And why? 
In Croatian the noun “aircraft” is masculine and I always think in this way although when writing in English I always refer to it as “it” being non-live object. Very seldom I think about it in terms of “she” although I know about the analogy in English with ships.
My engineer refers to my aircraft as “she”. I don’t know why it irritates me, but it does. I think that it is the 1950’s image – pipe, hat and glasses, Genevieve, Dunkirk, messin’ around in boats and general blokiness.
I do apologise for non-UK readers, who will have no idea what I am talking about.
I am with those who categorise aircraft into “girls” and “boys” depending on flying behaviour. To me, a “girl” is an aircraft with a great deal of dynamic stability and/or degressive response to control inputs; conversely, a “boy” would have a low positive or even negative dynamic stability and/or progressive response to pilot inputs.
It’s a girl.
If I like the airplane, then it’s a girl. If not – a thing.
@Ultranomad, the girls in your life must be very different from those in mine A Luscombe is the only plane in my experience that is clearly a girl, mainly because it’s predictably unstable 
Other planes I’ve flown seem to me basically inanimate machines with characteristics that reflect their designer and the company that made them. That communication of the designers interests and values has always been interesting to me.
@Silvaire, you may be right about the females in my life , though in this case I was reasoning more along the lines of “soft and gentle” vs. “hard and rough”.
An aircraft is clearly an “it”. The noun aircraft is non gender in Norwegian. But, when given a name, it suddenly becomes a he or she, depending on the name.
My wife calls my Bonanza, my metal mistress, so I guess it is a she.
