Plane You Do NOT Like

How many pilot were killed if they properly secured the seat pin in the hole in the rail? Did the pins magically jump out of the hole?

zaitcev said:
Way better quality than Cessna 150, frankly. How many Cherokee pilots were killed due to defective seat tracks? Rudder stops?
Click to expand...
 
Aero Commander 100 - also known as the Lark or Darter (don't remember which I was in). Didn't take long to form a negative opinion of it.

Dave
 
Ken Ibold said:
I do not like Cessna 172s or Cessna 182s. I also do not like either Cirrus model.

In the case of Cessnas, there's just something about the seating and ergonomics that bug me. I have hundreds of hours in them, but have never really, well, liked it. In the case of Cirrus, the sidestick geometry feels unnatural.
Click to expand...


have you even flown a cirrus? If so, what don't you like about them? Explain?
 
Not Ken, but I didn't like them either. First batch had terrible engine mounts that shook like a dog passing a peach seed. All prior to the III were a prop or tail strike waiting to happen. Stiff 26-g seats were very uncomfortable and door to seat placement geometry was poor. And I prefer to set the prop RPM independent of throttle position.

cirrusmx said:
have you even flown a cirrus? If so, what don't you like about them? Explain?
Click to expand...
 
so that's the first batch of cirri. how about the recent ones? I have yet to find something bad about those airplanes other than the limited legal payload, but for two pax and baggage sr22t are more than enough. I have flown them in all sorts of conditions and cross country lengths. Cirri have made me not want to fly a slow spam can anymore for real travel. The only piston cessna I would probably take as of now would be the T210
 
Henning said:
If it is the trainer for the 182 & 206 with G1000, why would you not recommend it be in the 172? There are many people who choose not to fly without this type of equipment, and it is being installed in all sorts of stuff.
Click to expand...

If all you want is some kind of airframe to stick the G1000 in in order to teach people how to use it then the 172 works. Now I've never flow the 172 or the 206 but based on what I know about they there is no need for a stepping stone to transition. If your transitioning to something big (with glass) that needs a type rating then the practice you get in the 172 is not going to matter much.
So I think that if you want to fly a 182 with a G1000 and you never flown with the G1000 before then just go take the 182 up and learn the G1000 in that.

As a personal airplane the 172SP is not idea either. It's been quite a while since I flown one of those but based on what I remember the G1000 is too big for that cockpit. For example the G1000 adds a lot of circuit brakers, but because there is no room to place there they are all located under the yoke. In case if you need to pull one in flight you will need to turn the yoke 90 degrees in order to see which one your pulling, not very ideal. If you end up using the stand by instruments you have to move your seat all the way back and all the way down, Cessna might as well have put them on the back seat they would have been more useful there.

So unless you specifically want the G1000 and specifically want the 172 airframe I see no reason to fly the 172SP.
 
cirrusmx said:
have you even flown a cirrus? If so, what don't you like about them? Explain?
Click to expand...

When people transition to the Cirrus from something else they find that it's controls are a bit un-normal. If you give it a few hours you'll get used to them and they will become good. But apparently a lot of people take it up once, say that it sucks and leave.

Also the SR20 does have a problem climbing. Because the engine keeps overheating you can never climb at Vy, in the end you end up doing 200ft/min.

If you're willing to overlook these disadvantages it becomes a good plane. And I'd say that it's pretty easy to overlook them, you will get used to the controls after a few hours so that's not a problem and since most of the time you spend in cruise not climb the climbing disadvantage is relatively insignificant either.
 
Last edited:
No personal experience, but the sonex is one of the ugliest planes that I would be able to afford.
 
You guys keep talking about ugly planes. This is ugly:

Ugly-Plane-06.jpg



Everything else just does not look extremely good.
 
Your right. My first thought was that it is the airplane eqivalent of "people of Walmart"
MachFly said:
You guys keep talking about ugly planes. This is ugly:

Ugly-Plane-06.jpg



Everything else just does not look extremely good.
Click to expand...
 
My experience left me with no motivation to ever get in another one. Glad you like them.

cirrusmx said:
so that's the first batch of cirri. how about the recent ones? I have yet to find something bad about those airplanes other than the limited legal payload, but for two pax and baggage sr22t are more than enough. I have flown them in all sorts of conditions and cross country lengths. Cirri have made me not want to fly a slow spam can anymore for real travel. The only piston cessna I would probably take as of now would be the T210
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
How many pilot were killed if they properly secured the seat pin in the hole in the rail? Did the pins magically jump out of the hole?
Click to expand...

Those rails work just fine if the AD against them is followed. I have seen rails and locking pins that would never pass that AD, and their owners are flirting with disaster.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...bf71041a8625788f004b5df2/$FILE/2011-10-09.pdf

Note that this is an amendment to the original AD that was issued in 1987. Long time ago, and there's no excuse for worn junk these days.

