Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Which regional jet/turboprop is hardest to fly?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
how would anyone know unless they flew all of them? Based on some of the morons I know in this business though, a few of them can't be too hard to fly.
 
I sure don't think that the ERJ is hard. I think Microsoft Flight Sim. is harder.
 
I've heard the Brakilia is waaay over-engineered and that it has way too many redundant swithches and knobs. Not sure that's correct given I have never flown one - although I have met many pilots who have enjoyed that aircraft. It's like that scene in Airplane 1 when Ted Striker looks down at the instruments for the first time and you see this film loop showing the instruments from left to right - over and over and over.... Great movie.
 
Last edited:
Jets are easier

It's my humble opinion, as a general rule, that jets are easier to fly than turboprops. Jets have aerodynamic issues because of the swept wings, but if you fly them the way they are designed to be flown, then it's not an issue. The ATR-72 was a little squirly landing in a cross-wind, but then some of that was pilot induced too. I didn't fly the E-120, but my friends loved the way it handled - talked about it being a hotrod in its day. In the end, the Candler E-120's were rode hard and put up wet, and the systems were wearing out. Also, my days on the ATR seemed to take me to uncontrolled airports in the middle of the night in bad weather - and the CRJ just hasn't been that way as much. But any airplane beats a desk job - we can probably all agree on that.
 
The ATR is great to fly! Especially in a cross-wind. Drop the wing, kick the rudder and presto! If the wind is calm, I just make up a cross-wind!!
 
sweptback said:
Did you get some J31 time as a ramper, BoilerUP? :)
Before or after I figured out I couldn't legally log time while sitting in 1A?;)

I reckon I spent enough time riding on the dang things to figure out they are pretty sporty to fly and even sportier to land. They seemed to be WAY harder than the King Air 200 and even the Beechjet that I have flown. And the ERJ didn't seem too difficult at all (from the jumpseat, anyway), other than learning how to fly a motorcycle.
 
Last edited:
How are you trying to define "hard to fly"?
The Brasilia was VERY pilot intensive. ANY power change you made created a change you had to counter with trim. You always had to be on top of what the airplane was doing. But at the same time if you knew the airplane you could make it do anything you wanted it to do. Very stable on approaches (hershey bar wing)
The CRJ is a computer with wings. Once in cruise it just pretty much flys the box. Not as stable on an approach, but again because of the wing. Centerline thrust so even a v1 cut is not that hard.
I've never flown the ATR it self, but have about 5 hrs in the sim. Seemed a very stable airplane also, and loosing an engine was nothing compared to the Brasilia.
 
The Dash is a pig to land.
 
I have a buch of buddies who came over to Chautauqua as street captains on the JS-31. Most came from Ameriflight with types in the 99 and Metroliner. After Chautauqua went through the Saab, E-145, and now the 170, they all agreed that the Metro was the plane to beat.

I also have some friends who came from the Dash and described a love hate relationship
 
Not on the list, but I've heard the Metro is a workout, at least.
I'll bet the J-31 is in the top three, from the stories I hear.

Are all of the Dash 8s equally hard to grease on? Or is it like the 727, where one is supposedly easy, and the other difficult?


Also, 'hard to fly' is a deep topic. Do you mean hard to hand fly, or hard to manage systems? Hard to handle on one engine, or hard to deal with emergencies? Complicated FMS or poorly laid out cockpit?

Lots of different ways to look at it.

I think that they all have their easy and hard parts.
 
The Saab is sweet 'cause you gotta trim 'er out when the FA moves front and back with her freshly brewed Carvelli Coffee. Toughest to fly? The Tomahawk... no question. Anyone for a spin?

MM
 
Mesabi,
That is so true.

The Jetstream was a biatch! Great flying experience though...
 
ive never flown a turbo prop or an RJ. I have time in a Citation and Lear 35.. and i will have to say the Lear is not very stable and very fast.. a little gusty wind on final and it can have a tendancy to dutch roll a little. I love the plane but it takes time to get where you can smoothly hand fly it on a windy day. The citation is the easiest plane ever made however.
 
Also not on the list, but the MU-2 wasn't a walk in the park.





....
 
FrontierFan said:
I have a buch of buddies who came over to Chautauqua as street captains on the JS-31. Most came from Ameriflight with types in the 99 and Metroliner. After Chautauqua went through the Saab, E-145, and now the 170, they all agreed that the Metro was the plane to beat.

I also have some friends who came from the Dash and described a love hate relationship

The 99? you mean the Beech 99? If so, it does not require a type.
 
Whichever one you just made a crappy landing in.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom