I ask this question because I had a pilot friend years ago who graduated from Biz jets to flying a 757 for DL and he raved about the 757 and its performance.

Are there any commercial aircraft any of you have flown that you have particularly enjoyed? And this can be by any criteria you chose.

Thanks.

The one that gives me the most time off with the most pay.

I mean the BE-1900 was the most fun for me to fly, but I flew 120hrs a month in it and had 8 days off every month and I got paid peanuts..

The 320 pays me in 2 months what I got paid each year on the 1900 and flying an average of 60-65 hrs a month with 16-18 days off a month.

I’ve yet to meet a 1900 pilot who didn’t love it.

acecrackshot wrote:

I’ve yet to meet a 1900 pilot who didn’t love it.

They love the flying. But as mentioned above they typically don't love the pay and conditions.

I mean, I loved pooting around in a 172. Having to pay for it? Not as much. Plus there's no coffee maker. Or lavatory. Or crew rest.

Starlionblue wrote:

I mean, I loved pooting around in a 172... ...Or lavatory

There's a window that opens.

Starlionblue wrote:

acecrackshot wrote:

I’ve yet to meet a 1900 pilot who didn’t love it.

They love the flying. But as mentioned above they typically don't love the pay and conditions.

I mean, I loved pooting around in a 172. Having to pay for it? Not as much. Plus there's no coffee maker. Or lavatory. Or crew rest.

“Twice the pilot, half the pay” was the sticker I saw.

I recently asked my brother this question. He's a retired DL 320 CPT. He said the Bell 406 or BO105.

A350: 60 yrs of airline tech all rolled into one awesome machine.
B727: Fast fast fast. 411kts VNE in mode A on ASI with a speed brake to match that

They’re all enjoyable for different reasons.

The Dash 8 was nice to hand fly and it was fun doing the short hops into little airports. Surprisingly roomy and quiet for a commuter turboprop.

The CRJ-200 was really a joy to hand fly and the trailing link landing gear could make for some very smooth landings. It almost made up for all the deficiencies in systems design and climb ability.

The Douglas T-Tails were built like tanks. You had to muscle them around the sky since they use control tabs to move the ailerons and elevators, but that got to be fun. They also have very high flap and gear extension speeds, allowing you to fix your poor descent planning.

The A320 is a really nice work environment. Quiet. Roomy. Has a tray table instead of eating off the logbook. It’s a genteel way of flying.

I flew a BE-1900 for 4.5 years. You wore that airplane. We did up to nine legs a day in it. You learned it’s quirks and could easily tell when something wasn’t right. The 1900 was a great airplane to “cut your teeth” on in commercial aviation, but it’s a lousy career airplane. Get some time and move on. I still have found memories of it.

The A320 is the most comfortable office I’ve worked in. I enjoyed the ergonomics, the side stick, and I didn’t feel threatened by the Airbus cockpit philosophy. The tray table was nice.

The 757 is a hot rod and the 767 is a Cadillac. The 757 could climb all the way to cruise easily when full, and stops on a dime. Both the 757 and 767 did everything well. If I had one complaint it was my carrier didn’t have hot-mic cockpit interphones which wasn’t a major issue but more of a petty annoyance.

T54A wrote:

A350: 60 yrs of airline tech all rolled into one awesome machine.
B727: Fast fast fast. 411kts VNE in mode A on ASI with a speed brake to match that

For us non-pilots, can you explain what mode A on ASI is? I know what VNE and a speed brake is. Thanks!

Alias1024 wrote:

The Douglas T-Tails... You had to muscle them around the sky since they use control tabs to move the ailerons and elevators...

You sure you’re not thinking of another bird with that? No control tabs on the -10 and -11, all hydro, and “muscling them” isn’t at all how I’d describe it. A joy to smoothly hand fly.

LyleLanley wrote:

Alias1024 wrote:

The Douglas T-Tails... You had to muscle them around the sky since they use control tabs to move the ailerons and elevators...

You sure you’re not thinking of another bird with that? No control tabs on the -10 and -11, all hydro, and “muscling them” isn’t at all how I’d describe it. A joy to smoothly hand fly.

