The Worst Airplane You've Ever Flown

[Telemakhos]

I was reading a silly book called The World's Worst Aircraft, a little coffee table book, and I got to thinking: many of the aircraft in the book are stillborn projects, many from the "formative years" of aviation, many are warplanes of which no examples are flyable.
But there are certainly GA planes out there that have been mass produced that are just turds. Ugly, poorly flying little wads of crap.
I am comparatively inexperienced as a pilot flying lots of different types, so my submission might be sort of lame, but here goes.
The worst I ever flew was a Beechcraft Sundowner. It's not at all a bad looking plane, but it is a total pooch. It's not eager to leave the ground, when it does leave and you pull back into the rotation, it lumbers and wants to stall. It climbs like the elderly screw. Once you make it to cruise, it's ponderously slow, despite the 180 hp motor and "clean-looking" design. (The example I flew got something like 105 kias.) It has a weird trailing idler link landing gear that makes landings unusually ugly. All in all, there was no redeeming quality to the airplane other than that it flew and I was flying it.
Not to say that the Sundowner is a terrible airplane... I just hated it and it's the worst I've personally piloted.
I'm interested to hear what you guys have flown that makes the Sundowner look like a shining triumph of aero engineering.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

The worst airplane I ever flew was great.

 

[tonycondon]

you think the 180 hp sundowner was a ground hugger, i had a student once with a 150 hp musketeer

 

[CJones]

Interesting topic.. Looking forward to other people's comments..

I honestly don't think I have flown anything that would qualify as a 'bad' airplane as far as the 'design' goes. I've flown a couple that were poorly equipped and maintained, but in my very limited experience, I haven't flown anything 'bad' yet. Even the 152 that I did my initial training in was good for what it was designed for. It wasn't a speed demon, and you couldn't load it up, but put 1-2 people in it and it wasn't too terribly bad as far as ground-hugging. Of course, that was before I had any time in the RV, so I'm sure my opinion would be a bit different now.

 

[vontresc]

In it's defense the "Slowdowner" was a great plane to do my Instrument in. Nothing, and I mean nothing happens fast in that plane . Other than being just plain slow it really wasn't that bad. Plenty of room, and the trailing link gear didn't give me too much trouble.

I don't think I've ever really flown a poorly designed plane. There have been some flying turds that were just plain worn out rentals, but nothing with truly awful flying characteristics.

 

[Pilawt]

Not technically an "airplane", but my vote goes to the McCulloch J-2 Gyroplane.

As to why ... got an hour? It was advertised as combining the best features of fixed-wing and rotary-wing, when in fact it was the worst of both. With a 180-hp Lycoming it could carry two people and a toothbrush about 150 miles at 95 mph. Into a gentle breeze it could spot-land, but needed a considerable distance to accelerate out of ground effect on takeoff. A competent pilot in a Cessna 150 could just about duplicate the short-field takeoff performance of a J-2.

On takeoff the aircraft had to be stopped in position on the runway for about 45 seconds while the rotor clutch was engaged and the rotor spun up to takeoff rpm (LGB tower hated us and relegated us to a parallel taxiway for takeoffs). As soon as the takeoff roll began the rotor clutch was disconnected and the rotor was in free-wheeling autorotation for the duration of the flight. It could not hover -- it could "fly" at zero airspeed, but would be going straight down at an impressive rate.

The POH prohibits takeoff above 4,000' pressure altitude and any operation above 8,000' pressure altitude. Operations on unpaved surfaces or in crosswind were strongly discouraged. Noise level inside and out was horrendous.

May 5, 1971 -- that's me on the left. I was still getting dual instruction in the beast when this happened. It was the third such landing-rollover accident of the six J-2s that had been built to that time -- one of them by a factory test pilot. FAA eventually required modification of the nosegear, but when I later flew a modified J-2 I didn't notice much improvement.

 

[EdFred]

Without question the Beech Sierra. All the performance of a fixed gear loaded 400 over gross with the maintenance costs of a complex.

