Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Planes with good and bad reputations

Pirho wrote:

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

It has passed on that rep to the early Cirrus saga with the same reason BeechBaby also sais: People who had the cash to buy one but not the skills to fly one.

As for planes with bad rep, most of them get them from that. The MU2 comes up to memory, which had an awful rep at the hands of underqualified operators but which, given into capable hands, is a very capable airplane.

Some planes could bite unexpectedly, the Twin Comanche had some rather nasty accidents in the old times when people used it for training to do Vmca demonstrations, but is otherwise a very capable and safe airplane if treated right.

And then there are planes which have awful reputations which are totally undeserved and imposed on them by people who don’t know the first thing about them. Favorite beef in that regard: Russian planes.

Now some of those have an awful safety record, but that record has not much to do with the actual plane or its design but with the way they are operated and (not) maintained. Looking how quite a few Antonov 12’s are maintained which come to grief in particularly Africa, not many western planes would take the kind of abuse they do. They are built like tanks and awfully forgiving rude handling and outright recklessness on some parts, they sometimes survive brutal arrivals with a shrug and will continue flying decades over their intended TBO until someone overdoes things. I recall one AN12 which crashed in Africa after loosing 3 out of 4 engines which had been deregistered 20 years earlier, flown with fake regs, engines had about tripple TBO time on them without ever being more than superficially maintained and the props apparently were the original ones it left whoever retired it with… also 10 or more years of heavy flying without any conceivable maintenance.

Of the Russian planes I got my hands on I absolutely love the AN2, which is about as nice handling as any flying truck I’ve ever laid my hands on. It’s stall behaviour is quite unique and must be experienced to be appreciated, flown right, safest plane you can think of. If I owned a petrol company, I’d get one tomorrow.

And I did have a great time on the TU154 mostly as an observer for 2 months in a totally gruelling schedule of 4 legs a day ops. Powerful without end, fast, great rate of climb and beautiful handling up to the point that it can be handflown without a problem even at high altitude. Seeing what kind of landing accidents its ultrastrong cell survived sufficiently to save most or all people on board, both the 134 and 154 were planes which forgave operation not many western planes would have tolerated. Clearly, one paid for it with huge fuel bills and inefficiency (The 154 had an MTOW of a 757 but the load of a 727 which was 30 tons lighter).

In General I would say that most planes with evil reputations do get them because of people who either have never flown them and just are repeating tosh they hear or because of people who simply were not up to flying them.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

If I owned a petrol company, I’d get one tomorrow.

It’s kind of the antithesis of a Mooney, though :-)

Andreas IOM

It’s kind of the antithesis of a Mooney, though :-)

It is, but you can pimp it out way more than a Mooney…

https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=26726
planecheck_SP_GRW_26726_pdf

T28
Switzerland

Bad reputation = (capable plane x envy x some well known accidents) / actual knowledge about the plane

Germany

That formula would regularly result in a division by zero exception :-)

Andreas IOM

Malibuflyer wrote:

Bad reputation = (capable plane x envy x some well known accidents) / actual knowledge about the plane

This also does not explain the reputation of the Shorts 330 for being ugly… what is zero divided by zero, again?

Biggin Hill

alioth wrote:

That formula would regularly result in a division by zero exception :-)

ROFL! Unfortunately kind of true. You could, however, save the formula by assuming that a plane for you only could have a reputation if you know it exists – and that is already some knowledge ;-)

Germany

Well, the MU-2 had a terrible reputation and people killed themselves left, right and center in them. It got so bad the FAA wanted to withdraw the type certificate at one point. But the owners group lobbied for a SFAR or supplemental training (which is closest thing to a type rating without being one). And that did it – the MU-2 now has the best safety record of any twin turboprop after the Piaggio Avanti., I think.

Last Edited by AdamFrisch at 27 Dec 23:06

T28 wrote:

It is, but you can pimp it out way more than a Mooney…

https://www.planecheck.com?ent=da&id=26726
planecheck_SP_GRW_26726_pdf

incidently that is the one I was thinking about… beautifully done.

I had the pleasure of flying one in Bulgaria in the 1990ties which had a full Balkan Air livery and passenger cabin. The others I flew were “desant” versions with parashute purpose and the folding seats well known. Must try to find the pictures.

Found this pic online of the lineup at that airfield in the early 2000´s. Alas, the one I flew was not caught on that film.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 27 Dec 23:49
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

AdamFrisch wrote:

Well, the MU-2 had a terrible reputation and people killed themselves left, right and center in them. It got so bad the FAA wanted to withdraw the type certificate at one point. But the owners group lobbied for a SFAR or supplemental training (which is closest thing to a type rating without being one). And that did it – the MU-2 now has the best safety record of any twin turboprop after the Piaggio Avanti., I think.

Which probably indicates that planes with a “bad” reputation are often simply planes that need more or specific training to operate safely.

In Germany, the domestically-built Aquila AT-01 (aka Aquila A210/211/212 series) seems to supplant or replace the classic trainers such as the C150/152 in many aeroclubs, despite being a bit less forgiving to fly, more complex to operate (it has a variable pitch prop) and a reputation for having a weak nose gear. I got my PPL on this aircraft aswell. I found it easy to fly, but according to my last FI, if you learned on a Cessna 152 or 172 and then transition to the Aquila, you tend to botch the landings. It is probably all a question of what one is used to.

Low-hours pilot
EDVM Hildesheim, Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top