full rudder side slip with no inclination to flick out. I could almost hear her saying "Really? You'll have to work harder than that"!

[stilton]

Best, B727 followed closely by the 767


Worst, MD80, sluggish in roll, way too sensitive in pitch and numerous design deficiencies


Most disappointing, the 757, lots of power and all works well but very sluggish in roll, a nasty dead spot in pitch when lowering the nose after landing that can bite and a terrible ride in turbulence

[Fred Gassit]

Commander 114?
IMO: comfortable wide cabin, almost car like and nice trailing link main gear but nothing much to recall about the handling characteristics.
Just another light aircraft

[clamchowder]

Best, B727 followed closely by the 767


Worst, MD80, sluggish in roll, way too sensitive in pitch and numerous design deficiencies


Most disappointing, the 757, lots of power and all works well but very sluggish in roll, a nasty dead spot in pitch when lowering the nose after landing that can bite and a terrible ride in turbulence

Hadn't realised we were such a subjective bunch. I thought the 757-200 was nicer than the 767-300ER. More trim dependant but such a sweet jet. 76 felt a bit too twitchy in roll and pitch, but I am splitting hairs.

For me: 757,767,787,321,320

[LOMCEVAK]

The Buccaneer
At low level, 350-550 KIAS, I agree that it was very good. But in the landing pattern it had some of the worst flying qualities I have ever seen! The C2 Greyhound is the only other one that was as bad in the circuit. Also, the directional ‘notching’ above 550 KIAS and the lack of tailplane power at high Mach number left a lot to be desired. Definitely a ‘curate’s egg’.

[RandomPerson8008]

American Champion Super Decathlon 8kcab followed by Beech Baron A55. 747/757/767 are wallowing pigs in handling, of course they will climb well though.

[Chief Willy]

Best: 777-200. A delight in any weather. The -300 in turbulence spills too much tea for my liking.
Most fun: Extra 300
Worst: Empty A319 on a windy day. The whole A320 series sucks in handling. The A321 is woefully underpowered and under-winged.

[nickp]

I'd vote for the Dak after the Chippy and I became quite fond of the Trident. Mind you, an hour in a Lightning was a revelation.
I'd sooner auto a Schweizer than an R22!

[galaxy flyer]

North American F-100; no thrust, but wonderful handling.

[eckhard]

Chipmunk - simply delightful
Fuji FA-200 - nicest handling "spam-can"
Dove - a gentleman's aerial conveyance
747-400 - amazingly light and responsive, but watch the pitch/power couple

[DaveUnwin]

Lot of love here for the Chipmunk! And if you think a stock one is nice you can readily imagine how nice the prototypes (which were considerably lighter) are. I do like the extra grunt of the Mk.23 though - has anyone flown one fitted with an O-540?

[slast]

Interesting how much positive comment about de Haviland types. Add mine for the Chippie. Also I’m biased because my Dad was a DH draughtsman at Hatfield after the war.

One that hasn’t been mentioned so far is the De Haviland 121 otherwise known as the Trident - also of course the “Ground-gripper”, but this thread IS about handling qualities not performance! The T1 in particular did have excellent handling provided you were only going level or down…. Very little trim change with speed and configuration changes on approach, close rear engines so little swing engine out. Super roll response.

The contrast with its replacement B757 was remarkable – that had lots of power of course but I recall an early demo flight when a Boeing test pilot was stunned that we were not impressed by the 757 handling. It seemed you could rotate the wheel to the limits in each direction and back to centre, and the aircraft sort of looked over its shoulder and said “oh, are you talking to me??”. And the continual trimming especially engine out. But it did go up fast on a LHR-MAN shuttle on a cold day!

[sangiovese.]

Worst Mitsubishi Diamond and Beech 400. Horrendous without yaw dampening, terrible spoiler roll rate

[ONE GREEN AND HOPING]

Yup.....I trained on Chipmunks, and loved them so much I had done an extra @200 hours on the Chippie until my pocket money ran out. Later Piston Provost, a bit meatier, but it was Summer and used to get a bit hot and sweaty under the large canopy. Vampire T11 too, but then became an airline operative which didn't involve any flying upside down on purpose. Frankly I much preferred that more stately approach to hammering up and down the sky, plus with a coffee cup holder anyway. Hugely privileged to fly propliners and jets with stunning technology. Favourite for basic handling in adverse weather plus sheer fun was the BAC 1-11: 707-300s for handling skill set otherwise: DC10 30s for quiet cockpit and big windows. 747s on quite a few 200series variants as marvels of Boeing engineering achievement, and the 400 series for great views on non- stop 14 hours plus over stunning scenery such as Arctic and far East Russia, plus non stops London Osaka within sight of the geographical North Pole, etc.. All in all though the biggest thrill, was actually being let loose solo on Chipmunks when not long out of school, so has to be my personal favourite. Luckily in 1960, didn't need to be smart enough for university, and so more opportunity to learn 'on the job', unlike being thrown in at the deep end as perhaps is normal now, which calls for a higher education level at entry.

[flapsin]

OK, love the Chipmunk, own a Tiger Moth, too many other types all of which had their own wonderful personalities, but the best of the best for me was the HS GNAT. Simply awesome for a student Biggles!
ps next best Canberra, Dragon Rapide and B757

[halas]

I see B777 mentioned here several times. It's OK. But with 15,000hrs on type it pails to other, proper, non-FBW control aircraft.

Beech 200 Super Kingair. Best single pilot IFR aircraft ever.

Any AreoCommander would come second. 500 or 690. All fantastic.

And as much as l disliked the BAe 146 for over complexity, it did handle beautifully.

halas

[msbbarratt]

Although not a qualified pilot, I can claim that my favourite to fly is a Tiger Moth. As a youth I went up with a BA pilot who had one, and in between bouts of aerobatics that fully explored the flight envelope I had several goes. I enjoyed the feeling of it all immensely. I can see why so many other comments feature non-FBW aircraft.

Reading this thread and seeing the Chipmunk mentioned several times with fondness reminds me of seeing them buzzing round RAF Abingdon lots, decades ago when I was a kid. Happy memories. Thank you for the trip down memory lane :-)

Chipmunk, BAE-146, Tiger Moth mentioned by others: should I be surprised that DH-related aircraft feature lots?

[Captain Capstan]

de Havilland Heron a true gentleman’s aerial conveyance

[By George]

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).