The new Cessna rails and other bits are far better, though, and the AD does not apply.

Dan
 
cirrusmx said:
have you even flown a cirrus? If so, what don't you like about them? Explain?
Click to expand...

Lack of integral fuel tank, which appears to lead to many post impact fires that other, similarly designed aircraft don't have.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Lack of integral fuel tank, which appears to lead to many post impact fires that other, similarly designed aircraft don't have.
Click to expand...

It lacks a lot of crash worthy stuff that other planes have, that's why it has a chute to compensate.
 
They worked just fine without the AD too. The FAA couldn't blame the pilots for being stupid so they blamed Cessna.

Dan Thomas said:
Those rails work just fine if the AD against them is followed. I have seen rails and locking pins that would never pass that AD, and their owners are flirting with disaster.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...bf71041a8625788f004b5df2/$FILE/2011-10-09.pdf

Note that this is an amendment to the original AD that was issued in 1987. Long time ago, and there's no excuse for worn junk these days.

The new Cessna rails and other bits are far better, though, and the AD does not apply.

Dan
Click to expand...
 
MachFly said:
It lacks a lot of crash worthy stuff that other planes have, that's why it has a chute to compensate.
Click to expand...

Yup. But it's ok, they've got fancy marketing to make up for it. So fancy, in fact, that they will sell you a new one with new features that they already had planned for years, just 1 year from now. Sounds much like another company, Apple.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Yup. But it's ok, they've got fancy marketing to make up for it. So fancy, in fact, that they will sell you a new one with new features that they already had planned for years, just 1 year from now. Sounds much like another company, Apple.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
MachFly said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

The way Cirrus markets their airplanes. I see many parallels between Cirrus and Apple. Hip, trendy thing to own that the company is more concerned with extracting money from the consumer than delivering the best product they can.
 
I've never flown or even flown in a Cirrus, but they sure do seem to generate some controversy. I do think they've been good for GA as new, and appealing designs are few and far between. If there is any chance for GA to survive we have to appeal to the Beemer and golf crowd.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
The way Cirrus markets their airplanes. I see many parallels between Cirrus and Apple. Hip, trendy thing to own that the company is more concerned with extracting money from the consumer than delivering the best product they can.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but can you give me a specific example?

If Cirrus says they install something on their aircraft they do install it, it might not be as good as they advertise but that system is there.


Now you wont be able to meet any of the climb numbers from the POH because then you'll have to climb at Vy at which point your engine will overheat, but that's a different story. So this is not an advertisement (don't think Cirrus ever advertised they had good climb rate) nor is it a system.
 
Last edited:
Anthony said:
I've never flown or even flown in a Cirrus, but they sure do seem to generate some controversy. I do think they've been good for GA as new, and appealing designs are few and far between. If there is any chance for GA to survive we have to appeal to the Beemer and golf crowd.
Click to expand...

It's a new doctor killer.
 
I just don't like a C152. The one I flew for most of my solo was well equipped, but I just didn't like the plane. Me being 6', 230lbs, it's a challenge getting in and out.
 
You may have noticed that pilots of your size (and mine too) carry their wallets in their shirt pocket. I now know there's a very good reason.
Meanee said:
I just don't like a C152. The one I flew for most of my solo was well equipped, but I just didn't like the plane. Me being 6', 230lbs, it's a challenge getting in and out.
Click to expand...
 
Anthony said:
I've never flown or even flown in a Cirrus, but they sure do seem to generate some controversy. I do think they've been good for GA as new, and appealing designs are few and far between.
Click to expand...
I agree. I still remember back in the 80s people were complaining that all the existing airplane designs were dated. How would GA attract new customers without some modern ideas? Along comes Cirrus with some new concepts and marketing and they are roundly chastised.
 
Everskyward said:
I agree. I still remember back in the 80s people were complaining that all the existing airplane designs were dated. How would GA attract new customers without some modern ideas? Along comes Cirrus with some new concepts and marketing and they are roundly chastised.
Click to expand...

Are they being chastised because the concepts are new?

Perhaps the new concepts aren't all that great.
 
cirrusmx said:
have you even flown a cirrus? If so, what don't you like about them? Explain?
Click to expand...
I don't like the stick geometry, mostly because I think on a side stick pitch should be a pivot rather than a push/pull. The other issue I have with Cirrus is basically mine, in that I am left handed and would prefer to be able to keep a hand on the stick/yoke when copying clearances etc. I know, I know, autopilot, trimmed for straight and level and all that, but ..

