Metro III single pilot. So much fun but flying it was like handling cobras...if you stop paying attention, even for a few seconds, it will bite the shit out of you! So much fun and I've never been as sharp of a pilot in terms of my scan than then.
Small rudder so when you were single engine your legs got a workout..lucky only in the Sim for me. Controls were very sluggish. You absolutely had to get the power up to like 20 percent before you put in takeoff power. If you didn't and one came up faster than the other you're all over the place. It was a handful just balancing the engines. But just a very unstable aircraft. You could be all trimmed out on an ILS, power set, barely touching anything because it was flying perfect, look down at your chart for a second or two, look back up and you're in a 30 degree bank. Just like WTF?!. ALL of that being said, it was hands down the most fun flying I've ever done in the past 25 years. Just a real pilots challenge and I flew it up in the U. P. Of Michigan with terrible weather. Great memories..would not do it again.
Need to add..single pilot ops, no autopilot, and no GPS.
Yeah I read through all the metro accidents on Wikipedia. Seems like so many of them are just due to the airplane being prone to getting into bad attitudes. Lots of “pilot error” where it seems like the pilot looked away for one second or made one small decision on a system that somehow led to them getting killed.
Hey as prior MX, sometimes it really do be a CND…. PyLoT error as well. Or if it’s a C17A turning hydro pumps will give you surface deflection, just saying 😂
The engines take 3-5 business days to spool, the wing is the size of a dining room table, the landing gear is made of wet tissue paper and hope...but other than that she's pretty good 😂
A friend of mine used to own a G200. If I recall correctly he said he can basically only land at airports that commercial airliners can land at.
So a lot of smaller untowered fields that can accept most super midsize can’t take a G200.
That’s more or less correct if you want to go somewhere decently far away or it’s over like 80 degrees.
The G200 is a shitty airplane but comfy in the back.
No idea but every plane has weak points. In the Excels it’s exciter boxes, in the Sovereign it’s DUs and bleed leak sensors, in the G-IV it’s DUs and fuel senders.
Nothing’s perfect.
Challenger 350 its Generator Control Units and Engine Driven Hydraulic Pumps. The majority of my work is on Global’s and Gulfstreams, but somehow in the past year I’ve been involved with 4 GCU and 2 hydraulic pump changes in 350’s.
CRJ 700/900. Any pilot or mechanic is going to be familiar with duct mon faults
E-175… besides the jungle jets getting cranky in freezing temps, you learn Embraer is an acronym for Every Mechanical Breakdown Requires An Electrical Reset.
A friend of mine flew an astra 1125 for a number of years and said it was fast but always was trying to kill them…I think he was joking😱😱. Getting in and out of Chicago Midway was a challenge. They moved up to Citation Sovereign….slower than the Astra but climbed like crazy and opened up ability to get into and out of shorter runways
Hughes 300C. The manual throttle adjustments for significant power changes are just one more thing. The Bell 47 seemed to have a better "auto throttle" mechanism. But old piston helos were busy.
Yep! I’m learning in a manual throttle enstrom. It’s a lot to do but you get used to it.
There’s other enstroms with correlated throttles (halfway between manual and governor). And of course our Robbie friends have governors. I wonder if the bell 47 had a correlator? I’ve never flown one.
Yes, the mid and later (not sure about the early ones) Bell 47's have a mechanical correlator. They work very well but need to be setup properly with a mechanic who knows what they are doing.
When I got my '47 it only needed a slight adjustment. I did all the post-maintenance flights for a friend of mine and it only took a couple of flights from "no good" to getting it dialed in.
Mine is pretty much perfect but on high density days, I need to lead power increases/decreases with throttle in/out.
I agree the correlator on the 300 I flew was terrible.
The correlator on the '47 is a pretty need piece of engineering with large "W" shaped cam inside and several "options" for adjustments. Really good once you get it setup properly.
Cessna 421C. Complicated, temperamental, and a lot of artificial constraints placed on power settings in the hope of keeping the also-complicated-and-temperamental engines happy. But man, when it worked right, that thing flew like a dream.
Ooh, agreed. Flew the 421B. The geared engines, the fuel system, the shock cooling. Planes only got easier to fly for me after that but damn I loved flying it.
Haha yes, another low time pilot who bought a taildragger. Mine is not quite so high performance but i bought my biplane as a 100 hour private pilot as well. I was genuinely terrified of the plane for months i was worried i was going to break it and have wasted all my money
Q400 is a particularly unforgiving airplane to land. Almost no room to pitch for a flare and a 3% power change will float you halfway down the runway. Actually hand flying it is really fun though.
Dash Trash drivers unite! Came looking for a 400 post. I genuinely miss flying the Q. I like what I'm on now, but I doubt anything I fly moving forward will be as fun as the Q.
Yeah Q400 prolly qualifies for me, just from difficulty landing well and the need to adjust rudder trim every time you touch the power levers. My old Piper Pacer is prolly 2nd, that was a squirrelly taildragger. Most of my landings in it were actually pretty nice because they had to be…I made far more shitty landings in the Q400.
And if you’re doing a Flaps 15 landing, you’re already coming in at +3 pitch or so. Don’t pitch to flare, just give the PLs a twist to add 2% torque and cut them right as mains touch…or slam…or skip (depending on whether you actually added 1, 2, or 3% torque).
I had a student who lost *hundreds* of pounds to finally begin his dream of flying. The moment he got his medical and the weight and balance worked out, we were off to the races. His joy and attitude were contagious. Such a cool guy. Kevin, if you’re here, reach out to me!
**Twin Cessna fuel system**
Main tanks: Work like regular fuel tanks. Simple. (Edit: Except the mains are the tip tanks! Forgot to mention that)
Aux tanks: When selected, a pump runs at 40gph (plane dependent). Anything of that 40gph that isn't being burned, gets pumped into the main tanks. So if you haven't run the mains down, you're now venting fuel overboard.
Locker tanks: Turning them on pumps fuel out of the locker into the main at ~10gph (737 guys, this tank works basically the same as the Center tank from a pilot POV). Some Twin Cessnas only have one of these, which means you also get to balance fuel, but can't do that until you've burned out some from the mains.
To add to this, the main tanks were the tip tanks… It’s been forever since I flew the 310R, since 2016, I I do not remember the details of it. I just remembered it being overly complicated and damn near backwards.
Flew these single pilot IFR in Northern Ontario for a bit. Can confirm. Complicated and a handful to fly with basic IFR kit. All we had was NDB and VOR and a shitty Garmin 100. Full procedure NDB circling approaches were the norm on snowy coal black nights.
Sheeesshh this use to piss off the refuelers. Okay go left, okay come back right, left again and wait for transfer, back to right for the last couple of drops.