[ciderman]

No one has mentioned the absolute best, the Vulcan. Close the thread.

[aroa]

Auster J5F.. the clipped wing job. Nippy, aerobatic and easy to fly. With full flap and a bit of a breeze, touchdown at about the pace of a fast walk. Great.
Austers the aircraft…. with the built in bounce.! Just work at it and get to feel it right.
Many Auster haters will disagree that an Auster can be anything but awful.
I beg to differ.

[effortless]

Another vote for the chipmunk. The most wonderfully harmonised controls.

[43Inches]

Never flown a fighter jet, however I always remember an interview with Israeli ace Giora Epstein (pretty sure he was the one although it was a while back) who fought more than 10 migs at once, at one point alone, shot down a few and came home. At one point in the interview where he describe the KFIR vs the F-16. While he would rather have the F-16 vs modern fighters in a furball, he always preferred the non FBW feel of the KFIR and how he felt he had way more control of it near the edge so could push him and the aircraft to it's limits.

I also loved his comment on the question about how he felt facing so many migs at once. His answer was along the lines, you can only have one on your tail at any time, and that is the only danger, so I just watched out for that one, and shot at others that came up in front.

I've heard similar comments in regards to Air Force pilots that prefer the Hunter to modern aircraft for similar reasons. Obviously this is from a connection with the aircraft and handling, not from an effectiveness in battle point of view. I doubt any of them would opt to take a hunter into battle over an F-22 vs an PAK-FA or such for many other reasons.

Even if you wanted to throw a modern airliner around to test it's handling you will hit a wall of computer generated nope at some stage, and the places you can go with the computer turned off/restricted will probably kill you.

I've had the pleasure of doing maintenance shake downs on some transport category, was quite weird to practice some steep turns and throw it around a bit outside of the simulator. All my years of flying it straight made me feel like something was wrong in doing it.

[421dog]

MU-2 solitaire was the smoothest I’ve flown.

T28C is the most responsive. One finger in cruise, two fingers for a 4G loop where you hit your wake. Takes off just fine with the boards out if some yahoo forgets to flip the switch...

[sludge]

Easy- Christen Eagle. Perfect control harmony, virtually zero control coupling, perfect control gradient ( or stick force per G) plenty of control authority. An absolute delight, slightly negative stability, just enough to keep you interested. No electronic nannies or artificial helpers, just you alone with whatever skills you did ( or did not!) bring. And unlimited Acro!

[megan]

That F100 has always appealed to me for some reasonLike a lady she has attractive looks, but can you match her in dancing? She kills if you can't.

[Capn Bug Smasher]

Of course the aeroplane with the nicest handling must be the Rollason Condor :E

[Jo90]

Among heavies all the american types were much of a muchness. Never flew Airbus. Best type was British built as was the worst.
VC10 was a delight. No re-trimming for any changes of configuration or thrust and a lovely big cushion of ground effect for smooth landings.
Trident 3 was an absolute dog.

[Pinky the pilot]

Only Arnold Schwarzenegger could flare an empty Seneca 1

Did my CPL and initial MECIR (plus several renewals) in a Seneca 1, with the late Tony Kingham.

TK used to say that if you could fly a Seneca 1, you could fly anything!

[T54A]

Best: 777-200. A delight in any weather. The -300 in turbulence spills too much tea for my liking.
Most fun: Extra 300
Worst: Empty A319 on a windy day. The whole A320 series sucks in handling. The A321 is woefully underpowered and under-winged.

I agree with the empty A319, but I have never enjoyed flying any machine very light. Be it a small helicopter or a A340-600

[43Inches]

TK used to say that if you could fly a Seneca 1, you could fly anything!

Not sure about flying anything, but after a few circuits you would probably develop some nice arm toning and strength. I have a few Seneca hours, from the 1 through to the V, all of them except the 1 are not bad machines, the V being a bit of a spaceship compared the 1. The trick with all the Seneca and most Pipers is to place something heavy down the back if you have only one or two up front. The fact they have a main wheel for a nose wheel gives some suggestion Piper gave up on fixing it's issues.

There are/were a few Seneca 1s converted to spoilers for roll control. I heard this fixed a lot of the mush issues especially at low speed due to the 1 having trim tabs for ailerons. Never got to try one though.

[Uplinker]

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..................... I am not an Airbus hater...........Sitting at the holding point over the years I have seen some very exciting crosswind landing attempts, especially on A320's..

Depends what the definition of handling is: not necessarily the most aerobatic, or the most feel etc. One might say a Rolls Royce or Bentley limousine handles very nicely - i.e. smooth and effortless - but you wouldn't take one rallying and expect it to be nimble on the Swedish forest tracks !

Re Airbus, no TRE I ever had could teach how to use the side-stick FBW combination, (I eventually taught myself). So I suspect that those A320s you have seen getting out of shape were flown by poorly-taught pilots. The FBW works just fine if one understands it.

Re trimming, I have always thought that having to manually trim and re-trim is crude and a pain, (for the record, I am type-rated on 6 manual trim types, including 737 Classic). If, owing to a quirk of physics, our cars veered to the right with increasing speed and the left with decreasing speed; we would all get used to compensating without thinking, but it is so much nicer that we don't have to !
Same with Airbus FBW, it is so much nicer and more refined to fly without having to trim all the time ! (and not having to pull back in turns as well :)).

[FullWings]

Fascinating thread.

I’ve flown a lot of gliders, but the best handling for me was the untipped LS7, which was delicate, responsive and lived and died by AoA. As far as light aircraft, you can do worse than much of what came out of the Robin factory: proper stick, clever wing, feels like an aeroplane rather than a car with wings. RVs are in the same mould.

In terms of transport aircraft, I actually quite liked the “Scud” 737-200, as it had light, powerful controls and could be flown very accurately if you put the effort in. Considering the design constraints, my current steeds of 777-200/300 can be quite fun to fly and are excellent in adverse conditions, like strong crosswinds.

[Right20deg]

For me, was the B727 100 and 200 series. Pre Valsan modification.
Looked nice, centre line thrust made it easy engine out, a great conventional instrument display and sufficient noise to make you look up and watch.
A proper aeroplane with a Flight Engineer to keep the crew in good order and to complete repairs after the room party got out of hand.
Happy days always.

