UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 14032 times:
Simple question, but expect some long answers. What is the most difficult airliner to fly? A long time ago, I think this topic was discussed, and I think the general census was that the MD-11 was very hard to fly. From what I understand, you constantly have to keep trimming the aircraft because it's like flying around a swimming pool full of water, the center of gravity is constantly changing, but I know there are more reasons as to why people thought it was hard to fly.
Ferengi80 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2007, 696 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 13725 times:
I don't know about in the air, but the A340-600 is difficult to manouveur when on the ground based on her massive length. I remember watching a DVD of a SAA A340 crew flying a delivery flight of an A346 routing TLS-JNB. The aircraft has a camera in the nose and a camera in the tail to enable the crew to see exactly where the airplane is at whilst taxiing.
AF1981 LHR-CDG A380-800 10 July 2010 / AF1980 CDG-LHR A380-800 11 July 2010
Fritzi From United Arab Emirates, joined Jun 2001, 2763 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13565 times:
I've never handled anything larger than a C206, but from what I've heard I'm guessing that the earliest models of the 707 are at the top of the list. Many of the surfaces lacked hydraulic motors which gave the pilots a real workout, especially during crosswind landings.
I've also heard that the Dash-8's are also a little bit tricker during landing because if you pull back on the yoke to flare low above the rwy you will smash the mains into the ground as they are behind the center of lift.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 67
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13555 times:
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 5): The Ford Tri-motor, from what I understand, is rather brutal (at today's standards) on the pilot.
I was thinking about the same airplane. One problem, I've been told is that there is almost no vertical fin - it's all rudder. As a result it yaws back and forth 'til you must think you are riding a salmon. On the other hand the most graceful groundloop I ever witnessed was a Ford Trimotor. It just caught a minor gust and he ran completely out of rudder. It just swooped around, using the whole infield, then proceeded on its way.
I have only flown eight jetliners from the fairly antique to the very modern. Not one of them was difficult to fly. Some were high-workload. Some were quite complex from a system knowledge point of view, but all were designed from the beginning to be mastered by pilots just about like me.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
CosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2257 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13486 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter): I think the general census was that the MD-11 was very hard to fly. From what I understand, you constantly have to keep trimming the aircraft because it's like flying around a swimming pool full of water, the center of gravity is constantly changing, but I know there are more reasons as to why people thought it was hard to fly.
That's not true at all. The MD-11 is quite nice to fly but like most bigger jets it isn't fun to hand fly at altitude. I never saw any bad characteristics when I transitioned from the DC-10 and in fact think it flies much nicer than the 10. It is sensitive but not really a problem. The CG isn't constantly changing either. People still can't let go with the fact that that early software load for the LSAS wasa bugger during ldg but that is long ago history.
When I've j/s on our Airbuses they seem "stiff legged" and ldg seem a little hard.
Quoting OHLHD (Reply 3): A MD-11 is hard to land if it is empty and not heavy afaik
I haven't seen an airliner that wasn't a bigger challenge to land when light wgt including the lovable 727. There's always an optimum wgt that's perfect but heavier is better.
MrChips From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 943 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13425 times:
Compared to other aircraft in it's class, the King Air family (including the Beech 1900) is a rather difficult aircraft to fly, mostly because the control forces are rather enormous. Smaller pilots often need to use both hands on the control column to rotate the aircraft.
And I can categorically tell you that despite it's terrible reputation, the Mitsubishi MU-2 is an absolute joy to fly; it just requires you to be cognizant of it's idiosyncrasies.
There is the limitation on computer games. The A320 series doesn't "handle" at all. At least not in flight control normal law. There is no feedback to the stick. It is stable in the same manner as a spacecraft is stable. You simply make small stick inputs to point the thing where it needs to go and it goes there. And that is while hand-flying. With the autopilot on even I begin to feel like a passenger.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.
KELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6486 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 13143 times:
Suprised no one has said the Concorde yet...the pilots referred to it's approach technique as "keeping a ball on a pinnacle."
Also, I hear that turbocompound engines, as featured in the DC-7C (Seven Seas) , L1049 Super Connie and Boeing Stratocruiser were rather hard to successfully manage, and that mismanagement of such powerplants often led to engine fires and/or in flight shutdowns.
Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
I wouldn't say that! It's not too hard! Compared to a 737 yes, it's harder, but the CG doesn't shift every few seconds and if you trim your aircraft properly you can fly handfree
Quoting OHLHD (Reply 3): A MD-11 is hard to land if it is empty and not heavy afaik. I am sure WILCO737 can give us an answer on this question. Smile
Quoting CosmicCruiser (Reply 9): I haven't seen an airliner that wasn't a bigger challenge to land when light wgt
Oh yeah, the MD11 gets bitchy when she is light but even then it is possible but smooth touchdowns are nearly impossible then The heavier the MD11 is the better the landing will be! I did an overweight landing (in the Simulator) close to max take off weight, wow, that was good Stable in the air, smooth touchdown! but of course LONG runway required
411A From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1826 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12853 times:
Quoting KELPkid (Reply 16): Also, I hear that turbocompound engines, as featured in the DC-7C (Seven Seas) , L1049 Super Connie and Boeing Stratocruiser were rather hard to successfully manage, and that mismanagement of such powerplants often led to engine fires and/or in flight shutdowns.
Having flown all three types mentioned, engine management was straight-forward, provided that the book was followed, without diviation.
