Too much airplane for you

[Racerx]

Curious - why is one fundamentally different from the other for you?

When there's ample horsepower to the rear wheels my brain gets stupid. I start left foot braking and see how far I can go and still point the right direction.

I'm much more relaxed when flying. It's a different kind of fun. I'm not trying to push limits.

 

[EvilEagle]

I’ll just leave this here…

That's literally what she said....

 

[Albany Tom]

I never tried an airplane that made me think I overstepped my abilities as a pilot, but I consciously shopped for a slower plane as I aged up. I now fly a Maule and it certainly doesn't fly faster than I can think. It's a good 50 knots slower than the fastest plane I ever flew regularly (a Mooney M-20E) but it is great in the back country and still takes me everywhere I want to fly. I just have to be more patient getting there. Since I'm retired now, the slower pace isn't an issue. There is no place I actually have to be at any specific time. When flying cross country to see my kids and grandkids this year, thunderstorms delayed my arrival by 2 days. A faster plane wouldn't have fixed that, and these storms were serious enough that there was never any consideration of filing IFR to get through them. With the Maule's back country chops, I was able to do some airplane camping on the way home at sweet little grass strips tucked into the mountains. There are lots of upsides to low and slow.
View attachment 145736

That's a nice looking aircraft...

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

I never tried an airplane that made me think I overstepped my abilities as a pilot, but I consciously shopped for a slower plane as I aged up. I now fly a Maule and it certainly doesn't fly faster than I can think. It's a good 50 knots slower than the fastest plane I ever flew regularly (a Mooney M-20E) but it is great in the back country and still takes me everywhere I want to fly. I just have to be more patient getting there. Since I'm retired now, the slower pace isn't an issue. There is no place I actually have to be at any specific time. When flying cross country to see my kids and grandkids this year, thunderstorms delayed my arrival by 2 days. A faster plane wouldn't have fixed that, and these storms were serious enough that there was never any consideration of filing IFR to get through them. With the Maule's back country chops, I was able to do some airplane camping on the way home at sweet little grass strips tucked into the mountains. There are lots of upsides to low and slow.
View attachment 145736

Honest to God.. at the last PoA fly-in I told the table at our Saturday dinner I couldn't decide if for my next phase of flying I wanted to go super fast (definitely Lancair/Glasair) or super slow (Maule/Zenith/Kitfox/Rans/...).

When I read things like @Flyhound travel recaps from his journey, it makes going slower and more flexible sound amazing. I find myself reading and re-reading them and they sound so much more appealing than getting to my destination fast!

 

[KLRDMD]

I wouldn't want to fly something small and not-slow without a lot of experience. Thinking like a lancair or RV or something.

Lancair, I agree with. I would end up close to the left side of the runway on almost every takeoff. I could swear I had almost full right rudder in. But the RV is a pussycat. Not much different than a 172.

For me, the one that was too much was the Extra 300.

 

[Ed Haywood]

For me, the one that was too much was the Extra 300.

Whole hangar full of too much.

 

[Bill]

The one of the highlights of when I used to go to Gastons was getting a ride in Chip’s Extra 300L, that was a sweet machine and an E ticket ride.

 

[Half Fast]

GA is 9 to 14 times more dangerous than driving.

Is Flying Safer Than Driving? The Truth About General Aviation - Pilot Institute

Explore general aviation's safety record compared to driving, uncover leading causes of GA accidents, and discover strategies for safer flying.

pilotinstitute.com

Risk is a relative thing. Some activities are more dangerous than others, so we can make almost anything appear "safe" or "dangerous" by picking the right comparison, and the actual risk any person experiences is heavily weighted by circumstances. Comparing driving to flying, for example, depends heavily on where one is driving and what one is flying. When I was renting in Apopka, I had to drive on I4 through central Florida, the most dangerous stretch of highway in the US. I'm pretty sure I was safer buzzing around in an LSA or a Cherokee than I was in the car. Conversely, Ed, you drive down a low-traffic rural road to get to your plane at Wimauma, then dance around the sky doing aerobatics. Your driving/flying risk might be the opposite of mine.

