This guy has answered the question for himself such that it is better to fly many types: NZ Teenager solos on 16 different planes on his 16th birthday
This is comparable to doing the same 45 minute local flight over and over again, rather than choosing a new destination for each flight. It’s good to become fully conversant, but not at the risk of becoming complacent or not trying new things.
Having flown a few different Robin aircraft, the similarities make transition between them very easy. However, it’s the fact they’re so similar that catches you out: 120hp and cruise propeller will not climb like the glider tug version, or two almost identical aircraft with transposed fuel pump and alternator switches. Another common one that hasn’t happened to me (yet) is the fuel selector valve for single tank and three tanks: on basic models ‘changing tank’ will cut off the fuel (later models put the starter button underneath the selector’s ‘off’ position, making this harder).
The important thing is to learn from the experience. What went well, and why? What went badly, and how would I do it better next time? When I was teaching, it was called Becoming A Reflective Practioner.
I have exactly one hour in a friend’s SR22, but general lessons were to think much farther ahead, and to spend time learning the avionics and systems. A one hour instructional flight in interesting aircraft (e.g. warbird trainer) would buy a few hours in a normal plane… is it worth it? I did a few hours dual in an R22 which was great fun, but hasn’t improved my flying.
Flying different aircraft provides new experience, which might be useful later on. Apparently the near-death life flashing before one’s eyes is the brain rapidly sorting through all previous experience to find something that might help.
RobertL18C wrote:
More realistically I think it takes 100 or 150 hours on type to feel reasonably proficient.
I’m not sure flying different types helps in an obvious way, but it does help to combat complacency, and could provide motivation, which in turn prevent you from becoming a bad pilot!
Also flying different types helps with a broader understanding of aviation i.e. understand what other pilots are doing around you and the speed at which their flying happens, increasing Situational Awareness and with that Decision Making.
If you don’t fly much though, primacy of learning could be a problem, or just a general lack of recent experience on type, type confusion.
Ultimately being a good pilot is independent of the type you fly. You can be a cowboy in any cockpit! (no offence to cowboys intended 
)
Peter wrote:
OTOH flying different types is likely to teach one more about aircraft handling, especially if some of them are “marginal” in stability, etc.
Archie wrote:
I tend to agree that you need at least 2,000-3,000 on type to really know the aircraft.
To each their own, though I think this value would generally be excessive. Now I agree that one could fly several thousand hours on a type, and never really challenge themselves which the extremes and “corners” of its intended operating range. In that case, yes, there would be more to learn. On the other hand, if the training and practice is thorough, and purposeful in the beginning, and regularly repeated, you’re going to know the plane well before a few thousand hours.
Piloting skill is additive, as it type transition. Reading the flight manual and its supplements is very important. Understanding what the design approval holder wants you to know about flying the plane, added to your training, and currency should be enough to bring you to competence in tens to hundreds of hours, rather than thousands. I have had to test fly a type I’ve never flown before, being safe, gathering the required data or information, and building my skills to train the customer pilot next. I was not given thousands of hours to do this. My greatest time taken was about 35 hours (modified Cessna Caravan), though more commonly ten hours or so. Of course I did not know every operational corner of the aircraft, and some emergencies would have caused me to rush back the flight manual, but the flight was safe, and met the objectives in each case.
Referring primarily to Cessna variants, I have trained pilots in types or specific configurations I have not flown before. This was not primary training, it was advanced conversion training, so the pilot came to me largely ready, just needing specific skills development. But in this, I never felt that I was woefully behind the aircraft, even though I had not flown one before. For example, Cessna 180, wheels, skiplane, floatplane and amphibian, there will be differences, and the job is to anticipate them, allow for variation with margins for safety, and refine the skills. They’re all the same plane, though very different, and perhaps to each other, even in the same configuration.
Flying many different types will build pilot skills in avoiding complacency, and improving awareness for handling differences. Such skills can be vital, even if it’s only so you have the skill to safely fly a hot heavy landing in a 172, in which you’ve suddenly realized the flaps won’t extend! Fly everything you can get you hands on!