[pontifex]

It's got to be horses for courses so:

1 Chipmunk (Canadian version)

2 Hunter 6

3 Valiant (before it broke up)

[pontifex]

It's got to be horses for courses so:

1 Chipmunk (Canadian version)

2 Hunter 6

3 Valiant (before it broke up)

[vegassun]

B737-200, very few bells and whistles plus the reverse buckets actually worked as advertised!

[WHBM]

... the De Haviland 121 otherwise known as the Trident - also of course the “Ground-gripper”, but this thread IS about handling qualities not performance!

The contrast with its replacement B757 was remarkable ... But it did go up fast on a LHR-MAN shuttle on a cold day!
I rebut this "Gripper" comment about the Trident. On a T3 on the MAN-LHR Shuttle I had one of those rearward-facing seats, and directly across from me facing forward was my rather glum client. On rotation it went up like a rocket, and I really felt were it not for my seatbelt I would have been deposited in said glum client's lap.

No gripper !

[LOMCEVAK]

There has been very little mention of WWII warbirds - yet! In that category, of the ones that I have flown definitely the Grumman F6F Hellcat. It is a fantastic flying machine.

[First_Principal]

Yup. Same.

VH-MEP

What a dog.

Everything after that was easy.


Huh, I thought that registration was familiar.

It seems I first flew VH-MEP when it arrived in UnZud January 2009 - there's a comment in my log 'ailerons stiff'. There was another flight later that month, then it went to have the requisite work done in order to enter the NZ register as ZK-NFS.

I flew it again directly after that work had been done, and recall that flight well! It was early evening and after all the extra pre-checks I usually did following such extensive work we took off, only to find the trim control had not been properly (re)fitted and I had to push on the yoke very hard very quickly early in the sequence :eek:. Even with the trim fully aft it required considerable constant push on the controls to maintain level flight.

That was sorted a couple of days later and we used it for a few months as a multi trainer. As it's the only Seneca I I've flown I can't compare but it didn't seem too bad to me, albeit I went to considerable trouble to keep that nose wheel up. FWIW it also had a complete re-trim inside and was in very tidy condition. I believe it later languished in a hangar at AS for some years.

Oh dear, also recollect it had a door come open in flight. I suspect the (pilot) passenger hadn't properly closed/locked it, despite being specifically asked and checked on. Hardly the aircraft's fault though.

As to the nicest handling 'plane I've flown; compared to some I expect my experience is limited (to about 30 types), but for the most part I'd have to say Cub or C-47, with (oddly I know) an honourable mention to an AA5 I once flew. Perhaps it was just 'cos it was one of those balmy stress-free days we occasionally have, but it did seem to fly well, castoring nose wheel notwithstanding.

From what I read here it does seem regretable I've never flown a Chipmunk, and thus have missed out on the gold standard by which to judge everything else by...

FP.

[43Inches]

That was sorted a couple of days later and we used it for a few months as a multi trainer. As it's the only Seneca I I've flown I can't compare but it didn't seem too bad to me, albeit I went to considerable trouble to keep that nose wheel up. FWIW it also had a complete re-trim inside and was in very tidy condition. I believe it later languished in a hangar at AS for some years.

The Senecas really only problem is that horrible antics in the landing sequence. Once in flight they are generally a nice stable smooth ride, good for touring, training, whatever. Also much cheaper than most other light twins to operate. Just don't use the red lights on the 2-4 as maximum power lights, or you will be changing cylinders and turbochargers more regularly.

I did prefer the 2 blade installations to the 3 blade, gave them a few more knots in the cruise at the sacrifice of a little bit of field performance and noise, who's flying pistons without ANR these days anyway. You could easily get to non-turbo baron speeds even in the 2 if you climbed up and used those turbos at considerably less fuel burn and airframe cost.

[MissChief]

Light single...the Tomahawk (PA-38)....sensitive and responsive, you just wore the aircraft. Good in aeros, although frowned upon.

Twin..the Seminole (PA-44)...straightforward and controllable unlike the awful Senecas 2 and 3. (PA-44)

Light jets..the Citation 2. So simple (and slow)

Bigger jets...the A330-300. Flew properly, nice in pitch and roll, landed nicely on one engine as well as two. Also slow.

Worst...the F-27 in a high crosswind, on the roll-out. Massive rudder and aileron inputs required. The older A321's were pretty shabby as well, poor in roll and yaw, and useless in decel after touchdown. The other 330 (Shed) was a wobbly thing too, in any sort of turbulence or crosswind.

But being paid to fly most of the above renders criticism/praise irrelevant.

[43Inches]

Oh dear, also recollect it had a door come open in flight. I suspect the (pilot) passenger hadn't properly closed/locked it, despite being specifically asked and checked on. Hardly the aircraft's fault though.

I had this problem occur a few times on D95 Travelairs. Seems every time it was commencing descent from cruise and pitch forward slightly and the door would pop open with a bit of a loud sound scaring the passengers. This seemed to be a problem with both aircraft I flew, so I thought it might be a type thing. I wrote it up at least once in case it was a latching issue, engineers I assume looked at it and found no fault or fixed.

Bigger jets...the A330-300. Flew properly, nice in pitch and roll, landed nicely on one engine as well as two. Also slow.

I'd be very worried if an aircraft that was flown by the computer and you just pointed it where to go didn't fly right. I mean you are not really controlling these large beasts, the computers and hydraulics do that. The pilot is meant to feel like its easy as that's the whole intention, then they can put you in the seat for longer and pay less crew, the engineers build the feel into the machine feedback. In a non-power assisted controls the design really has to be right or you work hard. Doesn't mean that the big stuff ain't a dream to fly, but that's more the computer making it seem that way, I mean you wouldn't chose to fly in alternate law, or worse direct law, all day would you.

[EXDAC]

Fascinating that so many vote for the Chippy. I had the chance to fly one from the back seat about a year ago. It was a Canadian bubble canopy version. I had never met the owner before this flight. I just happened to be there watching with interest as he pre-flighted and he offered me a ride. He let me taxi and seemed surprised that I didn't find it difficult. I was a passenger for the takeoff and landing but had the chance to play with it in the air. Yes, it had a nice feel to the controls and it did what ever I suggested it should do, but it was a bit disconcerting that the owner had to keep correcting the power setting if I let it deviate by 10 rpm from the only rpm he thought it should operate at. (Is the Gipsy Major really that fussy?)

