Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Planes with good and bad reputations

RobertL18C wrote:

I am rather fond of the Piper Apache, whose engine out performance, while docile, is somewhat underwhelming

I did my multi engine rating in one (actually, a Geronimo conversion with a whopping 160 hp a side). It felt like flying a big TriPacer. I did a spot landing contest in the Apache, it’s one of the few twins where you can pull both engines all the way to idle abeam the touchdown point (as the rules required for this contest) and not have much trouble making a perfectly good landing on the spot.

Andreas IOM

@alioth they are quite good at landing on dirt strips. Pity the 1950’s Stinson engineering (hydraulic flaps and landing gear) means not a cheap MEP to operate.

@Medewok the taper wing Warrior I believe has never had a stall spin accident. To provoke a wing drop the unwitting newbie instructor might in effect manage a half baked snap roll! The combination of wash out, docile stall, stall strips means that you would need a fair bit of mis control and around 2G, perfect for a snap roll.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

The Cirrus SR2X has a bad reputation for stall/spin on base to final turns.
I don’t know if this is warranted or not. One could argue that other faster planes have the same attributes (PA46, A36 etc..).

The Diamond planes all have a good reputation of being very benign and forgiving in handling.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Ibra wrote:

Most of them have 30kts-40kts ish stall speeds

20-30 kts stall speed for all the ones I have flown, indicated airspeed at least, which at those low numbers may be wrong of course. However, ULM/UL/LSA/microlights are so vastly different they cannot be put into one category, like you can with certified planes. If you have flown one certified aircraft, you can flow them all. Let’s say certified aircraft diverges a factor 1 from each other. Then ULs and experimentals for that matter, diverges a factor 10 from each other.

Ibra wrote:

that you simply can’t fly them in bumpy days bellow 60kts, these thingies will lose 30kts on ASI followed by a free-fall on gusty approach…

I wouldn’t chose an UL on a bumpy day, but except cross wind and the fact that the ride is anything but pleasant, there is nothing special about them in this respect.

The SAAB Safir will flick 180 degrees when stalling. That’s how it was supposed to be, so that students should learn to respect a stall. You will never really learn that respect unless you have tried it IMO. The Alphatrainer also do this (90+ degrees at least), but only with full flaps and at idle, and the stick in the stomach.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Maoraigh wrote:

can’t see why people are enthusiastic about the Tiger Moth and the Chipmunk

The Chipmunk is probably the nicest handling aircraft I have ever flown, so your comment is puzzling.

The Tiger Moth is charming but the ailerons are ineffective, there are no brakes, and the crosswind capabilities are limited, as is the visibility from the back seat.
I once flew a Tiger then jumped straight out of that into my Super Cub; the PA18 felt so modern

Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

Neil wrote:

The Chipmunk is probably the nicest handling aircraft I have ever flown, so your comment is puzzling.

In stock form they do handle beautifully IME. I’m not sure what @Maoraigh might think, but to me the issues with the Chipmunk are related to the ‘antique in 1950’ engine. It’s actually an antique when compared with some 1930s engines. If it wasn’t for that leaky lump I’d have bought a Portuguese OGMA plane that a friend sold about ten years ago. I flew it, loved that, and thought about it but couldn’t bring myself to buy it and do what the Portuguese themselves did and install an O-360, it spoils the lines too much.

My A&P buddy currently has a Art Scholl style Super Chipmunk with an O-540 and the issue with that one is that it cruises a lot faster… and that stiffens up the controls. It handles nicely when it’s limited to 50% power in straight and level flight.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 21 Dec 17:12

Silvaire wrote:

The Chipmunk is probably the nicest handling aircraft I have ever flown, so your comment is puzzling.

Agreed. I owned and displayed my Chipmunk for some 8 years. I learnt to fly on it and it is without doubt one of the nicest handling aircraft around. But…….it is somewhat underpowered and a primary trainer aircraft. Aerobatics, particularly at low level, requires a full understanding of energy management…

Mines was an original T10 converted to a civilian 22.

Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

The DH82 spin loses little height compared to the Chipmunk. Both spin recover OK, but if the handbrake is partly on, (for differential braking in a crosswind take-off), it will prevent Chipmunk recovery.

“The Chipmunk is probably the nicest handling aircraft I have ever flown, so your comment is puzzling.”
Have you flown a Jodel DR1050? Compare the cockpit view.

Last Edited by Maoraigh at 21 Dec 20:05
Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Does the Bonanza still retain a bad reputation as a ‘Doctor killer’?

United Kingdom

Pirho wrote:

Does the Bonanza still retain a bad reputation as a ‘Doctor killer’?

No….the truth was that the Doctors were sloppy pilots who managed to get the aeroplane into situations it should never have been in the first instance..

From wiki

However, a detailed analysis by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of accident records for common single-engine retractable-gear airplanes in the United States between 1982 and 1989 demonstrated that the Bonanza had a slightly lower accident rate than other types in the study. Pilot error was cited in 73% of V-tail crashes and 83% of conventional-tail crashes, with aircraft-related causes accounting for 15% and 11% of crashes respectively.[20

Last Edited by BeechBaby at 21 Dec 21:05
Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top