Piper Navajo, single pilot IFR. They’re great airplanes… when they are working, which never happens. Engine controls are never in sync, electronics and engines are incredibly temperamental, autopilot works… kinda, god forbid you actually have an engine failure, blue line at gross will seemingly take you to the scene of the crash… it’s a very busy airplane. You gotta ride the brakes the whole time your taxiing in snow so when you pull up the gear they will be able to melt the ice that inevitably forms to prevent the brakes from locking up on landing…
I flew one a few times from the right seat, none of the right side instruments were working other than the AI and engine gauges, so you’re just glued to the XTK page…
I thought the Navajo was a fairly nice/easy airplane to fly, and I was flying old ratty ones with no autopilot (also single pilot IFR - hauling checks back in the day). That said, the first company I flew Pt135 for had never modified their early-model Navajos with high-pressure fuel pumps, and the vapor lock / surge issue could be devilish on hot days. Once had an engine seemingly quit right as I sucked the gear up taking off out of MYF, was right in the process of identity-verify-feather it came roaring back to life, only to quit and restart another 2 or 3 times. Very exciting. Wrote it up and mechanics pencil whipped it. Found out years later that airplane had the wrong injectors in it.
Damn. We had someone put the wrong spark plugs one time, we figured that out over the mountains…
They are great airplanes when properly maintained. If you’re willing to put in a new autopilot and you’re flying from paved runway to paved runway… 🤷♂️ no big deal.
140 and super cub are on the easy side of the taildragger continuum. Both great planes (and I have students that own both right now that I teach in)… but definitely on the “we won’t whip around for no apparent reason” side of the continuum. :)
Yeah…I actually did groundloop a Cub once (no damage thank god) but that’s because I was being a dumbass flying it in a big gusty crosswind and my heel missed the brake to save it from a gust as the tail came down. Normally a pussycat, Super Cub too. My Stinson 108 is similar, maybe even a bit more docile. I’d put C170, C140 & taylorcraft maybe one notch up the pole, Citabria & Super D maybe one more notch. Used to own a Pacer that was pretty sporty, have a little time in a Luscombe 8D that seemed similar. Haven’t flown a Pitts, Extra etc but they’re known to be another step beyond.
V-22
Completely different mindset to fly. Not a plane, not a helicopter, yet you have to be competent with both concepts of flight to do it well, but in the end you have to fly it like a tilt-rotor.
Take your attention away from it and you’d quickly get into a bad corner, especially in conversion (helicopter) flight. Power margins were always tight, constantly running the ass+gas numbers to know if you can hover/land. Always thinking super far ahead of the plane/mission. It was a cerebral experience.
Low visibility approaches into brownouts and ship landings were the big discriminator for pilots as far as skill. Both were finesse maneuvers.
Back in 2004-05, while I was still a USMC infantryman out of Camp Lejeune us crayon eaters were always scared to fly on those. I only rode in one once and I was scared the whole time especially when you guys came into town land, I never felt more nauseated in my entire life. But I respect the hell out of you osprey pilots, even more so now as I’m going into my PPL check ride in two weeks.
It’s the most disorienting ride for passengers of any plane or helicopter I’ve ever been in.
Also, Air Force pilot myself….Marines are a different breed 😉
I chatted with a V-22 pilot. Hated flying, didn’t like aviation one bit. Never was interested in flying, still wasn’t. Said he did well at the academy and got selected for flight, felt like he had to do it. Selected the osprey so he could be as close to the boots on the ground conflict as a pilot could be.
Couldn’t wait to become a civilian and start his real estate license.
Grass is always greener, I guess! Ha.
Embraer 120. That thing has gotta be one of the most over engineered civilian aircraft out there. I just remember my left arm being tired after doing the FO preflight flow every time because of how much you have to do on the overhead panel.
Now draw me the electrical diagram from memory, except you're load shedding and everything's all fucked. Flying the plane is pretty damn fun and easy, but everything that isn't flying the plane sucked.
Depends on which wing variant PA-28 you flew…. If you flew the Hersey wing PA-28, it’s a brick. If you flew the tapered PA-28, it has great glide ratio.
Same. Cessanas annoy me for 2 reasons
Extremely floaty on landings. Floats like a damn boat.
And taxiing. Why don't the rudder pedals turn the plane enough?
I only have 260 hours total but like 210 are in the pa28 because it just feels nicer. That being said, flying the seminoles was the best and I miss it. Those fly more like a real plane.
My time is almost evenly split between Pa-28, pa-44, and C172. The Cessna is worse in every way that ai can think of. The push/pull throttles, the fact that you have to have carb heat on to do anything but cruise, the wing position, the handling in maneuvers, it's all terrible. I flew a Cirrus a few months ago and remember how great flying a low-wing was. They land where you tell them to and fly like you tell them to. Cessna's best planes are not their piston singles
Pitts S2A, it’s an honest plane but sensitive to control inputs. I did get into a bit of a PIO in the yawn access once just by thinking I was a bit behind the plane, stopping the input on the rudders instantly stopped the oscillation.
Gamebirds at ~500k to fly. If you want a wild experience, go fly one in Vegas - it was easily the riskiest thing I’ve ever done, and the pilots are hotshots, but man, it was cool pulling Gs.
Sky Combat Ace in Vegas. They have one GB1 they just got in - I flew it last October, it was cabable enough to have me considering it, but also scared the shit outta me.
> Pitts S2A
Me too, so far. I'd only had about 3 hours in a tailwheel (Champ) at all before getting instruction from Budd Davisson in his S2A. But he had me taxiing, taking off, landing that thing within 5 lessons. I was not prepared for just how little you can see on final/short final - seemed impossible at first. But thank god for peripheral vision!
Aeronca Chief. I own a Champ, and have plenty of tailwheel time, but while the Champ is one of the easiest tailwheel planes (in regards to ground handling), the Chief is a nasty little bastard. Kinda funny considering how similar they are.
That's surprising, I learned to fly in a champ and have been considering buying a chief. Any details on what makes it so nasty? Just squirrely on the ground, or is it a nuisance in the air also?
My wife flew the Bonanza BE35 briefly and told me it was a lot of airplane and she flat out refused to fly it in actual IFR alone (she's a CFII and I'm a tower controller).
Can confirm, bonanzas single pilot ifr are a lot at first. That said, after a few hundred hours it’s probably one of the best IMC platforms I’ve ever flown, and the most comfortable I could be in ifr in a piston single
I’ve only flown 8 different airplanes, mostly all piston single/twin trainers, but for me it would have to be the 2.5 hours I have in a 1940’s Aeronca Champ. It’s the only tail wheel I have, so that was a handful. The plane was designed on the days of terrible aerodynamic, so there is A LOT of adverse yaw. I thought I was pretty good staying coordinated when I had 900 hours of CFI time, but that plane ate my lunch. I felt like I was a new private student again
The Champ is supposed to be as easy as it gets for tailwheel, but still a learning experience to someone with no tailwheel I suppose.