Sweetest handling aircraft I owned was an ASW-19B. Sweetest one I didn't own was the SHK. No powered aircraft came close but I am having a lot of fun in an FX-3 Carbon Cub. (Rudder feel too light to qualify for best handling award but it sure likes to kiss the ground goodbye.)

[megan]

Is the Gipsy Major really that fussyNo. Only trouble personally had was getting the thing to start on one memorable cold morning. Young teenager at the time hand swinging a Tiger Moth, thought the arm was going to drop off.

[Vonrichthoffen]

Singles the Chipmunk,multi the Dove

Totally agree on both , but Sea Devon, as we called it.

[TBM-Legend]

There has been very little mention of WWII warbirds - yet! In that category, of the ones that I have flown definitely the Grumman F6F Hellcat. It is a fantastic flying machine.


Me, I've flown the Sea Fury and the big Caddy, the B-25...both awesome [oh and my A-26]

[blind pew]

Not the 7 but the 6 followed by the 4. The fox and pilatus B4 AF were great aerobatic machines.
Condor followed by the Cub especially flying 100ft circuits. My chipmunk time was mired as my instructor was frightened of aerobatics. Tiger moth like flying a blancmange.
Beechcraft Baron..fabulous in spite of having one flick and ended up inverted.
DC9 34 ..the long range one best of the six versions and a great versatile aircraft.
Super VC10..Still dream about it.
Fokker 100 whilst it flew like a light aircraft was an embarrassment on the Airways and had the feeling of landing a wheel barrow with a dodgy wheel.
Dodged the classic after a simulator session as so easy it was boring.
Stretched DC 6..missed out by one place on the seniority list but the most difficult simulator I flew; the AirFrance 737 guy I was paired with crashed it.
Trident 2 would have been OK if we were allowed to fly it as designed.
DC10ER..boring.
Tugging at a mountain site in a Raylle was the most demanding..high speed descent in turbulence, drop cable below 50ft, climbing turn until slats opened (below 200ft) reverse turn lowering flaps, constant bank descending turn with full side slip, close throttle, ease off sideslip and heave; wind off trim to keep nose wheel off the runway as it shimmied partly due to landing downwind. (Was a pig in reality).
Carbon Nimbus 2 C (decent roll response) for mountain flying after LS6.
Phoebus C for long legs and a challange as so wrong but for staying up on a fart.
Some great model aircraft that flew like the real thing too.

[I-AINC]

Beechcraft Baron 55

[Uplinker]

I'd be very worried if an aircraft that was flown by the computer and you just pointed it where to go didn't fly right. I mean you are not really controlling these large beasts, the computers and hydraulics do that..
my bold.

A common misconception and not true.

The BAe146 was a dream to fly but you could feel the control servo-tabs struggling and hitting the end stops during very turbulent approaches, because they ran out of power and response.
Larger airliners must have hydraulics to provide the huge control forces required. So you then need artificial feel to hopefully prevent the pilots over stressing the aircraft, or you go the FBW route and not have artificial feel because the FBW will prevent you over-stressing.*


*(Note the rudder on Airbus FBW is conventional, not FBW protected and therefore has artificial feel. Conventional rudder is a safety feature allowing control in the extremely unlikely event that all five FBW computers are lost simultaneously).

[43Inches]

The post was in regard to the A330 which has no manual control links, as per all Airbus since the A320. All FBW, so you can never turn off the autopilot, just operate in degraded modes of it.

* except yes the weird rudder cabling, which is getting removed in the Neos.

[Right20deg]

The post was in regard to the A330 which has no manual control links, as per all Airbus since the A320. All FBW, so you can never turn off the autopilot, just operate in degraded modes of it.

* except yes the weird rudder cabling, which is getting removed in the Neos.
Agreed and there is the option ( not always taken) of changing the input mode to a competent crew member to achieve a sell formed outcome..... AF 447

[Dennis at Enstrom]

Someone mentioned that the Bucker Jungmann was the only airplane that lived up to the hype. I can confirm that's true. Beautifully balanced, light on the controls, responsive, yet not twitchy and no bad habits. However my RV-8 is all that, plus it's twice as fast and has a heater. I sold the Bucker and kept the RV-8.

Honorable mention goes to the Cessna 170B. Also well balanced and light on the controls, with no bad habits. Not super responsive, but in a respectable 4 seat family plane that was fine. Cessna 150 is also a very nice flying airplane, along with the 140. I suspect most of those early Cessnas fly nicely. Unfortunately not so with the later ones. My Cardinal RG flies like a truck. Caravan wasn't any better.

Worst airplane I ever flew was the Aeronca Chief. No control feel other than heavy drag in the system, sloppy and slow response, and didn't have enough power to get out of it's own way.

[David Charlwood]

Chipmunk (particularly with the short-chord rudder, C-47 Dakota.
As an aside, the man who converted me onto the Bristol 170 Freighter said "If you can fly this aeroplane well, then you have forgotten how to fly!"

[EXDAC]

Worst airplane I ever flew was the Aeronca Chief. No control feel other than heavy drag in the system, sloppy and slow response, and didn't have enough power to get out of it's own way.

You are trying to shatter some fond memories of the time I owned a share in one. My recollections are the lack of brakes for the instructor (I had to check out all of my partners) and the fact that this one had a preference to go anywhere but straight down the runway. I swear I wasn't grey until I started instructing in that 11BC.

[RENURPP]

I'm surprised the Twotter hasn't made itself to the list as yet.

[flywatcher]

Dornier 27 for the airframe, lousy engine

[KRUSTY 34]

D55 Baron. Noisy, tough, and absolutely delightful to fly. Ergonomics ok, after about 500 hours!

Never flown a Chippie, although it gets a pretty good rap here. For me the best light aerobatic mount was the little Victor Airtourer, with the 180 hp donk of course.

[blind pew]

Only flew the lower powered air tourer and demonstrated looping to by little brother over the sea off Sunderland..stalled over the top and it continued seawards on its back until I used both Rudder and aileron to get the nose down. Second attempt did the same and saw the altimeter wind through 500ft during the recovery. Brother said he had seen enough thank you.

