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
habubuaza and others who've flown the 727 -

I've never flown anything bigger than a Twin Otter, so I'm only going on what I hear and see. A lot of people say good things about the 727 and obviously it is/was a successful aircraft. But watching them take off they appear to be limping into the sky at best. The later generation airliners climb at what appears to be at least 3 times faster. I can't see how a 727 could climb at all with a failed engine.

Does this apparently lame takeoff performance not detract from the exceptional handling enough to make people dislike it? I guess if it is predictable, you get used to a less enthusiastic take off performance. Just curious.
 
Hardest plane to master for me was the Metroliner and it was also the best teacher I ever had. The B727-200 was difficult to achieve good landings in (unlike the B727-100) but a joy to hand fly and still the sexiest jet flying IMHO!

The B757/767 are truly the nicest airplanes I've ever flown. Neither has any bad habits and both are excellent performers. The B757 was a sports car and very maneuverable and the B76 is a cadillac with sports car like performance. The B767-300 was a little harder to master and achieve good landings in than the B757 but both were a joy to fly!

The A300-600...Hmmmm, well, my mother said if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all, so I'll leave it at that.
 
I'm sorry to see that the EMB-120 made the list since I'll be in training for that bad boy next week.

I can say the BE1900D was a great airplane to fly. I don't remember anything difficult about flying it. Its very stable, responsive, and forgiving. It climbs well and lands like a Seminole.

I heard the EMB-120 is difficult to put on the rwy smoothly. Can anybody back that up?

C-ya.
 
I'll second the MU-2. Not thats it's hard but it does require alot of attention. But as UPS Capt said, it was the best teacher I ever had.
 
Cornelius,

I can tell you from experience that the emb-120 is very hard to land smoothly. Every time you are about to land you think it is going to be nice and soft, then, wham.
The emb-120 is a real pain.
Good luck, and enjoy the training.
 
Not having flown a huge amount of transport aircraft, I have to say the EMB120 is on of the hardest transports out there. The thing flies like a truck. Everytime you touch the power levers or the props you have to retrim the rudder. The systems are a nightmare, the electrical system that is. Its hot as hell too.

With that said, its still my favorite, for the reasons stated above. All of the 120 drivers know what I'm talking about. Not everyone could fly the thing well throught all flight envolopes. I've only got 1,600 hrs on it but miss it like an old friend. Fun plane.
 
The reason that you see most 727 lumber into the air is that most of them nowadays are used for charter and are extemely heavy. I can attested to this comming out of Montego Bay at 197,000 lbs and using up every bit of concrete.

NA-265 Saberliner is the easiest airplane/jet I have ever flown. Guess it has to be for those Air Force pukes.

BE-200 - I could teach my grandmother to fly this one and it is very forgiving.

BE-100 - Same as 200 except wing differences make it hard to get a sweet roller landing.

SA-227 Metroliner aka San Antonio Sewer Pipe - heavy in the roll and sensitive in the pitch. Handles like a wet buffalo in the mud. Straght gear make it extemely hard to get good landings. I spent three year flying this pig with no autopilot. Makes you a kick-ass instrumet pilot. But as far as flying this thing Single Pilot I will admit I have scared my self once or twice in the soup.

B-727 Handles great but a little senstive in the pitch. Coming from the Metro it was a little hard to get used to the power streering. But turn all the hydraluic boost of and it handles just like a Metro. Once got to depart IAH empty with a hard right turn and max foward speed. Now that was an airshow and it rocked.

All Cessna products handle alike. From the 150 all the way up throught the Citation series. Very easy to control and forgiving on the landings
 
For the previous poster who didn't like the Learjet 25....I don't think the Learjet 25 is difficult, but it can turn around and bite you, very, very fast.

As for your paper, if you look at the Learjet family, beginning with the 23s, 24s, 25s, 28s, 31s, 35s, 36s.....You can see a development of an idea and the implementation of what is better. For example, the early Lears had the nac heat wired differently than the later models. The gear has, effectually stayed the same (thank you Switzerland). Always when you meet lear drivers, they also ask "what serial number" because the aircraft differs so much (different wing types, varying electrical systems [inverter systems] and even different engines CJ610 vs TFE731 [20 series vs. 30 series]).

Again, every pilot brings different experience and different skills to each aircraft. This will affect the comments from varying pilots because someone may consider Turboprop ABC extremely difficult while others will not. It is a very broad idea for a paper topic!!

Good Luck.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top