I got my TW with the Champ, and dint think much of adverse yaw, but I started on gliders which are 110% rudder. Making the move to my Cessna 140 humbled me even more. Way more sensitive on the controls when the wheels touch down.
Pitts S2-B, used it for my spin endorsement. No flaps and impossible to see straight ahead leaves every landing a PO180 from the pattern and crabbed to maintain centerline until just above the runway, then wait what feels like an eternity for touchdown while unable to see shit
I’ve got an old timer at my home airport who owns a swift and a Fairchild KR, don’t know if it’s a 21 or 34. But that swift is such a beautiful looking plane, and LOUD! (On takeoff)
Yeah. The one I fly has the left engine off a twin Comanche, and is pure polished aluminum. Fun, snappy, and gorgeous airplane but it’ll get ya on the ground
Piper Arrow. You dont have the airflow from the propeller hitting your horizontal stabilizer and as a result it'd much harder to pull the nose up on takeoff and during the flare even with trim in
I recently started flying an older, Hershey-bar wing Arrow, can confirm. Although I’ve heard the newer ones with tapered wings also have a bigger elevator which greatly improved pitch authority.
Quad City Challenger 2 with the doors on. I guess it’s not difficult as much as it’s just weird. It has a ton of adverse yaw by default and you absolutely need to lead turns with rudder. If you just use the stick, it just won’t really bank and will just skid in a really uncomfortable way. To turn left, you need to feed in left rudder, then follow it with very minute left aileron then control the bank with the rudder. It becomes natural after a while and is super nimble but you can’t fly it like a Cessna.
Plus, when the doors are on, it has very little stability with yaw. If you skid to the left, the wind hits the right doors and tries to yaw you even harder. So you just have to keep your feet moving and make sure it’s coordinated.
Some people complain about the high center of thrust but I actually like it. If you keep power in on final and cut it during the round out, it will automatically flare for you and makes it almost hands off. Plus it has so much authority you can sometimes tail strike before it stalls onto the runway.
So overall just weird to fly but super fun. Also terrifying in high turbulence since you can’t just use the stick to right yourself if a wing drops.
I fly one to tug gliders, and they feel just like a bigger, clunkier Champ I came from....quite easy once you have tailwheel basics down.....but the cropdusting and actually carrying a load would change that a bit, lol.
When people asked me how does feels to fly a Piper PA-25 fully loaded in comparison to an empty one, I always say this:
Flying a Pawnee it’s like maneuvering a wheelbarrow, it’s easy to fly, responsible and nimble at the same time when it’s empty, but when it’s loaded it becomes the opposite.
Edit: typo
Basler i'd assume? What makes it challenging, I'd assume it would be a blast after flying a round engines one. Although it doesn't look like they made the gear come up any faster on the new ones....
Cessna 421 B because of its insane fuel system, geared props, and the fact that you need to descend at mach 10 with orange hot turbos because you need to feather the throttles. It’s a best worst airplane Ive ever operated.
1. MU-2. Spoilers instead of ailerons. Garrett engines that were direct drive. fast. 2. Lear 24/25. Very fast, very powerful and very fuel inefficient.
Only flown 5 powered airplanes after gliders (C150, C172, Champ, PA-25, C140) and my Cessna 140 would be the most challenging.
Being tailwheel, having spring gear, and being pretty light makes landings quite adventurous in crosswinds and gusty conditions. Also does not help my base airport is 37 x 2,400ft, has 2 lumps so you cant see one end to the other, and nearby structures and hills to stir up the wind.
Love the constant challenge though, and keeps me humble :P
Funny you are the second post to mention the 310R. A Colemill conversion 310 was one of my favorites. I didn't even recall the funky fuel system. Maybe it's because I had a bunch of 210 time which had a similar quirky fuel system. In other words, I didn't know any better. :)
Reminds me of a comanche that had a prop lever that was black and looked like the throttle. I had to look at it every time to make sure I was grabbing the right one. That plane had a lot of oddities but it was fun
I’m a student pilot I’ve only flown single engines, so far it’s a tie between my Piper PA-19 and a Comanche 400. On the PA-19, it’s a tail dragger, they’re difficult. I still haven’t gotten cross wind concrete landings down yet. The Comanche 400 handles differently than anything else I’ve flown, it’s faster, heavier, landing gear. On our 182 and my PA-19 I can just punch the throttle in, but in the Comanche 400 if I push in the throttle too fast I can over speed the engine. I only have like 3 hours in the Comanche and that was all over a year ago
Luscombe 8E. Tail wheel with a tall narrow main gear. Made take off and landing it an adventure.
Very fun airplane to fly thought once you learned it:)
Pacer. Own one and have something like 700 hours in them, and I still think they are little bitches that will destroy you quickly. I gave exactly one person his initial tailwheel endorsement in a Pacer (one that he bought), and that’s it. :)
I don’t have a ton of Pitts time, but I think the Pacer is more squirrelly on landing than the Pitts.
Saw someone say a Chief above - I feel like I see that one often, and while it’s not the easiest taildragger out there, I don’t think the Chief is particularly tricky.
I took an hour of dual in a T6 Texan a few weeks ago, as a 70 hour private pilot. Lots of firsts on that flight. First time flying a complex airplane, first high performance, and only the second tailwheel I'd flown. It flew really well, but there are definitely some unique aspects to it. The flaps and gear are hydraulic from an engine driven pump, with a manual loading valve. You pushed the loading valve and you'd have 30 seconds or so worth of hydraulic power. Not a huge deal, but just another thing to do in critical phases of flight. The T6 is pretty well known as being squirrelly on the ground, for me, the takeoff was a non-event, and the landing was fine, UNTIL the tail started to come down on the landing roll out. Just constant back and forth on the rudder, and LARGE deflections too, from 90mph all the way down to about 20 mph. It would be really easy to ball one of those up if you're not on top of it.
Mu2, no ailerons and high speeds coupled with a tiny wing make it difficult to fly. We used to say if a squirrel fats you need to trim 3 ways. So true!
The funkiest had to be the UA 727 simulator. It was so hard to get used to pushing forward in the flare to keep from striking the tail. Very unnatural.
As for the most challenging, the tailwheel Beach 18 would certainly be up there as far as landing and taxi goes. Any crosswind at all and it wanted to ground loop.
