What's the worst plane ever?

tecprotb said:
I had a 8a before my 10, I sure do miss flying the centerline. The 8 is the funnest plane I have ever flown.
Click to expand...
I like your 10. If I had to pick the plane I like most, it's probably the one you fly. It fits just about every mission and with a great deal of comfort. I love the cirrus but it lacks a certain masculinity that comes with the RV. Plus they always get stuck in the grass. LOL
 
Love my RV-4, though I've never even tried sitting in the back seat. I grew up flying in Cubs and pre-war Aeronca tandem trainers so tandem is really natural to me. I prefer centerline seating. The performance of the RV makes up for other shortcomings. :D
 
labbadabba said:
I kinda think Ercoupes are silly airplanes.
Click to expand...
You watch your mouth!

Really, they are silly airplanes. Spent 150 hours in one but I would never buy one myself.

And as for cross-country flights... I've flown some pretty great distances in one. Over the Rockies too! It's weird to be at 15,000 feet over Rollins Pass and see a twin fly under you.

Crosswind landings are pretty enjoyable. I have had up around 20-25 kt crosswind component on landing before. Just takes some planning and maybe a wide-ish runway.
 
Joshuajayg said:
Crosswind landings are pretty enjoyable. I have had up around 20-25 kt crosswind component on landing before. Just takes some planning and maybe a wide-ish runway.
Click to expand...
How do you control yaw? Seems like it would be mighty difficult to land in a XW.
 
paflyer said:
Never had a problem with it.
Click to expand...

It becomes really ineffective in slow flight... My club had one and after a few rides for a checkout, I decided I didn't like it.... Maybe I didn't give it a fair chance... but that was my take on it....
 
Ryanb said:
How do you control yaw? Seems like it would be mighty difficult to land in a XW.
Click to expand...

You just land kinda sideways. The hardest part is the upwind wing the likes to come up as the nose swings straight. You have to add the right amount of aileron and braking to make it stop lifting. The operating manual actually says to apply the brakes to make the wing stop lifting.
 
FlySince9 said:
It becomes really ineffective in slow flight... My club had one and after a few rides for a checkout, I decided I didn't like it.... Maybe I didn't give it a fair chance... but that was my take on it....
Click to expand...
All Cherokee/derivatives have poor elevator (stabilator) control when slow, esp with CG towards the front.
 
What's the worst plane ever?

Gotta go with the Cirrus because people think jokes/comments about red handles are still humorous. :yawn:
 
mscard88 said:
I honestly have to say none. Every plane I flew was fun in at least some way. Sure a few dogs but still fun. Now I used to cuss the ****ing EMB-120 Brasilia a lot, but it was a fun plane to fly regardless.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. While there are some planes that I like more than others, I have yet to find one that I truly didn't like. Plenty I wouldn't buy personally, but that's because I like the way a competing product does the job better.

For example, I flew Commander 690s on 135. I didn't like the ergonomics of the plane for me personally, and I also didn't like the fact that the door was right in line with the propeller on the left side (which took a while to spin down with TPE-331s). But 3000 FPM initial climb rate decaying to 1,000 FPM by FL270. 270 KTAS @ 500 PPH combined up at FL270. Really fast and fun in that way.

Even though I'm a low wing person, I even like 172s. It's fun to fly along and look out the window.

Bill Jennings said:
Yeah, I'd love to get a ride in a 6 sometime, looks like a plane I'd really like.
Click to expand...

I've got a few hours in an RV-6A (nosedragger) that a couple of my coworkers own. It's a fun little plane. I find it a bit cramped even with two thin guys up front, but that's me. I think that if I went RV, I'd go -8 (taildragger).
 
paflyer said:
All Cherokee/derivatives have poor elevator (stabilator) control when slow, esp with CG towards the front.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the T Tailed variants are different. No prop wash. I've got time in 2 Arrows (not much) and they are definitely different at low speed.
 
paflyer said:
Damn, that rudder is small. How did it handle crosswinds?
Click to expand...
The whole plane was small, so the rudder actually worked great. It handled crosswinds very well too, because with such a high landing speed, the crosswind was less of a factor: a C150 stalling/landing at 38 with a 17 knot direct crosswind has a crosswind that is almost 50% of it's stalling speed, where the Q2 landing at 85 knots, it is only 20%.
 
It's not really the airplane's fault, but I really don't care for Cherokee 4 seaters, 140 through 235. Being on the tall and hefty side, I just don't fit in them. The side wall of the fuselage starts curving inward below my shoulder and it makes me lean over slightly. It's better if there's nobody in the right seat, and I can scoot over a little, but still isn't comfy. Anything over about 30 minutes in there and my back is screaming for me to exit. Also, the ventilation is horrible for the pilot. That tiny little window opening is a joke. If it's sweaty weather and the ride is gonna be more than half and hour, I'm out.
 
jsstevens said:
Yeah but the T Tailed variants are different. No prop wash. I've got time in 2 Arrows (not much) and they are definitely different at low speed.
Click to expand...
Different, yeah, bad, not necessarily.
 
