What's hard to fly, what's easy?

[328dude]

I'll second the MU-2. Not thats it's hard but it does require alot of attention. But as UPS Capt said, it was the best teacher I ever had.

 

[cmrflyer]

Cornelius,

I can tell you from experience that the emb-120 is very hard to land smoothly. Every time you are about to land you think it is going to be nice and soft, then, wham.
The emb-120 is a real pain.
Good luck, and enjoy the training.

 

[captjim]

Not having flown a huge amount of transport aircraft, I have to say the EMB120 is on of the hardest transports out there. The thing flies like a truck. Everytime you touch the power levers or the props you have to retrim the rudder. The systems are a nightmare, the electrical system that is. Its hot as hell too.

With that said, its still my favorite, for the reasons stated above. All of the 120 drivers know what I'm talking about. Not everyone could fly the thing well throught all flight envolopes. I've only got 1,600 hrs on it but miss it like an old friend. Fun plane.

 

[Thedude]

The reason that you see most 727 lumber into the air is that most of them nowadays are used for charter and are extemely heavy. I can attested to this comming out of Montego Bay at 197,000 lbs and using up every bit of concrete.

NA-265 Saberliner is the easiest airplane/jet I have ever flown. Guess it has to be for those Air Force pukes.

BE-200 - I could teach my grandmother to fly this one and it is very forgiving.

BE-100 - Same as 200 except wing differences make it hard to get a sweet roller landing.

SA-227 Metroliner aka San Antonio Sewer Pipe - heavy in the roll and sensitive in the pitch. Handles like a wet buffalo in the mud. Straght gear make it extemely hard to get good landings. I spent three year flying this pig with no autopilot. Makes you a kick-ass instrumet pilot. But as far as flying this thing Single Pilot I will admit I have scared my self once or twice in the soup.

B-727 Handles great but a little senstive in the pitch. Coming from the Metro it was a little hard to get used to the power streering. But turn all the hydraluic boost of and it handles just like a Metro. Once got to depart IAH empty with a hard right turn and max foward speed. Now that was an airshow and it rocked.

All Cessna products handle alike. From the 150 all the way up throught the Citation series. Very easy to control and forgiving on the landings

 

[Lindy]

For the previous poster who didn't like the Learjet 25....I don't think the Learjet 25 is difficult, but it can turn around and bite you, very, very fast.

As for your paper, if you look at the Learjet family, beginning with the 23s, 24s, 25s, 28s, 31s, 35s, 36s.....You can see a development of an idea and the implementation of what is better. For example, the early Lears had the nac heat wired differently than the later models. The gear has, effectually stayed the same (thank you Switzerland). Always when you meet lear drivers, they also ask "what serial number" because the aircraft differs so much (different wing types, varying electrical systems [inverter systems] and even different engines CJ610 vs TFE731 [20 series vs. 30 series]).

Again, every pilot brings different experience and different skills to each aircraft. This will affect the comments from varying pilots because someone may consider Turboprop ABC extremely difficult while others will not. It is a very broad idea for a paper topic!!

Good Luck.

 

[avbug]

Virtually any airplane is a straightforward flier so long as the operator takes the time to learn the equipment and then treats it professionally. It is the poor carpenter that blames his tools.

Someone denegrated the Cessna 207 when heavy and hot. I have to say that aside from a cub, the 207 is perhaps one of the sweetest flying bush airplanes available. Get more time in that airplane and let it save your bacon enough times, and you'll change your tune.

Someone else identified the 20 series Lears. I disagree wholeheartedly. Wonderful machines, well designed, and fly beautifully. I've heard some folks call them "slippery" when slow, and havent' a clue what they mean. The airplanes present no quirks, and fly nicely if one stays ahead of the airplane and understands it. Those who denegrate it just don't know how to fly it.

The same may be said for virtually any airplane. A man who deserves a great deal of respect, Jimmy Doolittle, once remarked that the most dangerous airplane he'd every flown was the R-1 Gee-Bee. I'll take him at his word. I wouldn't rate any airplane I've ever flown as difficult, or even challenging. I'd much rather attempt to rate them in terms of what was the most fun, but as flying any airplane is a thrill and a privilege, that would be darn hard to do. They've all been fun.

If flying the airplane isn't fun, or is difficult, it's not being done right. That speaks to the pilot, not the machine. A poor carpenter always blames his...