Well a -10 or -11 isn't a T-tail so....pretty sure he means a -9 or MD-80.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

adipasqu wrote:

T54A wrote:

A350: 60 yrs of airline tech all rolled into one awesome machine.
B727: Fast fast fast. 411kts VNE in mode A on ASI with a speed brake to match that

For us non-pilots, can you explain what mode A on ASI is? I know what VNE and a speed brake is. Thanks!

The B727 had two modes on the Air Speed Indicator (ASI), Mode A and Mode B. Mode A could used below a certain weight. Mode A allowed for a higher VNE of 411kts at 21500ft, above this Mach 0.9 becomes limiting.

See page 3 on the following link:

http://users.skynet.be/virtual_eat/down ... ATIONS.PDF

dennypayne wrote:

LyleLanley wrote:

Alias1024 wrote:

The Douglas T-Tails... You had to muscle them around the sky since they use control tabs to move the ailerons and elevators...

You sure you’re not thinking of another bird with that? No control tabs on the -10 and -11, all hydro, and “muscling them” isn’t at all how I’d describe it. A joy to smoothly hand fly.

Well a -10 or -11 isn't a T-tail so....pretty sure he means a -9 or MD-80.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Good call. Me no reading comprehension good

T54A wrote:

adipasqu wrote:

T54A wrote:

A350: 60 yrs of airline tech all rolled into one awesome machine.
B727: Fast fast fast. 411kts VNE in mode A on ASI with a speed brake to match that

For us non-pilots, can you explain what mode A on ASI is? I know what VNE and a speed brake is. Thanks!

The B727 had two modes on the Air Speed Indicator (ASI), Mode A and Mode B. Mode A could used below a certain weight. Mode A allowed for a higher VNE of 411kts at 21500ft, above this Mach 0.9 becomes limiting.

See page 3 on the following link:

http://users.skynet.be/virtual_eat/down ... ATIONS.PDF

Awesome! Thanks for that. It's amazing how the first Boeing hot rod (727) was replaced so well in capability by the second Boeing hot rod (757).

T54A wrote:

adipasqu wrote:

T54A wrote:

A350: 60 yrs of airline tech all rolled into one awesome machine.
B727: Fast fast fast. 411kts VNE in mode A on ASI with a speed brake to match that

For us non-pilots, can you explain what mode A on ASI is? I know what VNE and a speed brake is. Thanks!

The B727 had two modes on the Air Speed Indicator (ASI), Mode A and Mode B. Mode A could used below a certain weight. Mode A allowed for a higher VNE of 411kts at 21500ft, above this Mach 0.9 becomes limiting.

See page 3 on the following link:

http://users.skynet.be/virtual_eat/down ... ATIONS.PDF

Couple of points, VNE is not used in jet transports , it’s an airspeed reference for piston aircraft


VMO is maximum indicated airspeed, MMO is maximum operating Mach number


At zero fuel weights of 136K or gross weights above 172K the 727 should be operated in mode ‘B’ the lower VMO and MMO limits will be shown on the airspeed / Mach No instruments

Below these weights Mode A applied with higher limits shown


Most of our flights were in Mode A, switching to Mode B at the rarely used higher weights


Some of our aircraft were hard wired to Mode B and we operated them permanently at those speeds and Mach numbers


It really made no difference, most of the time we cruised at .8 Mach although you could go a lot faster and I have the fuel burn would go out of sight

My ex manager at work flew the 756 for years then switch to the 787, then switched back. In terms of flying, the 756 guys at my work seem the happiest. In terms of lifestyle, I'd say the 737 and 320 guys. I've also heard that Expressjet pilots loved flying the 135 vs the 145 since it was essentially a Miada, small body big engine.

The F-100 and A-10 were fun to fly, fun mission, great learning experiences. Airliners, C-5 airlifter, bizjets, not so much. Trips were fun, mostly; people were great and remembered, but flying was not fun in anything like the first two. Watching an autopilot for 10 hours isn’t fun, it’s watching paint dry.

Hands down the 747 family. Would have been perfect if Boeing could make a quiet cockpit. As an instructor, there was nothing better than doing base training with a bunch of new FOs. But the airplane itself flew great, plenty of power, extremely stable, a pleasure to fly. I would say I preferred the 744 over any other model.

