10 airplanes to avoid

So in summary this is one of those threads that might be better titled, “Top Ten Airplanes That Don’t Fit My Particular Mission Or Tastes Or Interests And Are Therefore Lousy Airplanes.” For each one on the list there are other folks who find it desirable. Thankfully general aviation enjoys a fascinating variety of airplanes and pilots.
 
brien23 said:
Cessna did not change the flat spring because it was better, they changed it due to the narrow stance and severe damage that was due to the no give fore and aft of the flat spring.
Click to expand...
Cardinal was the first Cessna with the tubular main gear legs (1968), followed by the Model 207 (1969). Interestingly, the 206 still has the flat spring gear. I’ve heard that the attach points for the tubular gear wouldn’t fit with the 206’s load floor and cargo doors.
 
Pilawt said:
Cardinal was the first Cessna with the tubular main gear legs (1968), followed by the Model 207 (1969). Interestingly, the 206 still has the flat spring gear. I’ve heard that the attach points for the tubular gear wouldn’t fit with the 206’s load floor and cargo doors.
Click to expand...

207 is pretty much identical to 206 where the gear attaches to so I doubt it's that.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Me. No moving parts to fail. Relies solely on physics. Just stay WELL clear of ice.
Click to expand...
Say wut?

I guess you only mean to create the vacuum.
 
MBDiagMan said:
are well over 200 pounds and can’t turn down the ice cream a and French fries.
Click to expand...
Crap. There goes my plan for a Mooney as my second plane. Low blow on Thanksgiving lol
SkyHog said:
I prefer any Piper with he trim on the roof.

That’s the easiest trim method I’ve ever used. Had two of em (my Cherokee 180 years ago and my current Comanche 250)

Neither had the throttle quadrant.
Click to expand...

I trained on a Cherokee 140 with the quadrant, toe brakes, and the window crank trim on the roof. IMHO the best combo.
 
Staunchly opposed to airplanes made of paper. The early models had problems with the paperclip not staying in place during the landing phase. Add to that, the early paperclips were prone to rust.
 
MBDiagMan said:
That’s why they make different aircraft. They make some that you like and some that I like. You are free to own and fly what you choose, as am I. Same thing with road vehicles. I only buy vehicles with a manual transmission. I am sure that there is a long list of folks ready to criticize me for that too, but guess what, I promise not to force anyone else to drive one.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat: agree 100%!

This all that matters, what one likes.

 
Last edited:
CJ Rader said:
Staunchly opposed to airplanes made of paper. The early models had problems with the paperclip not staying in place during the landing phase. Add to that, the early paperclips were prone to rust.
Click to expand...

That was your problem, using paper clips. Tape much lighter. :biggrin:
 
brien23 said:
You probably have someone that knows how to inspect a Mooney landing gear rubber shocks. As I said this is one airplane if you can't afford to maintain it right you probably should not own one.
Click to expand...

I am finding it difficult to understand why your statement would only apply to Mooney’s. Don’t you think it would be wise to be able to afford to maintain ANY aircraft properly. I wouldn’t feel safe flying any aircraft otherwise. ALL aircraft or any vehicle have their Achilles heel. A responsible owner pilot should do their research and know how to keep it airworthy. Seems to be common sense to me.
 
Tantalum said:
but at least for me driving manual is not about a 3.22 vs 3.18 zero to sixty time, it's about feeling the car and being in full control of it
Click to expand...

Funny, I am in control of my automatic transmission, and I feel what the suspension is doing as well as when the tires are about to lose grip. The Alison transmission seems to know more than I do. Even the Subaru will downshift itself to hold speed going downhill. And I use the flappy paddle shifter to downshift aggressively when the light changes to red....

Driving a truck with 13 plus forward gears took the fun right out of sticks.

But when younger I had sticks in my pickups. I could repair those easier and cheaper than automatics.
 
I avoid any plane that smells like a clam bake.
 
brien23 said:
Top 10 airplanes to avoid entirely.
1. Cessna 175
2. Any Bonanza prior to 1958
3. Cessna pre 1971 model 172 with flat gear spring .
4. Any Cessna with a O-300 engine
5. Cessna 337
6. Piper Cherokee without the control levers in a throttle quadrant.
7. Piper Tripacer or Pacer
8. Any round engine plane
9. Any geared engine
10 Any Franklin engine aircraft.
Click to expand...

F-in idiot
 
5 pages, not a record yet.. :)
 
MBDiagMan said:
I am finding it difficult to understand why your statement would only apply to Mooney’s. Don’t you think it would be wise to be able to afford to maintain ANY aircraft properly. I wouldn’t feel safe flying any aircraft otherwise. ALL aircraft or any vehicle have their Achilles heel. A responsible owner pilot should do their research and know how to keep it airworthy. Seems to be common sense to me.
Click to expand...
You clearly have no idea of the general condition of a lot of GA aircraft that the owners cheap out on. Get a grip on reality their are a lot of people that wont or cant maintain their aircraft due to the $$$ of ownership and still fly them..
 
brien23 said:
You probably have someone that knows how to inspect a Mooney landing gear rubber shocks.
Click to expand...
Or he just lands smoothly. Mine isn't leaking yet either. I would not be terribly surprised if it started, given the common opinion, but so far it's not. BTW, it was re-sealed during its stint in Japan (later imported back).
 
CJ Rader said:
Staunchly opposed to airplanes made of paper. The early models had problems with the paperclip not staying in place during the landing phase. Add to that, the early paperclips were prone to rust.
Click to expand...

I think there’s an AD on those paper clips involving taping them on so they stay...
 
brien23 said:
You clearly have no idea of the general condition of a lot of GA aircraft that the owners cheap out on. Get a grip on reality their are a lot of people that wont or cant maintain their aircraft due to the $$$ of ownership and still fly them..
Click to expand...

Your reply is a Non sequitur.

My knowledge regarding the statistics of how many planes are properly maintained has NOTHING to do with what I wrote. Your original implication was that a particular brand was the only brand owned for which the owner could not afford to properly maintain.

In fact your response goes to provide evidence that my original response was correct since according to you there are planes everywhere improperly maintained. A statement I agree with BTW.

Just curious, what is driving your anger and aggressiveness here?
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I would avoid this plane.....

3.jpg
 
Not wanting to fly the 337 because of alternator and vacuum pump failures is just plain silly. ANY aircraft that is not maintained properly is subject to more failures than one that is maintained properly. The airframe of the 337 has nothing to do with component failures but is a reflection of the quality of the parts installed, adherence to maintenance schedules and the skill level of the shop maintaining the aircraft. The 337 is no different mechanically than a 210 with a second engine. Let's approach our conclusions logically and leave emotion out of the equation.
 
It's definitely just like religion, everyone has their own and thinks it's the best. So when someone tries to sell me their religion, I try to sell them some drugs and neither of us is buying the other's sh*t!

Hey, Brien, wanna buy some hash?!?!
 
Brad Smith said:
Not wanting to fly the 337 because of alternator and vacuum pump failures is just plain silly. ANY aircraft that is not maintained properly is subject to more failures than one that is maintained properly. The airframe of the 337 has nothing to do with component failures but is a reflection of the quality of the parts installed, adherence to maintenance schedules and the skill level of the shop maintaining the aircraft. The 337 is no different mechanically than a 210 with a second engine. Let's approach our conclusions logically and leave emotion out of the equation.
Click to expand...

Agreed! We can use the Icon A5 as an example
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top