There is a saying in the USA: beware the man who has only one gun because he probably knows how to use it 
And this can pretty obviously be extended to lots of other areas e.g. somebody who has a house full of IT gadgets has probably never even read the manuals for most of them.
And it must depend on how many hours you fly in total. If you fly 10 a year then spreading it over 10 types is obviously daft.
OTOH flying different types is likely to teach one more about aircraft handling, especially if some of them are “marginal” in stability, etc.
After some recent events I ask: please keep this discussion on the topic.
Peter wrote:
And it must depend on how many hours you fly in total.
In my opinion this is a very important point. If you can fly 40-50 hours per type per year, that would probably work well. If you fly 2-3 hours on a type, it is not enough. I’ve personally flown too many types for my experience (partly not my choice but school policies and changes), so I don’t have one that I am really good on. But I notice very clearly that I feel much more confident and fluent on the types I have most experience with.
My first 20 hours were in a Yak 52. I finished my training in a 172. The transition was horrible, I suspect if you’re 100 hours/yr or less, you’re probably better off in one plane. But the really amazing pilots fly more and seem to have flown everything. So I agree, it depends on how much you’re flying.
I reckon there is no doubt, that the experience one gains in flying differing types builds your overall confidence, and ability in handling aeroplanes. Navigation, airmanship, mechanical knowledge, is not type specific, but actual flying, handling, and importantly interpreting what the aeroplane is telling you, comes with multiple type operation. I learnt on the De Havilland Chipmunk, I then displayed it, and I thought myself a ‘good’ pilot, but when I bought the Bonanza, the transition took me slightly by surprise. Not to just fly it, but to fly it well. To get the knowledge of operation that I take pride in. And I have a lot of experience in different types, but the main hours blocks are in the Chipmunk, and the Bonanza. My Super Cub arrives very soon, another learning curve, despite my hours on the J3. Back to basics for a while in that machine.
My home aircraft is the PA18, although I fly in the day job other types. Ideally I like to have read, understood, and in some cases written out my own flash cards, from the AFM of types I fly. I also check out the AOPA accident data base to see if there are any accident patterns for the type. This means that ideally I would try and fly only two or three types, in a given period. EASA, quite sensibly I think, only allows two turbine type ratings to be valid at one time.
My ambition is to achieve the airline command threshold of 1,500 hours on type for the venerable PA18. More realistically I think it takes 100 or 150 hours on type to feel reasonably proficient.
I remember when I first got my Cessna 140 (tail dragger) , I had over a 1,000 hours PIC on various SEP aircraft but zero on a TW .
It was like learning all over again !
IMHO, without a doubt, flying, or should I say gaining proficiency in different types, make for a much more competent and capable pilot.
OTOH flying different types is likely to teach one more about aircraft handling, especially if some of them are “marginal” in stability, etc.
Yes. Lots of types are good for developing general handling abilities.
Lots of time on one type gives you a good understanding for systems. The more complex a type is, the more hours you need, especially regarding scenarios where systems fail or behave in an unforseen manner. Therefore airlines and commercial operators prefer the second type of pilot as flying abilities make up for less than 10% of what the pilot of a transport category aircraft is required to have. 60% is systems knowledge and 30% is a talent to organise things.
Test pilot schools train their pilots (the best of the best so to say) on about a dozen different types, some of them only for a couple of hours. Obviously, collecting large numbers of types in the logbook is not a requirement for being a good pilot.
the more aircraft types you fly, the more experience you have. Any new aircraft type flown (even if you don´t keep flying it for 40 hrs/year) is expanding the knowledge envelope you are building in your brain. One just must be carefully – flying 20 hours/year in 10 different types is counterproductive. This is simple overriding the quality of information with confusion. I have currently 18 different type in my PPL log book (even 150/172/182 and Zlin Z-x26 are somehow similar reducing the real number into 11- not speaking about 20 GLD/ULLs) but I did see a benefit of flying any of them. And do not regret any effort learning something new.
This is my point of view for GA aircraft. However flying a an airliner is way different story. You can´t strap yourself into left hand seat a start with cockpit recognition exercise looking for avionics master switch.
Without doubt the more types you fly and the more complex they are.
Tail draggers and Aeros teach hand eye leg skills that you cant reproduce elsewhere.
Flying twins (and doubtless jets) skills of managing far more complex systems.
Flying fast aircraft the skills of thinking and working ahead and managing speed and power.
I learnt far more flying twins than any other type, and its why twin flying tests any pilot.
You only need fly with a high hours fast jet pilot to appreciate they are so far ahead of the usual high performance SEP.
Vladimir wrote:
f you fly 2-3 hours on a type, it is not enough.
Enough for what? I have come to realize that getting to know a “new” aircraft is 95% homework up front. Flying the aircraft is no problem. What is difference is cockpit layout and procedures. For gliders we have the same procedures (check lists) no matter what glider it is, and the cockpit layout is obviously much simpler in a glider and also not very different from type to type. Going from one glider to another, you only have to concentrate on flying and the behavior (which can be very different from glider to glider). I have only flown 6-7 different gliders, all low performance/aerobatic (relatively speaking).
In a motorized aircraft, the cockpit layout can be very different, and procedures can be very different between different types. All this is best learned up front. A Cub is very easy, no complex systems or complex avionics, you just fly it. The most complex aircraft I have flown is the Saab Safir. Lots of things are very different from a “normal” aircraft regarding systems and checks, and it is also rather complex with retract and slow adjusting CS and a integrating rpm meter that rotates in steps. The first time I flew it with an instructor I came much too unprepared, and didn’t really get much out of the flight getting to know the airplane/systems, except the aerobatic training which I had prepared for.
If you do your homework up front after a long break from one particular aircraft, there is no problem flying different types, if it’s only for a couple of hours each year in each type.
I think it is much more important to fly different “missions”. If 90% of the flying is straight and level on autopilot, you become very good at flying straight and level on autopilot.