Without question my favorite of all time is the L-1011: roomy and comfortable cockpit with the best visibility of any airliner I’ve flown, the best technology of the day (which was years ahead of its time, and in some ways is better than what’s available now, e.g. DLC), and was designed with maximal systems redundancy and safety in mind.

My second choice would be the A-320 family (with the A-319 as my very favorite of the series) due to the extremely ergonomic cockpit which is leaps and bounds better than its primary competitor in space available and stowage, automation, ergonomics, and cockpit noise.

I also really enjoyed my time on the B-757 and DC-9/MD-80 series for varied reasons, though they trail the 1011 and 320. I generally disliked the noise of most Boeing cockpits, especially the 737 series (which is the one airliner I genuinely disliked flying).

Interesting, I’ve spent a lot of time riding on 737’s of all kinds in the back and in the jump seat and decided I never wanted to fly it


While I don’t think it’s a bad aircraft it wasn’t for me, the cramped, noisy old fashioned cockpit had zero appeal and of course the mostly short haul mission


I was spoiled by the magnificent 727 which was just a delight to fly and with an FE even short haul was enjoyable


Since I didn’t like the 737 I switched to the MD80 next, I wasn’t too impressed with it, there were lots of design compromises that didn’t work well and it flew like a truck with no power steering


The 757 is a delight, great performance, reliable and good technology that makes your life easier as a pilot without interfering although the handling isn’t that great and a bad ride in turbulence


The 767 is the nicest aircraft I’ve flown, comfortable, quiet, great performance and handling with a good ride in turbulence

Falcon 900. Nimble but stable, sporty but comfortable, slow or fast when you need it, great systems. But most of all it was the handling, the knowledge that you could wring the neck of the thing as tight as you liked, and it would leap at the chance to display magnificent flying qualities.

Loved the 757 too; everything you want an airliner to be and nothing you don't want. Flying horses was, however, a challenge and required the development of some rather special take-off techniques, in order for the multi-million Dollar nags not to trip and break their delicate legs.

I flew the 727 and didn't like it, but ours were old, raggedly, under-powered and not very well maintained. I've spoken with many other pilots who echo the sentiments displayed here, but as a pilot group none of us really liked the particular ones delegated to us. The 757s I joined in the real world were a replacement for 727s, which in turned made their way to the land of sand. They were, according to my mates who stayed behind in tax-free shelter, much, much nicer to fly.

But nothing, absolutely nothing, beats hauling a Boeing Stearman around. It requires determination, strength, coordination, attention to detail, finesse and technique but is oh so rewarding when it all lines up perfectly. Plus, it has a round engine, and anything with a round engine is just better.

Max Q wrote:

Interesting, I’ve spent a lot of time riding on 737’s of all kinds in the back and in the jump seat and decided I never wanted to fly it

While I don’t think it’s a bad aircraft it wasn’t for me, the cramped, noisy old fashioned cockpit had zero appeal and of course the mostly short haul mission

I was spoiled by the magnificent 727 which was just a delight to fly and with an FE even short haul was enjoyable

Since I didn’t like the 737 I switched to the MD80 next, I wasn’t too impressed with it, there were lots of design compromises that didn’t work well and it flew like a truck with no power steering

The 757 is a delight, great performance, reliable and good technology that makes your life easier as a pilot without interfering although the handling isn’t that great and a bad ride in turbulence

The 767 is the nicest aircraft I’ve flown, comfortable, quiet, great performance and handling with a good ride in turbulence

Good list MaxQ.

Mentioned earlier was the BE-1900, it was fun and easy airplane to fly well. My first job was flying Beech Barons and have fond memories of that, too

As for the airline jets - yes, the 727 was SO capable and the 757 was a fun hot rod. But my favorite jet was the 767-200. I have family who wax poetic about the 777.

The 727 was great, hands down my favorite. Fast and nimble, it was fun to hand fly, autopilot was pretty basic so you still had to fly it on approaches. And if you could see it out the window, you could land on it. The FE was great too, unless they weren't very good but even then it was good to have one.

The A320 is an easy paycheck now though.