Most of these studies place GA flying in a similar risk category as motorcycling. As I've often pointed out to SWMBO, her horseback riding is more than three times as risky as my motorcycling or my flying.



Yet no one seems to sweat too much about it. Friends and family have told me for years they wish I'd give up my bike, and they make quips about "donorcycles" and so forth, but none have ever urged my wife to give up her much more dangerous horse.

Many of us who fly also ride motorcycles (me, @Bill , @Morgan3820 , @FastEddieB , etc.) and consider the risk to be acceptable. When someone tells me that flying a plane is "as dangerous as riding a motorcycle," what I hear is "flying is as safe as motorcycling." It's in my good-to-go range, so wheels up, baby!

Life without risk might be longer, but it would also be horribly dull. I prefer to do the things I enjoy and do my best to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, and I won't let actuarial tables dictate how I live my life.

 

[Morgan3820]

Risk is a relative thing. Some activities are more dangerous than others, so we can make almost anything appear "safe" or "dangerous" by picking the right comparison, and the actual risk any person experiences is heavily weighted by circumstances. Comparing driving to flying, for example, depends heavily on where one is driving and what one is flying. When I was renting in Apopka, I had to drive on I4 through central Florida, the most dangerous stretch of highway in the US. I'm pretty sure I was safer buzzing around in an LSA or a Cherokee than I was in the car. Conversely, Ed, you drive down a low-traffic rural road to get to your plane at Wimauma, then dance around the sky doing aerobatics. Your driving/flying risk might be the opposite of mine.

Most of these studies place GA flying in a similar risk category as motorcycling. As I've often pointed out to SWMBO, her horseback riding is more than three times as risky as my motorcycling or my flying.

View attachment 145755 View attachment 145756

Yet no one seems to sweat too much about it. Friends and family have told me for years they wish I'd give up my bike, and they make quips about "donorcycles" and so forth, but none have ever urged my wife to give up her much more dangerous horse.

Many of us who fly also ride motorcycles (me, @Bill , @Morgan3820 , @FastEddieB , etc.) and consider the risk to be acceptable. When someone tells me that flying a plane is "as dangerous as riding a motorcycle," what I hear is "flying is as safe as motorcycling." It's in my good-to-go range, so wheels up, baby!

Life without risk might be longer, but it would also be horribly dull. I prefer to do the things I enjoy and do my best to reduce the risk to an acceptable level, and I won't let actuarial tables dictate how I live my life.

I am seriously thinking of wearing a motorcycle airbag vest. They have come a long way. There is now a lot to choose from. At first I thought it was an expensive gimmick, but looking at some anecdotes I have changed my mind.

 

[Jim K]

Last time I looked, something like 50% of motorcycle fatalities involved alcohol. So that's an easy risk factor to avoid.

For airplanes, take out unintentional imc, fuel exhaustion, and a few other stupid pilot tricks, and you'll be a lot closer to automotive fatality rates.

At least in the air i don't have to worry about someone running into me while texting or watching tik tok.

 

[deyoung]

I remember a study I saw quite awhile ago -- I can't remember the details so I can't vouch for its integrity, but it feels reasonable to me -- which found that something like 80%+ of motorcycle accidents involved riders who had been riding for less than a year. I don't know if that's accurate, but I would believe it (I've been riding since 1996 or so).

 

[Fearless Tower]

A DC-3.

A DC-3 is a fun airplane to fly but definitely too much airplane for me. Beech 18 on the other hand is a perfect airplane for me.

 

[cowtowner]

That is why everyone needs at least two airplanes. One go fast hauler for travelling, and another low and slow for buzzing around the patch or the occasional flight breakfast.

Kind of like owning a truck and a sportscar.

And that is what I would love to have and would have if I could find hangar space.

