Aircraft you love and hate to fly ...
 

What aircraft have you flown regularly that puts a smile on your face and others you would be happy never to sit in again ?

LOVE

C310R - nice all round aircraft , solid , looks great with that long nose

Pilatus Porter - turbine, great build quality and could dive like a Stuka

C210 - single engine 310

Pitts S2A - open cockpit and pilot skill builder

HATE

C152 - underpowered, with 2 fat asses on a 45 deg C day it would be lucky to get airborne

Robin R-2160 - a flying Renault with the same build quality , some loved it I hated it , the only nice thing about it was being able to taxi with the canopy open on a hot day. What's with that tail ? Lots of tacked on surface area to fix up a crap design.

Love = Beechcraft Baron 58... What can i say that anyone who has flown a Baron doesnt already know... Superb flying machine! :ok:

Hate, Hate, HATE = Cessna 172... Omfg how i never ever want to fly one of these aircraft ever again!!! :yuk:

LOVE:

C210 - I fly it for work, but it's a great machine. Lots of power and nice and stable.

Citabria - 0-1000' in 3.3 seconds. Plenty of power, aerobatic and a joy to fly with lots of windows to look out of at funny angles. Simple, too.

HATE

C172 - Underpowered, mushy controls, almost all examples old and tired. Too many hours spent doing CPL navs in 'em.

C152 - Anaemic performance, hot and high = burning and death. Cramped as hell when your instructor was 6'2" and 120kg.

Love: DHC6: Does exactly what it was designed to do brilliantly. BE20 and BE90, Super as it does everything well and comfortably, 90 for the aileron responsivesness and challenge in the flare. B206 as doors off is just great!!!:ok:

Average: B737 due to the amount of aileron work required in a strong crosswind, to achieve an average of wings level, and a completely useless speedbrake! B777: Does everything well, especially with GE power, but still just a truck.DHC8: Always a challenge for a smooth landing with those oleos.:)

Hate: Nothing really, although the C150 series doesn't do well in power or comfort 2 up, it was fine single pilot. Same with the Traumahawk! :bored:

Love:

Pistons:

Most IO-520 powered machines with a particular fondness for the A36/BE58 and the C210.

Turbines:

Can't beat the Conquest :E

Hates:

P68 and the Seminole!

Love:

BAe 146 - the last pilot's airliner before automation killed all the fun;

FK27: well harmonised and a challenge when stuff went wrong - you have to love the pneumatics;

BAe J32: when empty, like a little sports car (particularly with water meth);

Siai Marchetti SF260: You'd swear you were in a jet fighter (and could be if you had the TP);

Tolerate:

Various Boeings and Airbii: efficient, but soul-less

Shorts 360: Only the Irish could design the systems on that one - the fuel tanks live directly above the cabin;

Grumman AA5B: much better design than equivalent spam-cans;

Piper Arrow and Seneca III: just feel solid, if unexciting

No thanks:

Any C152/172/182: utlilarian to say the least

Love: Cessna 185 - very rewarding to fly if you fly it well

Hate: 152/172s - as per reasons already stated.

Love - A340-600

Love and Hate - Metro (always getting me through another day, but quietly waiting to pounce):sad:

Gotta agree with you on the Shorts 360 remoak! Previous job was flying the delightful (if ergonomically challenged) D/E 55 Baron. What a sweet fun ride they were.

Jumped into the Shorts and was completely horrified. About the only aircraft I had flown previously with that much adverse yaw was probably my mate's Citabria, or perhaps the old beat up glider I flew once as a teenager!

Also, no seat rake adjustment may be fine for your average 6 footer, but for those of us with slightly shorter arms, just reaching the power levers from the right hand side was entertaining. But the thing did have headroom. 7'3" in the main cabin if memory serves!

Hate: Got to be the Metro, the pig of the sky a plane that trys to kill you on a regular basis.

Ten posts and no-one has yet bagged the GAF Nomad?