FlyHossD wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Interesting, I’ve spent a lot of time riding on 737’s of all kinds in the back and in the jump seat and decided I never wanted to fly it

While I don’t think it’s a bad aircraft it wasn’t for me, the cramped, noisy old fashioned cockpit had zero appeal and of course the mostly short haul mission

I was spoiled by the magnificent 727 which was just a delight to fly and with an FE even short haul was enjoyable

Since I didn’t like the 737 I switched to the MD80 next, I wasn’t too impressed with it, there were lots of design compromises that didn’t work well and it flew like a truck with no power steering

The 757 is a delight, great performance, reliable and good technology that makes your life easier as a pilot without interfering although the handling isn’t that great and a bad ride in turbulence

The 767 is the nicest aircraft I’ve flown, comfortable, quiet, great performance and handling with a good ride in turbulence

Good list MaxQ.

Mentioned earlier was the BE-1900, it was fun and easy airplane to fly well. My first job was flying Beech Barons and have fond memories of that, too

As for the airline jets - yes, the 727 was SO capable and the 757 was a fun hot rod. But my favorite jet was the 767-200. I have family who wax poetic about the 777.

Couldn’t agree more on the Baron, I flew freight in one in another life, just a great aircraft, rugged, reliable, carried a huge load of ice and kept going through whatever weather you threw at it, I think Beechcraft are the ‘Boeing’s of light aircraft’ so it doesn’t surprise me the 1900 was well liked by you


And agree on the 767-200, we had the last civilian versions built with the most powerful engine option and highest gross weight, their performance was extremely impressive

Best wishes

The 747 is a blast to fly, offers some unique challenges. I am loving the plane, I still have a ways to go to get to a comfort point of flying it the way I flew the CRJs.

The CRJ series are a blast to hand fly, I was always clicking the automation off 70-80 percent of the times. The 200s though are a pain in the winter and summer time though especially with no APU. That was my only gripe.

On the GA side, I love the Baron, smoothest flying GA plane that has some power to go with it. It can hold its own in the terminal environment and I didn’t have problems working into the traffic flow in a busy terminal environment with it. I loved the Cessna 310R as well, but the fuel system is a pain in the rear.

VMCA787 wrote:

Hands down the 747 family. Would have been perfect if Boeing could make a quiet cockpit. As an instructor, there was nothing better than doing base training with a bunch of new FOs. But the airplane itself flew great, plenty of power, extremely stable, a pleasure to fly. I would say I preferred the 744 over any other model.

I agree with the noise, but the 747 is a very comfortable machine behind the buses. Especially the freighters with the whole upper deck for the crew. I just finished a 15 hour flight where i spent half of it in the seat and the other half in the bunk.

Nothing beats dozing for dollars!! My longest in a 400F was ORD-NKG. Slept like a log!!

Really enjoy reading these comments. I'd love to hear about some of the older birds (early Jets, last props) - ANet must not reach that demographic of retired pilots

Anyone that ticks these 4 boxes for me;
-Lifestyle I enjoy. ( no night stops and busy but reliable schedules)
-Career possibilities with that rating and those hours on type. (aka building Boeing or Airbus hrs)
-Money (spending now vs being able to save money)
-Route network enjoyment (the bigger the network from your base the better)

I'd be curious how flying the SAAB-2000 compares with the Q400...

744SPX wrote:

I'd be curious how flying the SAAB-2000 compares with the Q400...

The Venn diagram of pilots who flew both must be tiny!

True.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

744SPX wrote:

I'd be curious how flying the SAAB-2000 compares with the Q400...

The Venn diagram of pilots who flew both must be tiny!

Probably bigger than you think. SAS/SAS Communter went from the SAAB 2000 (and several other types) to Q400 around year 2000. The Swiss airline Baboo had the Q400 and was staffed primarily with ex-Crossair people, undoubtedly many of them former SAAB 2000 people. Darwin Airline (also SAAB 2000 and ex-Crossair people) acquired some Q400s for a short period, and after the Etihad takeover they started a process to replace the SAAB 2000 with the Q400. Yet another Swiss airline that went back and forth between the two was SkyWork in Bern. There are almost certainly many who have been through Eastern Airways and Loganair on the SAAB who went to FlyBe on the Q400 and vice versa.