 

[SixPapaCharlie]

@SixPapaCharlie how was it going from the Comanche to a E175? That's an actual big transition. Do you think your twin time was valuable, or is the jet completely removed from piston planes?

At first it seemed like it was going to be too much airplane for me but I went ahead and bought it anyway.

Seriously it's not even the same thing as the type of flying I've ever done before it's so different. I don't think my twin time had any bearing on flying this plane but I do think my twin time in GA helped for the Sim just because in the Sim one engine is always not working

I guess my input would be I don't think there's ever anything that's too much airplane for anybody as long as they're willing to learn and have the patience to invest in learning it. Obviously I just learned something exponentially more complicated but there's a lot of factors that made it worth putting in that effort.
Mostly the paycheck and the fact that I'm working less than I've ever worked in my life.

But if the 175 was just my next GA airplane I probably say nah this is too complicated for me and the fuel Burn is higher than I want to deal with. Plus where am I going to keep these flight attendants? They're just going to live in my hangar?

 

[Daleandee]

Last time I looked, something like 50% of motorcycle fatalities involved alcohol. So that's an easy risk factor to avoid.

My understanding of motorcycle fatalities are that most are tied to either alcohol, speeding, and/or the lack of proper gear i.e. a helmet. I've ridden motorcycles for many years and miles. I tend to ride a motorcycle like a deer drinks water; very cautious, aware of my surroundings, & ready to move at a moments notice (leave yourself an "out").

As also noted, airplanes are risky when pilots do stupid stuff i.e. IMC without instruments/training/rating, running out/mismanaging fuel, aerobatics without training, flying planes they know have issues, improper preflight, freaking out over what should be a non-fatal event (an open door), or losing awareness and stalling close to the ground.

None of us are perfect and yet a bit of trepidation and caution along with training for what you want to do in a given model of airplane can help lengthen lifespan.

 

[Ed Haywood]

Nobody who knows me would accuse me of being risk averse, especially when it comes to flying. But I try hard to avoid the pitfall of believing bad stuff only happens to other people who brought it on themselves.

 

[Half Fast]

Nobody who knows me would accuse me of being risk averse,...

You assess and manage your risks, as shown by your wise stop in Zephyrhills. WX has been crappy most of the day; were you able to get the plane home yet?

"Risk averse" might be a matter of opinion. I consider myself to be risk averse, but that doesn't mean I don't do some "risky" things. Rather, it means I try to understand the risks involved and look for ways to mitigate risks to a level below my personal aversion.

But I try hard to avoid the pitfall of believing bad stuff only happens to other people who brought it on themselves.

If it can happen to McSpadden, it can happen to any of us.

On the upside, between flying and motorcycling and cave diving and auto racing, I long ago stopped worrying about my cholesterol....

 

[Zeldman]

Heck, the C-152 was too much for me at first, but through perseverance and intestinal fortitude I adapted and over came my lack of piloting skills and was actually given a private pilot certificate.

Of course later on it was taken away from me.

 

[Ed Haywood]

WX has been crappy most of the day; were you able to get the plane home yet?

Squeaked through a hole in the cells.

 

[DMD3.]

Often times you'll hear people thinking about upgrading aircraft and say things like "I want more speed, more seats, more useful load, a turbo..."

I'm curious about the reverse. Have you ever flown in an airplane and been like "this is TOOOOO fast" or "this is too big!" or "TOOOOO complicated!" or "too dangerous".

I know it goes against everything in the Y chromosome to admit it. But I'm wondering if anyone's hopped in a prospective aircraft and decided "noooooo way, this is too much".

From a performance standpoint, no. But I could definitely imagine saying to myself “This is TOOOOOOOO expensive, I need to downgrade to more affordable”.

 

[iamtheari]

A DC-3.

A DC-3 is a fun airplane to fly but definitely too much airplane for me. Beech 18 on the other hand is a perfect airplane for me.

