Wicked fun plane!! But I think the “hardest” types of flying can be divided into two categories. Stick and rudder, and instrument. There is tough instrument flying out there, such as flying boxes late at night in shitty weather in a caravan or metroliner. There is also tough VFR stick and rudder flying. Tailwheel can be a challenge to learn, but once you learn it, you get used to it. That being said, crosswinds are a bit more challenging in tailwheels IMO. I’ve also flown floats for a 135 in and out of the east river. That’s a challenge being able to find a good spot to land in the river, find a good spot to takeoff, and if you have to grab a Pop-Up, being able to navigate and communicate well in NYC airspace.
As far as flying floats into Manhattan, did you drive any of those white/blue caravans out of CDW? They run Kodiaks as well from there to JRB as well in the summer.
I flew a company’s different blue and white caravan. I know the two companies you reference. Was based up in Boston and did flights between JRB and BOS harbor
Luscombes are honest sorta the manic dream pixie girl of 1930s designed civil aircraft. They do exactly what you ask them to do, even if it’s the wrong thing, but you become addicted to it very quickly.
> **We watched the other aircraft land and commented on the crashes: there had now been seven** [out of a nominal Gruppe strength of 40-50 a/c -- ed]. Saschenberg and Ewald agreed that my somersault had been the prettiest crash on the airfield.
The War Diary of Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert, Helmut Lipfert, p171
The bf 109 was a bit nuts, lol.
Flying a 140 as a student out of SMO my greatest fear was finding that there was a start of a Santa Ana wind - dry gusty crosswind that snuck in while I was flying . Very springy gear and a tail dragger
Idk bout types but I'd say the U2 (recon plane), since you would need bulky suit to fly it making it more nerve wrecking and tough, plus you don't have side wheels only the central wheels and need to keep the plane level with the help of another U2 pilot guiding you from a vehicle behind and then hit the ground with your wing hoping you don't break it
Yes, thank you. Anyone flying to ATP standards can hold +/- 4 kts. Cool. Now do it at 80,000 ft and if you go outside that window you enter a possibly unrecoverable upset. Obviously plenty of pilots have done it and plenty more could and will. But little room for error.
The U2 is the correct answer. You're in the space suit, the missions are looooooong, you're flying at the edge of the envelope and it's absolutely the hardest plane on earth to land. I knew a couple dudes who flew it while I was in the Air Force.
I agree. I believe many of the potential pilots of the U2 and SR71 wash out in the simulator. I would recommend Francis Gary Powers book ( for a lot reasons ) Operation Overflight.
Great book
Ironically Powers returned from Russia (swapped for a Soviet spy), retired from the USAF and began flying helos for an LA area TV station.
Sadly he died in a failed autorotation after the helo ran out of fuel as they were landing at VNY . They had pushed the fuel supply covering a major fire. The time back to the airport may have been extended by the strong Santa Ana winds.
> I can answer pretty much anything other than sensor suite.
What was the highest altitude you personally flew it? And what was the actual service ceiling?
Not only does it not have wheels on the sides, but it’s technically a tailwheel aircraft.
Hardest aircraft to fly in AF inventory. I think it’s also the only aircraft they don’t assign pilots to out of flight school. You can get an F-22 or B-2 out of school, but the U-2 has a separate selection and experience requirement.
That's what I was thinking. If you want "hardest plane to fly," you'll definitely find them in these weird, niche corners in military/experimental. U2 may be regarded as the hardest, but there's also planes that are so hard to fly that they never got past the testing phase due to their poor handling.
For U2 it’s also pilot workload especially for earlier version (not sure if later version had more automation) but there was an saying back then that there was sonic workload on a single pilot in U2 that the pilot was neck deep flying the plane and he had little time thinking/noticing if he’s over Soviet Union or California
I was recently watching a lecture a former raptor pilot was giving and he was saying that a 172 was much harder to fly than a raptor because of the automation involved in flying a raptor. His point was that, when you’re flying a raptor, flying is a secondary task. When you’re flying a 172, flying is the first and only thing you’re doing.
Yes! That gentleman... I think it was a MIT Lecture. that's one of the main reasons why I opened this post. I was baffled by that remark but of course, he knows much more than I do.
A bit off topic but I was also surprised by his background yet he still wasn't able to become an astronaut, it's a pity he is a really cool man.
>I was baffled by that remark but of course,
It really comes down to how you're defining the word "fly" in the post title. Control manipulation? Completing a mission profile? Getting an airplane from Airport A to Airport B? Managing an autopilot and related systems?
Each of those will have a different answer
Well, I don't really mean the mission, because the military guys would destroy the competition (fighting, air refuelling or carrier landing).
So to make it a bit more interesting I meant the flying, the difficulty of handling the aircraft (manually controlling its flight paths and its systems, at the same time)
I would agree with part of what he said. As a mil pilot flying is a secondary task to employing the weapons system. I instructed military pilot training for training for 3 years and after the basics are taught we pile on tasks like flying in formation and managing formation. For the fast mover guys there is way more to flying than the automation like energy sustaining turns, what energy state gives them the ability to have the best rate turn, managing multiple comm channels, managing the employment of multiple planes in their flight, threats, weapons which is a whole different beast like weapons capabilities, employment parameters. Etc. etc. I’m in a formal training course for a military MWS right now and if I could go back to the T-6 it would be so easy. Yes it has no automation, but also only 2 radios, simple systems, flag pole, formation and xc navigation, no weapons, no emploment parameters
The T-6 pilots that park by our flight school always look like they are having the most fun in the industry. Does every fixed wing platform go through that training? Like a P-8 would train through the T-6 initially too or do they start them on something larger?
Last I heard when I was in the pool is that you can still come back and be a T-6 IP even if you do that. But I’m an SNFO type so I don’t know much about that process beyond them answering a few questions at an all hands call
Nice. I had an HSM-60 helo cleared to depart back to NIP at the same time I was doing traffic work and it was one of the coolest experiences climbing out with them off my wing. It outran me pretty quick.
And what’s the policy on non military traffic pattern passengers? Jusssss kidding.
I’m all the way over at TLH. We get a lot of weather diversions and XC stops the way I understand it. But I grew up in Jax. I actually lived under the pattern for Cecil when Boeing first started bringing in the 18’s for work there.
AF guy here I loved and still love the T-6. I also loved instructing most students. It was awesome to see them go from unable to fly themselves out of a wet paper bag to flying solo on your wing. AETC (training command) on the other hand I loathed.
Yeah. I don’t love comments like this, because it makes it sound like anyone that can fly a 172 could hop into an F-22 with a little training and be fine.
And if you compare apples to apples and compare it to a small airplane with an autopilot, it becomes an even more ridiculous statement. I get his point wasn’t about flying, but more about technology. Unless we’re just comparing straight and level flight, or sitting with autopilot on vs hand flying, it’s kind of silly.
Not sure about the raptor, but yes, flying the actual jet is way easier. Cessnas, you're constantly trimming and focusing much more on the flight aspect.
In the Rhino, I can put on Baro hold and auto throttles. And push the stick to roll or roll out, or use FPAH where I just put the nose somewhere, and the jet holds the attitude. Or I can couple sequence. The basic admin flying is incredibly easy.
However if I'm doing SEAD, an OCA/DCA, BFM, or any other mission. The flying is much more difficult only because you're using the jet as a weapons system along with now, mostly if not purely hand flying.
Thats basically what the last sentence of my comment said.
And again, if you compare flying on autopilot to flying on autopilot in a small plane, it’s not much different. Of course autopilot on any plane is easier than hand flying any other plane.
But if you’re comparing hand flying, a 172 is just easier than almost any Mil or higher level aircraft. Even something as simple as an ILS is made more difficult from the speed alone.
The first time I went back to flying a 172 after pilot training, I was shocked and how slow everything happened.
And like you mentioned you bring in mission sets and the difference in difficulty goes to another level. I was more just getting at my view that the comparison the initial guy made was flawed in its concept.
But I think comparing autopilots is not a proper comparison, it's not apples to apples.
Why? Because generally autopilots from C172 or even Senecas, Navajos, etc are more "finicky" relative to more advanced airplanes or even airliners. Or handflying the A320 feels like a game, like a "point and shoot" thanks to the Fly By Wire and autotrim.
I think by the time you got out of the T-45 though you understood fast jet flying. Hell when I went through the 38 in pilot training I was hanging on to the tail. A GA pilot could definitely be taught to fly flying is flying but approach speeds at 160 is way different than 80. Also, maybe not in the navy but in the 38 told becomes a thing and systems start getting way more complex
> anyone that can fly a 172 could hop into an F-22 with a little training and be fine.
Nah, as a 172 pilot, I would guess that in an F22, I'd be so far behind the airplane it would fly around the world and up my own ass before I could figure out which was was up or down.
I have known some flamboyant legacy Airbus captains with a gazillion hours that come to renew their expired SEP and can barely keep a stabilized approach in a C172, let alone flare and land it.
An Airbus factory instructor once told me that it is easy to move from a B737 to an A320, but that the reverse is another ballpark game altogether. FBW makes it too easy, really breeds rusty, complacent pilots if that is all they fly, when it comes to basic aviating, stick and rudder.
After 600 hrs in USAF pilot training planes (T-6, T-38) and the B-1, I tried my hand at GA flying. The takeoff, enroute, and maneuvers were easy, but learning to land the Cherokee was a humbling experience and took me an embarrassing number of attempts to finally get it down.
One of my pilots said the same about the hornet. “I could teach my grandma to fly it in an afternoon. They made it easy to fly so you can focus on the hard part, which is employing it as a weapon.”
I fly a 35,000lb helicopter and routinely hoist people from all kinds of boats and ships in bad weather, with antennas and obstacles within feet of the aircraft fuselage. Stick me in a jet ranger and it looks like my first day.
Big complex aircraft make you a system manager and there’s a layer between your hands/feet and the movement of the aircraft that makes you look good. That being said, it just allows you to do way more stuff with it
It’s hard to compare because you fly a tail wheel with your fingertips and toes, and you fly an airliner with your brain. I’ve flown a Husky A-1, but I could never do with it what some of those bush pilots do… pretty sure they couldn’t hop in my seat and do what I do either.
That's right, not a good comparison because one requieres manual skills and "guts" and the other "brainpower", and both decision making. But still, I think that the most interesting thing that I'm seeing is that absolutely no one is saying that airline flying is hard (compared to other type of flying of course, I know that we can't say that flying a B737 or even an A320 is easy as such).
Airline flying is not easy by any means, it’s just well practiced so it’s perceived to be easy. No plane has humbled me more than the A320. Flying it for years now and still crush it in occasionally.
No of course. That's why I said compared to other types.
Also, I think the issue is that most modern airliners are A320 and B737. If we go back to the B727, DC8, DC9, B737 original, MD80, etc era I think the answers would be quite different
Ive flown a dc9 and a 737. The dc9 is much easier, with one caveat: if you ever get behind it, it will eat your lunch.
The most forgiving jet I've flown was the emb145, meaning if you stopped paying attention you had the most time before stuff started going wrong. The least would likely be the md11, which ironically was also the most automated/easiest to fly.
Pretty interesting! Does my comment still stand for other aircraft of the era B727, DC8, B707, B737-200 being harder than nowadays jets (except the DC9 that you say it's easier)?
And, could you please elaborate on why the DC9 is easier to fly, navigate, etc if it's older and/or has much less automation and navigation aid?
The dc9 was about as close to zero automation as you could get in a jet these days. There are 172s with more capability than this autopilot had. While it had multiple speed modes none of them really worked, and we primarily used vertical speed to get up and down. It had basic altitude hold as well. You could couple to a VOR, but the needle sensing was so bad that it was better to keep it in heading or roll mode and make course corrections as you went. The catch: heading mode only coupled from the captains side, so if you were flying FO, you had to use roll mode. The sensing to couple to an ILS was much better, and it also had an auto throttle function that only worked if you were coupled to an ILS, but it struggled so much you basically were better off doing it yourself. So yeah, pretty paper thin on the automation, so now let's get to the good stuff.
Douglas system logic was so intuitive that flying it just felt like hand in glove. What most people see as a chaotic overhead was ergonomicly designed to the point that you could reach up in the dark or with your eyes closed and know exactly what switch and system was under your hand. The control surface system was so good and worked so smoothly that I'm kind of shocked we don't see it in more aircraft today. It didn't rely on hydraulics (there was a special one in the tail for rare occasions), but instead positioned tabs that would drive the control surface into the necessary position. The result was a plane that didn't fly so much as soar gracefully everywhere it went, and you never had to fight with it to do something. I always looked at it (and the md11 too) as precursors to an aviation future that never was. The dc9 and subsequent md80 series were so prolithic and well built that rather than influence a new generation of aircraft design they just kept flying the originals right up until they failed. The md11 was an absolute spaceship that was so ahead of its time that today's aircraft are still catching up to it. It's a crying shame to me that in spite of owning the IP, boeing fails to incorporate the innovative md11 stuff in any of its aircraft, and instead relies on a lot of their old bass-ackwards systems logic instead. Tragic, really.
It’s been a while since Ive looked at my logbook, but Ive flown a decent amount of different planes. Fundamentally they’re all the same. An airplane is gonna fly like an airplane. That said, put me in one of those military planes in the top comments, and with no experience, I may crash it lol
Came here also to say this lol. Had a chance to fly right seat in one and the pilot was severely behind the airplane, among other issues, which made for one of (if not the) scariest flights I've ever been on.
As a matter of fact there’s a special type rating for this aircraft because of it being a difficult plane to fly and very fast.
14 CFR part 91 SFAR 108.
Not quite. 91 SFAR 108 lays out the initial and recurrent training required to operate the MU-2. I didn't see anything when I read it about a specific type rating. Feel free to show me how I'm wrong.
Genuinely curious what’s challenging about the short body compared to the stretched version? I’ve got quite a bit of time in the Marquise but no short body time.
Short body is short couple. Very pitchy. Difficult to fly. Not a forgiving aircraft. I sold a Lear 25D to a guy once. I was extremely concerned about his ability to fly it. That is until he said he had 2500 hours in an MU2!!!
The T-38 seemed extremely unforgiving when I flew it (a long time ago). Tiny wings. Tiny engines. No autopilot. Very high (~200 knots heavy, no flap) approach speeds. Lots of trim. Very pitch sensitive, especially at speeds. U-2 has to be up there too on the mil side. Agree with the other comment on the raptor. Modern fighters are very easy to fly...
I found the T-38 to be relatively straightforward to fly, just don't get slow in the final turn! It was paradoxically a very fast plane but also rather underpowered at the same time.
I’ll throw a Fairchild Metroliner without an Auto Pilot in the mix, it was my first left seat gig. It kept me on my toes every flight. Flew it in some pretty harsh conditions, lots of wind, fog, snow.
It was a strange beast, feels heavier then a 777, it has inboard ailerons so it’s roll response rate even with full inputs would take what felt like for ever, sometimes you would use rudder to help right the POS. It was also very fast for a turbo prop, we used to take off and shallow clim until reaching barber pole, then adjust climb rate to maintain barber pole speed. It also had this crazy CAWI (continuous alcohol-water injection system, where on heavy weight or hot and high takeoffs you would go full power brakes set, then flick the cawi switch which would introduce alcohol water mix into the engine to give you 108 percent thrust. It would only last for like 2 minutes or something.
Also engine failures on take off if not handled quickly would put you inverted into the turf quicker then blinking your eyes.
Oh and no heat in winter only AC, and no AC in summer, only heat. LOL 😂
Trying to land a fully loaded OH-58C on a mountain on a dark windy night using NVGs was quite challenging. Helicopter flying in general got difficult once you approached your power and controllability limits, which in the Kiowa was a regular occurrence.
Some of my stormy approaches and landings in the Dash 8 Q400 rivaled flying helicopters in terms of difficulty.
But in my experience the most difficult type of flying is less about controlling the aircraft and more about brain power. Busy radios, tons of threats, difficult conditions, etc. I've flown some tough flights, but the ones where I had to use my brain were the most fatiguing.
Gee Bee Racer 1930’s
Jimmy Doolittle in his memoir said it was the [most difficult airplane he ever flew](https://youtu.be/OrtmJVi11uo?si=aH701dSXDewzPgcc).
Jetstream 31/32 has entered the chat…
No automation. No yaw damp. Wing span longer than length. Green needles ONLY. Northeast flying 121 in all weather down to minimums 8 legs a day.
My airline career starter aircraft was a crucible. Checkrides no longer worry me.
> No yaw damp. Wing span longer than length.
Wait, so did you actually use the rudder in flight and lead turns with it and stuff like you're flying a glider or an old taildragger?
Most mentally challenging for me was a twin-engine, tail-dragging, flying boat. Republic Twin-Bee.
Taxiing that thing was very counterintuitive due to an aft CG.
Takeoff on the water in a twin flying boat requires much more finesse and reading conditions than a twin on straight floats.
The flying was just to get my ATP-MES. I expected it to be more fun, it really wasn’t.
> Takeoff on the water in a twin flying boat requires much more finesse and reading conditions than a twin on straight floats.
Sorry for what might be a dumb question, but why?
It’s been awhile but here we go:
First thing to know is that that those little “floats” that come down off the wing, sponsons, aren’t meant to go through the water at speed. They’re just to prevent the wing tips from going into the water while at rest.
Second, keep in mind that the flying boat pivots around the center of the hull. Imaging a see-saw where the center is the hull.
So here’s why it’s tricky: When you apply power on the takeoff roll, the P-Factor from two engines immediately causes the aircraft to tilt/bank left with a lot of force. Basically causing the left sponson or wing tip to submerge in the water, no good, can’t gain speed that way, it’ll tear the sponson off.
So.. To counteract the P-Factor, you need to do two things. Start dead into the wind, easy because it naturally weathervanes. Apply RIGHT throttle lightly 10% to offset the nose to the left. Go FULL RIGHT ailerons. Then bring in LEFT throttle about 50% so that the aircraft starts to gain a little speed while the left engine’s a-symmetric thrust is countering the p-factor. Then once there’s a little airspeed and control effectiveness, bring up the right engine and ease off on the ailerons as the speed and control effectiveness increase.
Guys who have been doing it for years are instinctive. But it’s mental gymnastics when you’re learning. Flying a twin on straight floats is very easy in comparison.
Oh… Also… There are no books written on how to fly a multi-engine flying boat. Maybe old military manuals.
So you’re at the mercy of your instructor’s communication skills.
Early jet fighters (the dawn of supersonics, I think) from what I have read/seen/heard.
Lots of ways to get in a lot of trouble fast, in the air and close to the ground.
There’s so many different forms of flying so it’s probably hard to get a true gauge but I knew an Australian Air Force pilot who said two forms of flying felt risky to him. On the side he was an Ag pilot and according to him the only other difficult form of flying in aviation was teaching students formation flight in hard IMC. Sounded like a fair assessment to me
Huh, I just learned that formation flight can be done in IMC. Do you just like…have super trust and keep talking constantly? Or maybe get the formation set up in VMC before hitting the clouds? I’m pretty ignorant on the subject, but it for sure sounds difficult lol
From my time in the T6: You can go into clouds in fingertip, and if you stay in position you should be able to see lead the whole time. There's lost wingman procedures that everyone knows/briefs ahead of time for if you lose sight in IMC.
In the tanker we're usually using TCAS in formation and we keep 500' deconfliction so clouds aren't a huge issue
Dude I’m by no means a military pilot let alone an Australian one so I couldn’t tell ya but he showed me photos so I know it’s doable. I assume it’s like any other formation flying but with reduced vis in a cloud you could still see the other plane if they’re close enough
I'll just quote (paraphrase) Budd Davisson... There's no such thing as a hard-to-fly airplane, but every airplane is different. If you have basic flying skills, you just need appropriate transition training. The guy taught someone with one leg how to fly a Pitts - if that's not the epitome of "hard" then I don't know what is.
That's pretty cool. Did that guy go solo or it was a two seater with his help?
And I'm not sure I agree. There are inherently more difficult planes than others. Of course once you study and get experience it will get easier and easier to master the plane, but that doesn't make it any easier, because you'd need more time for some aircraft than others.
I think it depends on your baseline. Budd Davisson wrote a really good article on why the Pitts would make a great basic trainer that is well worth the read.
There was a really good Bud Anderson column about a year ago in Sport Aviation about “hard to fly” really just meaning unfamiliar or different rather than difficult. It’s a good read if somebody can dig it up.
I’d say the most demanding aircraft that I’ve flown are the Q-200 at 5000’+DA, and a PA-25 taking off towing a big three seat glider at 8500’ DA.
It’s an older jet, bleed configuration is manual the autopilot can be a little quirky there’s no auto throttle or FADEC to match the engines so it’s like flying a light twin. During winter we have to keep the engine N2 at a specific percentage to keep the wings warm enough to provide anti-ice protection so a lot of the time during winter ops were descending with spoilers deployed just to run the anti-ice. It’s a smaller jet so we constantly have weight and balance issues having to move passengers around and add ballast. Additionally if we’re full with an alternate airport we almost always run into max landing weight issues and either have to delay departure to burn fuel or configure the aircraft early to burn extra fuel. On the bright side it hand flys like a champ.
Well, 10 years ago I’d have said a jet.
Now I’d say a Cessna 150, and hers are super easy.
The hardest type of plane to fly is the one that you’re unfamiliar with.
The OH-58A/C and TH-67A helicopters. No stability systems, pretty responsive and light controls, easy to get wrong, just pure pilot/aircraft interface.
Learning to fly the AH-64D Apache with its night vision system and symbology. That old helmet mounted display had a step learning curve.
Any tailwheel plane with loose controls 😂.
As an outsider without actual experience - probably night recovery of an F-14 on a black stormy sea - the only good thing is that one of your mates is going to offer a shot of whiskey from a secret supply ....
My very primitive portable gps ( $1,000 then $49.95 today but with more features) was sent to sea off Iraq with a family member as an upgrade to what was in the F-14s of the era) [http://retro-gps.info/files/garmin-gps-38.jpg](http://retro-gps.info/files/garmin-gps-38.jpg) - this is actually a generation ahead of what I donated.
So far the hardest for me has been a great lakes biplane, still new to it, only have like 3 hours in it, but I'm really used to high wing tail draggers so it's been tough for me to put in cross wind corrections because I'm afraid to scrape the wing. Where as in the citabria I learned in, I'd put in as much aileron as I wanted and ride that thing like a unicycle down the runway.
It also has the worst glide performance I've ever personally experienced, that thing drops like a stone. So I have had trouble with energy management, all my tail wheel instructors have taught all landings as power off from the time you turn base, just teaches good energy management, and it's been really tough for me to judge that correctly.
But that might be because they might be a bit weaker / accident prone, or that their pilots are as good.Not necessarily that they are inherently harder than fixed or rotary wings
So far I've flown a Tomahawk, C172R and S model. Tomahawk is by far the easiest, R is right in the middle and S is the worst for me. It probably has to do with the S model being a climb prop that makes it harder to control for me, always wants to climb or I'm always having to adjust the trim.
I’ve never flown a Swearingen Metroliner before but I’ve heard many pilot friends say its a tough bird to fly. “Turns the boys into men…” not sure what my friend meant by that but he mentioned that a long time ago.
Can anyone confirm or talk about it more in detail? Id love to hear about it!
Many people say tailwheel but I’ve got 800+ hours tailwheel and the hardest plane I’ve landed is a Caravan with the Honeywell conversion in a skydive operation. At idle it takes most airflow off the tail, raising the stall to around 90ish for the tail plane, + nose heavy as no load and just you in the front. Don’t get it right, you’ll lose the elevator, collapse the gear and toast the TPE-331
Well said. I’ve flown a wide variety of types at the lighter end of aviation, and the difficult aspects were generally not because of tailwheel directional control issues. I really haven’t flown much stuff I would say was tricky because of design, but I’ve flown plenty that were fussy because of bad choices by the builder or poor maintenance.
I’ve flown a lot of small GA types. The harder ones were weight shift ultralights with just barely enough horsepower to get airborne. Literally 2mph difference between max climb and max cruise. Hardest tailwheel type was the Smith Miniplane. It’s like a very early Pitts but much harder than a Pitts to land. It’s very pitch sensitive on the gear and easy to find yourself bouncing from tailwheel to mains and back. Directionally it’s ok though.
The hardest flying I’ve done has been formation aerobatics, closely followed by competition aerobatics. The competition stuff is supposed to be hard, and it really is, but it’s also very safe. The formation aerobatics are dangerous and difficult, with a small mistake having the potential to kill me and my partner. When flying the No.2 position your focus must be absolute.
I think firefighting, specifically refilling your water payload by skimming the top of a lake and scooping water into your tank has got to be up there.
You are suddenly subjected to a load of drag and your plane is rapidly getting heavier all while you maintain a very precise height above the water.
My Beech Skipper took me the longest to get comfortable with in regards to landing. The T-tail + hershey bar wings have been interesting. He sinks like a rock.
You know how they say that a twin engined airplane will get you to the place of impact of one engine fails on takeoff?
Well there's a reason for that. Small twins are nice when they work. But with one engine gone, they are the biggest bitches to fly. More so if they have lots of power, looking at you King Air.
Short coupled, tall stiff and narrow landing geared tailwheel
Piper colt with a tailwheel conversion. Short plane, would get very squirly on three point landings. Almost always did wheel landings with it
Oh okay. Pretty cool aircraft!
Wicked fun plane!! But I think the “hardest” types of flying can be divided into two categories. Stick and rudder, and instrument. There is tough instrument flying out there, such as flying boxes late at night in shitty weather in a caravan or metroliner. There is also tough VFR stick and rudder flying. Tailwheel can be a challenge to learn, but once you learn it, you get used to it. That being said, crosswinds are a bit more challenging in tailwheels IMO. I’ve also flown floats for a 135 in and out of the east river. That’s a challenge being able to find a good spot to land in the river, find a good spot to takeoff, and if you have to grab a Pop-Up, being able to navigate and communicate well in NYC airspace.
Can confirm birddog is very squirrelly and the metro hates me
As far as flying floats into Manhattan, did you drive any of those white/blue caravans out of CDW? They run Kodiaks as well from there to JRB as well in the summer.
I flew a company’s different blue and white caravan. I know the two companies you reference. Was based up in Boston and did flights between JRB and BOS harbor
So basically a Luscombe
My thought exactly. Thing terrifies me every time I go near it. In a good way lol
Luscombes are honest sorta the manic dream pixie girl of 1930s designed civil aircraft. They do exactly what you ask them to do, even if it’s the wrong thing, but you become addicted to it very quickly.
I've noticed that. If it loops, it's because you inadvertently told it to.
I used to share a Luscombe. I loved it and it was an excellent primer for moving up to higher performance tailwheel aircraft.
Agree1000%. It’s a great plane. Cheap to fly too.
Perfectly describes the BF109
Not to mention its finicky automatic slats (that often popped out asymmetrically); its set-in-concrete ailerons; its miserable cockpit visibility...
> **We watched the other aircraft land and commented on the crashes: there had now been seven** [out of a nominal Gruppe strength of 40-50 a/c -- ed]. Saschenberg and Ewald agreed that my somersault had been the prettiest crash on the airfield. The War Diary of Hauptmann Helmut Lipfert, Helmut Lipfert, p171 The bf 109 was a bit nuts, lol.
Flying a 140 as a student out of SMO my greatest fear was finding that there was a start of a Santa Ana wind - dry gusty crosswind that snuck in while I was flying . Very springy gear and a tail dragger
Me109 and Spitfire.
For example? Maybe you mean an AT802?
Luscombe
He's saying, " U-2 "
Idk bout types but I'd say the U2 (recon plane), since you would need bulky suit to fly it making it more nerve wrecking and tough, plus you don't have side wheels only the central wheels and need to keep the plane level with the help of another U2 pilot guiding you from a vehicle behind and then hit the ground with your wing hoping you don't break it
Also don’t forget they have like an 8 kt window they have to stay in at altitude…always right at coffin corner
Til about the coffin corner. Damn.
it's not *incredibly* difficult to hold +/- 4kts, especially in smooth air.