[Pilotette]

Best: Aerostar, Chipmunk, Caravan

Worst: Seneca, fully loaded C207 (even though I still have a soft spot for them)

[Cloudee]

Someone mentioned that the Bucker Jungmann was the only airplane that lived up to the hype. I can confirm that's true. Beautifully balanced, light on the controls, responsive, yet not twitchy and no bad habits. However my RV-8 is all that, plus it's twice as fast and has a heater. I sold the Bucker and kept the RV-8.

Finally someone has voted for the Vans RV8! My 8 is the sweetest handling thing I’ve flown. Haven’t flow a chipmunk but perhaps someone who has flown both an RV8 and chippie could comment.

[Fred Gassit]

I've got an RV-8, it feels very similar to the Chipmunk but goes 60-70kts faster so does tend to be a bit heavier at speed.
Surprised by all the Caravan fans out there, I reckon it flies the way it looks....

[Uplinker]

The post was in regard to the A330 which has no manual control links, as per all Airbus since the A320. All FBW......


Au contraire, mon ami. Here is a cut and paste from my copy of the Airbus A330 FCOM. Possibly an earlier MSN series than you fly:

"MECHANICAL RUDDER CONTROL
Conventional mechanical rudder control is available from the pilot's rudder pedals.",

and my copy of A320 and A321 FCOM has identical wording.

The THS can also be moved manually by the pilots via a mechanical link, (with hydraulic power).

Direct rudder and THS control is so-called 'mechanical back-up' , which enables straight and level flight in the highly unlikely event that all five FBW computers need to be reset.

[ShyTorque]

I’ve flown the Chipmunk a few times and it’s nice enough, but far nicer is the Vans RV-4.

[Cornish Jack]

Surprisingly only two aficionados of Lockheed's masterpiece 3 holer and its DLC !
Inarguably the worst by several 'country miles' was the Miles (later Humbly Pudge) Marathon. Its only saving grace was the proximity of the gear lever to that for the flaps, and their similarity.! The consequent 'errors' lead to its swift demise :E
PS - for hands on satisfaction, knowing that you, and not the aircraft, have produced an acceptable outcome, go 'fling wing', and that extension to your lightest touch, the Whirlwind 10 !! :E

[Vonrichthoffen]

DH 104 Sea Devon, B747 ( 1,2,3,4,8 )

[blind pew]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1940x1033/50443eaf_3599_4537_9df6_26e9c6b0572d_7b071dc6c3b88408f9f43b1 99389411bf7d17e64.jpeg
Without doubt..a kestrel with added centre section that weighed 110 plus kilos and was mounted on a gun carriage type structure. The whole wing weighed a quarter of a ton and the one I test flew had Venetian blind slats mounted vertically either side of the rudder to keep the airflow along the chord..unsuccessfully. Good men were known to run away and hide at rigging time.

[Stuka Child]

For those who complain about the Seneca 1 in the flare, using 10 degrees of flaps makes it a lot easier. Handles much better in crosswind too. Only reason you'd want full flaps is if runway length is an issue. It's not the most nimble aircraft (to not say it's a fat cow), and it takes some muscle but I always found it quite endearing.

Also, someone else said they don't like the 737-200, and I'm here sitting like whatttt? What could you possibly not like about it?

[Sailvi767]

The best jet I have flown was the A4 Superfox. The best piston aircraft the F1 Rocket.

[POBJOY]

I'm surprised the Twotter hasn't made itself to the list as yet.


Its called crosswinds !!! (Oh and that stupid nosewheel steering bit)

[Peter Fanelli]

Did my CPL and initial MECIR (plus several renewals) in a Seneca 1, with the late Tony Kingham.

TK used to say that if you could fly a Seneca 1, you could fly anything!


Did four channel runs in it, after all those landings yes it is possible to land a Seneca nicely.

[havick]

My 2c. Bell 412

[RENURPP]

Its called crosswinds !!! (Oh and that stupid nosewheel steering bit)
X-winds. Oh well I guess some pilots cannot handle a crosswind, but the aircraft was certainly capable.

The nose wheel steering was for taxiing. If it was used for what it was intended for it worked fine.

[Arfur Dent]

English Electric Lightning Mk 6
Cirrus SR 22
Boeing 747-400

[Bengerman]

Best: A318
Worst: A319
Weird?

[Less Hair]

What is so different then?

[mikehallam]

Rans S6-116 !

[scotbill]

The early B757s were a delight to fly and the light controls were amazingly well-predicted by the simulator. After a few tail scrapes, Boeing changed the weighting to the extent that I thought there was an actual problem with the first modified aircraft I flew.

[Jenna Talia]

Best turbine - Beech Super King Air 200.
Best twin piston - Aerostar.
Best single - Mooney 201.

[David J Pilkington]

Only flew the lower powered air tourer and demonstrated looping to by little brother over the sea off Sunderland..stalled over the top and it continued seawards on its back until I used both Rudder and aileron to get the nose down. Second attempt did the same and saw the altimeter wind through 500ft during the recovery. Brother said he had seen enough thank you.Looping figures always needed more speed than what the book recommended. I owned a 100 hp Airtourer for some years but it really needs 150 hp. Problem is that the Super Airtourer 150 has diddly squat useful load.

The T-6 model was the best, in my opinion. It is approved for all the usual aerobatics at maximum weight in semi-acrobatic category so has a useful load. It is strange as FAR 23 doesn't have a semi-acrobatic category and the TCDS doesn't explain it - I wonder what CASA thinks of that?

The T-6 doesn't have the inboard wing stall strips and the one that I flew often had a sudden, large wing drop at the stall (flaps up) that I could not prevent so I remain surprised that it was certified but perhaps other examples are different? The rudder is too small. Poor dutch roll damping. Springs in the aileron control system don't make the ailerons nice, in my opinion. So, a long way down my list of airplanes with the nicest handling even though I enjoy flying them.

[Commander Taco]

Best single - Chipmunk
Worst - Beech 18. What a cantankerous beast anywhere near a runway - would never take the dirty dart in the same direction on landing more than once in a row.
Favourite jets - B727-200 and B777-300ER.
I’m surprised the Airbus FBW has some fans. I found them to be joyless airplanes - you just nudge the sidestick around to make it go where you wanted it to.

[Sailvi767]

Best single - Chipmunk
Worst - Beech 18. What a cantankerous beast anywhere near a runway - would never take the dirty dart in the same direction on landing more than once in a row.
Favourite jets - B727-200 and B777-300ER.
I’m surprised the Airbus FBW has some fans. I found them to be joyless airplanes - you just nudge the sidestick around to make it go where you wanted it to.