There is no hangar in my town big enough for a DC-3. The biggest one on the field was built for a Citation Sovereign, which is ~25 feet narrower. I'd have to accept a lot of hail risk and train a lot of monkeys to deice the wings before any winter flights. Having a DC-3 is a completely insane idea, and therefore a recurring pipedream.

A Beech 18 features in my less insane daydreams. It scratches all the itches: taildragger, multiengine, warbird, ramp presence, room for a growing family but not so much that they play a really scary game of hide-and-seek en route. It would even fit in my hangar. So I've included it in the game I've been playing with ChatGPT lately, in which I tell it that I want to upgrade from a 310 and seek its input.

ChatGPT insists that the plane I want is a 414A. Even specifically focusing on unpressurized options, the Twin Beech comes in at #5 after the 402, PA-31, Baron 58, and 404. I thought you might find some of its "thoughts" on the Twin Beech entertaining. These are paraphrased:

Cruise speed: 170-190 KTAS vs. 210-220 in the 414A
Fuel burn: 45-50 gph vs. 34-38 in the 414A
Range: 900 nm with standard tanks, realistic 600-700 nm with reserves, vs. 1100-1300 in the 414A
Cabin: "More like a 'small bus'" due to typical seating arrangements. Noisy. Windows are small.
Useful load / payload / large doors: "The Beech 18 is the clear winner for brute hauling."
Operations / costs: "The 18 is a labor of love, not a practical modern hauler."
Mission fit for long trips: "will definitely need a stop or two, and cabin conditions will be fatiguing."

I asked it about a DC-3 tonight. Skipping to the summary, "in plain terms, the DC-3 costs about 4x a 414A to operate for the same total distance -- and still cruises 30-40 knots slower." It gives me numerous other disadvantages. But it does list three benefits:

• Ramp presence: unmatched. You will own the ramp wherever you go.
• Nostalgia & experience: irreplaceable — nothing else combines that sound, smell, and feeling.
• Cargo & volume: you can haul your family, friends, dogs, camping gear, ATVs, and still have room for a piano.

 

[Jim K]

There is no hangar in my town big enough for a DC-3. The biggest one on the field was built for a Citation Sovereign, which is ~25 feet narrower. I'd have to accept a lot of hail risk and train a lot of monkeys to deice the wings before any winter flights. Having a DC-3 is a completely insane idea, and therefore a recurring pipedream.

A Beech 18 features in my less insane daydreams. It scratches all the itches: taildragger, multiengine, warbird, ramp presence, room for a growing family but not so much that they play a really scary game of hide-and-seek en route. It would even fit in my hangar. So I've included it in the game I've been playing with ChatGPT lately, in which I tell it that I want to upgrade from a 310 and seek its input.

ChatGPT insists that the plane I want is a 414A. Even specifically focusing on unpressurized options, the Twin Beech comes in at #5 after the 402, PA-31, Baron 58, and 404. I thought you might find some of its "thoughts" on the Twin Beech entertaining. These are paraphrased:

Cruise speed: 170-190 KTAS vs. 210-220 in the 414A
Fuel burn: 45-50 gph vs. 34-38 in the 414A
Range: 900 nm with standard tanks, realistic 600-700 nm with reserves, vs. 1100-1300 in the 414A
Cabin: "More like a 'small bus'" due to typical seating arrangements." Noisy. Windows are small.
Useful load / payload / large doors: "The Beech 18 is the clear winner for brute hauling."
Operations / costs: "The 18 is a labor of love, not a practical modern hauler."
Mission fit for long trips: "will definitely need a stop or two, and cabin conditions will be fatiguing."

I asked it about a DC-3 tonight. Skipping to the summary, "in plain terms, the DC-3 costs about 4x a 414A to operate for the same total distance -- and still cruises 30-40 knots slower." It gives me numerous other disadvantages. But it does list three benefits:

• Ramp presence: unmatched. You will own the ramp wherever you go.
• Nostalgia & experience: irreplaceable — nothing else combines that sound, smell, and feeling.
• Cargo & volume: you can haul your family, friends, dogs, camping gear, ATVs, and still have room for a piano.

