Plane You Do NOT Like

L

LJS1993

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
584
Location
Riverside, California
Display Name
Display name:
LJ Savala
Hey guys first off let me say that I have learned a LOT about flying, planes, and aviation in general on this forum. However I have noticed that it seems like many of you haven't met a plane you didn't like so to speak. I have heard that all planes basically fly the same and type is all a matter of preference. Well with that said is there a plane that you simply do not like? Was there a plane that you tried out that you honestly will never fly again? Is there a specific design that you feel is inferior or downright hazardous?
 
I have no desire to fly any single engine Cessna retracts anymore.
 
Allegro 2000. So many things wrong with it, I'd never fly one.

Some are more fun than others... But I can't think of anything offhand that I've flown and truly hated.
 
Hands down -- having to ride American Airlines clapped out ATR fleet, rear facing bulkhead seat on a frequent commute between Houston and Brownsville TX 15 years or so ago.

Low level flight, bucking summer convection, staring back at 70 sweaty PAX in various stages of holding back airsickness. Once the first one Ralphed, at least a half dozen more quickly followed. :vomit:



amr0j8.png
 
Last edited:
Piper Arrow III's with extended range tanks. Nothing really wrong with them besides that they are draggy and slow. They have 200hp but a few 180hp fixed gear, fixed prop planes can go just as, or nearly as fast as their 125kt. cruise speed without the extra fuel burn or mechanical complexities. The longer wingspan you get with the LR tanks might give you a few knots above 8000ft... maybe 130kt., nothing really to brag about.

The short bodied Arrow I with the 180hp engine and the old wing is actually faster.
 
MSPAviator said:
Piper Arrow III's with extended range tanks. Nothing really wrong with them besides that they are draggy and slow. They have 200hp but a few 180hp fixed gear, fixed prop planes can go just as, or nearly as fast as their 125kt. cruise speed without the extra fuel burn or mechanical complexities. The longer wingspan you get with the LR tanks might give you a few knots above 8000ft... maybe 130kt., nothing really to brag about.

The short bodied Arrow I with the 180hp engine and the old wing is actually faster.
Click to expand...

I have a decent amount of time in a 1976 Arrow II. It has the 200 HP engine with the old, shorter wing, so it went a bit faster than 125 knots, but still my fixed gear, fixed prop Tiger is faster.
 
I didn't like the Lancair Super ES. Way too sensitive in pitch and way too heavy in roll. On top of that, the side stick is clunky and clumsy. If you want a stick, put it where it belongs... in the middle.
 
I will admit that what I am about to say is without personal experience and includes lots of prejudice. If you like flying these kind of aircraft, please don't take it personally.

They might be great and the safest aircraft on the face of the Earth, or slightly above it. A seasoned pilot who had lost his medical had a little Challenger that he kept not far from me for awhile. He was a great guy and obviously a seasoned pilot and without a medical I guess it was fly that or not legally fly.

Again it is prejudicial as it can be, but I wouldn't take to the air in that thing no matter what. There might be fifty of you on here that have one of these and have flown thousands of hours in it, and feel that it is the best thing since that day at Kitty Hawk, but I just couldn't make myself get in one.
 
Never much wanted to fly the BD5, killed a lot of their pilots. That said, you can't beat the social experience.
 
MBDiagMan said:
I will admit that what I am about to say is without personal experience and includes lots of prejudice. If you like flying these kind of aircraft, please don't take it personally.

They might be great and the safest aircraft on the face of the Earth, or slightly above it. A seasoned pilot who had lost his medical had a little Challenger that he kept not far from me for awhile. He was a great guy and obviously a seasoned pilot and without a medical I guess it was fly that or not legally fly.

Again it is prejudicial as it can be, but I wouldn't take to the air in that thing no matter what. There might be fifty of you on here that have one of these and have flown thousands of hours in it, and feel that it is the best thing since that day at Kitty Hawk, but I just couldn't make myself get in one.
Click to expand...

I flew in a Challenger once. Not bad in the air. Takeoff roll was like being pushed down a hill in a shopping cart.
 
The guy who owned it was a two tour Vietnam Fighter pilot. I admired him for his total dedication to obeying the law and at the same time felt sorry for him, because the Challenger was all that he got to fly.
 
The Challengers in which I have flown are a bit more substantial and cost a tad more.
 
steingar said:
Never much wanted to fly the BD5, killed a lot of their pilots. That said, you can't beat the social experience.
Click to expand...

A friend of mine owns one of the original (and the oldest) BD-5. The aircraft had not flown prior to 1977, IIRC before July when he flew it for the first time after owning it/fixing it up for 7 years. I was with him the day he flew it first - it gave me goose bumps! I don't think I could ever jump in that thing.