The B377 did not have turbocompound engines, but they were very complicated, nevertheless, 28 cylinders, a supercharger and a turbosupercharger
Early B707 aircraft, those without fan engines could be a slight problem for those pilots not accustomed to flying a large heavy airplane, without powered control surfaces.
A few trips to the gym soon fixed that.
Especially leg exercises, for when an outboard engine failed at rotation, rudder forces exceeded 140 pounds...even with an hydraulic powered rudder.
David L From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 9597 posts, RR: 42
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 12843 times:
Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 13): Quoting UltimateDelta (Reply 12):
Based on how the A321 on FSX handles, I'd say it ranks pretty high up there.
What makes you think the FSX A321 is anything like a real A321 to fly?
The FSX version is awful, a token gesture. I suspect we'd be hard pressed to find many real FBW Airbus pilots who say any of them are difficult to fly. That's just my guess, obviously but we do hear from some of them from time to time here.
Quoting Jetlagged (Reply 13): You can buy an add on version of the A321 which is more realistic, but still not very close in terms of handling.
There are a couple of promising ones that have been in development for ages. Maybe one day...
Miamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 12787 times:
I don't know about flying, they all have their idiosynchracies, but to get a squeaker in a 727 required luck, planetary alignment and a sacrificial virgin... Pulling the power levers to idle too soon in the flare was tantamount to dropping an anchor.
ArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12755 times:
I'm surprised nobody seems to think the Russian birds are hard to fly.
Certainly the Tu134/154, AN22/24/124/225 and the old IL62 must rank pretty high up there, no?
Seen they've practically all a 4 or 5 man cockpit the coordination and lack of automation must be pretty tough on the crew.
Nobody here has any more info on them?
[Edited 2008-05-19 11:34:57]
: I think it's more a lack of knowledge on our parts than anything else. I do have a friend who's a US licensed commercial pilot (he was just a private
: What, you mean boxes don't get up, en masse, after mealtime in flight to get in line to use the restrooms at the back of the economy section Maybe th
: It would scare the s*** out of me when I am sitting in my seat and all of a sudden someone is coming into the cockpit!! On the 737 if you were handfl
: With the automation engaged, that is likely true, but hand flying will turn up exceptions to this, I think. I can think of no better flying aircraft
: Very true. Adding to it is the tall main struts without much travel in the shock absorbing department. If you keep a constant pitch attitude througho
: Why is the MD-11 hard to land when it is light weight?
: It is just somewhat unstable and every slightest control input you can feel and see with a slight turn or change in pitch. Every slight gust or wind
: Everyone is going to laugh but I heard the CRJ isn't the easiet "modern" jet to fly. True? No?
: Modern?! nah, just kidding! I heard it's a bit weird during landing, the nose is pretty far down and it feels weird... Just been once on the jumpseat
: I've worked with, and flown with people who have sampled almost the entire spectrum from the Jenny to the Concorde. I'd have to say that, based on wha
: I heard that too. Apparently, there's dozens of them still up there, just circling the pattern. I seem to recall you had some interesting comments ab
: Actually I liked it very much. It wasn't much of a performer, other than its ability to slow down, descend, and stop. Admirable traits all, but rathe
: The nearest I will get to flying the real thing is in a full flight simulator. From my experience in an A320 sim, it's easier than any other sim I've
: Do the EFIS screens flash "Game Over Insert Coins" when the session comes to an end?
: Sometimes when you take over an aircraft from another crew they put in the scratchpad of the MCDU: "Game over insert coin" but I never found the slot
: To me it was just like other jets that when light it wants to float, flare too early and it floats forever then drops, flare too late and you still s
: I think that describes every swept wing airplane ever flown!
: How did this turn into an MSFS thread? The most difficult airplane for an MSFS "pilot" to fly? A real airplane.
: This is the typical A.net phenomenon But SlamClick, CosmicCruiser, WILCO737 and some other were talking about the REAL stuff ! WILCO737 (MD11F) [Edit
44 David L
: Come on - it was only a brief diversion.
: I was mainly talking about flying full flight sims (which, after all, should be very close to how the actual aircraft handles), but as MSFS was menti
: Please don't take this as flame, but full motion flight sims don't fly like the real airplane in most cases. They give you an idea of how it handles
: I've heard the same. Sometimes it works out in the crew's favor. An ATR captain told me that the sims at flight Safety (he's with ASA) are a little h
: because it is not the real thing! And everything (motion, acceleration) is only simulated! Believe it or not, the feeling and the hearing and seeing
: I'd have to say that simulators work better for jets than for turboprops and better for glass cockpits than for steam gauges. Most modern jets have v
: Yeah, I didn't say it is bad or not realistic! I was once in the MD11 Sim and then I was flying it for real doing 3 traffic patterns and as you said:
: Referred to, of course, as "breaking the 4th wall", since it originated in the theatre where the notional fourth wall of the set/stage is the one tha
: I know from experience that one thing the Frasca 142 cannot duplicate faithfully or accurately from a real Cessna 172 is the yaw effects that the pro
: Expensive? Yes. A simulator may cost roughly the same as the airplane it represents. It is approximately the same level of complexity. It has the vir
: SlamClick, Sorry if I'm a bit confused; are you saying these "unreal" practices are good or bad. I feel like you swapped your point midway or I just
: I figured this might be the case when I investigated getting an hour in a 737 simulator of the sort that the public can book time on. * It worked out