I mean, if you can swing the opex of a DC-3 doesn't "build a hangar" kind of get lost in the noise?

 

[iamtheari]

I mean, if you can swing the opex of a DC-3 doesn't "build a hangar" kind of get lost in the noise?

I’d have to fly in a crew to build it given my luck with contractors. But that’s just another of the many problems I wouldn’t have if I had a DC-3.

 

[Albany Tom]

I’d have to fly in a crew to build it given my luck with contractors. But that’s just another of the many problems I wouldn’t have if I had a DC-3.

I'm just guessing here, but I do know there's some people on this forum that can weld as well as fly. My bet is that if you bought a DC-3, you'd have no shortage of people that would show up for a "hanger raising" in exchange for the chance at a little right seat time in one. I can't stick weld well enough to show my work in public, but I can turn a wrench, and I'd be up for it.

 

[ArrowFlyer86]

A Beech 18 would be amazing.
A DC3 would be in an entirely new league of amazing

 

[Kritchlow]

Would you say that the transition to working as a crew is a bigger adjustment than the actual flying?

Depending on the FO’s history of flying.
Also the captain, but hopefully by that point he is well versed in crew flying.

Crew flying is NOT two pilots getting together to accomplish a flight. It’s well choreographed tasks and procedures. Thousands of pilots and many times no two have been paired together, yet everything is the same.

 

[Fearless Tower]

There is no hangar in my town big enough for a DC-3. The biggest one on the field was built for a Citation Sovereign, which is ~25 feet narrower. I'd have to accept a lot of hail risk and train a lot of monkeys to deice the wings before any winter flights. Having a DC-3 is a completely insane idea, and therefore a recurring pipedream.

A Beech 18 features in my less insane daydreams. It scratches all the itches: taildragger, multiengine, warbird, ramp presence, room for a growing family but not so much that they play a really scary game of hide-and-seek en route. It would even fit in my hangar. So I've included it in the game I've been playing with ChatGPT lately, in which I tell it that I want to upgrade from a 310 and seek its input.

ChatGPT insists that the plane I want is a 414A. Even specifically focusing on unpressurized options, the Twin Beech comes in at #5 after the 402, PA-31, Baron 58, and 404. I thought you might find some of its "thoughts" on the Twin Beech entertaining. These are paraphrased:

Cruise speed: 170-190 KTAS vs. 210-220 in the 414A
Fuel burn: 45-50 gph vs. 34-38 in the 414A
Range: 900 nm with standard tanks, realistic 600-700 nm with reserves, vs. 1100-1300 in the 414A
Cabin: "More like a 'small bus'" due to typical seating arrangements. Noisy. Windows are small.
Useful load / payload / large doors: "The Beech 18 is the clear winner for brute hauling."
Operations / costs: "The 18 is a labor of love, not a practical modern hauler."
Mission fit for long trips: "will definitely need a stop or two, and cabin conditions will be fatiguing."

FWIW, a few minor errors in ChapGPTs summary:

You aren't going to cruise at 170-190 kts in a Beech 18.
More like 150-155 KTAS burning 45 gph
Range with full fuel is 1060nm. That's 7 hours of gas, but you are only going to haul 2 people and their bags with that much fuel. Realistic range with 4 people and bags is about 600-700 nm with IFR reserve.
I guess you could describe the cabin as small bus. It's bigger inside than a King Air.
Only noisy on takeoff. Actually very quiet in cruise unless you are flying a freighter with no interior.
Windows on a Twin Beech are bigger than anything else of that size piston or turbine.
I agree with the useful load - you can carry more luggage and people than will fit in a Honda Odyssey.
Executive configured Beech 18s have a potty in back with a door. You don't have to stare at your fellow pax while punching a grumpy!