I have no idea either why some credit the Airbus series as good flying aircraft. They use a very basic FBW system that provides zero feedback. Most fly it by bumping the side stick and Airbus really doesn’t want you hand flying it at all.

[RichardJones]

Hawker Hunter by far.

Qualified on: B707,B747, Lear 30 series, Various Dassult/Falcons and HS 125. Also many piston powered A/C

[PPRuNe Dispatcher]

I was honoured and fortunate enough to meet Captain Eric 'Winkle' Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, Hon FRAeS, RN who holds the record for the most types of aircraft flown, 487 not including variants.

He's no longer with us, having passed on in 2016 at the age of 97.I asked him what was his favourite aircraft and he said the de Havilland Hornet. I think his published words express why it was so good : “"The view from the cockpit, positioned right forward in the nose beneath a one-piece aft-sliding canopy was truly magnificent. The Sea Hornet was easy to taxi, with powerful brakes... the takeoff using 25 lb (2,053 mm Hg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element)), 51" Hg) boost and flaps at one-third extension was remarkable! The 2,070 hp (1,540 kW) Merlin 130/131 engines fitted to the prototypes were to be derated to 18 lb (1,691 Hg, 37" Hg) boost and 2,030 hp (1,510 kW) as Merlin 133/134s in production Sea Hornets, but takeoff performance was to remain fantastic. Climb with 18 lb boost exceeded 4,000 ft/min (1,200 m/min)"...

"In level flight the Sea Hornet's stability about all axes was just satisfactory, characteristic, of course, of a good day interceptor fighter. Its stalling characteristics were innocuous, with a fair amount of elevator buffeting and aileron twitching preceding the actual stall"...

"For aerobatics the Sea Hornet was absolute bliss. The excess of power was such that manoeuvres in the vertical plane can only be described as rocket-like. Even with one propeller feathered the Hornet could loop with the best single-engine fighter, and its aerodynamic cleanliness was such that I delighted in its demonstration by diving with both engines at full bore and feathering both propellers before pulling up into a loop!”

[sandpit]

Must be showing my age - 727 - what a machine.
350 KIAS to 10 miles was possible - no QARs to worry about!

[Dan Winterland]

Glider: ASW19
Light Aircraft: Chipmunk
Military: Hawk
Airliner: VC10

[Chiefttp]

I’m surprised nobody mentioned the DC-10. Many colleagues of mine who flew a lot of different airliners always mentioned the DC-10 as the nicest handling jet they ever flew.
Personally, the 767 is my pick for best handling.

[Saint-Ex]

Sea Fury, Bucker Jungmeister.

[Veruka Salt]

767-300 ER with the CF6-80 donks. Best 185T fighter jet ever.

[LeadSled]

767-300 ER with the CF6-80 donks. Best 185T fighter jet ever.
Could not agree more - great aeroplane to take to an airshow!!
Tootle pip!!

PS: How about a thread on "the worst".

[jonkster]

PS: How about a thread on "the worst".

if we are talking engine power and reliability... the DHC1 chipmunk! :}

<ducks head to avoid incoming :)>


(ps just in case - I have always thought the Chippie was a sweet aeroplane to fly)

[aroa]

Before I headed off on a Uk - Oz lengthy jolly, behind a Gipsy Major Mk 10 -2, Middle Wallop was abuzz with Chippies with like engines. Talking with the engineers there, who also did a final check on mine, I was told there had not been a failure due to the engine itself. Those that did go down were by trainee pilots, carby icing, mag points , fuel probs etc peripheral stuff. A confidence builder !,?. Was for me anyway.
impulse mag points needed regapping in India, a bit of carby icing over the Timor Sea…but that old Gipsy did just keep on noisily humming along.

[rcoight]

Nicest handling piston twin - Aerostar by far. Then Aero Commander. C414A nice & safe if un-exciting.
Never felt relaxed in Chieftain for some reason.
Worst - Seneca 1. What a total ****-box. Later models marginally better.
Single - haven’t flown Chippie etc., but of the usual GA stuff only the C210 had nice handling (haven’t flown a Bonanza but suspect that’d be the only one that would be as good or better).

[43Inches]

Never felt relaxed in Chieftain for some reason.

I flew a number of well maintained chiefs on mostly passenger charter and some RPT. They were always very reliable and safe. I know more than a few that are in pretty bad shape doing freight work and outback. That might be the ones you would feel 'at risk' in.

I did the endorsement back in the ole days where the instructor pulled the mixture and you actually feathered and landed 1 inop. It handled well on one engine, even had an air return on one engine with 10 pob at a later date. Knowing exactly how much drag an open cowl flap or such creates is critical at max weight, that alone could be the difference between climb, level or not. They definitely did not like hot conditions, very easy for those oil and CHT temps to build up if you stayed low on a hot day, and opening the barn door cowls would slow you significantly.

[rcoight]

I flew a number of well maintained chiefs on mostly passenger charter and some RPT. They were always very reliable and safe. I know more than a few that are in pretty bad shape doing freight work and outback. That might be the ones you would feel 'at risk' in.

I did the endorsement back in the ole days where the instructor pulled the mixture and you actually feathered and landed 1 inop. It handled well on one engine…

Yes, my feelings were probably not related to the aircraft themselves. The ones I flew were in good condition and very well maintained (this was 20+ years ago).
I think it was because every takeoff was at max weight and we were flying out of very hot locations virtually every day, and I knew those engines were working to their absolute limit.
But apart from one return to the departure field 5 minutes after takeoff due to oil streaming out of the left engine they were pretty reliable aircraft, to be fair.

Every twin endorsement I did ended in the way you describe. The last one was more than fifteen years ago so maybe things are done differently now.

[gassed budgie]

Nicest handling piston twin - Aerostar by far. Then Aero Commander. C414A nice & safe if un-exciting.
Never felt relaxed in Chieftain for some reason.
Worst - Seneca 1. What a total ****-box. Later models marginally better.
Single - haven’t flown Chippie etc., but of the usual GA stuff only the C210 had nice handling (haven’t flown a Bonanza but suspect that’d be the only one that would be as good or better).

+1 here for the Aerostar.