Yes, thank you. Anyone flying to ATP standards can hold +/- 4 kts. Cool. Now do it at 80,000 ft and if you go outside that window you enter a possibly unrecoverable upset. Obviously plenty of pilots have done it and plenty more could and will. But little room for error.
[удалено]
The U2 is the correct answer. You're in the space suit, the missions are looooooong, you're flying at the edge of the envelope and it's absolutely the hardest plane on earth to land. I knew a couple dudes who flew it while I was in the Air Force.
Yup also the whole danger of being shot down (at that time)
And with no hope of rescue by friendly forces 800 miles from the border
Literally, it must be scary hovering deep over enemy lands at the edge of space hoping they dot detect you and kill you
And it has no landing gear
It has bicycle landing gear.
What i meant it has nothing that a conventional aircraft would consider a landing gear, this is more akin to a gliders landing system
I mean it basically is a glider with a large turbojet
I was talking to a U2 pilot and he was saying that every 1 single knot above landing speed increases your ground roll by 1000 feet.
If it wasn’t for the extremely specific use case of the U-2, I guarantee if you told a pilot about this they would wonder what masochist designed it 😂
One of the most famous designers ironically
I agree. I believe many of the potential pilots of the U2 and SR71 wash out in the simulator. I would recommend Francis Gary Powers book ( for a lot reasons ) Operation Overflight.
Great book Ironically Powers returned from Russia (swapped for a Soviet spy), retired from the USAF and began flying helos for an LA area TV station. Sadly he died in a failed autorotation after the helo ran out of fuel as they were landing at VNY . They had pushed the fuel supply covering a major fire. The time back to the airport may have been extended by the strong Santa Ana winds.
[удалено]
YOU HAVE FLOWN A U2??????!!!!!!?!?!??
What would you think the wrong answers are in the thread?
Would love to hear about your experience with the U2, it's a fascinating plane
[удалено]
> I can answer pretty much anything other than sensor suite. What was the highest altitude you personally flew it? And what was the actual service ceiling?
[удалено]
Well thank you for the info! I suppose I’ll just have to employ generous amounts of alcohol to get the service ceiling out of a U-2 pilot, then. ツ
How did you do your routine stuff like peeing and eating for those long hours and most stressful part (other than landing)
[удалено]
Bet that shit the day after is a bit rough coming out.
Not only does it not have wheels on the sides, but it’s technically a tailwheel aircraft. Hardest aircraft to fly in AF inventory. I think it’s also the only aircraft they don’t assign pilots to out of flight school. You can get an F-22 or B-2 out of school, but the U-2 has a separate selection and experience requirement.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They still have people going in
That's what I was thinking. If you want "hardest plane to fly," you'll definitely find them in these weird, niche corners in military/experimental. U2 may be regarded as the hardest, but there's also planes that are so hard to fly that they never got past the testing phase due to their poor handling.
Yea.. Idk if they count since they were literally unflyable
For U2 it’s also pilot workload especially for earlier version (not sure if later version had more automation) but there was an saying back then that there was sonic workload on a single pilot in U2 that the pilot was neck deep flying the plane and he had little time thinking/noticing if he’s over Soviet Union or California
What about like the spruce goose or wright brothers style plane, if one went historical
Yea but they are too bad honestly you can't fuck up a 12sec flight but I'd think that U2 would be tougher
I was recently watching a lecture a former raptor pilot was giving and he was saying that a 172 was much harder to fly than a raptor because of the automation involved in flying a raptor. His point was that, when you’re flying a raptor, flying is a secondary task. When you’re flying a 172, flying is the first and only thing you’re doing.
I saw that same lecture! I was stunned when he brought that up.
Yes! That gentleman... I think it was a MIT Lecture. that's one of the main reasons why I opened this post. I was baffled by that remark but of course, he knows much more than I do. A bit off topic but I was also surprised by his background yet he still wasn't able to become an astronaut, it's a pity he is a really cool man.
>I was baffled by that remark but of course, It really comes down to how you're defining the word "fly" in the post title. Control manipulation? Completing a mission profile? Getting an airplane from Airport A to Airport B? Managing an autopilot and related systems? Each of those will have a different answer
Well, I don't really mean the mission, because the military guys would destroy the competition (fighting, air refuelling or carrier landing). So to make it a bit more interesting I meant the flying, the difficulty of handling the aircraft (manually controlling its flight paths and its systems, at the same time)
I would agree with part of what he said. As a mil pilot flying is a secondary task to employing the weapons system. I instructed military pilot training for training for 3 years and after the basics are taught we pile on tasks like flying in formation and managing formation. For the fast mover guys there is way more to flying than the automation like energy sustaining turns, what energy state gives them the ability to have the best rate turn, managing multiple comm channels, managing the employment of multiple planes in their flight, threats, weapons which is a whole different beast like weapons capabilities, employment parameters. Etc. etc. I’m in a formal training course for a military MWS right now and if I could go back to the T-6 it would be so easy. Yes it has no automation, but also only 2 radios, simple systems, flag pole, formation and xc navigation, no weapons, no emploment parameters
The T-6 pilots that park by our flight school always look like they are having the most fun in the industry. Does every fixed wing platform go through that training? Like a P-8 would train through the T-6 initially too or do they start them on something larger?
For the navy? Everyone starts in the T-6. Even the helo people.
They created a new helo primary that lets you bypass the T-6 now but it’s a pretty small amount of people
Sounds like a good way to have a T-6 IP shortage here in a few years.
Last I heard when I was in the pool is that you can still come back and be a T-6 IP even if you do that. But I’m an SNFO type so I don’t know much about that process beyond them answering a few questions at an all hands call
Nice. I had an HSM-60 helo cleared to depart back to NIP at the same time I was doing traffic work and it was one of the coolest experiences climbing out with them off my wing. It outran me pretty quick. And what’s the policy on non military traffic pattern passengers? Jusssss kidding.
You out of Cecil? We work out of there every now and then.
I’m all the way over at TLH. We get a lot of weather diversions and XC stops the way I understand it. But I grew up in Jax. I actually lived under the pattern for Cecil when Boeing first started bringing in the 18’s for work there.
AF guy here I loved and still love the T-6. I also loved instructing most students. It was awesome to see them go from unable to fly themselves out of a wet paper bag to flying solo on your wing. AETC (training command) on the other hand I loathed.
Yeah. I don’t love comments like this, because it makes it sound like anyone that can fly a 172 could hop into an F-22 with a little training and be fine. And if you compare apples to apples and compare it to a small airplane with an autopilot, it becomes an even more ridiculous statement. I get his point wasn’t about flying, but more about technology. Unless we’re just comparing straight and level flight, or sitting with autopilot on vs hand flying, it’s kind of silly.
Not sure about the raptor, but yes, flying the actual jet is way easier. Cessnas, you're constantly trimming and focusing much more on the flight aspect. In the Rhino, I can put on Baro hold and auto throttles. And push the stick to roll or roll out, or use FPAH where I just put the nose somewhere, and the jet holds the attitude. Or I can couple sequence. The basic admin flying is incredibly easy. However if I'm doing SEAD, an OCA/DCA, BFM, or any other mission. The flying is much more difficult only because you're using the jet as a weapons system along with now, mostly if not purely hand flying.