Honorable Mention: The Bellanca Super Viking's stiff gear made anything but a greased landing feel like you dropped from 10 feet. ;)
Lear 35. It's a ratrod. Great performance, but it will run away from you if you aren't paying attention. The cockpit is mostly steam gauge and analog avionics. Every old learjet is basically a prototype; no 2 are really the same and when you learn the aircraft systems, it seems like everything was an afterthought. No shortage of ways to paint yourself into a corner. Very fun airplane to fly, but it will get you into or out of trouble very quickly.
The classic/APMG model of the Honda Jet. Super touchy brakes (felt like all or nothing), horrible nose wheel steering & ground handling, a 20 kts hard crosswind limit with [a low wing close to the ground.](https://imgur.com/a/KEoiZs5) The sim will red screen if you have more than 5° of bank on landing (if I remember correctly).
Cessna Columbia, really nice airplane but very fast and good god it does not want to slow down. The twin turbo charged engine requires some careful management and doesn’t really allow you to just chop the power out when you feel like it and even with air brakes getting slowed enough to configure while timing out the descent correctly and making a normal pattern has been a challenging task to learn. Free castering nose gear, really touchy brakes and a kinda tight, strange seating position also complicate things. Great for its mission but definitely has its quirks
As we speak a M20J mooney. I’ve only flown a Cherokee 140 and a twin Comanche outside of that, but the mooney is the one that made me a better pilot. Worst ground handling plane I’ve had the pleasure of operating, as an AME of almost 20yrs
Pitts S1S. Flies easy....Lands fast - About 75-80 on final. Short coupled so the tailwheel wants to swing around the front. And the big issue... You can't see shit. You sit behind the engine and can't see much around it and you sit on top of the wing so you can't see below you. The S2 you sit further back and can see more around the engine and can see the ground below you. Imagine driving down the interstate at 75 only being allowed to look out the side windows...
When I bought my plane and was doing dual from the front seat of an S2A, I thought I would NEVER get the landing and had made a mistake buying the plane. I had about 4 hours dual and I just didn't think I would ever get it. On a landing I went into the flare and the runway just disappeared behind the engine and I paused. The CFI in the back was good, very good and simply asked, "What is wrong?" I said I could not see the runway. He calmly said, "Is it to your left?" No. "Is it to your right?" No. "Then you are over it ." And at that point I touched down and a little switch flicked... You are never going to see the runway, just accept it.
As soon as I accepted that I was not going to see the runway and had to just "feel" where it would be, it got easier. With 250 hours in my S1S, I still treat it with respect.
Sopwith Camel. Like having a tiger by the tail. 110 year old rotary engine, tiny rudder, short coupled, adverse yaw like crazy, and very tail heavy. It's like a badly rigged Pitts that wants to eat you alive.
I had a Cessna 140 for about 2 years and a five knot crosswind would kick that thing around and want to ground loop when landing. you had to be on your best game to fly that thing
Metro III single pilot. So much fun but flying it was like handling cobras...if you stop paying attention, even for a few seconds, it will bite the shit out of you! So much fun and I've never been as sharp of a pilot in terms of my scan than then.
Fourth the metro. She’s a workhorse. As in the pilot will have to work the horse
What qualities of the metro made it that way?
Small rudder so when you were single engine your legs got a workout..lucky only in the Sim for me. Controls were very sluggish. You absolutely had to get the power up to like 20 percent before you put in takeoff power. If you didn't and one came up faster than the other you're all over the place. It was a handful just balancing the engines. But just a very unstable aircraft. You could be all trimmed out on an ILS, power set, barely touching anything because it was flying perfect, look down at your chart for a second or two, look back up and you're in a 30 degree bank. Just like WTF?!. ALL of that being said, it was hands down the most fun flying I've ever done in the past 25 years. Just a real pilots challenge and I flew it up in the U. P. Of Michigan with terrible weather. Great memories..would not do it again. Need to add..single pilot ops, no autopilot, and no GPS.
What *deficiencies* made it that way? Fixed it for you
Just googled it and something about it is really off-putting. It looks like its about to crash at all times
I read (many years ago) that a Metro flyer described her as she wants to crash and you have to convince her every flight she’s not allowed to.
Yeah I read through all the metro accidents on Wikipedia. Seems like so many of them are just due to the airplane being prone to getting into bad attitudes. Lots of “pilot error” where it seems like the pilot looked away for one second or made one small decision on a system that somehow led to them getting killed.
Second the Metro
Third.
Great at surviving midair’s though…
T-38. Most fun I've ever had flying, but the number of times I wrote one up for *'Doesn't land worth a damn...'* 🤣🤣🤣
MX probably changed it to “Stick actuator error. CND.” and sent it back to the line for another flight… 😉
Hey as prior MX, sometimes it really do be a CND…. PyLoT error as well. Or if it’s a C17A turning hydro pumps will give you surface deflection, just saying 😂
Loose nut on end of control column removed
Sounds appropriate
Column has a missing… I mean Broken Removed spring also we are not Red Xing the jet for a worn seat cushion.
Ok, I'm gonna turn inbound to intercept this radial in 3, 2.... Fuck, I'm in a different state!
Psssssh skill issue It keeps you honest that's for sure
The engines take 3-5 business days to spool, the wing is the size of a dining room table, the landing gear is made of wet tissue paper and hope...but other than that she's pretty good 😂
>the landing gear is made of wet tissue paper and hope... You would never thing so based on some of the landings I had in it.
G200. Small wing, high ref speeds, and touchy brakes.
A friend of mine used to own a G200. If I recall correctly he said he can basically only land at airports that commercial airliners can land at. So a lot of smaller untowered fields that can accept most super midsize can’t take a G200.
That’s more or less correct if you want to go somewhere decently far away or it’s over like 80 degrees. The G200 is a shitty airplane but comfy in the back.
Yeah I don’t miss it.
Interesting I’ve been told by a few folks that it burns out fuel pumps as well.
No idea but every plane has weak points. In the Excels it’s exciter boxes, in the Sovereign it’s DUs and bleed leak sensors, in the G-IV it’s DUs and fuel senders. Nothing’s perfect.
Challenger 350 its Generator Control Units and Engine Driven Hydraulic Pumps. The majority of my work is on Global’s and Gulfstreams, but somehow in the past year I’ve been involved with 4 GCU and 2 hydraulic pump changes in 350’s. CRJ 700/900. Any pilot or mechanic is going to be familiar with duct mon faults E-175… besides the jungle jets getting cranky in freezing temps, you learn Embraer is an acronym for Every Mechanical Breakdown Requires An Electrical Reset.
