Airplane With The Nicest Handling
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
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.
.
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.
.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 3rd Oct 2021 at 12:13.
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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE=happyjack;11119638]
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.
But the worst by far was........... wait for it.............. a Gulfstream 5. 'Looks wonderful. Handles like a p1g in sh1t! So utterly disapointing.
The best was the Falcon 2000 very closely followed by the Falcon 900.
The most challenging and therefore the most satisfying, the LR35.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robin
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.
Part-own a cirrus, great cruiser on autopilot, fairly horrible to hand-fly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: .
Age: 25
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: .
Age: 25
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
