Most demanding airplane?

[Glasnost]

L-1011. They tried to make everything as complex as possible on that plane from a maintenance perspective.

[Shiny Side Up]

One might suppose that the CADORs
database would be the repository of
this kind of information.

Has anyone ever done a report generation
from it, based on aircraft type? Would
be interesting to know which ones lead
the accident parade.

While CADORs aren't strictly accidents, the type involved most often (keep in mind we're talking Canada) is the Cessna 172. There are all sorts of minor accidents, incidents from the top spot holder for appearing in the CADORs. The cub and its variants I suspect would be high as well, but many of these incidents escape the regulator's notice, and don't show up in reports.

As I recall, from one location a particlular school's Cessnas would show up in the CADORss at least a dozen or more times a month. Runway incursions being the biggest problem, though comm troubles and landing excursions being right up there.

If You query the CADORS for CYQL (Lethbridge, Alberta) there are an overwhelming amount of CADORS from single piston four seaters crossing the border without flight plans, both Charlie and November registrations.

I would suspect if one could sort out strictly accidents where damage has occured, the ubiquitous 172 would top the list, but primarily due to the numbers used and given their role. From a certain perspective, it might be considered the most "demanding" airplane, since it is so often in the role of playing host to someone at its controls with the least amount of ability. In lots of ways.

[looproll]

I'm going to go ahead and say Pitts Special...

[cgzro]

Id narrow it down to a Pitts s2b flown from the front seat on a narrow runway with a 20 kt crosswind.

[Gene Hasenfus]

Honourable mention to:



There's quite a story about Delmar's first flight
in it! It was in the EAA magazine, some decades
ago.

However, there aren't many of those around
for training in. If you do spend the time to
learn to land a Pitts, all sorts of other interesting
aircraft seem pretty easy afterwards, such as
Waco, Stearman, Harvard, P-51, etc. I remember
being told that the Beech 18 was a "fire breathing
dragon" that would eat me alive. What BS. I
jumped in it and checked myself out. A gentle
sweetheart of an airplane.

As Curtis once said, "There are no squirrelly
airplanes - only squirrelly pilots!".

You can't fault an airplane that does exactly
what you tell it to, although many weasels
will try.

[Antique Pilot]

I have heard that a Howard DGA 15P with 1 brake u/s is a handful.

[NotDirty!]

No airplane I have flown is as demanding as my wife!! Now there's a fire breathing dragon!!!

[FenderManDan]

Your too ?

[Pop n Fresh]

Suppose it was the piper warrior II. I don't get airborne much.

[NotDirty!]

I did fly a "wide body" C182 once....

[747nigel]

A320 into the Island of Jersey in the English Channel on a gusty, stormy night in November....only 1350 m of runway with a cliff at one end and when I commented to my copilot that the runway looked like an aircraft carrier deck, he replied, "it's not pitching up and down, but least an Aircraft carrier turns into wind when you land...."
It was not uncommon to have x-winds into Jersey gusting to 45-50 kts and though I was sceptical of a euro-french over-engineered machine being able to cope with these conditions, it never let me down...

[AirFrame]

Has anyone ever done a report generation from it, based on aircraft type? Would be interesting to know which ones lead the accident parade.

That would be the J-3 Cub...but it does it more slowly

Only *just* fast enough to kill you.

[CpnCrunch]

Has anyone ever done a report generation from it, based on aircraft type? Would be interesting to know which ones lead the accident parade.

That would be the J-3 Cub...but it does it more slowly

Only *just* fast enough to kill you.

Well if you add vortex generators and flaps it stalls at 32mph (not sure if that's IAS or CAS):

http://www.cubcrafters.com/carboncubss/specs

Nice plane, although if I had $184k burning a hole in my pocket I'd probably go for something a bit faster.

[Illya Kuryakin]

If you find an airplane "demanding" you're not doing something right.
Illya

[Skyhunter]

Don't know anyone who didn't find an F-5 "demanding." Most of the pilots I knew flying them were doing things right.