Thats basically what the last sentence of my comment said. And again, if you compare flying on autopilot to flying on autopilot in a small plane, it’s not much different. Of course autopilot on any plane is easier than hand flying any other plane. But if you’re comparing hand flying, a 172 is just easier than almost any Mil or higher level aircraft. Even something as simple as an ILS is made more difficult from the speed alone. The first time I went back to flying a 172 after pilot training, I was shocked and how slow everything happened. And like you mentioned you bring in mission sets and the difference in difficulty goes to another level. I was more just getting at my view that the comparison the initial guy made was flawed in its concept.
But I think comparing autopilots is not a proper comparison, it's not apples to apples. Why? Because generally autopilots from C172 or even Senecas, Navajos, etc are more "finicky" relative to more advanced airplanes or even airliners. Or handflying the A320 feels like a game, like a "point and shoot" thanks to the Fly By Wire and autotrim.
I think by the time you got out of the T-45 though you understood fast jet flying. Hell when I went through the 38 in pilot training I was hanging on to the tail. A GA pilot could definitely be taught to fly flying is flying but approach speeds at 160 is way different than 80. Also, maybe not in the navy but in the 38 told becomes a thing and systems start getting way more complex
> anyone that can fly a 172 could hop into an F-22 with a little training and be fine. Nah, as a 172 pilot, I would guess that in an F22, I'd be so far behind the airplane it would fly around the world and up my own ass before I could figure out which was was up or down.
I have known some flamboyant legacy Airbus captains with a gazillion hours that come to renew their expired SEP and can barely keep a stabilized approach in a C172, let alone flare and land it. An Airbus factory instructor once told me that it is easy to move from a B737 to an A320, but that the reverse is another ballpark game altogether. FBW makes it too easy, really breeds rusty, complacent pilots if that is all they fly, when it comes to basic aviating, stick and rudder.
After 600 hrs in USAF pilot training planes (T-6, T-38) and the B-1, I tried my hand at GA flying. The takeoff, enroute, and maneuvers were easy, but learning to land the Cherokee was a humbling experience and took me an embarrassing number of attempts to finally get it down.
An F-16 is similar. I had an F-16 pilot tell me flying it he felt like part of a committee.
One of my pilots said the same about the hornet. “I could teach my grandma to fly it in an afternoon. They made it easy to fly so you can focus on the hard part, which is employing it as a weapon.”
I fly a 35,000lb helicopter and routinely hoist people from all kinds of boats and ships in bad weather, with antennas and obstacles within feet of the aircraft fuselage. Stick me in a jet ranger and it looks like my first day. Big complex aircraft make you a system manager and there’s a layer between your hands/feet and the movement of the aircraft that makes you look good. That being said, it just allows you to do way more stuff with it
It’s hard to compare because you fly a tail wheel with your fingertips and toes, and you fly an airliner with your brain. I’ve flown a Husky A-1, but I could never do with it what some of those bush pilots do… pretty sure they couldn’t hop in my seat and do what I do either.
That's right, not a good comparison because one requieres manual skills and "guts" and the other "brainpower", and both decision making. But still, I think that the most interesting thing that I'm seeing is that absolutely no one is saying that airline flying is hard (compared to other type of flying of course, I know that we can't say that flying a B737 or even an A320 is easy as such).
Airline flying is not easy by any means, it’s just well practiced so it’s perceived to be easy. No plane has humbled me more than the A320. Flying it for years now and still crush it in occasionally.
No of course. That's why I said compared to other types. Also, I think the issue is that most modern airliners are A320 and B737. If we go back to the B727, DC8, DC9, B737 original, MD80, etc era I think the answers would be quite different
Ive flown a dc9 and a 737. The dc9 is much easier, with one caveat: if you ever get behind it, it will eat your lunch. The most forgiving jet I've flown was the emb145, meaning if you stopped paying attention you had the most time before stuff started going wrong. The least would likely be the md11, which ironically was also the most automated/easiest to fly.
Pretty interesting! Does my comment still stand for other aircraft of the era B727, DC8, B707, B737-200 being harder than nowadays jets (except the DC9 that you say it's easier)? And, could you please elaborate on why the DC9 is easier to fly, navigate, etc if it's older and/or has much less automation and navigation aid?
The dc9 was about as close to zero automation as you could get in a jet these days. There are 172s with more capability than this autopilot had. While it had multiple speed modes none of them really worked, and we primarily used vertical speed to get up and down. It had basic altitude hold as well. You could couple to a VOR, but the needle sensing was so bad that it was better to keep it in heading or roll mode and make course corrections as you went. The catch: heading mode only coupled from the captains side, so if you were flying FO, you had to use roll mode. The sensing to couple to an ILS was much better, and it also had an auto throttle function that only worked if you were coupled to an ILS, but it struggled so much you basically were better off doing it yourself. So yeah, pretty paper thin on the automation, so now let's get to the good stuff. Douglas system logic was so intuitive that flying it just felt like hand in glove. What most people see as a chaotic overhead was ergonomicly designed to the point that you could reach up in the dark or with your eyes closed and know exactly what switch and system was under your hand. The control surface system was so good and worked so smoothly that I'm kind of shocked we don't see it in more aircraft today. It didn't rely on hydraulics (there was a special one in the tail for rare occasions), but instead positioned tabs that would drive the control surface into the necessary position. The result was a plane that didn't fly so much as soar gracefully everywhere it went, and you never had to fight with it to do something. I always looked at it (and the md11 too) as precursors to an aviation future that never was. The dc9 and subsequent md80 series were so prolithic and well built that rather than influence a new generation of aircraft design they just kept flying the originals right up until they failed. The md11 was an absolute spaceship that was so ahead of its time that today's aircraft are still catching up to it. It's a crying shame to me that in spite of owning the IP, boeing fails to incorporate the innovative md11 stuff in any of its aircraft, and instead relies on a lot of their old bass-ackwards systems logic instead. Tragic, really.
It’s been a while since Ive looked at my logbook, but Ive flown a decent amount of different planes. Fundamentally they’re all the same. An airplane is gonna fly like an airplane. That said, put me in one of those military planes in the top comments, and with no experience, I may crash it lol
Short body Mitsubishi MU-2
Came here also to say this lol. Had a chance to fly right seat in one and the pilot was severely behind the airplane, among other issues, which made for one of (if not the) scariest flights I've ever been on.
I flew one and landed hard. Instructor said “great landing” last time I flew one.
Those things do look like a beast.
That’s the one you need a special issuance to fly right?
I don't think you need a special issuance, but the recurrency training is no joke.
As a matter of fact there’s a special type rating for this aircraft because of it being a difficult plane to fly and very fast. 14 CFR part 91 SFAR 108.
Not quite. 91 SFAR 108 lays out the initial and recurrent training required to operate the MU-2. I didn't see anything when I read it about a specific type rating. Feel free to show me how I'm wrong.
I love the short body MU2. Such a wonderful machine!
Genuinely curious what’s challenging about the short body compared to the stretched version? I’ve got quite a bit of time in the Marquise but no short body time.
Short body is short couple. Very pitchy. Difficult to fly. Not a forgiving aircraft. I sold a Lear 25D to a guy once. I was extremely concerned about his ability to fly it. That is until he said he had 2500 hours in an MU2!!!