 

[Andrew Sego]

I think the Airtruk may be the ugliest airplane around. Needless to say I'd love to fly one.

 

[rpadula]

Once you make it to cruise, it's ponderously slow, despite the 180 hp motor and "clean-looking" design.

Congratulations. You have used the most hackneyed word in aircraft reviews.

You are now qualified to be a member of the aviation press.

 

[Telemakhos]

Congratulations. You have used the most hackneyed word in aircraft reviews.

You are now qualified to be a member of the aviation press.

Sweet! Have the guys from Flying give me a call, and before you know it you'll be reading my articles about gazillion dollar bizjets that no one can afford or care about.
Excerpt from my upcoming article: "The cabin has been stretched a full 8 inches, and the lav has been reappointed with platinum fixtures and an ostrich skin toilet seat. Some customers will undoubtedly choose the new Veuve Clicquot package, which features Champagne feeding tubes that drop down to the twelve oversized, angora covered seats... which are fully padded with pure, fragrant saffron."

 

[EdFred]

Sweet! Have the guys from Flying give me a call, and before you know it you'll be reading my articles about gazillion dollar bizjets that no one can afford or care about.
Excerpt from my upcoming article: "The cabin has been stretched a full 8 inches, and the lav has been reappointed with platinum fixtures and an ostrich skin toilet seat. Some customers will undoubtedly choose the new Veuve Clicquot package, which features Champagne feeding tubes that drop down to the twelve oversized, angora covered seats... which are fully padded with pure, fragrant saffron."

Hahaha, you forgot to mention the automated diamond bladed cocaine razor.

 

[Telemakhos]

Hahaha, you forgot to mention the automated diamond bladed cocaine razor.

That's in the next paragraph, after the description of the beluga sturgeon aquarium installed in the bulkhead.

 

[Andrew Sego]

Excerpt from my upcoming article: "The cabin has been stretched a full 8 inches, and the lav has been reappointed with platinum fixtures and an ostrich skin toilet seat. Some customers will undoubtedly choose the new Veuve Clicquot package, which features Champagne feeding tubes that drop down to the twelve oversized, angora covered seats... which are fully padded with pure, fragrant saffron."

Sounds okay, but ostrich skin was so last year. I donated mine to the homeless shelter.

 

[Tom-D]

Stinson Model 10

 

[Ted]

I'm with Pete. I really can't say I've flown anything that's a terrible airplane, but I have flown bad examples of airplanes.

The planes that most of us fly that made it to the certified world aren't unsafe or truly bad designs. They may have limited utility, but that doesn't make them bad, it just makes them fit for fun rather than for utility.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

you think the 180 hp sundowner was a ground hugger, i had a student once with a 150 hp musketeer

I have a several hours in a Beech Sport - it was a generally a step up in performance compared to the Cessna 120 I had been flying.

 

[azure]

The worst airplane I've ever flown was probably the C-150 I soloed in. It was badly maintained, had missing cowl bolts and was probably unairworthy. My supervised solos were the last times I flew it. I wised up and decided to finish training in something I wouldn't be scared to fly xc alone.

 

[Pilawt]

Stinson Model 10

Tom, what is it about the 10 (besides homeliness)? I've never flown one.

 

[Telemakhos]

The worst airplane I've ever flown was probably the C-150 I soloed in. It was badly maintained, had missing cowl bolts and was probably unairworthy. My supervised solos were the last times I flew it. I wised up and decided to finish training in something I wouldn't be scared to fly xc alone.

At my first flight school there was a C150 famous for shoddy maintenance. It died in the pattern twice (at KPWK), which had to be frightening for the poor student in the left seat, not to mention ATC. An instructor went to prime it one morning... and the primer knob pulled straight out of the panel, spraying gas in the cockpit. One day a renter (an airline pilot) was flying over Grayslake when the plane just up and died, forcing a landing on the frozen lake.
I never flew the plane, mostly because I'm kinda heavy for the 150. (152s I can get away with.)

