What's the worst plane ever?

paflyer said:
Bullsnot.
Click to expand...

mscard88 said:
Yeah why? Always liked that plane. Never flew one however.
Click to expand...

Every mechanic and owner I've talked to has regretted owning, flying or working on one. Their tails are magnesium alloy so watch out for corrosion. The engines are inverted and horribly expensive according to our mechanic. The owner said it was like buying a small house or car when his engines hit TBO. Also single engine operations suck according to multiple sources. The required rudder force is abnormally high, like 150lbs. There has been several Vmc crashes that lead the FAA to raise the red line.
 
Joey4420 said:
Is the Sling that bad? I have been considering either the Sling 2 or the Bristell for my personal aircraft. Been flying a Cessna C162 Skycatcher and I have to say as a first plan it isn't as bad as the 172N I have had to fly while the 162 is down for an engine overhaul. I will say I am limited to the 3 aircraft I have flown. All Cessna's; 162, 172N and 172M.
Click to expand...
No, as I said it's a good little plane. Pitching up or down is EXTREMELY TOCUHY in it and I don't care for the stick yokes. I don't care for it, if you can, rent and fly one before you drop the big bucks on it, they are pretty rare to find though. If the trek to Michigan isn't to crazy for you, I can PM you a link to a local airport where you can rent on for a nice rate.
 
ARFlyer said:
Every mechanic and owner I've talked to has regretted owning, flying or working on one. Their tails are magnesium alloy so watch out for corrosion. The engines are inverted and horribly expensive according to our mechanic. The owner said it was like buying a small house or car when his engines hit TBO. Also single engine operations suck according to multiple sources. The required rudder force is abnormally high, like 150lbs. There has been several Vmc crashes that lead the FAA to raise the red line.
Click to expand...
Wikipoopia. Most owners love them. Lotsa OWT repeated by people who have never seen one up close much less flown one. They are expensive to operate compared to your 172, just like any other pressurized piston twin, but if it was produced today it would be a $2000000 aircraft.
 
Grum.Man said:
For me the worst plane I've been in was a Piper Archer. I couldn't see out of it, felt like I was sitting in a hole. The elevator forces are stupid high. Don't think I'll ever get in another one of those.
Click to expand...
That is an odd comment about an Archer. Why couldn't you see out of it? Are you super tall?

And 'stupid high' elevator forces sounds very odd too. Wonder if something was wrong with it.
 
Pilawt said:
The Long Beach CA FBO where I worked in 1971 was the first dealer and school for the McCulloch J-2 Gyroplane.

mcculloch_j-2_zpsqrcwo1op.jpg


Gyroplanes of that era, and the McCulloch J-2 in particular, were marketed as offering the best qualities of fixed wing and helicopters. The reality, however, is not so rosy.
Click to expand...

I have to admit to being very jealous that you got to fly the J-2, though I'm sad to see it listed in this "worst aircraft ever" thread. I'm partial to them and am trying to track a flying one down to see in person. I think it's probably one of the cutest aircraft ever built. Yeah, I'm man enough to admit that some aircraft are cute. haha.

Many of the negatives you list are not unique to the particular bird, but to gyroplanes in general. It's true, they're not as efficient as airplanes nor are they as practical as helicopters. My logbook entries with gyroplanes are pretty sparse. In fact, I only have 2 hours of training in an RAF 2000. However, they were 2 of the most fun hours I've flown (right up there with seaplanes). Seems like based on your write-up that the J2 was equally fun to fly.

What I wouldn't give to actually get a flight in one :(. I don't think my wallet or my wife would be happy with what I'd pay for a ride.

tawood said:
This picture is me, in the early 1990's, with my Tri-Q2.
Click to expand...

Ouch, another one of my favorite aircraft listed in this thread. Not necessarily the Tri-Q, but the quickie (and derivatives in general). It's another aircraft I'm trying to track down. I've seen a few Quickies at Oshkosh, but haven't had a chance to fly one yet. It's another aircraft on my list.
_________________

I'm also going to add that I like the Ercoupe and the PA28-140.

Couple this thread with "The World's Worst Aircraft" book, which has another of my favorite aircraft (BV-141) listed and I might start to take it personally. Eh, but what do you all know. :D
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is an odd comment about an Archer. Why couldn't you see out of it? Are you super tall?