He's hoping to get on the airshow circuit within the next few years (he asked if I could travel with him and help him assemble/disassemble). Should be a fun time.

292976_399336650115517_1363052998_n.jpg
 
CBeaulieu said:
A friend of mine owns one of the original (and the oldest) BD-5. The aircraft had not flown prior to 1977, IIRC before July when he flew it for the first time after owning it/fixing it up for 7 years. I was with him the day he flew it first - it gave me goose bumps! I don't think I could ever jump in that thing.

He's hoping to get on the airshow circuit within the next few years (he asked if I could travel with him and help him assemble/disassemble). Should be a fun time.

292976_399336650115517_1363052998_n.jpg
Click to expand...

If I could fit I'd fly the hell outta one...

And in that same thought 150/2s, if I need a shoehorn to get in and out they just aren't for me.

Otherwise a fine airplane
 
Skylane81E said:
If I could fit I'd fly the hell outta one...

And in that same thought 150/2s, if I need a shoehorn to get in and out they just aren't for me.

Otherwise a fine airplane
Click to expand...

My friend/owner, Peter, is a big guy. About 6' tall and over 200 lbs. When I first met him and the aircraft, I didn't believe he could fit in it. He does, though!

He says it is an absolute dream to fly. He is a capable guy though, over 20,000 hrs. He currently works for American Airlines.

Fun fact - that BD-5 was once a Coors Light Silver Bullet.
 
Last edited:
I'm a half head taller than Peter and cannot close the canopy in one, but they do have a BD-5 with a "super-stretch"...
 
DavidWhite said:
I have no desire to fly any single engine Cessna retracts anymore.
Click to expand...

Geez one little fire and a scorched hand........ :D :dunno:

As sexy as they look I did not enjoy flying a Lancair Columbia 400. (Now labelled the Cessna Corvallis), They are slick and fast, but there is no vertical adjustment on the seats, and being kinda tall they are a head knocker in choppy air, and you have to kink your neck to do a good scan.
 
Threefingeredjack said:
Geez one little fire and a scorched hand........ :D :dunno:

As sexy as they look I did not enjoy flying a Lancair Columbia 400. (Now labelled the Cessna Corvallis), They are slick and fast, but there is no vertical adjustment on the seats, and being kinda tall they are a head knocker in choppy air, and you have to kink your neck to do a good scan.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I read AOPAs article on the Corvalis this past weekend. The interior seats look extremely comfy. Do they differ from Columbia seats?
 
CBeaulieu said:
Interesting. I read AOPAs article on the Corvalis this past weekend. The interior seats look extremely comfy. Do they differ from Columbia seats?
Click to expand...

Don't know, but I flew the Columbia's precursor, the Lanceair, once. Damn fine airplane, and I would fly one if I could afford it.
 
CBeaulieu said:
Interesting. I read AOPAs article on the Corvalis this past weekend. The interior seats look extremely comfy. Do they differ from Columbia seats?
Click to expand...

It's not the comfort that is the issue, they are just fine....it's the lack of vertical adjustment. Other than that little detail, which is a ***** on a long flight, (and the fact that with full fuel they are a two seat plane), they are a superb performer and a joy to fly.
 
Anthony said:
I have a decent amount of time in a 1976 Arrow II. It has the 200 HP engine with the old, shorter wing, so it went a bit faster than 125 knots, but still my fixed gear, fixed prop Tiger is faster.
Click to expand...

I can get a bit over 130 knots out of the club's 1969 Arrow (200 hp). I can get a few more knots out of our 182. :D

The plane I've flown and won't fly again is the C-150. Nothing wrong with it if my legs were shorter, but I can't get the seat back far enough and my knees are in the bottom of the panel when I go for the brakes after landing.
 
Then there's the McCulloch J-2 Gyroplane:

19710505-01.jpg


180 hp, 95 mph cruise, room for two and a toothbrush; interior and exterior noise levels like the inside of a DC-6 engine nacelle; max approved takeoff pressure altitude 4,000'; max operating pressure altitude 8,000'. It could spot-land into a moderately light breeze, but needed a lot of room to accelerate in ground effect on takeoff before it could climb. Unpaved surfaces not recommended. Crosswind landings not recommended, ask me how I know ...

OK, since you asked:

19710505-03.jpg


That's me on the left, next to my instructor, 5/5/1971. This was a post-solo dual instruction flight. The beast was hideously topheavy and unstable on the ground. Of the six J-2s built to that time, this was the third such landing rollover accident (one of them by a factory test pilot) within a span of 72 days. After my whifferdill the FAA mandated modification to the nosegear -- essentially slapping on a Cessna shimmy dampener. A few months later I flew a modified J-2 at the factory at Lake Havasu City, but couldn't tell much difference.