 

[bobbysamd]

Cessnas, jet powered and otherwise . . .

Although I have only a couple of hours in a Citation, I recall how amazed I was at how easy it was to land. Just like a 172. Very friendly airplane.

We used 182RGs for Commercial Single and CFI Initial training. I could never get a good landing in that airplane with two people in front. Always landed flat, no matter how hard I flared. It was also heavy on the controls when doing maneuvers. Clearly, not the role for which it was designed, which was to haul, haul, haul and to go on cross-countries. It was a nice instrument platform.

Although I learned to fly in a 172, I found I liked Piper better. I got better crosswind landings in them, probably because Cessnas are short-coupled.

I appreciate Avbug's comments above. Jimmy Doolittle sure showed 'em when he drove the B-26 around on one engine. Remember what a handfull it was? Although, I believe, training was blamed in whole or part for the B-26's problems. I haven't any knowledge whatsoever if multi-engine training was taught then the way we teach it now.

 

[RichardFitzwell]

I agree with Thedude about the B727's apparent lack of power on takeoff. In addition to charter, many are used as freighters and are very heavy on takeoff. The 727-200s with -17 engines can hold their own but an older 727-100 with -15 engines are pigs.

FedEx operates several 727-200s with the Valsan conversion that will out climb the autopilot and many new first officers. Less than ten were converted and they are monsters. Valsan took the 727-200 and removed engines #1 and #3. They replaced them with P&W -217 engines (similar to MD80 engines). They left engine #2 alone as a -17.

It's nothing to pin the VSI at 6000 fpm through 18,000' in an empty Valsan conversion. Now that's a hand full.

 

[AWACoff]

I disagree that the E120 is hard to land. After I got the height perspective down and had 300 hours in the plane, good landings were a matter of course. Sure it doesn't have trailing link but but the gear does have some shock absorption. Just fly it onto the runway. As for systems, the E120 has more bugs in it than the Museum of Natural History. The dang thing is always dinging with false alarms, deice failures, EECs failing, flap control faults, pack overheats, outflow valves sticking, etc. Makes for an easy transition to the 328 prop.

 

[prodigal]

bobbysamd

I disagree about Pipers being easier to land than Cessnas. I think Cessnas are easier to really grease in. Pipers may be easier to just get on the ground.
Beech Travelair is an oldie but a very goodie.

 

[WaitingForClass]

The ATR's are a pretty nice airplane to fly. Especially the ATR 42. Greasing a landing in a 42 isn't much to brag about. The 72 is a different story though. Especially if it is empty. The ATR's are a pretty modern turbo prop with a lot of bells and whistles. The systems are really straight forward. Nothing to tricky.
The plane I liked the least out of all the planes I have flown was a seneca. I couldn't get a nice landing to save my life. It seemed like it had a tendency to balloon more than most planes.

 

[airmack]

Easy and Hard

Easy to fly...anything with wings, Hard to fly...anything with wings in a level 3-6 Thunderstorm.

 

[Thedude]

If you are in a lvl 3-6, chances are you are just along for the ride.
I've been to the purple and still here to tell about it.

Deviate to penetrate.

 

[saabtrash]

This is one of the better threads I've read. Very intersting to hear all of the different takes people have on different A/C. Just one thing I have to say, AVBUG...chill out. Seriously it's a bunch of guys talking about the stuff they've flown. Even if you are a bad carpenter, the head can still fly off your hammer while your swinging it without it being your fault.

As far as airplanes go, here is my 2 cents. The Aero-Commander 500 was the coolest recip that I ever got the chance to fly. Easy to land, plenty of power, etc. As far as transport category, the only thing I've flown is the Saab 340. It's cool to me, but it is kind of difficult to land nicely on a continuous basis. Judging by the opinions of all the captains I've flown with, it isn't the best A/C out there.

 

[EagleRJ]

Saab 340 is a good all-around airplane. Fun and easy to fly, handles WX well, and it rides well in turbulence. It is hard to get a greaser, with that straight gear, but you can land it in 1500' if you have to. It's not without negatives, though. It's a dog in the summer when you're loaded, and it's tough to keep cool, especially when the AC ducts are leaky. The systems are pretty straightforward, except for the electrical system, with its 21 busses. The autopilot works great, which is more than I can say for the EMB-145!