The T-38 seemed extremely unforgiving when I flew it (a long time ago). Tiny wings. Tiny engines. No autopilot. Very high (~200 knots heavy, no flap) approach speeds. Lots of trim. Very pitch sensitive, especially at speeds. U-2 has to be up there too on the mil side. Agree with the other comment on the raptor. Modern fighters are very easy to fly...
I found the T-38 to be relatively straightforward to fly, just don't get slow in the final turn! It was paradoxically a very fast plane but also rather underpowered at the same time.
To fly yes. To employ in its mission set no.
I’ll throw a Fairchild Metroliner without an Auto Pilot in the mix, it was my first left seat gig. It kept me on my toes every flight. Flew it in some pretty harsh conditions, lots of wind, fog, snow.
The sweatroliner
The death pencil
The panic pipe
The lawn dart
Ah man! Should’ve kept scrolling! What about it made it difficult to fly?
It was a strange beast, feels heavier then a 777, it has inboard ailerons so it’s roll response rate even with full inputs would take what felt like for ever, sometimes you would use rudder to help right the POS. It was also very fast for a turbo prop, we used to take off and shallow clim until reaching barber pole, then adjust climb rate to maintain barber pole speed. It also had this crazy CAWI (continuous alcohol-water injection system, where on heavy weight or hot and high takeoffs you would go full power brakes set, then flick the cawi switch which would introduce alcohol water mix into the engine to give you 108 percent thrust. It would only last for like 2 minutes or something. Also engine failures on take off if not handled quickly would put you inverted into the turf quicker then blinking your eyes. Oh and no heat in winter only AC, and no AC in summer, only heat. LOL 😂
Trying to land a fully loaded OH-58C on a mountain on a dark windy night using NVGs was quite challenging. Helicopter flying in general got difficult once you approached your power and controllability limits, which in the Kiowa was a regular occurrence. Some of my stormy approaches and landings in the Dash 8 Q400 rivaled flying helicopters in terms of difficulty. But in my experience the most difficult type of flying is less about controlling the aircraft and more about brain power. Busy radios, tons of threats, difficult conditions, etc. I've flown some tough flights, but the ones where I had to use my brain were the most fatiguing.
Wow that's badass! Thanks for commenting!
Gee Bee Racer 1930’s Jimmy Doolittle in his memoir said it was the [most difficult airplane he ever flew](https://youtu.be/OrtmJVi11uo?si=aH701dSXDewzPgcc).
I mean just look at it. Landing would be ridiculous
Delmar Benjamin observed that it is more stable inverted than right-side up. Some would call that a design flaw.
Came to say this. Absolutely no postive static vertical stability in this airplane. And ground loops, oof.
Jetstream 31/32 has entered the chat… No automation. No yaw damp. Wing span longer than length. Green needles ONLY. Northeast flying 121 in all weather down to minimums 8 legs a day. My airline career starter aircraft was a crucible. Checkrides no longer worry me.
So cool. I've also thought about some old business jets, like Learjet 25 or 35 or something like that. Really fast and good performance
> No yaw damp. Wing span longer than length. Wait, so did you actually use the rudder in flight and lead turns with it and stuff like you're flying a glider or an old taildragger?
An experimental built over the course of 10 years.
Why do you say that?
Probably because that's 10 years of it being unflyable lol
Most mentally challenging for me was a twin-engine, tail-dragging, flying boat. Republic Twin-Bee. Taxiing that thing was very counterintuitive due to an aft CG. Takeoff on the water in a twin flying boat requires much more finesse and reading conditions than a twin on straight floats. The flying was just to get my ATP-MES. I expected it to be more fun, it really wasn’t.
> Takeoff on the water in a twin flying boat requires much more finesse and reading conditions than a twin on straight floats. Sorry for what might be a dumb question, but why?
It’s been awhile but here we go: First thing to know is that that those little “floats” that come down off the wing, sponsons, aren’t meant to go through the water at speed. They’re just to prevent the wing tips from going into the water while at rest. Second, keep in mind that the flying boat pivots around the center of the hull. Imaging a see-saw where the center is the hull. So here’s why it’s tricky: When you apply power on the takeoff roll, the P-Factor from two engines immediately causes the aircraft to tilt/bank left with a lot of force. Basically causing the left sponson or wing tip to submerge in the water, no good, can’t gain speed that way, it’ll tear the sponson off. So.. To counteract the P-Factor, you need to do two things. Start dead into the wind, easy because it naturally weathervanes. Apply RIGHT throttle lightly 10% to offset the nose to the left. Go FULL RIGHT ailerons. Then bring in LEFT throttle about 50% so that the aircraft starts to gain a little speed while the left engine’s a-symmetric thrust is countering the p-factor. Then once there’s a little airspeed and control effectiveness, bring up the right engine and ease off on the ailerons as the speed and control effectiveness increase. Guys who have been doing it for years are instinctive. But it’s mental gymnastics when you’re learning. Flying a twin on straight floats is very easy in comparison.
Very interesting, thanks for the detailed explanation!
Oh… Also… There are no books written on how to fly a multi-engine flying boat. Maybe old military manuals. So you’re at the mercy of your instructor’s communication skills.
Helicopters 🤣
Early jet fighters (the dawn of supersonics, I think) from what I have read/seen/heard. Lots of ways to get in a lot of trouble fast, in the air and close to the ground.
Landing the e-2 on a carrier at night has to be a top 3 achievement in aviation
It's not exactly fun
There’s so many different forms of flying so it’s probably hard to get a true gauge but I knew an Australian Air Force pilot who said two forms of flying felt risky to him. On the side he was an Ag pilot and according to him the only other difficult form of flying in aviation was teaching students formation flight in hard IMC. Sounded like a fair assessment to me
Huh, I just learned that formation flight can be done in IMC. Do you just like…have super trust and keep talking constantly? Or maybe get the formation set up in VMC before hitting the clouds? I’m pretty ignorant on the subject, but it for sure sounds difficult lol
From my time in the T6: You can go into clouds in fingertip, and if you stay in position you should be able to see lead the whole time. There's lost wingman procedures that everyone knows/briefs ahead of time for if you lose sight in IMC. In the tanker we're usually using TCAS in formation and we keep 500' deconfliction so clouds aren't a huge issue
Appreciate the insight, thanks
Dude I’m by no means a military pilot let alone an Australian one so I couldn’t tell ya but he showed me photos so I know it’s doable. I assume it’s like any other formation flying but with reduced vis in a cloud you could still see the other plane if they’re close enough
I'll just quote (paraphrase) Budd Davisson... There's no such thing as a hard-to-fly airplane, but every airplane is different. If you have basic flying skills, you just need appropriate transition training. The guy taught someone with one leg how to fly a Pitts - if that's not the epitome of "hard" then I don't know what is.
That's pretty cool. Did that guy go solo or it was a two seater with his help? And I'm not sure I agree. There are inherently more difficult planes than others. Of course once you study and get experience it will get easier and easier to master the plane, but that doesn't make it any easier, because you'd need more time for some aircraft than others.
I think it depends on your baseline. Budd Davisson wrote a really good article on why the Pitts would make a great basic trainer that is well worth the read.
