Airplane With The Nicest Handling
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).
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.
* except yes the weird rudder cabling, which is getting removed in the Neos.
Last edited by 43Inches; 6th Oct 2021 at 11:07.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Green Bay, WI, USA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: New Zealand
Age: 86
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!"
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!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
Surprised by all the Caravan fans out there, I reckon it flies the way it looks....
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.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 429 Likes
on
226 Posts
I’ve flown the Chipmunk a few times and it’s nice enough, but far nicer is the Vans RV-4.
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
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 !!
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
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 !!
Worst handling
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.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Montreal
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?