Best/Worst Feature/s of your aircraft.
 

Curious to know your likes/dislikes,

Personally i'd rate some of the good features on the 757:

Great power/weight ratio almost never breaks a sweat no matter what you ask it to do

Good control response for the most part.

Excellent air conditioning I,was able to get into a depowered aircraft in Las Vegas on a 110F day <without external cooling>
and get the cabin down to 70F just with the APU

For the most part, a comfortable cockpit.

Good Autopilot with trustworthy <not particularly smooth> Autoland!

Bad features:

Why does this aircraft have to blow so much bloody cold air all over you in the cockpit? it's like a badly sealed house in the winter.


On that subject the 75 is like the Sahara desert in the way it dehydrates you, much worse than the 76 or any other aircraft I know of.

Terrible ride in turbulence

Inadequate pitch authority especially compared to the 76, you can make a nice landing, but then slam the nosewheel down if you dont get it exactly right.

767-200-ER

Good points:

Great performance coupled with almost ideal control response,
much nicer than the 75.

Bad points: don't care for the forward trailing landing gear, maybe just me but I think it's a lot less forgiving, especially if you dont' manage to get it totally straight.

Cockpit seems pretty dated now compared to the 767-400/777

Why do the electric seats leave you such little clearance between your left hand and the pedestal?!

767-400-ER

Good points :

Best handling of all the75/76's that we operate, a real pleasure to hand fly, stable but responsive, really nice.

Nice cockpit, kind of a poor mans 777, everything except for the Electronic CheckList and the FBW, flying the -200 after this seems very primitive.

Bad points:

This is an underpowered and inadequately winged aircraft! with
an additional 40,000lbs gross w't and only an extra 3000 lbs of thrust over the -300, plus only small wingtip extensions, it has a great affection for both ends of the runway and we are performance limited on many sectors.

In addition to that, it is Geometrically limited in rotation with a
tail strike occuring at only 9.4 degrees. Take-off and landing speeds have to be increased subsequently to provide an adequate safety margin.

Not sure what happened to the ERX version which was to have addressed these issues, so we're left with an Aircraft that we fly internationally on long haul routes, that was really optimized for Delta's domestic/high density system.

Shame, because it could have been a great aircraft and a real competitor to the A330-200. As it is I don't see anyone else buying it.

Anyway I digress. Pet peeve on all these aircraft in our configuration is that we display Track Up, does anyone really like that?

767-300 with CF6-80 engines
 

I've flown 737s/747s/767s and a few other types but the 767 would be my favorite aircraft, especially if they have the GE engines.
Getting a smooth landing can be demanding or lucky :D, however my only real bitch would be the sun visor, what a poor design!

A320
Good
FWB control system fantastic. Crisp and responsive.
ECAM logic and drills

Bad
Air Conditioning Fan noise on the Flight Deck

Anti Airbus Lobby!

A321
Good
Extra capacity over 320

Bad
A/c fan noise on Flight Deck better, but still loud
Proximity of Tail to ground on T/o / Landing!
Underpowered compared to 757 which is the a/c it was designed to compete against.
Falls out of the sky if you flare and take power off at same place you would on a 320

A330
Good
Flight Deck A/c Fan noise removed! Re-routed ducting makes a quiet environment
MCDU / FMC interface better than 320. Some nice features such as abeam points, report page and Time reminders
RR Trent 722 engines


Bad
Refuelling logic way to clever for its own good and our ability to cock it up so it locks out
Going back on a 320 and flaring at 50'............ F L O A T

Cessna 180/185

Good:

They will lift thier own weight
Short/ rough field performance
Fun to fly
You can fit them with floats & visit some lovley places

Bad:

Not built for six
Getting in and out is an ordeal
The landing lights are poor
They are not made any more!

Paper Dart :cool:

:)
Cheap
Made from recycled material


:mad:
Limited payload
Very poor crosswind limits
Goes soggy in the rain


A319
:)
Large Flight deck
Joystick
Decent amount of Power (IAE)
Flight control laws make hand flying a joy, no trimming!
Most tech problems are sorted out by reseting the relevant computers.

:mad:
Can be interesting in a cross wind.
Soft elevator can be a pain leading to overspeeds if not careful.
Not convinced about the auto thrust response times near the ground - prefer manual thrust.
Nav interface not as good as B737.
Have to be a bit careful with ECAM procedures.
Painfully slow processor unit making the MCDU sluggish at times.
Fairly "firm sporty" ride in turbulance especially at high levels.

On the whole the A319 is a great aeroplane to operate although possibly not as much fun as say the 737-200

AIRBUS A300-605r & A320

BAD BAD BAD UNBELIEVABLY BAD!

the freaking buzzer when the trolley dollies call in the interphone wanting to know what time we are gonna land....

Cheers
Wino

Saab 2000

Good : It has propellers.

Bad : It has propellers.

All over very nice, powerfull, very big flight enveloppe but very hard in the aillerons.
Ooh these landings are sometimes pretty hard.

Boeing 737

Good points...........I dont have to fly it all the time.I get paid every month.

Bad points.............I have to fly it sometimes.I dont retire for ages.


Just being honest!!!!

MD-80 "Mad-Dog"
 

Good------ Quiet, Quiet like you ain't never heard
Has all the good features of the DC-9.
Simple; operates on direct-cable, that's why
they call a DC #. A bit like a wierd relative,
you just get used to them and feel comfortable
around them.