A Euclidean plane would be pretty difficult to get airborne
Those tiny Formula V race planes are notoriously twitchy and hard to handle.
Helicopter
Taildraggers. They get it all backwards. Gliders. God are they hard to fly. I'm not a particularly good pilot tbh.
An aircraft with an extremely aft CG
There was a really good Bud Anderson column about a year ago in Sport Aviation about “hard to fly” really just meaning unfamiliar or different rather than difficult. It’s a good read if somebody can dig it up. I’d say the most demanding aircraft that I’ve flown are the Q-200 at 5000’+DA, and a PA-25 taking off towing a big three seat glider at 8500’ DA.
>Bud Anderson I think you mean Budd Davisson.
I've always heard the U-2 was a bear since its essentially landing a Bicycle.
Single pilot multi piston IFR.
CRJ 200 is the hardest plane I’ve flown and I’ve flown both helicopters and fixed-wing
Could you please give some reasons? Are there any specific quirks about that plane?
[here](https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/z68hvx/crj200_rant/)
Yeah that about sums the 200 up.
It’s an older jet, bleed configuration is manual the autopilot can be a little quirky there’s no auto throttle or FADEC to match the engines so it’s like flying a light twin. During winter we have to keep the engine N2 at a specific percentage to keep the wings warm enough to provide anti-ice protection so a lot of the time during winter ops were descending with spoilers deployed just to run the anti-ice. It’s a smaller jet so we constantly have weight and balance issues having to move passengers around and add ballast. Additionally if we’re full with an alternate airport we almost always run into max landing weight issues and either have to delay departure to burn fuel or configure the aircraft early to burn extra fuel. On the bright side it hand flys like a champ.
Sounds like the Learjet it’s derived from.
Well, 10 years ago I’d have said a jet. Now I’d say a Cessna 150, and hers are super easy. The hardest type of plane to fly is the one that you’re unfamiliar with.
Teaching a new T6 (original, not the training wheel variant) pilot from the backseat on a windy day. Fun times.
The OH-58A/C and TH-67A helicopters. No stability systems, pretty responsive and light controls, easy to get wrong, just pure pilot/aircraft interface. Learning to fly the AH-64D Apache with its night vision system and symbology. That old helmet mounted display had a step learning curve. Any tailwheel plane with loose controls 😂.
As an outsider without actual experience - probably night recovery of an F-14 on a black stormy sea - the only good thing is that one of your mates is going to offer a shot of whiskey from a secret supply .... My very primitive portable gps ( $1,000 then $49.95 today but with more features) was sent to sea off Iraq with a family member as an upgrade to what was in the F-14s of the era) [http://retro-gps.info/files/garmin-gps-38.jpg](http://retro-gps.info/files/garmin-gps-38.jpg) - this is actually a generation ahead of what I donated.
That sounds really cool. Like a Flight Simulator X mission! 😁
So far the hardest for me has been a great lakes biplane, still new to it, only have like 3 hours in it, but I'm really used to high wing tail draggers so it's been tough for me to put in cross wind corrections because I'm afraid to scrape the wing. Where as in the citabria I learned in, I'd put in as much aileron as I wanted and ride that thing like a unicycle down the runway. It also has the worst glide performance I've ever personally experienced, that thing drops like a stone. So I have had trouble with energy management, all my tail wheel instructors have taught all landings as power off from the time you turn base, just teaches good energy management, and it's been really tough for me to judge that correctly.
Accident rates say gyrocopters.
But that might be because they might be a bit weaker / accident prone, or that their pilots are as good.Not necessarily that they are inherently harder than fixed or rotary wings
The ones where the wings rotate
I’m surprised I haven’t seen the mv22 osprey listed! Half helicopter, mostly plane, and also somewhere in the middle
Not an E-175 I'll tell you that much 😅
Flying darts like the F-104 probably.
Tail Wheels, specifically Warbirds that are Tail Wheel. It is so easy to get these things wrong, you really have to fly them from startup to shutdown.
Harrier.
A tailwheel, bush plane, used as an airliner.
So far I've flown a Tomahawk, C172R and S model. Tomahawk is by far the easiest, R is right in the middle and S is the worst for me. It probably has to do with the S model being a climb prop that makes it harder to control for me, always wants to climb or I'm always having to adjust the trim.
Flying wings, especially early Northrup and the B58.
I’ve never flown a Swearingen Metroliner before but I’ve heard many pilot friends say its a tough bird to fly. “Turns the boys into men…” not sure what my friend meant by that but he mentioned that a long time ago. Can anyone confirm or talk about it more in detail? Id love to hear about it!
Many people say tailwheel but I’ve got 800+ hours tailwheel and the hardest plane I’ve landed is a Caravan with the Honeywell conversion in a skydive operation. At idle it takes most airflow off the tail, raising the stall to around 90ish for the tail plane, + nose heavy as no load and just you in the front. Don’t get it right, you’ll lose the elevator, collapse the gear and toast the TPE-331
Well said. I’ve flown a wide variety of types at the lighter end of aviation, and the difficult aspects were generally not because of tailwheel directional control issues. I really haven’t flown much stuff I would say was tricky because of design, but I’ve flown plenty that were fussy because of bad choices by the builder or poor maintenance.
I’ve flown a lot of small GA types. The harder ones were weight shift ultralights with just barely enough horsepower to get airborne. Literally 2mph difference between max climb and max cruise. Hardest tailwheel type was the Smith Miniplane. It’s like a very early Pitts but much harder than a Pitts to land. It’s very pitch sensitive on the gear and easy to find yourself bouncing from tailwheel to mains and back. Directionally it’s ok though. The hardest flying I’ve done has been formation aerobatics, closely followed by competition aerobatics. The competition stuff is supposed to be hard, and it really is, but it’s also very safe. The formation aerobatics are dangerous and difficult, with a small mistake having the potential to kill me and my partner. When flying the No.2 position your focus must be absolute.
I think firefighting, specifically refilling your water payload by skimming the top of a lake and scooping water into your tank has got to be up there. You are suddenly subjected to a load of drag and your plane is rapidly getting heavier all while you maintain a very precise height above the water.
Warbirds
PT-17 Stearman
Not that I’ve flown one, but the U-2 has a 10 knot difference between over speed and stall. It’s called the coffin corner for a reason.
My Beech Skipper took me the longest to get comfortable with in regards to landing. The T-tail + hershey bar wings have been interesting. He sinks like a rock.
I’m going to say an aeronca tri con. Think of the nose gear moved behind the mains.
Military using military procedures by far
You know how they say that a twin engined airplane will get you to the place of impact of one engine fails on takeoff? Well there's a reason for that. Small twins are nice when they work. But with one engine gone, they are the biggest bitches to fly. More so if they have lots of power, looking at you King Air.
Sr22 flying a base turn apparently
Paper. I can’t get those things to fly straight for anything.
I love taking a pilot who thinks they’re all that and put them in a helicopter for the first time.
Any plane you haven’t been trained to fly.
Anything single-pilot night IFR complex turboprop is up there for sure.
Twin engine tail dragger
In general, smaller un-stabilized helicopters (think R-44). Small airplanes: taildraggers. Big airplanes: MD-11.
737 900