So far in my aviation career, I've flown ERJ-145, ERJ-175 and now the A320. The 145 was my favorite to hand fly, the short wing made it really responsive. E175 handled like a truck. The A320 is fun to hand fly. I'm moving to the 737 soon so we'll see how that one goes.

I've only got two airplanes I've flown professionally (the C-17 and the ERJ-170/175), and they're so vastly different that I love them both in ultra different ways.

My dad, however, just retired from the airlines after 30 years, having flown the following airliners: A320, A321, B727, B747 Classic, B757, B767, L-1011, and MD-80. And he can tell you something nice or cool about every single one of them! But over and over again, it seems like his "favorites" boil down to the 727 for being so hands-on and old-school (they would regularly disconnect the autopilot below 20,000ft and just hand-fly it to landing, regardless of the weather. What, you wanted the autopilot to fly the ILS for you?? Ha!), and the 757 for its amazing performance, handling, and its looks.

But a question about any of them would get him talking. The 747, well, that was the 747...'nuff said there! The A320/321 was the most advanced. He was only on the 80 for a few months, so while he never warmed up to it too much, he does recall how eerily quiet it was in the cockpit at low speeds, thanks to those rear-mounted engines. The L-1011 was spacious and advanced for its time, and also his first assignment as a newhire FE. And the 767 took him around Europe the most.

A few secondhand people I've spoken with, not much handling details. But just cool careers
(1) Guy started on Lockheed Starlifter and Jetstar, then flew Falcons/Gulfstreams for his career. I think Gulfstream V was his favorite
(2) Guy flew C-9 Skytrain and now flies 744F/748F (still a young man). He said he took the C-9 as far as Australia and said the crews had a lot of authority to route the trips. He said the C9 was fun & the 744/748 has a lot of power.
(3) Guy was a check captain on KC-10 (old guy wearing a KC-10 hat at an Oregon lighthouse). He said he loved flying that aircraft

Someone already said the one that pays the most so I’ll add the one that takes me to the nicest hotels. The older I get the more important those two things become and the less important the aircraft type becomes.

In a previous life I flew the A320. Wonderful aircraft. It’s funny, seems pilots who have the most vocal disdain for it have never flown it.

flyPIT wrote:

Someone already said the one that pays the most so I’ll add the one that takes me to the nicest hotels. The older I get the more important those two things become and the less important the aircraft type becomes.

In a previous life I flew the A320. Wonderful aircraft. It’s funny, seems pilots who have the most vocal disdain for it have never flown it.

I have found the same about pilots who haven't flown the 'bus. They sometimes seem almost scared of it. You hear comments like "it's so complicated" and "it doesn't let me fly" and "it scares me that I might have to learn it".

I think it does take a bit of time to fully internalise the Airbus design philosophy. And it can be a bit of a daunting prospect.

Starlionblue wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

Someone already said the one that pays the most so I’ll add the one that takes me to the nicest hotels. The older I get the more important those two things become and the less important the aircraft type becomes.

In a previous life I flew the A320. Wonderful aircraft. It’s funny, seems pilots who have the most vocal disdain for it have never flown it.

I have found the same about pilots who haven't flown the 'bus. They sometimes seem almost scared of it. You hear comments like "it's so complicated" and "it doesn't let me fly" and "it scares me that I might have to learn it".

I think it does take a bit of time to fully internalise the Airbus design philosophy. And it can be a bit of a daunting prospect.

The quote I hear often about Airbus (mostly from Boeing pilots) is they perceive it to be a "throw away jet". I assume that means they think Airbuses are not built with the same structural integrity as Boeings but I think "The Miracle on the Hudson", QF 32, and the DHL SAM incident at Baghdad should put those concerns to rest.

I just like the fact that I can recline my seat and lay it flat so that I can study the overhead panel…. And not hit my head on the aft bulkhead with the seat in the full aft position. Cant really do that in a 737.


Just waiting for the day that I can fly an aircraft with only voice commands…. Drove ships for 10 years using voice commands, can’t wait for airplanes to catch up to that technology..

Woodreau wrote:

I just like the fact that I can recline my seat and lay it flat so that I can study the overhead panel…. And not hit my head on the aft bulkhead with the seat in the full aft position. Cant really do that in a 737.


Just waiting for the day that I can fly an aircraft with only voice commands…. Drove ships for 10 years using voice commands, can’t wait for airplanes to catch up to that technology..