OkieFlyer said:
It's not really the airplane's fault, but I really don't care for Cherokee 4 seaters, 140 through 235. Being on the tall and hefty side, I just don't fit in them. The side wall of the fuselage starts curving inward below my shoulder and it makes me lean over slightly. It's better if there's nobody in the right seat, and I can scoot over a little, but still isn't comfy. Anything over about 30 minutes in there and my back is screaming for me to exit. Also, the ventilation is horrible for the pilot. That tiny little window opening is a joke. If it's sweaty weather and the ride is gonna be more than half and hour, I'm out.
Click to expand...
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...
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I like your 10. If I had to pick the plane I like most, it's probably the one you fly. It fits just about every mission and with a great deal of comfort. I love the cirrus but it lacks a certain masculinity that comes with the RV. Plus they always get stuck in the grass. LOL
Click to expand...
Cirrus is a chick plane.
There, I said it!
 
labbadabba said:
Really? I think they're a hoot. They could be better, but worst ever?
Click to expand...
maybe not the worst ever in some areas but the entire project was doomed. From start to finish(in china) was a total failure. Cessna should have hung the top brass out tom dry for that.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
and I also didn't like the fact that the door was right in line with the propeller on the left side
Click to expand...

Ha reminds me of the same with that clam shell door on the Aerostar. Open the top half and that prop was right there almost.
 
Acrodustertoo said:
maybe not the worst ever in some areas but the entire project was doomed. From start to finish(in china) was a total failure. Cessna should have hung the top brass out tom dry for that.
Click to expand...

The 162 begs to be certified in the Primary classification. The low (certified) useful load kills it, but the only reason it doesn't get a MTOW increase is because of the 1,300lb LSA limitation she can handle the extra weight from a performance standpoint. You really almost need to point the nose down on climb if you want to see anything, even with the nose on the horizon she'll hit close to 1,000fpm. She'll easily out-climb any Skyhawk and will cruise happily at 110kts at 6gph with full Garmin glass. Add 100 lbs to MTOW and you have yourself a nice little short haul cruiser. Just don't plan on taking on much of a crosswind in that thing tho...
 
There is this one 172 on the field...210 hp franklin and a constant speed prop. Climbs darn near vertical (okay, that's exaggeration). Only problem is that the plane laid on it's back once in a storm. To fly the thing straight ya gotta hold the yoke about 30 degrees left. You get used to it but it is weird. Anyway I flew it once with the owner. That was enough...
 
mscard88 said:
Ha reminds me of the same with that clam shell door on the Aerostar. Open the top half and that prop was right there almost.
Click to expand...

More than one person has lost an arm that way with an Aerostar. Although I also suspect more than one person on a Turbo Commander got smacked in the head with a prop and injured or killed. Definitely a bad design on both. On the Aerostar the common mode I heard was that the door popped open on takeoff and the pilot reached out to grab it. Of course, the proper response to a door popping open on takeoff is to ignore it and fly the airplane, then land. Or abort the takeoff if you have enough runway available to do so safely.

The Commander had a door lock that the pilot controlled to try to prevent passengers from getting out prior to the props stopping. Idea being you shut down the engines (had to hold the power levers in full reverse until a certain RPM, I forget what), shut everything else off, finished up your paperwork, etc. Reality ended up being you still had to wait a good 10 seconds or so for the props to stop. There was an emergency override lock switch on the door as well. One of the problems with Garrets (being a single shaft design) is that they take a long time to spin down. On an MU-2 or some other aircraft where the door is not right next to the propeller, it's fine. It wasn't great on the Commander, but they were very efficient.
 
Worst airplane for me? Flight Design CTLS. Just did not seem well put together. Hand brake on the throttle quadrant is clunky. Can't move the rudder pedals until you have the airplane moving otherwise you'll bend stuff. Handled fine in smooth air, but the afternoon bumps in that airplane took the fun right out of it. The Rotax 912 is okay - it's just strange seeing 5xxx RPM on the tach. To date it's my least favorite airplane.
 
Clark1961 said:
There is this one 172 on the field...210 hp franklin and a constant speed prop. Climbs darn near vertical (okay, that's exaggeration). Only problem is that the plane laid on it's back once in a storm. To fly the thing straight ya gotta hold the yoke about 30 degrees left. You get used to it but it is weird. Anyway I flew it once with the owner. That was enough...
Click to expand...

We have a C175 at KIXD with that big Franklin powerplant. The thing is a beast, it will haul a grand piano if you could fit it in. It's basically a lighter C182.
 