[trashie]

C130A and C47 both queens of the sky

[rjtjrt]

C130A and C47 both queens of the sky
trashie, the jump from C47 to C130A for airforce must have been a jaw dropping revolution (says he, stating the bleeding obvious).

[dusk2dawn]

DHC-1, B55, B200, F27, B727 & B767. - none of them as good as a H269 ;)

[WideGlide]

For me it would be the BE36 on the one spectrum and the B777 on the other, reason being is they both fly on rails , solid -the Rolls Royce of airplanes.

[laardvark]

I have not flown one but i nominate the hawker hurricane . Boom .

[Pugilistic Animus]

No votes for the 707?! :\ :}

[e2_c]

No votes for the 707?! :\ :}

I'd vote for the 707 as one of the nicest looking.

[Quietplease]

I'd vote for the 707 as one of the nicest looking.
Particularly the little Qantas138b.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

For a light piston powered twin engine aircraft, the Ted Smith Aerostar was wonderful.

Especially at low speed! Superb handling. Know of one that during an endorsement, was stalled at 15,000’, tumbled nose over tail and didn’t recover until 7,000’. There’s a winner right there!

[Tailspin Turtle]

Best of some 50 light airplanes (regrettably not including the Chipmunk), T-34, especially with an Allison 250 turboprop engine (one of a kind) that doubled the horsepower; Worst, Cessna 150 converted to a tail dragger with a more powerful engine for glider towing - inadequate rudder for much of a crosswind (and in some cases, it wasn’t as heavy as the sailplane being towed, which occasionally raised the question of whether the tow plane pilot or the sailplane pilot was in charge of the proceedings); second worst, Mooney M20, because of the lack of control harmony, but if you weren’t a big person and only wanted to go places, adequate for the task.

[Attitude!]

Extra 300 for easiest, Pitts S2A for most fun.
PC12NG for best all-round working aeroplane!
Yes, I'm definitely biased....

[Stationair8]

Twins
Aerostar, provided your endorsement was done by somebody with plenty of experience on the type and had been outside the local circuit area.
PA-31/310, great aeroplane with wing lockers, crew door and cargo door.
PA-39

Singles
F33 Bonanza

[Manual Pitch Trim]

What is your defintion of “best handling”?

”best handling” for what purpose..?

Best handling jet for short strips that I have flown Boeing 727

“ Best handling” old school small corporate jet for hand flying Learjet 35

” Best handling” offstrip and short strips The Twin Otter

Agree that the Beechcraft 99 for unpressurized turboprops handled awesome

[Post Flight]

Airplane with the nicest handling? What a fine question — and its numerous tangential queries are things of dreams and fantasies.

A Texas swing band called ‘Asleep At The Wheel’ did a song by the name ‘Dance With Who Brung You.’ If the site allows, I’ll post it (just tried and it won't allow -- sorry, fun song and great group.)

The USAF bought me into the aviation dance; so I mostly only know military aircraft. Financial limits keep me away from civil aviation.

I’ve flown Cessna’s 152, 172, and their T-37 (tweet); the Northrop T-38; varieties of the Lockheed C-130; and Boeing’s 727 (100, 200), 738NG, 752, 763, and 772.

Is defining best handling determined by the aviator’s current realm of flight? Besides renting a C-152 to airdrop a family friend’s cremated remains into the bayou in front of his home for all his friends gathered, all I know of flying is work-related.

Nicest handling was the C-130. If you had time on it, you could nearly pull off anything with the utmost of consistency and joy. The four turboprops, highlift wing, instantaneous lift generated by the props across the wings, sturdy gear, and reverse prop thrust makes it legendary. It is a magnificent, great handling aircraft provided good maintenance and qualified crew members are in the mix. The Brit mil know it as well as, if not better than, any operator.

The little Cessna 152 rental behaved predictably and gracefully while her novice in-type pilot (me) was 50’ off the water circling tightly for all the deceased’s friends and family to witness the drop of flowers then second pass, ashes.

The tweet was sublime for wrapping around and getting lift from growing benign CBs. Terrific fun for learning aerobatic, close and trail formation. Honest handling with thrust attenuators to help with the slow 35-second engine spool up rate.

The -38 was a supersonic trainer with an electrically activated canopy (bad ass approaching the active) and requiring g-suits and O2. How about a roll rate of 720 degrees/min! I could go on and on about that afterburning, neutral wing-camber amazing jet. It was solid for formation and rockin' on low levels. Hitting the pattern was a thing of awe due to the use of AOA, ‘elephants stomping the wings’ during the final turn, and the highest landing speed of all. It was an honest and harsh jet.

The 727 had a wing that just about disassembled itself for landing … 56 different, moving surfaces if I recall. If you could see your landing spot over the nose, you could aggressively pull it off without a hitch! 400 kts down 7-mile beach going into Grand Cayman Island, throttles idle, configure on speed, roll into final, spool-up, flare, land … all safe fun, good pax carriage, and a good day flying! The 727 was perhaps the last of truly engaging flying, but that’s days gone by. Loved that jet too — flew all three seats, in the Caribbean no less.

The 757 was a wayward rocket. Fantastic power to weight ratio, that and its looks. We all HAD to like it but not really so much. Its handling was as slow as it was powerful.

The 767 was a Cadillac, a Cadillac Brougham if you ever got to drive one. I did since my neighbor often lent his to me. All I can say is that it was comfy, solid, and sweet!

The 777-200 was an epiphany. Cannot imagine the 787. The 77 had so much automation, system’s synoptics, redundancy, comfort, and ease. Everybody loved it. I did too but sorely and usually missed true stick and rudder. The PES — pitch enhancement system — made me loose the 3D concept of flying.

The Boeing 737-800 NG was the worst aircraft I’ve flown. It had excellent engines and a great wing but it handled curmudgeonly if you can say that about an airplane. I understand that some of the earlier models were nice, but how does a newly produced aircraft (at the time) arrive so old? Its gripes were widespread from A to Z. Keep stretching an airframe and rig everything around more seats? The brakes improved yet the tire footprint remained the same.

Today an A-10, Warthog, overflew my home. He did a quick right-left jink that I chalked up to “the other left.”

From all I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading here, I wish for some time flying the ‘Chippie.’ Still, if a Chipmunk and a Warthog were on the ramp free to use … up, up and A-10 — a ag-tractor/crop duster on steroids!