I was always amused by this staged photo in the J-2 brochure ... who gets to stay behind when (if) the J-2 takes off?

mcculloch_j-2_skier_e.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't like the Pietenpol. I got claustrophobic just sitting in on.
 
The girls, naturally. Do you think that dude is a real doc?
Pilawt said:
Then there's the McCulloch J-2 Gyroplane:

19710505-01.jpg


180 hp, 95 mph cruise, room for two and a toothbrush; interior and exterior noise levels like the inside of a DC-6 engine nacelle; max approved takeoff pressure altitude 4,000'; max operating pressure altitude 8,000'. It could spot-land into a moderately light breeze, but needed a lot of room to accelerate in ground effect on takeoff before it could climb. Unpaved surfaces not recommended. Crosswind landings not recommended, ask me how I know ...

OK, since you asked:

19710505-03.jpg


That's me on the left, next to my instructor, 5/5/1971. This was a post-solo dual instruction flight. The beast was hideously topheavy and unstable on the ground. Of the six J-2s built to that time, this was the third such landing rollover accident (one of them by a factory test pilot) within a span of 72 days. After my whifferdill the FAA mandated modification to the nosegear -- essentially slapping on a Cessna shimmy dampener. A few months later I flew a modified J-2 at the factory at Lake Havasu City, but couldn't tell much difference.

I was always amused by this staged photo in the J-2 brochure ... who gets to stay behind when (if) the J-2 takes off?

mcculloch_j-2_skier_e.jpg
Click to expand...
 
I do not like Cessna 172s or Cessna 182s. I also do not like either Cirrus model.

In the case of Cessnas, there's just something about the seating and ergonomics that bug me. I have hundreds of hours in them, but have never really, well, liked it. In the case of Cirrus, the sidestick geometry feels unnatural.
 
Schweizer 2-33. Ugly glider and flies like an absolute pig compared to my slick German-Engineered Grob 102.
 
Back in 1978 I could fit in the BD5J, barely. A local Tulsa guy, Red Stevenson bought 2 of the jets from the sheriff's sale in Newton KS. Red flew it a few times out of KRVS until a problem with power on take-off. The little jet's wings didn't hold up well against a runway light. I spent a lot of time that I'm sure I should have been working line service at Tulsa Piper hangar flying that BD5J.It felt so perfectly.

I really have to think about the plane I don't like. From a mechanic's point of view I really hated to work with turbo Aztecs. The cowlings were overkill! I told a buyer during an inspection yesterday that, I could have made a fortune if the paid me by the screw.
 
Never really liked any Cessna (150,152,172,182 are all i've been in) I get that "honda civic" feeling when in them.
 
Probably the reason that Cessna sold so few of them and no longer produces any of the line.

bartmc said:
Never really liked any Cessna (150,152,172,182 are all i've been in) I get that "honda civic" feeling when in them.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Probably the reason that Cessna sold so few of them and no longer produces any of the line.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of civic's on the road, I don't drive one of those either. To be fair, when i got in a 182, I got that 6 cylinder accord station wagon feeling.
 
So you liked the high-end Cherokee better?

bartmc said:
There's a lot of civic's on the road, I don't drive one of those either. To be fair, when i got in a 182, I got that 6 cylinder accord station wagon feeling.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
So you liked the high-end Cherokee better?
Click to expand...

Correct, I turned down a 172 to buy the Cherokee, Mainly because similar models, the PA28 had the Lycoming O-320 and not the Conti O-300. I like the low wing "looks" better (more like a fighter jet :rofl: ) Like the Johnson bar flaps ( though the older 172's had those too). Cherokee seemed more like "a plane" to me. I liked it better. 6 of one... I owned a 1992 Civic for 5 years of my life, never really liked it. Had I liked the Cherokee a little more, I'd still own it. Was a good plane, never did lust for a 172 when I had it.
 
CBeaulieu said:
A friend of mine owns one of the original (and the oldest) BD-5. The aircraft had not flown prior to 1977, IIRC before July when he flew it for the first time after owning it/fixing it up for 7 years. I was with him the day he flew it first - it gave me goose bumps! I don't think I could ever jump in that thing.

He's hoping to get on the airshow circuit within the next few years (he asked if I could travel with him and help him assemble/disassemble). Should be a fun time.

292976_399336650115517_1363052998_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Cool. I'd fly it. I've looked them over, they're fine. Wouldn't be any worse than the MM, although it gave the option of wheeling it on. As far as design work goes, Bede knows his stuff. He designed the plane to run on a 440 Kawasaki motorcycle engine and a pusher prop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top