Soldier64 said:
Not a specific type but a specific airframe. AH-64D tail #299 is a "Demonic Whore" as she tried to kill me on 4 separate occasions. A cracked nose gearbox causing single engine failure on short final into a FARP at 7,000 feet. A dual engine fire warning with only one engine on fire. I hope I don't see her again.
Click to expand...

I think every unit has a problem child. I had the displeasure of ferrying our hangar queen for my first flight into Iraq. GPS was inop for sand in the keys. Brand new #1 Gen fails as soon as we pick up to a hover. Then, (electronic voice) "A P R thirty nine failure." A POS but she got us and our Apache escort, almost 600 miles through the desert to our home for the next year.
 
Last edited:
IMG_3780.JPG
SoonerAviator said:
I'd imagine if the builder/owner had installed some more upholstery (at the expense of weight/performance/cash), it may have deadened the sound and made it a bit more appealing. I believe that's the beauty of the experimental/homebuilts, you can have them as luxurious or as spartan as you desire. Some people like driving cars like AC Cobras, some people desire more than an engine and a windshield to be comfortable . . . different strokes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. I've seen RVs upholstered as lavishly as a Cirrus, and one with bare unpainted aluminum with a sofa cushion for a seat. I went with painted metal, minimal upholstery and carpeting for footwells/cargo area to keep the weight and cost down...wouldn't have it any other way! I vastly prefer the side-by-side configuration, as it's so much better to talk with your pax, explain things about the flight (pointing to things on the panel), have them share in the experience, etc. Makes W&B very easy too.

Here's a more luxuriously finished RV-7. He went a little crazy on the panel too!

Panel.jpg

Another:

Interior.jpg
 
Last edited:
labbadabba said:
Was it a Q model? My experience is the Q model is grossly underpowered but the 172RG is actually a pretty good performer in cruise, I've found...
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe it was. I thought all of the "Cutlass" models were Q's, but I don't know that for a fact.
 
I love my RV-8 but hate riding in back. Very uncomfortable for flights of any duration.

My RV is finished out pretty nice but a lot of the tandem RVs are not to conserve weight for aerobatics.

I love all airplanes!
 
SoonerAviator said:
Yes, I believe it was. I thought all of the "Cutlass" models were Q's, but I don't know that for a fact.
Click to expand...
Cessna's goofy and confusing marketing names strike again. The retractable-gear Model 172RG (1980-85 model years) was the "Cutlass RG". It was built under the type certificate of the Models 175 and R172 (Reims Rocket, T-41B, Hawk XP).

In 1982 Embry-Riddle approached Cessna with a special order for fixed-gear 172s with a 180 hp O-360 and fixed prop, for extra oomph for use at its high-density-altitude facility at Prescott AZ. Cessna built the new model for E-R, and decided to put it in the catalog for public sale, as well. Since the then-current 160 hp Skyhawk was the Model 172P (1981-86), the 180 hp model became the Model 172Q -- and for some unknown reason was dubbed "Cutlass" (1983-85). It was built under the Skyhawk's type certificate.

The factory-built 172Q is essentially identical to the popular Air Plains and Penn Yan 180 hp/fixed prop STC'd conversions of later Skyhawks. IMHO (full disclosure: I own a 172N with the Air Plains 180 hp STC) the fixed-gear 172 airframe and the 180 hp O-360-A4M is an excellent combination.
 
Don't hate me, but . . .Cessna 182 - handles like a truck, has atrocious visibility, and pax in the back are in a dungeon. I flew them a lot in CAP, and if the tanks were full, they lifted less than a 172. I know, the big tanks add flexibility, and you don't have to fill 'em. Decent (but not outstanding) IFR platform, but slow, and the roll rate is glacial. . .if you offered to give me one, I'd trade it for a T-41.
 
Timbeck2 said:
What's the worst plane ever?

Gotta go with the Cirrus because people think jokes/comments about red handles are still humorous. :yawn:
Click to expand...

Yes, but at least they're immune to AoA jokes...
 
It's a good little airplane over all, but I personally hate flying the "sling 2". It's just overly sensitive, and at first I was really nervous flying it (never good). Plus I'm not a stick guy...
 
jsstevens said:
Yeah but the T Tailed variants are different. No prop wash. I've got time in 2 Arrows (not much) and they are definitely different at low speed.
Click to expand...
In the early 1990s an FBO at Van Nuys had a couple of T-tail Turbo Arrow IVs on the rental line, at very attractive prices (well below the Mooney M20Js and M20Ks also on the line). The T-tail Turbo Arrows weren't my favorite from the standpoint of handling or engine management, but the rate was so good I wound up with a couple hundred hours in them on business and (very long) vacation trips.
 
Last edited:
Jim Case said:
It's a good little airplane over all, but I personally hate flying the "sling 2". It's just overly sensitive, and at first I was really nervous flying it (never good). Plus I'm not a stick guy...
Click to expand...

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.
 
T Tail arrow? Great plane! you know what they say, it ain't the plane it's the pilot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top