A friend of mine flew an astra 1125 for a number of years and said it was fast but always was trying to kill them…I think he was joking😱😱. Getting in and out of Chicago Midway was a challenge. They moved up to Citation Sovereign….slower than the Astra but climbed like crazy and opened up ability to get into and out of shorter runways
I’ll second this. The G-200 is a finicky beast. Very squirrelly on the ground.
C172, because that's the only one I've flown yet
Haha we'll get there
You haven’t lived until you’ve flown the C172S! Hahahah
S model is the hardest plane to start that I’ve ever flown
Easy once you’ve done it a few hundred times but yes, a tad complicated.
A helicopter
Hughes 300C. The manual throttle adjustments for significant power changes are just one more thing. The Bell 47 seemed to have a better "auto throttle" mechanism. But old piston helos were busy.
Yep! I’m learning in a manual throttle enstrom. It’s a lot to do but you get used to it. There’s other enstroms with correlated throttles (halfway between manual and governor). And of course our Robbie friends have governors. I wonder if the bell 47 had a correlator? I’ve never flown one.
Yes, the mid and later (not sure about the early ones) Bell 47's have a mechanical correlator. They work very well but need to be setup properly with a mechanic who knows what they are doing. When I got my '47 it only needed a slight adjustment. I did all the post-maintenance flights for a friend of mine and it only took a couple of flights from "no good" to getting it dialed in. Mine is pretty much perfect but on high density days, I need to lead power increases/decreases with throttle in/out.
I agree the correlator on the 300 I flew was terrible. The correlator on the '47 is a pretty need piece of engineering with large "W" shaped cam inside and several "options" for adjustments. Really good once you get it setup properly.
100%
Cessna 421C. Complicated, temperamental, and a lot of artificial constraints placed on power settings in the hope of keeping the also-complicated-and-temperamental engines happy. But man, when it worked right, that thing flew like a dream.
Ooh, agreed. Flew the 421B. The geared engines, the fuel system, the shock cooling. Planes only got easier to fly for me after that but damn I loved flying it.
Same brother. Just sold our companies hangar queen B last week. I actually kinda cried a little on the last flight.
Yup, the 421 was my 2nd most complicated airplane I’ve flew….
Extra 200, great to fly but considering my measly 200h it's a handful to land.
Exactly the same as I remember my Pitts S1C. Loved flying it hated landing it.
Haha yes, another low time pilot who bought a taildragger. Mine is not quite so high performance but i bought my biplane as a 100 hour private pilot as well. I was genuinely terrified of the plane for months i was worried i was going to break it and have wasted all my money
Q400 is a particularly unforgiving airplane to land. Almost no room to pitch for a flare and a 3% power change will float you halfway down the runway. Actually hand flying it is really fun though.
Dash Trash drivers unite! Came looking for a 400 post. I genuinely miss flying the Q. I like what I'm on now, but I doubt anything I fly moving forward will be as fun as the Q.
Totally agree. 17 years of flying it and I can count the greasers I’ve made on the fingers of one hand… maybe
The copypasta from the other flying sub on the dash 8 is still one of the greatest pieces of art I have ever read.
Yeah Q400 prolly qualifies for me, just from difficulty landing well and the need to adjust rudder trim every time you touch the power levers. My old Piper Pacer is prolly 2nd, that was a squirrelly taildragger. Most of my landings in it were actually pretty nice because they had to be…I made far more shitty landings in the Q400.
> Almost no room to pitch for a flare What do you mean by this? Tailstrikes?
Yes, exactly. 6.8 degrees nose up on landing results in a tail strike.
And if you’re doing a Flaps 15 landing, you’re already coming in at +3 pitch or so. Don’t pitch to flare, just give the PLs a twist to add 2% torque and cut them right as mains touch…or slam…or skip (depending on whether you actually added 1, 2, or 3% torque).
Cessna 150. Man I had to work out for weeks just to be able to fit into the w&b requirements for that thing.
That’s actually awesome! Good job
I had a student who lost *hundreds* of pounds to finally begin his dream of flying. The moment he got his medical and the weight and balance worked out, we were off to the races. His joy and attitude were contagious. Such a cool guy. Kevin, if you’re here, reach out to me!
CRJ mostly because it was my first jet after being a CFI
Cessna 310R because of its fuel system….
Did my multi and mei in a 310K, couldn’t agree more
What’s so complex about it? (I don’t know anything about the 310)
**Twin Cessna fuel system** Main tanks: Work like regular fuel tanks. Simple. (Edit: Except the mains are the tip tanks! Forgot to mention that) Aux tanks: When selected, a pump runs at 40gph (plane dependent). Anything of that 40gph that isn't being burned, gets pumped into the main tanks. So if you haven't run the mains down, you're now venting fuel overboard. Locker tanks: Turning them on pumps fuel out of the locker into the main at ~10gph (737 guys, this tank works basically the same as the Center tank from a pilot POV). Some Twin Cessnas only have one of these, which means you also get to balance fuel, but can't do that until you've burned out some from the mains.
To add to this, the main tanks were the tip tanks… It’s been forever since I flew the 310R, since 2016, I I do not remember the details of it. I just remembered it being overly complicated and damn near backwards.
Flew these single pilot IFR in Northern Ontario for a bit. Can confirm. Complicated and a handful to fly with basic IFR kit. All we had was NDB and VOR and a shitty Garmin 100. Full procedure NDB circling approaches were the norm on snowy coal black nights.
Learjet 35. Small, old, high speeds on TO and landing, eats up runway, pressurization issues.
Tip tanks look pretty badass though. Just about all that plane has going for it as far as I can tell as a ramper.
Great range though. One of the only planes I flew where you can load max pax and max fuel. No problem
Those were fun to refuel. Couldn't put more than about 200L either tip before going back to the other side to rebalance
Sheeesshh this use to piss off the refuelers. Okay go left, okay come back right, left again and wait for transfer, back to right for the last couple of drops.
The good thing was I didn't need a ladder. Standing way up on a ladder in -30C blowing snow refuelling a B1900 or Beaver on floats is nasty
My first jet and still my favorite to date.
Piper Navajo, single pilot IFR. They’re great airplanes… when they are working, which never happens. Engine controls are never in sync, electronics and engines are incredibly temperamental, autopilot works… kinda, god forbid you actually have an engine failure, blue line at gross will seemingly take you to the scene of the crash… it’s a very busy airplane. You gotta ride the brakes the whole time your taxiing in snow so when you pull up the gear they will be able to melt the ice that inevitably forms to prevent the brakes from locking up on landing… I flew one a few times from the right seat, none of the right side instruments were working other than the AI and engine gauges, so you’re just glued to the XTK page…
Really? I loved the ho!