Love the Yak 52, Tiger Moth and Pitts Specials S2A/B S1S

HATE the P68 and Cherokee 140.

Here is a wee addition to the thread, what about machines you are (looking forward to flying) planning on or close to having a crack in?

For me it is definately the DH Rapide and Pitts Model 12.

Can you guys please explain what is so bad about the Metro - I will now never fly in one of these planes, hearing their pilots speak so lowly of them, scary stuff. :sad:

Ask a Philippine Air Force Pilot

Paging Tinpis.

As for me...
Love; Chieftains. Pawnees with a 250hp engine

Hate; Seneca 1.:ugh: Cherokee 140.

Somewhat indifferent re 'Bongo vans' despite having the characteristic hearing loss caused by all the time I logged in those things.

Love: C208B, C310, C402c, C404, C421, C185, C188, C210, DHC6, PC6, PC12, PA18. R22, B47G, EC130.
Hate: C152\150, R2160, P68, PA30\34, PA28-140/160/180.
I'm sure there are others in both lists. I will add them as I remember them.

Best - Aerostar and Kingair B200

Worst - Beechcraft Sierra. (What a hunk of junk!!)

:ok: Love ANYTHING with wings....even the boxes they came in!! All aircraft are like women. Must be handled gently, looked after and well maintained!

Love: Nomad, ATR. The Nomad was just delightful and in a crosswind isn't too dissimilar to the ATR, both love to heel over in a crosswind!

Hate: GA8 Airvan, those things aren't designed to fly straight, run out of rudder in any crosswind over 15 knots, are extremely uncomfortable and are a prick of a thing in turbulence!

Loved every experience:-

Baron
Good solid and reliable Beach.

BE200
Big baron but burns kero absolutely loved its flexibility.

PA31
350 was nice but you needed a good ginger beer, the under carriage rigging could generate some concerning moments.

FK27
Loved the fact that it was all pilot driven. It was really air driven, manual fuel trimmers, and you gotta love the prop system. High aspect wing and cable controls taught you a lot about anticipating the delay to an input.

FK50
Nice, A bit of glass and a modified wing.

B767
Out of anything I have flown this rates highest. Awesome power, roll rates approaching fighter rates and when you got the wheels on the ground could stop in about 600m. 330kts to 10nm? No worries and still would be stable at 1000’ Up and down the East coast or 12 hours to SHA. Loved flying it into / out of Hamilton Is. (1700m Water at each end!)

Auster / Tiger moth
Nothing like still flying at 30kts and trying to land !

PA38 / C150/2

Preferred the Axe. When it stalled it stalled! Not just mushed, taught me and the student a bit of respect for aerodynamics !


:ok:

Rated but not current on all types are :-

Aircraft
C150 C152 C172 C182 C182RG C180 C185 C206 C210

PA18 PA20 PA22 PA25 PA28 PA28R PA28RT PA32 PA38

AA1 AA5 GA7

Citabria, Airtourer

(flown but not rated - BAC167Strikemaster, DC3, B58, C208, Gomad, TigerMoth, Beaver)

Helicopters

R22

(flown but not rated - R44, H300, 500)

Gliders

Rhonlark (not the correct spelling - its got a few other letters)
PW5, LS4, Janus

Microlights

my earlier years...I can't remember all the names of the different types and never bothered to log them

SIM

B737, Saab340

Loves - all of them, strap it to me
Hates - Nil
Wishes - WWI and WWII aircraft if it weren't so damn expensive

I will die a happy man

I'll explain, as it's also my most hated aeroplane.