 

[dmccormack]

The worst airplane I've ever flown was probably the C-150 I soloed in. It was badly maintained, had missing cowl bolts and was probably unairworthy. My supervised solos were the last times I flew it. I wised up and decided to finish training in something I wouldn't be scared to fly xc alone.

Doesn't everyone start out in one of those beaters...?

 

[Tom-D]

The planes that most of us fly that made it to the certified world aren't unsafe or truly bad designs.

yes there were, the model 10 Stinson was a horrible design, and woefully underpowered with the Franklin 90 horse which was a really bad engine which had the reputation of quitting just when you needed it the most.

there once was a joke about the 90 horse franklin, which stated, you could always tell if the was a 90 horse operating off the field, by looking in the woods at the end of the runway, to see how many franklin cylinders there were there.

The aircraft was known as a 2 people aircraft but only if you could place half of the pax in the right seat and the other half in the baggage compartment.

If Ralph Nader had ridden in a model 10, he would have declared the whole industry unsafe at any speed.

 

[ChrisRikli]

Congratulations. You have used the most hackneyed word in aircraft reviews.

You are now qualified to be a member of the aviation press.

I think "ball-achingly" reads better. As in, "once you make it to cruise, it's ball-achingly slow, despite the 180 hp motor."

 

[LearDriver]

Cessna 150 - run out engine.
PA-28-140 - No explanation necessary. It was just complete crap.
Cessna 210 - Gear and electrical problems. At approach power settings it would shock you if you touched the yoke and throttle at the same time.
Cessna 402 - run out engines and beat to hell. That was 15 years ago. It is still flying from South Florida to the Bahamas

 

[Sticky1]

Hummmmm, lets see,

Oh yea almost flew a 172 out of DXR back in the 80's. I took 6 thingies of water from the sumps. Went back in and they told me it just came back from another training flight that day.

The other day at a airport in FL I almost flew an arrow. What a peice of dog doo doo. Not taken care of, instruments sucked.

 

[Ted]

yes there were, the model 10 Stinson was a horrible design, and woefully underpowered with the Franklin 90 horse which was a really bad engine which had the reputation of quitting just when you needed it the most.

I said most of us, Tom. That said, your description is pretty humorous. I don't doubt its truth.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Arrow IV. Partially it was that particular example, but the T-tail ruins an otherwise decent aircraft: It's really sloppy in pitch until you're at cruise speed, leading to a terrible control feel, and the CG envelope is significantly smaller than the otherwise-equivalent (and much better) Arrow III.

There's a reason Piper quit making IV's and went back to the III.

 

[zaitcev]

Doesn't everyone start out in one of those beaters...?

I think two of my school's Cherokees are lovingly maintained by the son of the FBO's owner. Having read horror stories on the Internet, I expected worse.

-- Pete

 

[Pilawt]

Arrow IV. Partially it was that particular example, but the T-tail ruins an otherwise decent aircraft: It's really sloppy in pitch until you're at cruise speed, leading to a terrible control feel, and the CG envelope is significantly smaller than the otherwise-equivalent (and much better) Arrow III.

There's a reason Piper quit making IV's and went back to the III.

Agreed. Stabilator 12% smaller than low-tail Arrows + stabilator outside of energized airflow = inadequate pitch authority. On takeoff roll the airplane doesn't act like it's ready to fly until 75 KIAS. Also, I felt that the T-tail wagged its tail in turbulence much more than the low-tail.

Looking at all those aerodynamic gimmicks (slots, fences, fillets) on the stabilator makes me think that Piper engineers had a tough time getting the T-tail to fly right.

Then add the quirkiness of the fixed-wastegate turbo.

The FBO I rented from in the early '90s had two Turbo Arrow IV's. Despite their shortcomings they performed reasonably well and the rental rate was attractive, so I wound up with about 250 hours in them.