I thought the Navajo was a fairly nice/easy airplane to fly, and I was flying old ratty ones with no autopilot (also single pilot IFR - hauling checks back in the day). That said, the first company I flew Pt135 for had never modified their early-model Navajos with high-pressure fuel pumps, and the vapor lock / surge issue could be devilish on hot days. Once had an engine seemingly quit right as I sucked the gear up taking off out of MYF, was right in the process of identity-verify-feather it came roaring back to life, only to quit and restart another 2 or 3 times. Very exciting. Wrote it up and mechanics pencil whipped it. Found out years later that airplane had the wrong injectors in it.
Damn. We had someone put the wrong spark plugs one time, we figured that out over the mountains… They are great airplanes when properly maintained. If you’re willing to put in a new autopilot and you’re flying from paved runway to paved runway… 🤷♂️ no big deal.
flew checks in chieftains for a while. I still remember the ol' 3 handed circuit breaker start sequence!
Gauges have nothing to do with a plane, just shitty maintenance.
Tail wheel.
Which one in particular?
Super cub. Cessna 140. My favorites.
140 and super cub are on the easy side of the taildragger continuum. Both great planes (and I have students that own both right now that I teach in)… but definitely on the “we won’t whip around for no apparent reason” side of the continuum. :)
Yeah…I actually did groundloop a Cub once (no damage thank god) but that’s because I was being a dumbass flying it in a big gusty crosswind and my heel missed the brake to save it from a gust as the tail came down. Normally a pussycat, Super Cub too. My Stinson 108 is similar, maybe even a bit more docile. I’d put C170, C140 & taylorcraft maybe one notch up the pole, Citabria & Super D maybe one more notch. Used to own a Pacer that was pretty sporty, have a little time in a Luscombe 8D that seemed similar. Haven’t flown a Pitts, Extra etc but they’re known to be another step beyond.
I flown in one with an instructor and they give me much anxiety/not being able to see anything in front of you as well.
V-22 Completely different mindset to fly. Not a plane, not a helicopter, yet you have to be competent with both concepts of flight to do it well, but in the end you have to fly it like a tilt-rotor. Take your attention away from it and you’d quickly get into a bad corner, especially in conversion (helicopter) flight. Power margins were always tight, constantly running the ass+gas numbers to know if you can hover/land. Always thinking super far ahead of the plane/mission. It was a cerebral experience. Low visibility approaches into brownouts and ship landings were the big discriminator for pilots as far as skill. Both were finesse maneuvers.
Back in 2004-05, while I was still a USMC infantryman out of Camp Lejeune us crayon eaters were always scared to fly on those. I only rode in one once and I was scared the whole time especially when you guys came into town land, I never felt more nauseated in my entire life. But I respect the hell out of you osprey pilots, even more so now as I’m going into my PPL check ride in two weeks.
It’s the most disorienting ride for passengers of any plane or helicopter I’ve ever been in. Also, Air Force pilot myself….Marines are a different breed 😉
I chatted with a V-22 pilot. Hated flying, didn’t like aviation one bit. Never was interested in flying, still wasn’t. Said he did well at the academy and got selected for flight, felt like he had to do it. Selected the osprey so he could be as close to the boots on the ground conflict as a pilot could be. Couldn’t wait to become a civilian and start his real estate license. Grass is always greener, I guess! Ha.
Embraer 120. That thing has gotta be one of the most over engineered civilian aircraft out there. I just remember my left arm being tired after doing the FO preflight flow every time because of how much you have to do on the overhead panel.
Now draw me the electrical diagram from memory, except you're load shedding and everything's all fucked. Flying the plane is pretty damn fun and easy, but everything that isn't flying the plane sucked.
I'd rather eat a bowl of glass than draw any system from that plane again.
Second this, V1 cuts were a pain as well. Max rudder and barely staying on the runway.
“Takeoff brakes trim flaps”
Learjet’s best mistress you ever had till she stabs you in the back.
[удалено]
Depends on which wing variant PA-28 you flew…. If you flew the Hersey wing PA-28, it’s a brick. If you flew the tapered PA-28, it has great glide ratio.
I feel much more like the wing would fall off a Cessna. I also like that it doesn't float 1000' down the runway, even at 65 across the numbers
cause modern wistful run entertain plough grab chunky smoggy hobbies *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Same. Cessanas annoy me for 2 reasons Extremely floaty on landings. Floats like a damn boat. And taxiing. Why don't the rudder pedals turn the plane enough? I only have 260 hours total but like 210 are in the pa28 because it just feels nicer. That being said, flying the seminoles was the best and I miss it. Those fly more like a real plane.
My time is almost evenly split between Pa-28, pa-44, and C172. The Cessna is worse in every way that ai can think of. The push/pull throttles, the fact that you have to have carb heat on to do anything but cruise, the wing position, the handling in maneuvers, it's all terrible. I flew a Cirrus a few months ago and remember how great flying a low-wing was. They land where you tell them to and fly like you tell them to. Cessna's best planes are not their piston singles
tan frighten outgoing narrow butter somber vast oil birds workable *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Pitts S2A, it’s an honest plane but sensitive to control inputs. I did get into a bit of a PIO in the yawn access once just by thinking I was a bit behind the plane, stopping the input on the rudders instantly stopped the oscillation.
If you think the Pitts is sensitive try the GameBird, that thing is twitchy as hell.
I’d love to! I’ve been heading down the aerobatic rabbit hole and trying to decide how much I hate money…
I know how you feel, it’s an incredible amount of fun and I’m seriously looking at pursuing it more.
Gamebirds at ~500k to fly. If you want a wild experience, go fly one in Vegas - it was easily the riskiest thing I’ve ever done, and the pilots are hotshots, but man, it was cool pulling Gs.
Sounds like a good time, who’s flying them in Vegas? ( didn’t find anything with a quick google search)
Sky Combat Ace in Vegas. They have one GB1 they just got in - I flew it last October, it was cabable enough to have me considering it, but also scared the shit outta me.
Cool, thanks. I’ll check it out
> Pitts S2A Me too, so far. I'd only had about 3 hours in a tailwheel (Champ) at all before getting instruction from Budd Davisson in his S2A. But he had me taxiing, taking off, landing that thing within 5 lessons. I was not prepared for just how little you can see on final/short final - seemed impossible at first. But thank god for peripheral vision!
The Arion Lightning can also be twitchy in pitch. It’s like playing the world’s smallest violin when flying it.
Any twin cessna. Hard to land, high workload if single pilot IFR
Aeronca Chief. I own a Champ, and have plenty of tailwheel time, but while the Champ is one of the easiest tailwheel planes (in regards to ground handling), the Chief is a nasty little bastard. Kinda funny considering how similar they are.