And 'stupid high' elevator forces sounds very odd too. Wonder if something was wrong with it.
Click to expand...
The top of the instrument panel seemed like it was even with my eyes, couldn't get comfortable. Elevator just seemed to have really high forces compared to other airplanes ive flown. Maybe it was just much more trim sensitive.
 
skier said:
I have to admit to being very jealous that you got to fly the J-2, though I'm sad to see it listed in this "worst aircraft ever" thread. I'm partial to them and am trying to track a flying one down to see in person. I think it's probably one of the cutest aircraft ever built. Yeah, I'm man enough to admit that some aircraft are cute. haha.

Many of the negatives you list are not unique to the particular bird, but to gyroplanes in general. It's true, they're not as efficient as airplanes nor are they as practical as helicopters. My logbook entries with gyroplanes are pretty sparse. In fact, I only have 2 hours of training in an RAF 2000. However, they were 2 of the most fun hours I've flown (right up there with seaplanes). Seems like based on your write-up that the J2 was equally fun to fly.

What I wouldn't give to actually get a flight in one :(. I don't think my wallet or my wife would be happy with what I'd pay for a ride.



Ouch, another one of my favorite aircraft listed in this thread. Not necessarily the Tri-Q, but the quickie (and derivatives in general). It's another aircraft I'm trying to track down. I've seen a few Quickies at Oshkosh, but haven't had a chance to fly one yet. It's another aircraft on my list.
_________________

I'm also going to add that I like the Ercoupe and the PA28-140.

Couple this thread with "The World's Worst Aircraft" book, which has another of my favorite aircraft (BV-141) listed and I might start to take it personally. Eh, but what do you all know. :D
Click to expand...

There is a flying original J2 in Sanford NC.
 
Grum.Man said:
There is a flying original J2 in Sanford NC.
Click to expand...

Any chance you could put me in contact with the owner?

There's also one listed in NJ on the FAA site. I believe there's a flying one in California. And there's another I know of in Washington state undergoing restoration. I was hoping to be able to find the owner of the one in NJ, but if you know the person in NC, that may be easier.
 
Kritchlow said:
The A320 series.
Click to expand...

Well if you're going to go there... the A380 for me.

I've been on it 4 times and on 3 of those the door seals failed and you get that aweful screeching/whistling noise at 100db for 10 minutes on end. Lucky for me we only had it during takeoff and landing - other people have had this for an entire flight!

It was amusing on the 2nd and 3rd time to see the other passengers starting to pray because they think the plane is gonna crash. Not so amusing the 1st time. Also not amused that the first time, the pilot came back there and couldn't figure out where the noise came from - especially after we landed and I youtubed it and saw that it was a common problem on the A380 that was reported on other airlines months before... you'd think someone would tell the pilot! (Emirates).
 
Grum.Man said:
The top of the instrument panel seemed like it was even with my eyes, couldn't get comfortable. Elevator just seemed to have really high forces compared to other airplanes ive flown. Maybe it was just much more trim sensitive.
Click to expand...

When compared to grummans and EABs, I've found the typical GA aircraft to have limited visibility, poor performance and somewhat heavy control forces in all axis. I'd never go back to production again after flying EAB. That is unless I was stepping up to a twin.
 
Velocity173 said:
When compared to grummans and EABs, I've found the typical GA aircraft to have limited visibility, poor performance and somewhat heavy control forces in all axis. I'd never go back to production again after flying EAB. That is unless I was stepping up to a twin.
Click to expand...
Yea I'm never going back either. That archer though had heavier controls than a 172. I wish someone would design a 2 seat experimental twin utilizing o-200's or even VW or Corvair engines.
 
Grum.Man said:
I wish someone would design a 2 seat experimental twin utilizing o-200's or even VW or Corvair engines.
Click to expand...
One of the coolest-looking airplanes I ever saw was the two-seat Wing Derringer, first flown in 1962 with 115-hp Lycomings. It was eventually certified with 160 hp per side, and around eight of them were built.

Screen Shot 2017-01-14 at 10.17.40 AM.png
 
Well all around, from what I've flown I'd say that Piper/ Czech sport cruiser, went up in it once with a student, we were going to get his PPL in it to save money, well the controls were so un-balanced, we both agreed that the old 172 on the line was a better call, never flew it again after that, it's a stick and the roll axis is very numb compared to the super sensitive pitch axis, why they let it out of the factory like that is beyond me.
 