Are these the PIC/instructors you’re thinking of?
“Commander’s Flying Experience: 20,968 hours (of which 2 were on type) Last 90 days – 100 hours Last 28 days – 48 hours
Commander’s Flying Experience: 3,595 hours (of which 4 were on type) Last 90 days – 161 hours Last 28 days – 78 hours "
Very low hours on type to catch Pu/t’s mistakes in time, if the type is very different from what their currency is on.
Some types are much more different from “standard” light aircraft. C150/152/172, Pa38/28, are very similar. I’ve no experience of autopilots or glass.
I’m now getting familiar with the Bolkow Junior, as well as the Jodel DR1050, and finding surprising gotchas. I’d a passenger flight in her, then a few days later flew her the 300+ miles to Inverness. No problems with take-off, flying, landing, on grass and tarmac..
But: I pulled the Bolkow out of the hangar, with the brakes off, of course. Positioned into the wind, opened the cockpit to put the brakes on, without chocks. The plane started rolling backwards, and almost got away. I’d no previous experience of flip-up cockpit canopies.
Pilot_DAR wrote:
Archie wrote: I tend to agree that you need at least 2,000-3,000 on type to really know the aircraft.To each their own, though I think this value would generally be excessive. Now I agree that one could fly several thousand hours on a type, and never really challenge themselves which the extremes and “corners” of its intended operating range.
I guess we could discuss what “really knowing the aircraft” means… I’d say with your definition of never exploring the corners, you’d have seen it all in a couple of hundred?
Agree with your other points
Steve6443 wrote:
To those saying total hours flying one type are important you might want to read
Steve6443 wrote:
It intrigued me that ATPLs with xx.xxx hours under their belt could make such beginner mistakes when transitioning to new types…
I don’t think you need a few k hours on type to be able to fly it well by hand. You need aptitude and plenty of exposure to hand flying.
But the wider picture needs knowledge of aircraft systems etc.
The 20k hours or whatever, accumulated in a B747, is probably largely irrelevant to low level VFR.
Archie wrote:
I’d say with your definition of never exploring the corners, you’d have seen it all in a couple of hundred?
If I’m flight testing an aircraft, or otherwise familiarizing myself with it, I will have been to most of the “corners” in the first few hours of dedicated flying for that purpose. In the most cases, that will be to see of the “corners” for that type are similar to, and what I would generally expect for other similar types, in which I have experience. This would apply in particular to post maintenance and modification check flights, where rigging and handing checks are most important, as well as verification of stall warning, speed and handling. For other test flying, I would fly to 110% of Vne, and fly spins, or single engine stalls (as appropriate to the type). All of these are “corners”, which though requiring caution, do not require thousands of hours on type to be safe to fly to.
I have been alarmed in past times, when on a number of occasions I have been flight checking an aircraft (C 172 commonly), and been accompanied by a school instructor. Imagine my surprise when an instructor asked me how I did something in the 172, which was within it’s normal operating limitations – they’d never done that. In several cases that instructor had more hours logged on that type than I did. Many was the time I’d accompany an owner in his aircraft following modification (STOL kit installation, for example) to review differences, to find that that pilot, with lots of time on that type, never flew it near any “corners” to begin with – the STOL kit’s benefits would be transparent to them. It’s nice that they were conservative and safe in their flying habits, but they had not taken the next step to understand the capabilities and limitations of that aircraft in it’s corners. Extending them with a STOL kit would help them with a greater reserve of safety, though they would probably/hopefully never know it!
In my opinion, a pilot who only flew one or two types, and had accumulated 2,000 plus hours on a type, would have plateaued in skills development on that type, and probably has become more an increasing risk in complacency and not practicing emergencies. When I felt complacency creeping in many years back, I took helicopter training, that sure opened my eyes!
…the first thousand hours on type are the hardest :)