That's the joke that got me on at the Yellow Bus company. I was on the 727 at the time and the then DoT interviewed me at the job fair and asked how I would cope with the transition over to the advanced A320 compared to the 727. I said "Pffft, I fly the most automated aircraft ever built!" He said "How so, I flew them at Kitty Hawk, there isn't anything automated about them?!" I said "Sure they are, everything is voice command. I say set climb thrust, someone reaches up and sets the climb thrust. I say I'm kinda cold, someone reaches up and turns up the heat for me." When he had me tell that joke at the interview in FLL to the other pilot in the panel, I knew I had the job.

And I'll echo what everyone else has said about the Airbus. Guys that haven't flown them and don't understand them are pretty much the only ones that complain about flying them. It's easy to fly and just about everything about it is intuitive. If you go into it with a build the plane Boeing mentality, you are gonna struggle.

tb727 wrote:

If you go into it with a build the plane Boeing mentality, you are gonna struggle.

Hate to burst your bubble, but that philosophy is not the "Boeing mentality"! It is more the 727 mentality. Having flown the A320, 727, B757, B747, B744, B777 and B787 I can assure you the 727 checkout was so different than any other aircraft. Completely nuts and bolts.

I have flown the A320 and didn't really care for it. It got the job done, but it was obvious the design philosophy was to take options away from the pilot. So, I would take a Boeing any day over an Airbus.

VMCA787 wrote:

... but it was obvious the design philosophy was to take options away from the pilot.

Interesting, what options does it take away from a pilot? To stall? To fly inverted? To botch a CFIT escape perhaps?

DH106 wrote:

VMCA787 wrote:

... but it was obvious the design philosophy was to take options away from the pilot.

Interesting, what options does it take away from a pilot? To stall? To fly inverted? To botch a CFIT escape perhaps?

For one, you can't max perform the wing in the event you want everything out of it. On a Boeing, you can. Just remember, max performance on a swept wing is half the wing in a stalled condition and the wing, unlike a straight wing, stalls from the tip inwards.

VMCA787 wrote:

tb727 wrote:

If you go into it with a build the plane Boeing mentality, you are gonna struggle.

Hate to burst your bubble, but that philosophy is not the "Boeing mentality"! It is more the 727 mentality. Having flown the A320, 727, B757, B747, B744, B777 and B787 I can assure you the 727 checkout was so different than any other aircraft. Completely nuts and bolts.

I have flown the A320 and didn't really care for it. It got the job done, but it was obvious the design philosophy was to take options away from the pilot. So, I would take a Boeing any day over an Airbus.

My time on the A320 was only one year, and I've been on the 737 for five now. Thats pretty much how I feel about the bus. The only thing I'd put in the plus column for the 320 is the comfort level of the flight deck. It's roomy and quiet, a more comfortable "work space". Other than that, there isn't anything else about the airbus I prefer over the 737.

VMCA787 wrote:

Just remember, max performance on a swept wing is half the wing in a stalled condition and the wing, unlike a straight wing, stalls from the tip inwards.

Genuinely curious about how to reach (and maintain) this condition with a Boeing?

CeddP wrote:

Genuinely curious about how to reach (and maintain) this condition with a Boeing?

How would you accomplish a windshear recovery or a CFIT recovery? On the Airbus, you will move the sidestick all the way aft and let the computer determine the max AOA that can be obtained.
On the Boeing, you have on the PFD a MAX Energy line or a "moustache" that will get you to an AOA which will max perform the wing. That AOA is higher than it would be in a similar situation with an Airbus.

As was pointed out the tray is great! But when the 777 was being developed by Boeing, the possibility of a sidestick was not something the airlines on the focus group felt was desireable.

Starlionblue wrote:

I think it does take a bit of time to fully internalise the Airbus design philosophy. And it can be a bit of a daunting prospect.

I love the A-320 series, and felt comfortable with it after about the first 30 minutes of sim time when I first checked out in it in 1995. I fly it now because I choose to, and still love it. To your point, I have heard the A-320 described as "a cerebral airplane" and think that's apt: I have even used that description. The people with the most disdain for Airbus products seem to generally be the people with no time in them in my experience.