It IS a labor of love, but I think it is still practical as a modern long-hauler as long as one understands the tradeoffs. I have owned mine for 9 years now and have no desire to upgrade to a turbine or pressurized twin.
You aren't going to show up at the FBO and be airborne in 15 minutes.
You aren't going to go coast to coast in a single day, but I can easily get from the east coast to DFW/OKC in one day with a single fuel stop, maybe two if strong headwinds.
It isn't any more fatiguing than any other piston airplane for passengers for the same length of time.
As far as operating cost goes, in my experience, a Beech 18 is a little cheaper to operate than any of the pressurized cabin twins.

The only concern I have right now as far as advising others on acquiring a Beech 18 is the future of engine overhauls. Up to now it has been no issue. But Covington is shutting down the radial shop in the next month or two. That leaves Tulsa and one or two other specialty shops left for -985 and -1340 overhauls and who knows how much longer Tulsa will keep doing it. I'm probably going to overhaul mine next year a little early just to make sure I can fly my airplane until I'm ready to hang it up. My hope for the future of these planes is that some younger folks will take over.

 

[nauga]

"Too much airplane for me" tends to be more a function of handling qualities than performance. There are a few relatively well-known airplanes that I choose not to fly or fly in - they're certainly flyable, but the workload burden isn't worth the performance benefit and I'm not going to accept an autopilot on what passes for an MEL. There are others that have miserable handling in some flight regimes but I'm willing to accept them because the benefit in terms of e.g. maneuverability is worth it - but it comes with high overhead to maintain proficiency, and I haven't always done a good job of keeping up with it.

Too fast? Too much ROC? Too big? I haven't found one yet but I'll keep looking.

You don't have to stare at your fellow pax while punching a grumpy!

How on earth do you expect me to assert dominance then?

Nauga,
and a different kind of stinkeye

 

[Ed Haywood]

A DC-3 is a fun airplane to fly but definitely too much airplane for me. Beech 18 on the other hand is a perfect airplane for me.

One of my best friends owns both. His Beech 18 has been AOG for a year but should fly soon. He wants me to get my MEL in it.

 

[iamtheari]

FWIW, a few minor errors in ChapGPTs summary

The surprising part is that ChatGPT got anything right at all. In my airplane shopping spreadsheet, I have the Twin Beech down for 150 KTAS on 40 gph, so my research beat ChatGPT on that score. I'll update it for 155 on 45.

I'd love to have a Twin Beech. It's the warbird that you can actually use. It would surely be an upgrade in comfort: room to stretch out, private potty, etc. would go a long way toward reducing family fatigue on long trips. I'm not sure about noise; let me know if you want to borrow my decibel meter to compare the numbers from different seats and different phases of flight.

We only go high because of terrain and weather. Terrain often sets a floor, with MEAs of 11,000 or 12,000 on much of our long mission. Airplane capabilities and passenger comfort (including dogs) set a ceiling not far above that. So we have a pretty narrow band to avoid icing. Pressurization would dramatically extend the weather-avoidance band, and possibly lower the cabin noise (especially if I get a total lobotomy and go for a 421).

For my short 1.5-hour trips, my spreadsheet tells me that the Beech 18 would add ~10 minutes, add 85% to my fuel burn, and add 85% to my payload capacity. For the long trip (almost 1,000 nm, depending on airway choices and vectors), it would add about ~40 minutes, double the fuel burn, and again add 85% to payload capacity. By comparison, a typical 414A would save ~10 minutes, add 35% to the fuel, and lose 120 lbs of payload on the short trips and save ~40 minutes, add 30% to the fuel, and lose 150 lbs of payload on the long trips.

So, if I spend similar amounts of additional flying money (that I don't really have--but a man has to have something to work toward) I can choose between going a little faster with pressurization or a little slower with way more ramp presence and sense of self-worth. It really is a hard choice. Maybe the timing will work out and I'll be ready for an 18 when you're ready to find the next caretaker for yours. Finding a known-good 18 would definitely be less stress than trying to hunt down a trustworthy Twin Cessna from scratch.