Bad----- Has all the bad features of the DC9. Crappy
airconditioning, a very weird wing/tail deicing
with lots of funny lights and timers and valves.
Small flight deck, and windows that leak really
bad. The Deicing fluid always seems to find it's
way into my flight kit. Landings... Let me see
when I went to school on the airplane, as the
result of a merger, the instructors, who were
happy to trade us for B737-300's, said "If you
find a way to make consistantly good
landings please call us and let us know, we
haven't been able to figure it out for the past
eight years."

Despite all this, it's a Douglas, it builds strong
bodies 12 different ways, it's the trailing
edge of technology and proud of it. I now
am digitally driven airbus geek and I push
buttons, read messages colored in "cyan"
listen to "Piere" tell me that I am a "retard,
retard, retard' every time I land, that's
three retards cause it's a 321, and other
new age stuff.

Sigh...... I miss my "Mad Dog"


"Women should be obsence and not heard" Groucho Marx

B747 Classics:
Good - Great with the three crew setup, if you haven't experienced it, you just don't know what you're missing!

Bad - Except for the later -200 & -300's with the PW7R4G2 and GE -50 & -90 engines, they are a bit low on power.

One of the most interesting threads I've seen lately. Keep them comments coming gentlemen!

As a pax man I prefer upper deck 747, Singapore Airlines if you don't mind.

Flying A340 was a major disappointment.

Cheers

Tacp. SOAK

Best feature:

Only 4.5 hr endurance


Worst:

The Local F/O

This is a great thread, really interesting

I hope you dont mind a humble PAX offering some nonsense

Faves;

747-400 - The enormity is so impressive, and the entertainment system on the BA I flew on was also impressive. First and only ever visit to the flight deck, somewhere over the Atlantic enroute KMCO was incredible. Made even better by the welcoming Capt and FO

757-200 - Even as a PAX you can tell the performance is awesome. Flew on a brand new Britannia in the *nice* colour scheme to Cyprus years back, and then on a connecting flight with TWA from St Louis to Orlando. Must've been a fairly light fuel load as its a fairly short hop, and it was certainly light on PAX. Took off out of St Louis like an F-18 ! Also a big fan of the 767 both 200 and 300 as flown a lot on both, both charter and schedued. Just a nice familiarity about climbing on board and hearing the engines spool up

A340 - Flew this with Virgin down to Joburg. What I liked about it was the entertainment system, the huuuuuuge centre toilets, the pristine condition of the interior, the quiet engines. Downsides were that I felt it was underpowered, and this was exaggerated at Joburg due to its altitude. Thought we were going to rotate somewhere in the car park !

DC-9 - TWA, KMCO to St Louis. This has got to be the noisest thing I've ever been on. Some high pitched whine started just after engine start, and never ceased until we landed. Went somewhat to be replaced by the wind noise at cruise, but generally just felt like an old heap of junk !

just a small selection from an ATCO

A319-good performance
A320-crap performance, unless you ask for better
A321-crap performance

Most Boeing ac great,
B747 classic crappy in the climb, hoovers every-thing in it's way. Musn't forget to speed the B737-800/700 if it's following an earlier 737.

Bae146/RJ slow at climbing and going forward, (can any one tell me are all engines on at any one time?!)

S2000-slow going forward, quite a good climb rate.

Any gulfstream (especially g4/5)v. good, can do most things to get you out of a tight spot!!

Any questions on your a/c let me know, I'm bound to have an ATCO opinion on it!!!

roger

roger,

out of interest, what's your opinion of the erj 135/145?

flying clog

B747-400 is the queen of the skys...everything good about the classic with loads of performance and excellent glass display.
Needs a faster processor in the FMS and the 777 control logic. The library needs to be moved across the flight deck and jump seats re-arranged so the Captain does not have to turn 180 degrees to talk to ground staff. Miss the Flight Engineers.
Flight deck was always very remote from cabin crew & galley, but now we are keeping the door locked and barred it is even more of a down side. All in all, the best.

Flying Clog

I think of them similar to 737(200-400), performance is not earth shattering but good enough not to fill me with dread when it's really busy and expected to transit my sector(unlike the B146!) Climb rate is good when asked and would I be right in saying they can fly at mach .78(I'm sure one did for me once)

BTW this is just an area point of view, I'm sure approach/tower have very different opinions.

roger

Favourite jet.
Best features;

Can take on a pine forest at 420 kts and fly home with no change to handling or engine response.

No round-out required for touch-down.

Stiff cross-wind, wet runway - lower the hook and tell ATC when the spray has cleared.

No dinky aerodynamic refinements that careless size 14s can mess up.

Worst features.
Air conditioning that spits chunks of ice down back of neck / causes instrument panel and outside world to disappear when outside is a touch humid.

Have to climb in through the roof (tricky when wet).

Drips oil/fuel over shiny flight suit.

Not many around these days.

Must be my F4 Rhino. Lovely lady.

A320

has anyone the same gripe regarding the poor reading light in the cockpit. My eyes are starting to deteriate a bit and that "eyebrow lighting " is just the pits! - out of interest, does anyone know the real facts behind the removal of the window strut lighting arm - I,d heard it was due to a landing incident injury???

The 320 lighting arms are still there on older airframes but replaced on newer airframes.