In fact all my favourite airplanes I have flown could be quite demanding at times. The ones that aren't, are not all that much fun Illya.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Well Sky, any airplane can have it's demanding moments. It shouldn't be the airplane, rather the situation. BTW, the F5 is one of the best looking aircraft out there! Always thought Canada should have gone with the F20 over the F18!
Illya

[NotDirty!]

Well Sky, any airplane can have it's demanding moments. It shouldn't be the airplane, rather the situation. BTW, the F5 is one of the best looking aircraft out there! Always thought Canada should have gone with the F20 over the F18!
Illya

Then we could have had the single engine fighter debate 35 years ago! The people I knew that flew the F5 described it as a letdown, didn't have the performance it needed to be competitive in a dog fight. But I suppose that comparing it to the F104 or F18 is unfair... Different role, different target market (3rd world countries' air forces... Not sure how Canada made that list (at least at that time!)) So perhaps that added to the demandingness of it.

On the other hand, I do like the look of it!

[YYZSaabGuy]

The people I knew that flew the F5 described it as a letdown, didn't have the performance it needed to be competitive in a dog fight.

I had an interesting discussion with a former RCAF F5 pilot a few years ago. His take was that it was an extremely capable aircraft but badly range-limited. In his words, it was the perfect platform if you were tasked to bomb your own airfield.

[Meatservo]

A320 into the Island of Jersey in the English Channel on a gusty, stormy night in November....only 1350 m of runway with a cliff at one end and when I commented to my copilot that the runway looked like an aircraft carrier deck, he replied, "it's not pitching up and down, but least an Aircraft carrier turns into wind when you land...."
It was not uncommon to have x-winds into Jersey gusting to 45-50 kts and though I was sceptical of a euro-french over-engineered machine being able to cope with these conditions, it never let me down...

Well Sky, any airplane can have it's demanding moments. It shouldn't be the airplane, rather the situation.
Illya

This is what I meant before. There are surely some aeroplanes that require more skill/experience/alertness/whatever to fly safely than others, some are very stable, others very unstable. But what makes a plane "demanding" is what you are asking it to do, compared with what it was meant for. The more demanding the situation, the better off you are with a less demanding plane!

The most demanding work I have ever done has been in the very fine but UN-demanding series of DeHavilland Canada planes, good thing they are so easy to fly, because the things they are meant to do are NOT easy. If you had asked me at various stages of my career what the most "demanding" machine I ever flew was, it might have been planes that are as prosaic as a 185 on wheels, the first time you ever try it when you only have one season of float-flying under your belt. Or a Twin Otter on CAP floats, after flying a regular Otter for thousands of hours. These things are "demanding" for a couple of tries, and then they aren't. I heard the MU-2 was pretty demanding.

Flying a helicopter, for me, would be "demanding". I've taken some lessons, to see what it's like, and if I can afford to do it again, I will. I think I've kind of got the hang of it, in a very unimpressive sort of way, but the concentration required is immense. Yet, my friends who are rotor-heads seem to be able to fling them around with the greatest of ease!

It reminds me of my first season in the left seat of a Twin Otter, trying to back it onto shorelines and even just get to the dock with a modicum of grace. I could do it, but the feeling of impending disaster kept me on my toes and I found it very "demanding"! Now, I can do it with my eyes closed (almost)

I guess I would call an aeroplane "demanding" if, after having tried to make it do something a few times, it continued to make you feel as though you weren't going to get any more comfortable at it. Maybe if it continued to make your heart rate increase at the thought of having to land it in a crosswind, no matter how many times you've already done it. There are probably lots of planes out there like that, but thankfully I've always flown planes that have turned out to be nice and friendly once I've given myself a chance to get used to it. There have always been times though, that those friendly planes have turned unfriendly, when I've tried to push boundaries.

[AOW]

I heard the MU-2 was pretty demanding.

It shouldn't be. It flies very well, but requires the proper profiles to be followed. In properly trained hands, it is no more demanding than a King Air. It becomes demanding when you decide to be a test pilot and take it outside of the well defined envelope, or neglect the carefully planned procedures for EFATO etc. The majority of MU-2s are owner flown, single pilot, by business people, likely with less than 1000 hrs TT. The accident rate, since the FAA mandated type-specific training, is best in class.