The Metro.
The cockpit was designed by a midget and anyone of even normal size is very uncomfortable in them. Especially if you have long legs as the pedals are simply far too close to the seat so you have to bend your legs so far that it's practically impossible to get your feet onto the pedals at anything like a comfortable angle.
Fortunately the brakes, although fitted, don't actually work; they are there for show only and to amuse the ground engineers. So it's really not that important to get your feet where you would normally have them.
The control column was designed by a personal trainer, to improve your fitness by means of a continuous physical workout whenever any movement at all is required as they forces needed to move any control surface is in the tens of kilograms. If you can't benchpress two or three hundred kilograms, forget it.
Fortunately again, the engineers that designed the Metro had a sense of humour and made the ailerons so they don't really work much. They will roll the aeroplane roughly as fast as an oil tanker can turn, but no faster.
Whilst on the subject of controls, I must mention the rudder; like most small aeroplanes it also control the nosewheel steering and this is where the Metro engineers must still be peeing their pants with laughter, with the nosewheel system being the result of something like ten completely unrelated bits of machinery all incorporated to make the Metro perform the complex tasks of .... left ..... and ...... right. The nosewheel system requires approximately two weeks to do a complete systems test on the taxi out to the holding point and so many Metros must return to be refueled before flight. Fortunately it works randomly but the aeroplane can be steered on the ground by means of futilely stabbing at the brakes (I use the term loosely) and moving the power levers to vary the noise left to right.
Then there's the stall detection and Stall Avoidance System, which is designed to kick in just before landing; to do this, it senses a completely normal airspeed in the landing configuration just before landing, and then activates the stick pusher without warning, thus making the Metro land on the nosewheel and bounce down the runway.
Normally this would be uncomfortable for the passengers, if you are carrying any, but they are probably still unconscious from the lack of pressuristation due to the Metro being fitted with door seals made from molten ear wax and the bleed source a small 12 volt hair drier fitted to each engine. Even though the door seals may keep a tiny fraction of the air in the cabin and they whistle a loud revelry to keep the punters awake, they are often wearing foam ear plugs to block the noise and are likely to be blacked out from the cabin being something like 1,000' below the cruise altitude.
Fortunately, the Metro engineers had already considered the dual problems of trying to keep the passengers subdued and also making the ailerons a mere amusement, so they gave the machine a tiny little thin wing that only works when you are travelling along at many hundreds of knots. The wing is also very handy for smacking your head into, to remind you how lucky you are to be in aviation .... in case you had forgotten.
Speaking of engines, again the Metro engineers excelled themselves by choosing engines that have the unique blend of being complete and utter p***ks to start unless you have a nuclear power station plugged in (good forethough again - the ground power plug is often on the side of the nacelle near the prop, to help keep the ground crew cool as they unplug you), they also make more noise than said nuclear power station blowing up, and they also take 1.2 weeks to complete a start cycle. So at least when flying a Metro you develop the ability to think ahead. The propeller is also capable of reverse pitch, and this is used to make more noise on landing with the noise reflecting on the airframe to slow it to taxi speed.
Back to the cockpit. Whilst it may seem great fun to blast around the skies in a semi-pressurised aircraft that can barely be controlled - assuming it'll start - you can't actually see where you're going due to the windows being too small. To be fair there's a large-ish window on the side, but it often vibrates so much that nothing useful can be seen from it. This is assuming you're lucky enough to be flying in warm weather, for in colder conditions that require window heat only the window directly in front of each pilot has a tiny section of it heated, so if you thought you couldn't see much before you will see even less now.
The various controls & instruments in the cockpit were strategically positioned by means of a very large shotgun and many cases of beer I suspect. Fortunately, most of them don't read very accurately or indeed at all. A large number of the switches were labelled by means of picking suitable-sounding words from a brown paper bag. The radar is merely a Nintendo Gameboy converted to black & white, yet still has the batteries removed so it doesn't work. Every internal light is designed to illuminate dimly and also burn you if you foolishly fiddle with it to make it brighter.
If you do decide to go attempt to commit aviation in one, you first have to tackle the front door. It's hinged at the bottom and has a single handle to open & close/lock it. Sounds simple, but again the trusty Metro engineers decided that the door should be fitted with a totally reliable lift-assist device that detects the strength of the person trying to operate it, and if the person is weak then the door is scheduled to get no assistance at all, and vice-versa. The chains fitted to either side to stop the door from (mostly) plunging deep into the ground when opening are also designed to fall to the side when closing the door to make it jam, with the bonus of also damaging the door seal. But the Metro engineers weren't finished there, they decreed that even if you'd managed to lift the heavy door up and grow another arm or two to get the chains out of the way, then it has just enough twist in it so it simply won't shut. Well some doors are scheduled to only shut when slammed for the 3rd or 4th time with at least a grunt and swear word. It's then impossible to visually sight if the door is close as the inspection ports for the door pins are made from cataracts extracted from the eyes of old pilots. Fortunately it works nearly perfectly every single time you shut it from outside, though it must be a member of the flight crew that shuts it, not any old person on the ground. Engineer humour again I suspect ....