Great thread!!

[OMAAbound]

Interesting thread, took me two-days to read through it.

Worst - A330-200/300/F, any of them, they were and still are ****e!

Best - The aircraft I am being paid to fly!

OMAA

[Pinky the pilot]

How about a roll rate of 720 degrees/min!

Per minute?? You sure about that?:confused::E

[Uplinker]

OMAA, obviously your opinion is 100% valid, but I could not disagree with you more :)

A330 is majestic. It is not nimble, but that is not its role - it is like a limousine. I had to teach myself how to operate the side-stick and FBW combination, nobody could ever explain it. I also learned how to land the A330 gently, (without floating), and then for me it became a fantastic machine.

[Aerostar6]

Airliner - B767. I used to prefer the 757, but the ailerons on the 767 were stupendous. I rolled her on odd occasions in the sim, and I reckon you could do a fantastic air show sequence in a light one, right up until they pulled your licence!

Aerobatic - Yak 50 - best fun you can have with your clothes on.

Warbird - P-51D, no doubt for me. Spitfire is lovely, (not the 2-seat if there is someone in the boot), but I have never felt more at home in an aircraft that I have never flown before, and it gets better with every flight. And any aircraft that you can taxi with your elbow on the canopy rail gets my vote!!!

[David J Pilkington]

Per minute?? You sure about that?:confused::ELast year there was a FB group discussion on the roll rates of various aircraft. We made videos of multiple rolls and someone analysed them to record the data in a spreadsheet. Someone posted this video of a T-38 https://youtu.be/d4ZI5JLMkRk with multiple rolls at 11:05. Dudley Henriques commented "3/4 would be max for the lateral stick throw on a roll series. Those seeking a max roll rate should be advised that the rolls on the film by the TB solo are being performed at somewhat less than the .9 Mach required to achieve max roll rate in the 38. These rolls were well below the coupling limit. I would add that watching Kirk Brimmer (TB T38 Solo Pilot) doing his vertical rolls through the Diamond break he could have gotten pretty close to the coupling limit." Bret Davenport posted data from USAF & NTPS reports: just less than 200 deg/sec at 0.8 M for a T-38. The roll rate is down there with an old Pitts.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x467/108632267_10158539563841665_705541927262151833_o_84f5e2dce77 e556fbeef2dd0c86ab55d2ab067e0.jpg
From Spencer Suderman.

[43Inches]

FW-190 could achieve over 160 deg/sec, almost double the spitfire and 109 capability. Although it's high stall speed meant it couldn't translate that into a tight turn radius.

I do remember someone referring to QF 737 (pre -800s) in flight as a maggot, "whitish and just seems to wallow around and not get anywhere fast" or the veritable "fart in a bathtub, shoots to altitude and then lingers...", seems to follow the line that 737 are not pleasurable to fly. I think the later comes from the trans continent races where the AN A320s had to get into particular position or be slowed to follow the 737 across the country with no RADAR/ADSB back then.

[David J Pilkington]

FW-190 could achieve over 160 deg/sec, almost double the spitfire and 109 capability. ...NACA Rept 868, Summary of Lateral Control Research, in 1947 shows the Spitfire at 105 deg/sec and, with the clipped wing, 150 deg/sec. It shows the FW-190 as a tad over 160 deg/sec.

[Aerostar6]

NACA Rept 868, Summary of Lateral Control Research, in 1947 shows the Spitfire at 105 deg/sec and, with the clipped wing, 150 deg/sec. It shows the FW-190 as a tad over 160 deg/sec.
I have been lucky enough to confirm that this year, flying a clipped wing MkXIV after a few years flying a conventional MkIX.
The roll rate is fantastic- but I’m reserving judgment on the Griffon vs the Merlin!

[megan]

but I’m reserving judgment on the Griffon vs the Merlin!Care to tell why Aerostar, that's the sort of detail some of we nutters thrive upon. Jealous as hell of your carriage.

[43Inches]

NACA Rept 868, Summary of Lateral Control Research, in 1947 shows the Spitfire at 105 deg/sec and, with the clipped wing, 150 deg/sec. It shows the FW-190 as a tad over 160 deg/sec.

I think I was a bit too vague, but was referring to early FW 190 vs Earlier model spits, the A series in particular. By the time the spits were advancing to the IX and beyond the 190 had also changed significantly and by the D had lost a lot of its roll rate in exchanged for higher altitude performance. So early war the 190 was superior in roll, however by the end of the war was marginal if not inferior to to the later model spits, esp the clipped wings.

PS From my understanding the clipped wing spits, they gave away a lot of altitude performance, climb rate and speed to achieve that extra roll rate, there was also a wing extension for high altitude performance. The griffon models had a new wing redesigned to alleviated problems with ailerons at high speed, particularly reversal. The FW 190 eventually morphed into the TA 152, which had two distinct forms, one with almost glider wings for high altitude intercept, and the other with traditional FW 190 type wings for ground attack roles, by then it was not really a challenge for spitfires of the griffon range, they were just made to hunt armored targets on the ground or bombers at altitude.

[Post Flight]

Per minute?? You sure about that?:confused::E
So glad you caught my error, as I mistakenly made it. Correction: 720 degrees/second. I waited. Thanks PtP!

This IS a long thread. How long is it? It's as long as the types of airplanes are myriad and have differences to the operators, who flying them, love and hate them.:ok: Thanks D J P for the 1980 Thunderbirds video. Believe it or not, the Thunderbirds came into existence simply because USAF aviators were having difficulties during the transition from props to jets way back -- too many crashes and bad morale. Leadership decided a demonstration team was necessary to show the troops how it's done. A bit of trivia. So many things to enjoy on this site!!:D

[cafesolo]

After doing my 120 hours on Chipmunk (ab initio) I was moved to BALLIOL T2. I've no idea of its ceiling or its roll rate,can't even remember its stall speed, but I'll never forget its Gotcha ! Go around: Failure to get the stick well forward before whacking the throttle open will result in a flick role; you will know how lucky you are as it cart-wheels: when it's standing on its nose,is it going to fall back on to its belly, or on to the cockpit transparency ? The joke of the flight line chief regarding the Merlin 35 was,"Actually,it's just a Merlin 3 with a Merlin 5 carburettor." It still produced 1250 h.p. Wish there were still some about.