If I win the lottery, though, I'll go for the DC-3. Per POA rules of conduct, please forward your winning tickets to me at...

One of my best friends owns both. His Beech 18 has been AOG for a year but should fly soon. He wants me to get my MEL in it.

I wish I had friends like that. Instead, I'm stuck trying to be that friend, and I just can't seem to pull it off.

 

[Doc Holliday]

One of my best friends owns both. His Beech 18 has been AOG for a year but should fly soon. He wants me to get my MEL in it.

Be sure to find a DPE that has a BE18 on his ME authorization list before pursuing.

Here are your choices for Florida

 

[Rich Holt]

One of the reasons I like that new $70k single-person spirit airplane so much is because of that kind of mission. While it ain't that involved to pull the Arrow out of the hangar and get it going, I find the idea pretty enchanting of a cheaper, easier-to-move, 3gph, low+slow, fly 1k AGL, taildragger for those sorts of missions.

Even for going some place like my routine flights to MI. Even though my current plane isn't a speed demon, there's times where I get to Michigan and I feel almost disappointed because I only got an hour of flight time.

Move to Texas, you won't have to worry about short flights too much there.

 

[hindsight2020]

So far most comments on here aggregate on the x-y scatter towards "everything is easy for me once I do minimal training" corner. Shocker, a bunch of pilot self-reporting after all. D-K is wild out here amongst us stick monkeys.

Being in the "transition training" wheelhouse for a living now for 15 years, there is such a thing as people not being cut out for some flying, but being perfectly fine on another. It's just an ego thing to deny that, and some die for it.


Don't nuremberg me now, I'm just following orders... Train. Document. Punt. (my usaf 3 core values lol). /s(ish)

 

[TCABM]

… there is such a thing as people not being cut out for some flying, but being perfectly fine on another…

Tankers have to flown, too.

 

[moparrob66]

A $3800 annual has put me out of the 172 business. Guess I should have stayed in school.

 

[hindsight2020]

Tankers have to flown, too.

hey now, I don't imply, you infer.

And don't forget I'm just a LARPer impostor; not only shouldn't they take flying lessons from me according to the watch-shooters, people shouldn't take medical advice from me either, as my pedestrian "healthcare professional" wife [....checckkkks siiiiiixxXXXX!] insists reminding everyone.

And if the Mayor would indulge me, and to rebut your inference: #1 of my 3 pre-paperwork threats (no paperwork thankfully) during my concessionary career... was actually over a navigator joke. Make of that what you will.

What do tanker pilots at the Flag, and me watching female volleyball at the crashpad have in common? No matter the final score... we both always win.

 

[nauga]

Being in the "transition training" wheelhouse for a living now for 15 years, there is such a thing as people not being cut out for some flying, but being perfectly fine on another. It's just an ego thing to deny that, and some die for it.

So what was an airplane that you found to be "too much" for you and why?

Nauga,
in 3...2...1

 

[hindsight2020]

So what was an airplane that you found to be "too much" for you and why?

Nauga,
in 3...2...1

NASA never let me handfly the shuttle, so I'll have to get back to ya. I'm kidding, that thing has a crew I'd.. *dry heaves*....

 

[Ed Haywood]

Tankers have to flown, too.

Few pilot things have impressed me as much as a KC-135 flying tight patterns at MacDill. I've seen 172's go wider.

 

[kaiser]

At least in the air i don't have to worry about someone running into me while texting or watching tik tok

Never say never. out of the 4 close calls I've had, 2 were while flying a non electric non ADSB-out Cub, and the other 2 I was on an IFR plan where ATC pointed me at the conflict and they became RAs. Though to be fair, the other pilots were probably not texting or watching tik tok. Just watching their ForeFlight on their iPads instead of eyes outside.

A Beech 18 would be amazing.
A DC3 would be in an entirely new league of amazing

I'd trade my Citational aspirations if you want to go in on a DC3 or even a Beech 18 with me... just saying