I like the water/meth on takeoff.

Does that answer your question?

I cant believe that nobody has mentioned the RV"s, so I will. Love the RV7, flying one today, messing around in the cloud tops. Lots of fun and a delight to fly.:ok:

Have time on:
C150, 152, 172, 172R, 177R, 180, 182, 182R, 185, 206, 210, 310, 402;
PA18, 23, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 38;
BE23, 24R, 33, 35, 36, 55, 58, 76;
M20;
DH82;
AUST.

Favourites? C402, BE35, PA18, C185, BE55
Hates? None
Intense dislikes? Austers - complete waste of rag and metal tubing!

Dr :8

While I wouldn't neccessarily say that I 'loved' all the 100 + types that I have flown, I must say that there has always been a level of enjoyment. Can't say that I really hate any, but some were definately more frustrating than others (PA25-260 with wing tip tanks that ALWAYS fed unevenly was sometimes a real pig when spraying on a windy day). Still it's all character building really.

I have flown many of the hates here and found very few of the 'faults' listed that were actually the planes fault. If you want to learn aero's properly start in a 150 aerobat, master that and everything else is easy because you have learned to fly aero's properly, it is an excellent trainer and enrgy conservation is everything. Would I rather fly an S1S or a flogged out old C150a?...it would depend on the day and I wouldn't be disappointed with either.

Like the Scots say about the water of life:

"There's Whuskie, and there's guid whuskie, but there's nae bud whuskie"

Even that scabby old Pawnee taught be just a little bit more about getting the best out of anything that I fly.

HD

Metro
 

18 Wheeler. Great review. Thanks for the laugh. Just a minor technical question if I may. Do the engines take 1.2 weeks for start cycle or is that 1 to 2 weeks? :D

Love:
Pawnee 250
Super Cub
Boeing 767

Hate:
Cessna 207 "Skycoffin"

Give me any aircraft that's got wings, wheels, an engine and a nice comfortable throttle and i'll be more than happy to fly it nonetheless!

18 Wheeler, absolute gold and all so true.

As much as it is true however I secretly enjoy flying the old girl as it is hard to fly and therefore satisfying when you fly the numbers and she goes down the slope on rails.

A greaser is a hard landing in any other type, but when you do get a good greaser it is hard to wipe the smile from your face grappling with the NWS back to the ramp (by which stage you're sweating bullets as the cabin heads past 85 degrees no matter how much you fiddle with the Bleeds and speed levers)

All in all I love her :E

Loved the Metro as the first command on a pressurised single pilot machine with monochrome radar, Omega nav and a good autopilot. Pity about the windscreen becoming less than transparent over time. Agree with the muscle building biceps required for roll control, but when all the hydraulic fluid has been pumped overboard because of a line anurism, and she still all works in reversion mode, - will do me. Could even get them with a rocket in the tail. (playing Devils advocate) Queenairs are lovely. Bandits not bad. Twotters fun. Barons are sportscars. And the trailing-link undercarriages on Titans and ATR-42s will leave you with a warm glow on touchdown every time. After the girls have brought the coffee... :cool:

18 Wheeler..absolutely classic post! You did fail to mention however that the physical workout extends beyond the control inputs..you also get to do some cardio when pulling the props through about 20 times!

an3_bolt..aww come on, the 207 "skycoffin" can be a bit of fun! Especially when loading/fully loaded :rolleyes:

My favourite thus far, like many others, has to be a Baron.