Christmas Bullet, 1919.
Christmas_Bullet.jpg

From Wikipedia:

The single-seat "Christmas Bullet" featured an all-wood construction with a veneer-clad fuselage, although despite his claims to the contrary, neither design feature reduced aerodynamic drag, nor was he among the first to use this method of construction; the majority of German World War I-era two-seater aircraft used for bombing and reconnaissance were similarly constructed. The "Bullet" was powered by a prototype Liberty 6 engine. Although the US Army had been persuaded to loan an engine, the proviso was that the prototype engine was to be fitted into an airframe for ground testing only.

The design had a serious flaw in that it lacked any kind of struts or braces for the wings, with Christmas' insisting that they should be flexible. Control of the aircraft was meant to be achieved by wing warping to its flying surfaces. Although the Chief Engineer at Continental, Vincent Burnelli, tried to institute changes, the "Christmas Bullet" was completed with the original design features intact. Construction materials were scrounged from available wood and steel stock and were not "aircraft grade", which was also a concern to Burnelli.
....
On its maiden flight in January 1919, the wings of the "Bullet" peeled from the fuselage and the aircraft crashed, killing the pilot, Cuthbert Mills. The destruction of the prototype Liberty engine was never revealed to the US Army and a second Bullet was built powered by an Hall-Scott L-6 engine.

Despite the crash, Christmas placed an ad in Flying magazine stating that the Christmas Bullet achieved a 197 mph top speed demonstrated in front of Col Harmon at Central Park, Long Island. The second aircraft was displayed in Madison Square Garden on 8 March 1919 as the "First Strutless Airplane". It was also destroyed on its first flight, again with the loss of the test pilot, Lt. Allington Joyce Jolly. The project was abandoned before its United States Army Air Service (USAAS) evaluation.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Christmas Bullet, 1919.

...On its maiden flight in January 1919, the wings of the "Bullet" peeled from the fuselage and the aircraft crashed, killing the pilot, Cuthbert Mills...The second aircraft was displayed in Madison Square Garden on 8 March 1919 as the "First Strutless Airplane". It was also destroyed on its first flight, again with the loss of the test pilot, Lt. Allington Joyce Jolly. The project was abandoned before its United States Army Air Service (USAAS) evaluation.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

These should go down as the two worst planes ever.
 
Another twin 100hp experimental...

528d2587c8b8e40ae038968b8ed32e64.jpg


It may not have had O-200s on it but it could!
 
Joshuajayg said:
Another twin 100hp experimental...

528d2587c8b8e40ae038968b8ed32e64.jpg


It may not have had O-200s on it but it could!
Click to expand...

Well, that's one way to go on a long cross country...and keep your marriage together. :rolleyes:

CRM and knowing who has control might be a bit of a challenge at times. ;)
 
GRG55 said:
Well, that's one way to go on a long cross country...and keep your marriage together. :rolleyes:

CRM and knowing who has control might be a bit of a challenge at times. ;)
Click to expand...
Look up the Thrasher Brothers Flying Circus. They built one of the two of these and performed stunts in it.
 
paflyer said:
I suppose it depends of how tall is tall and how hefty is hefty. I'm a smidge over 6' and wear a 44L, 34 inseam, and I'm quite comfortable. If someone similar in bulk is in the right seat, moving one seat fore/aft a bit widens the shoulder space. I can see if you're long-torso-ed that the shoulder room might be tighter. The floor vents are quite effective once you get going. Use a Kool-Scoop or your hand out the vent widow and leave the door cracked to get some circulation if you're taxiing.

With that, you'd probably really dislike Mooneys...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm 6'3" 275 lbs and long waisted. I just don't fit well, but it's all good. As I said, it's not the airplane's fault. My size is not a virtue in the aviation world.
 
I'm going to convert one of these to a twin.:)

 
paflyer said:
Wikipoopia. Most owners love them. Lotsa OWT repeated by people who have never seen one up close much less flown one. They are expensive to operate compared to your 172, just like any other pressurized piston twin, but if it was produced today it would be a $2000000 aircraft.
Click to expand...
I have worked on and flown the duke. Nice enough I guess. The engines are crap. Put a Pratt on it and it would be worth having.
 
OkieFlyer said:
Yeah, I'm 6'3" 275 lbs and long waisted. I just don't fit well, but it's all good. As I said, it's not the airplane's fault. My size is not a virtue in the aviation world.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's a fact. Since most of the fleet, Cirrus an exception, was designed in the 50's-60's, big dudes were rare. Seems like everyone was 5'7 and 150 pounds.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
I have worked on and flown the duke. Nice enough I guess. The engines are crap. Put a Pratt on it and it would be worth having.
Click to expand...
Really? Explain.

The RTDs are cool upon cool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top