And why would I say the stick geometry felt unnatural if I'd never flown one? :confused:

I like right hand stick/left hand throttle & prop best, then a conventional yoke. Maybe I should try flying a Cirrus from the right seat.
 
Everskyward said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

Don't ask me, I'm not the one poo-poo'ing the cirrus.

well, I could say I don't like the mechanical side-stick. It's certainly new (newer than my the cherokee 140 I used to fly). I realize a lot of people like the side stick, and to them I say I'm glad that someone likes it. Seriously, I'm not belittling anyone who likes that style of side-stick. It's just not for me.

The point being is that criticism of something new isn't always because it's new.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
...the company is more concerned with extracting money from the consumer than delivering the best product they can.
Click to expand...
I dont know about that. In all of my conversations with Alan -- from the early days of Cirrus through the fiasco with his brother and now with Kestrel -- I have always thought he has come across as a truly conscientious person. I may not agree with all of the design decisions Cirrus has made through the years, but I don't think I can take issue with their intent.
 
Ken Ibold said:
I like right hand stick/left hand throttle & prop best, then a conventional yoke. Maybe I should try flying a Cirrus from the right seat.
Click to expand...

I know a number of people who do that.

I defiantly prefer the center stick though.
 
cessna182b said:
Aero Commander 100 - also known as the Lark or Darter (don't remember which I was in). Didn't take long to form a negative opinion of it.

Dave
Click to expand...
I was kind of thinking the same thing. I have never flown one or been inside one for that matter, but everytime I seen one of those on the ramp, I can't get over how ugly they are.
 
MachFly said:
If all you want is some kind of airframe to stick the G1000 in in order to teach people how to use it then the 172 works. Now I've never flow the 172 or the 206 but based on what I know about they there is no need for a stepping stone to transition. If your transitioning to something big (with glass) that needs a type rating then the practice you get in the 172 is not going to matter much.
So I think that if you want to fly a 182 with a G1000 and you never flown with the G1000 before then just go take the 182 up and learn the G1000 in that.

As a personal airplane the 172SP is not idea either. It's been quite a while since I flown one of those but based on what I remember the G1000 is too big for that cockpit. For example the G1000 adds a lot of circuit brakers, but because there is no room to place there they are all located under the yoke. In case if you need to pull one in flight you will need to turn the yoke 90 degrees in order to see which one your pulling, not very ideal. If you end up using the stand by instruments you have to move your seat all the way back and all the way down, Cessna might as well have put them on the back seat they would have been more useful there.

So unless you specifically want the G1000 and specifically want the 172 airframe I see no reason to fly the 172SP.
Click to expand...

The 172 is meant for them to rent at flight schools then buy the 182 or 206, but in this much I agree, there is no need to transition. If you know your mission is going to require a 206 and you're already figuring on one, just go ahead and buy it for lesson one.
 
A new low. Comparing a Cirrus to an Apple computer.
(As I type this on my iMac) Not to mention how the iPad integrates with aviation products.
I'm not jumping in on the Cirrus bashing, but lets not start in on my Apple.
 
andybean said:
A new low. Comparing a Cirrus to an Apple computer.
(As I type this on my iMac) Not to mention how the iPad integrates with aviation products.
I'm not jumping in on the Cirrus bashing, but lets not start in on my Apple.
Click to expand...

How is it a new low? I see lots of parallels in how they are viewed and why they are purchased. Both are a status symbol of sorts. Both have very aggressive marketing that does its best to present the product as a wonder product for every situation, when it is not.
 
Henning said:
The 172 is meant for them to rent at flight schools then buy the 182 or 206, but in this much I agree, there is no need to transition. If you know your mission is going to require a 206 and you're already figuring on one, just go ahead and buy it for lesson one.
Click to expand...

Why would you want to rent a 172SP?
Something older will be cheaper and be able to carry more stuff, if you really like computers you can rent something better with more of them. Also as I explained on the other page it's not the best plane for x-country.
 
Last edited:
Got any hard examples of your "wonder product" assertions?

Are advertisers required to point out the negatives?

Do you think the reason that people who buy Jenny Craig products don't lose weight is because of JC's advertising or due to their cognitive inabilities?

KSCessnaDriver said:
How is it a new low? I see lots of parallels in how they are viewed and why they are purchased. Both are a status symbol of sorts. Both have very aggressive marketing that does its best to present the product as a wonder product for every situation, when it is not.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Got any hard examples of your "wonder product" assertions?

Are advertisers required to point out the negatives?

Do you think the reason that people who buy Jenny Craig products don't lose weight is because of JC's advertising or due to their cognitive inabilities?
Click to expand...

Last I checked this was a thread about planes you don't like. I was simply pointing out why I don't like the Cirrus. Don't really feel like justifying it. Other than the post impact fire reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top