Yes "18" a most amusing post:-) Put yourself down for a gold star there for that one:ok::-) After reading that post anyone whom flew the flying pencils deserve a medal:-)
I have had the misfortune to see the end result of a Metro2 that slammed into the side of a rock covered hill to the Nth of TW many years ago, the result was total destruction, RIP to the sole occupant, obviously the pilot. I think the Rego was VH-SWP? Anyone recall? I didn't think you could condense a machine of that size into a few chaff bags:sad:

No real 'hates' for any flying machines.

Loved the DH104 (Dove) but was about as ergonomically designed as a Skoda but flew/handled the best, typical Pommy A/C, flew beautifully if you could get it all working in unison:-) Pneumatics??? Every time I drained the air tanks I got oil spitting out, me thinks the Pomms where joking using air for powering the brakes, flaps & U/C, more like hydraulics!
Also loved the PA39, 'twin can' although 12volts on early models meant lower the U/C & pray:-)

Marginal: C150H, 2POB, much fuel & 40Degs.......ROC? about the thickness of the VSI needle!:) MB-EN one screaming Northerly day in the C150H had the old girl stationary as we watched the cars on the beach rd go past us!:-)




Wmk2:-)

Geez 18 wheeler you really do hate the Metro , good post

Someone said to me once the Metro was the F-104 Starfighter of turboprops

I won the 1990 SA Sportsman Category in the SA Aerobatic Championships in a C152 Aerobat against everyone else flying Robins, I was Pitts rated at the time and Chris Sperou told me he wanted me to fly the sequences in the C152 "anyone can do it in a Pitts , see if you can do it in a 152", man it was hard work , especially a half loop with a roll off the top , luckily the next part of the sequence was a spin.



.

Loved the ASK13; the C310Q (310R wallows around too much for my liking); the glorious C404 Titan; obviously the B200 (friend of mine got airborne in one carrying TWENTY-SEVEN men, women and pipsqueeks total - refugees stormed the aircraft under fire and they had no other choice other than to depart in a hurry but it flew all right!) as well as the Lear 60. Oh, the C210, I need say no more.

Dislike the GLEX a bit although I mustn't complain (nice looking and fast, but the autopilot/flight-director setup is not the most user-friendly); the C402B (flies ok but god forbid you lose one!) as well as all the slab-winged and soulless Cherokees/172's, etc. What happened to Chipmunks, Swifts, Cubs, Moths etc, etc? Sad.

Not rated on one, but got to have a go in a Yak 52 with an acquaintance. Now t h a t thing was fun as well as seemingly indestructable! :}

Loves and hates?
 

Lots of interesting posts so far...

I can't say I've ever really flown anything and hated it. Liked everything so far, but some less than others. Have flown 150/152/207 and found them okay (even a heavy 207 out of Oksapmin on a windy afternoon). Flew the Metro as well, and quite liked it. I did enjoy 18-W's post though.

C185 always proved fun, but my all-time favourites would be Grumman AgCat, Twin Otter and Shrike.

I still look forward to flying new and different types.

For me.....

Loves:
C180
Piper Super Cub
DHC2 Beaver
B1900 - The C model nicer to hand fly, D model better performance all round.

Hates:
Seneca 1
minicab
Tomahawk - only flies due to the curvature of the earth I reckon....:uhoh:

A Metro has hydraulic flight controls?

:confused:

Some bits of the airframe use the oil, but you can still get by without it (provided the nosewheel uplock release ferrule hasn't slipped). No drama

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh no... I thinnk he means the NWS.

Haven't you ever had to manually drop the gear? The oil is for gear, flaps, steering and antiskid.