 

[flyersfan31]

There was something wrong with OP's Sundowner if he only got 105kts. They're not speedy, but they're faster than that. I cruised at 115, not pushing particularly hard, and have photos to prove 129ktas pushing hard (taken in response to an assertion by someone here that a Sundowner could not, would not do more than 115kts. Wrong.)

Worst plane was on the rental line at Wings - an Archer III that taxied like an old UHaul, had gauges with minds of their own, and the silky control feel of a Yugo. Naturally, having avoided it like the plague, it was the only one available when I soloed.

 

[Telemakhos]

I cruised at 115, not pushing particularly hard, and have photos to prove 129ktas pushing hard (taken in response to an assertion by someone here that a Sundowner could not, would not do more than 115kts. Wrong.)

Of course it'll do 129... that maneuver is called a dive.
The Sundowner I flew and hated was, admittedly, a clapped out rental nightmare. Maybe that's why I saw 105. Maybe other Sundowners aren't so bad...
Just kidding. They are.

 

[EdFred]

129kts? 129mph maybe. Knots while S&L, groundspeed, sure. TAS, no way no how.

 

[Danos]

The Alarus CH2000 gets my vote . It pitch oscillates like wild because the stablator doesn't have but about a three foot span and the entire tail is the rudder so it has no yaw stability and Dutch rolls all day. I couldn't get it to climb above 3k in the winter and it was so uninsulated that you may as well post up on the wing. Chop the power and you're riding a daisy cutter. It was advertised as some great IFR plane but I wouldn't fly that thing in IMC. In fact, it's the only plane I'd never fly again.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In fact, it's the only plane I'd never fly again.

Well, it's one step better than the Allegro 2000 then - I'd never get in that one in the first place! The fuel tank is the pilot's seat, there are Shimano bicycle shifters used for a few controls in the cockpit, the control rods are all exposed, including in the baggage compartment where one bag shifting could jam your ailerons, and nearly every part on the thing was flimsy as hell.

No way, no how would I ever leave the ground in that thing.

 

[Troska]

Well, it's one step better than the Allegro 2000 then - I'd never get in that one in the first place! The fuel tank is the pilot's seat<snip>

Is under your knees worse than over your knees for some reason?
(If not, stay out of a Pitts)

there are Shimano bicycle shifters used for a few controls in the cockpit

Are Shimano quality shifters worse than Ford quality window hand cranks?
(if not, don't adjust trim on a Super Cub)

the control rods are all exposed, including in the baggage compartment where one bag shifting could jam your ailerons

Are exposed control mechanisms unacceptable?
(watch the Citabria baggage compartment for rudder cables)

nearly every part on the thing was flimsy as hell.

Could be, never seen one. The rest of the complaints don't seem like such a big deal. I wish much of the hardware in aircraft had the durability, quality, and reliability of Shimano shifters. (or campy, etc).

Tim

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

the control rods are all exposed,

Does that mean you aren't going to ride with me?

I have no idea what the bit of angle welded to the pilot's stick was for....

 

[Ghery]

Doesn't everyone start out in one of those beaters...?

Uh, no. My first lessons (and solo) were in 172s. 4.1 hours in a 150 while a student and never any more. No legroom in 150s.

The worse plane I've flown? A clapped out 172 that was missing bits (large bits) of the interior plastic out of an FBO that appears to be gone from HNL.

 

[flyersfan31]

129kts? 129mph maybe. Knots while S&L, groundspeed, sure. TAS, no way no how.

Pictures when I can dig them up from the hard drive....

 

[EdFred]

Pictures when I can dig them up from the hard drive....

I had an ASI read 7kts fast. I was sad when it had to be replaced for being out of spec.

 

[flyersfan31]

Ok, here it is, for all you Sundowner Haters.

Level flight. No, I did not dive into level. While I didn't make a habit of flying 76% power, you could if you wanted. No tricks, straight up legit. Temperature corrected the KTAS was 129. It was early December. Sorry I don't have the OAT gauge in the picture.

Oh, and the airspeed indicator was just fine.

 

[EdFred]

Was it colder than ISA?