Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

What's hard to fly, what's easy?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

boscenter

DC-9 Evangelist
Joined
Dec 12, 2001
Posts
148
I'm doing some research for a paper, and am curious what you all think are most difficult and easy transport acft to learn about and fly. I'm talking about the whole experience. Systems, flight characteristics, cup-holder ergonomics, :D etc.

I guess as an example, I've heard that many of the RJ's are considered difficult b/c most new RJ pilots have little/no turbine time. I have also heard that MD-11's are a bitch b/c of strange slow-flight properties. One guy I know complains about MD-80's b/c de-icing fluid loves to leak into the cockpit.

But anyways, if you could list the transport acft you've flown in order of difficulty or most taxing/pleasant experience (w/ any brief commentary you have to offer), it'd help me get an idea how this paper is going to lay out.

Thanks! :p
 
I used to fly frieght in the Fokker 27, and it has to be the most difficult plane I have ever flown. It's hard to slow down, has strange systems, and it's nearly impossible to make a smooth landing. It was a tough bird, good in icing and did everything well, but you had to work very hard in a gusty crosswind.

I now fly the CRJ, and it's the easiest plane Iv'e ever flown. I don't think experience has much to do with it, as the military trains people in a very short time to fly C-5's. However, I think most pilots, once they get the hang of it, feel that the CRJ is pretty simple. Many of the systems are automated, it only has two levers to worry about, nice to have speed brakes and gear you can extend at 250 kts. Even starting the engines is easy, as I don't think you can get a hot start. The Fokker could cook an engine in a few seconds if you werent' careful.

Hope this helps, and good luck to you.
 
Uh oh - I have a feeling we're going to hear from some Jetstream 32 drivers pretty soon! :D
 
Kites are really easy to fly, as long as there is a good wind. Bricks are terrible at flying, even if there is a good wind.
 
Last edited:
The Cessna 207 is pretty hard to fly when it is 100 degrees and you have six fat tourists behind you.
 
I can basically attest to the Citation which is very easy to fly and the B727 which is very easy to fly and very, very capable. I do have a friend who I haven't spoke to in a while but he was a Captain on Learjet, Citations, B707,727,737,747,757,767,L1011 and A310's. And he said the 707 handled like a truck, the 727 was like a sport's car, 737 was a fun little airplane to fly but nowhere near the 727. 757 and 767 were very nice airplanes but he was a little more partial to airbus's. The 747 according to him was basically a good airplane but nothing really stood out about it, it just carried alot of people very far. He really liked the A310, and would always talk about the performance (specifically climb) on the airplane but don't even think about approaching Mmo. Well I hope it helps a little and if I see him in the near future I'll be sure to ask about specifics.
 
I almost forgot he HATED flying the 20 series lears.
 
Hmm, the most difficult part 25 aircraft to get typed in was the E120. The systems were jerry rigged to pass certification and the flight qualities of the Brazillia - well - the NTSB recommended that the FAA remove the type certification until further testing could be done. In order to operate the aircraft safely the airlines have adopted all sorts of procedures specific to the airplane - for example different configurations are requierd for missed approaches depending on the level of ice accretion. Now imagine, during a busy missed in the simulator, with a engine failure, fire and God knows what else, having to stop and ask about the ice.

That having been said, the E120 was a blast to fly. Good feel back through the controls, challenging to fly well and over powered.

The CL65 is about the opposite. Systems are very well thought out, easy to fly, and no control feed back what so ever (all hydraulic & fly by wire). The aircraft is designed in such a way that it reminds you of anything amiss.

Go to the NTSB's web site and look at some of the probable cause reports. They will tell you a lot about what is easy and what is hard out there.
 
I guess Airbus's are nice if it does what you think it's going to do.

What does a new airbus pilot say, "What's it doing now?"

What does and old airbus pilot say, "Look, it's doing that again."

Good luck to all.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top