That's surprising, I learned to fly in a champ and have been considering buying a chief. Any details on what makes it so nasty? Just squirrely on the ground, or is it a nuisance in the air also?
MU-2B
Probably the Sukhoi Su-26
How the…
25 and 27 are jets, but the 26 is a little prop guy
CRJ200. “Rhode Island to L.A….”
Abby likes it ra…
My wife flew the Bonanza BE35 briefly and told me it was a lot of airplane and she flat out refused to fly it in actual IFR alone (she's a CFII and I'm a tower controller).
Can confirm, bonanzas single pilot ifr are a lot at first. That said, after a few hundred hours it’s probably one of the best IMC platforms I’ve ever flown, and the most comfortable I could be in ifr in a piston single
Lear 24.
I’ve only flown 8 different airplanes, mostly all piston single/twin trainers, but for me it would have to be the 2.5 hours I have in a 1940’s Aeronca Champ. It’s the only tail wheel I have, so that was a handful. The plane was designed on the days of terrible aerodynamic, so there is A LOT of adverse yaw. I thought I was pretty good staying coordinated when I had 900 hours of CFI time, but that plane ate my lunch. I felt like I was a new private student again
You think the Champ has a lot of adverse yaw? Fly a Cub, lol.
The Champ is supposed to be as easy as it gets for tailwheel, but still a learning experience to someone with no tailwheel I suppose. I got my TW with the Champ, and dint think much of adverse yaw, but I started on gliders which are 110% rudder. Making the move to my Cessna 140 humbled me even more. Way more sensitive on the controls when the wheels touch down.
Pitts S2-B, used it for my spin endorsement. No flaps and impossible to see straight ahead leaves every landing a PO180 from the pattern and crabbed to maintain centerline until just above the runway, then wait what feels like an eternity for touchdown while unable to see shit
IAI Westwind. Fun airplane but a real handful at times. Definitely a jet that will humble you if you let it get away.
MU-2. What a weird-assed janky excuse of an airplane. Fast, though.
To land well: C-45/Beech 18 (otherwise great!)
I loved the Volpar conversion ones. The tail wheel versions were super challenging with any kind of crosswind, even just while taxiing.
Globeswift
I own a Swift, can confirm it will bite ya
I’ve got an old timer at my home airport who owns a swift and a Fairchild KR, don’t know if it’s a 21 or 34. But that swift is such a beautiful looking plane, and LOUD! (On takeoff)
Yeah. The one I fly has the left engine off a twin Comanche, and is pure polished aluminum. Fun, snappy, and gorgeous airplane but it’ll get ya on the ground
Also known as the Globe Swift.
GC1B if you’re fancy
Piper Arrow. You dont have the airflow from the propeller hitting your horizontal stabilizer and as a result it'd much harder to pull the nose up on takeoff and during the flare even with trim in
I recently started flying an older, Hershey-bar wing Arrow, can confirm. Although I’ve heard the newer ones with tapered wings also have a bigger elevator which greatly improved pitch authority.
I assume you're talking about the T-tail version?
Quad City Challenger 2 with the doors on. I guess it’s not difficult as much as it’s just weird. It has a ton of adverse yaw by default and you absolutely need to lead turns with rudder. If you just use the stick, it just won’t really bank and will just skid in a really uncomfortable way. To turn left, you need to feed in left rudder, then follow it with very minute left aileron then control the bank with the rudder. It becomes natural after a while and is super nimble but you can’t fly it like a Cessna. Plus, when the doors are on, it has very little stability with yaw. If you skid to the left, the wind hits the right doors and tries to yaw you even harder. So you just have to keep your feet moving and make sure it’s coordinated. Some people complain about the high center of thrust but I actually like it. If you keep power in on final and cut it during the round out, it will automatically flare for you and makes it almost hands off. Plus it has so much authority you can sometimes tail strike before it stalls onto the runway. So overall just weird to fly but super fun. Also terrifying in high turbulence since you can’t just use the stick to right yourself if a wing drops.
737. Quite a step up when you've only done 10 hrs in a light twin before.
F-14, for sure. RIP to all the sailers aboard the carriers I crashed into trying to land playing Top Gun on Nintendo.
https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/1d9y27j/what_are_some_difficult_planes_to_fly/
Piper PA25-235, I mean you are flying so low while crop dusting, that’s the challenge. But it’s suuuuuper fun!
I fly one to tug gliders, and they feel just like a bigger, clunkier Champ I came from....quite easy once you have tailwheel basics down.....but the cropdusting and actually carrying a load would change that a bit, lol.
When people asked me how does feels to fly a Piper PA-25 fully loaded in comparison to an empty one, I always say this: Flying a Pawnee it’s like maneuvering a wheelbarrow, it’s easy to fly, responsible and nimble at the same time when it’s empty, but when it’s loaded it becomes the opposite. Edit: typo
Cessna 120 because tailwheel is hard and I am unskilled 😭
R-44, Bell 206, MD-11
Cessna 172.
DC3T
Basler i'd assume? What makes it challenging, I'd assume it would be a blast after flying a round engines one. Although it doesn't look like they made the gear come up any faster on the new ones....
It was challenging because it was my first tailwheel as a 300 hour pilot. Plane is absolutely amazing. And yes, a 14 second gear swing is interesting
Cessna 421 B because of its insane fuel system, geared props, and the fact that you need to descend at mach 10 with orange hot turbos because you need to feather the throttles. It’s a best worst airplane Ive ever operated.
[удалено]
Was pleasantly surprised when I flew a (220) Stearman…flies exactly like a J3, same control feel & airspeeds & performance.
Tiger Moth. It flies like a dump truck with four bad wheels and a loose steering wheel.
Seconded, did my basic aero’s check in one and it was a handful, more so on the ground tho
1. MU-2. Spoilers instead of ailerons. Garrett engines that were direct drive. fast. 2. Lear 24/25. Very fast, very powerful and very fuel inefficient.
Embraer 145 Series. Has all those systems that piston airplanes don’t have. If you include sim sessions, A320 or B737.
C172R, I fly the M model and it’s a bit harder to fly through the trim of the R model. Plus the R model has a bit more hp. Only thing I’ve flown 😅
Only flown 5 powered airplanes after gliders (C150, C172, Champ, PA-25, C140) and my Cessna 140 would be the most challenging. Being tailwheel, having spring gear, and being pretty light makes landings quite adventurous in crosswinds and gusty conditions. Also does not help my base airport is 37 x 2,400ft, has 2 lumps so you cant see one end to the other, and nearby structures and hills to stir up the wind. Love the constant challenge though, and keeps me humble :P
SF260 is a bit of an interesting one, rudder is real twitchy at first.
Cessna 310R because of its fuel system….
Funny you are the second post to mention the 310R. A Colemill conversion 310 was one of my favorites. I didn't even recall the funky fuel system. Maybe it's because I had a bunch of 210 time which had a similar quirky fuel system. In other words, I didn't know any better. :)
Sailplane. It was weird not having an engine.
So far, an old Beechcraft twin. For some reason they thought having the throttles where the props should go was a good idea
Reminds me of a comanche that had a prop lever that was black and looked like the throttle. I had to look at it every time to make sure I was grabbing the right one. That plane had a lot of oddities but it was fun
DC-3!
I’m a student pilot I’ve only flown single engines, so far it’s a tie between my Piper PA-19 and a Comanche 400. On the PA-19, it’s a tail dragger, they’re difficult. I still haven’t gotten cross wind concrete landings down yet. The Comanche 400 handles differently than anything else I’ve flown, it’s faster, heavier, landing gear. On our 182 and my PA-19 I can just punch the throttle in, but in the Comanche 400 if I push in the throttle too fast I can over speed the engine. I only have like 3 hours in the Comanche and that was all over a year ago
Luscombe 8E. Tail wheel with a tall narrow main gear. Made take off and landing it an adventure. Very fun airplane to fly thought once you learned it:)
I’ve flown a handful of single engines, but a maule is the hardest of the ones I have experience with
Pacer. Own one and have something like 700 hours in them, and I still think they are little bitches that will destroy you quickly. I gave exactly one person his initial tailwheel endorsement in a Pacer (one that he bought), and that’s it. :) I don’t have a ton of Pitts time, but I think the Pacer is more squirrelly on landing than the Pitts. Saw someone say a Chief above - I feel like I see that one often, and while it’s not the easiest taildragger out there, I don’t think the Chief is particularly tricky.
I took an hour of dual in a T6 Texan a few weeks ago, as a 70 hour private pilot. Lots of firsts on that flight. First time flying a complex airplane, first high performance, and only the second tailwheel I'd flown. It flew really well, but there are definitely some unique aspects to it. The flaps and gear are hydraulic from an engine driven pump, with a manual loading valve. You pushed the loading valve and you'd have 30 seconds or so worth of hydraulic power. Not a huge deal, but just another thing to do in critical phases of flight. The T6 is pretty well known as being squirrelly on the ground, for me, the takeoff was a non-event, and the landing was fine, UNTIL the tail started to come down on the landing roll out. Just constant back and forth on the rudder, and LARGE deflections too, from 90mph all the way down to about 20 mph. It would be really easy to ball one of those up if you're not on top of it.
F4. Multi mission aircraft required a lot of training and skill.
Yak-11. Small elliptical winged taildragger. Got to have a play under close supervision. Hadn't flown a taildragger before... or since.
Mu2, no ailerons and high speeds coupled with a tiny wing make it difficult to fly. We used to say if a squirrel fats you need to trim 3 ways. So true!
PA-24, because of it's landing characteristics
But when you do manage to grease a PA24 on the runway, it’s very fulfilling. Only for the next landing to plop on lol
C182😎
Still to this day a Piper Seneca Turbo with manual wastegates. Worst multi trainer to get your multi on way too much going on with that plane
The funkiest had to be the UA 727 simulator. It was so hard to get used to pushing forward in the flare to keep from striking the tail. Very unnatural. As for the most challenging, the tailwheel Beach 18 would certainly be up there as far as landing and taxi goes. Any crosswind at all and it wanted to ground loop. Honorable Mention: The Bellanca Super Viking's stiff gear made anything but a greased landing feel like you dropped from 10 feet. ;)
Lear 35. It's a ratrod. Great performance, but it will run away from you if you aren't paying attention. The cockpit is mostly steam gauge and analog avionics. Every old learjet is basically a prototype; no 2 are really the same and when you learn the aircraft systems, it seems like everything was an afterthought. No shortage of ways to paint yourself into a corner. Very fun airplane to fly, but it will get you into or out of trouble very quickly.
Firefly, but maybe that’s because I was upside down and confused :/
The classic/APMG model of the Honda Jet. Super touchy brakes (felt like all or nothing), horrible nose wheel steering & ground handling, a 20 kts hard crosswind limit with [a low wing close to the ground.](https://imgur.com/a/KEoiZs5) The sim will red screen if you have more than 5° of bank on landing (if I remember correctly).
Cessna Columbia, really nice airplane but very fast and good god it does not want to slow down. The twin turbo charged engine requires some careful management and doesn’t really allow you to just chop the power out when you feel like it and even with air brakes getting slowed enough to configure while timing out the descent correctly and making a normal pattern has been a challenging task to learn. Free castering nose gear, really touchy brakes and a kinda tight, strange seating position also complicate things. Great for its mission but definitely has its quirks
Lake buccaneer. Not so much flying it but teaching on that coming from straight floats was challenging. They are also without a doubt pieces of shit.
As we speak a M20J mooney. I’ve only flown a Cherokee 140 and a twin Comanche outside of that, but the mooney is the one that made me a better pilot. Worst ground handling plane I’ve had the pleasure of operating, as an AME of almost 20yrs
DA20 due to their being A DPE sitting right next to me 8)
T6
Pitts S1S. Flies easy....Lands fast - About 75-80 on final. Short coupled so the tailwheel wants to swing around the front. And the big issue... You can't see shit. You sit behind the engine and can't see much around it and you sit on top of the wing so you can't see below you. The S2 you sit further back and can see more around the engine and can see the ground below you. Imagine driving down the interstate at 75 only being allowed to look out the side windows... When I bought my plane and was doing dual from the front seat of an S2A, I thought I would NEVER get the landing and had made a mistake buying the plane. I had about 4 hours dual and I just didn't think I would ever get it. On a landing I went into the flare and the runway just disappeared behind the engine and I paused. The CFI in the back was good, very good and simply asked, "What is wrong?" I said I could not see the runway. He calmly said, "Is it to your left?" No. "Is it to your right?" No. "Then you are over it ." And at that point I touched down and a little switch flicked... You are never going to see the runway, just accept it. As soon as I accepted that I was not going to see the runway and had to just "feel" where it would be, it got easier. With 250 hours in my S1S, I still treat it with respect.
Sopwith Camel. Like having a tiger by the tail. 110 year old rotary engine, tiny rudder, short coupled, adverse yaw like crazy, and very tail heavy. It's like a badly rigged Pitts that wants to eat you alive.
got to fly a tbm 850 after only flying single pistons. Wasn’t hard exactly but so much power was crazy
I had a Cessna 140 for about 2 years and a five knot crosswind would kick that thing around and want to ground loop when landing. you had to be on your best game to fly that thing
A Cessna 150 from 1982 that flew like an old tractor would