Pilots, what is the most difficult aircraft you have ever flown?

[-]

ContributionHour8356@reddit

A Captain that flies them both regularly says that FIFI is the worst one to fly and Doc is the nicest. I don’t remember his exact description of how it flew but he liked it.

[-]

Strega007@reddit

There are literally only 3 or 4 people who fly them both. Right now there's only one who actively flies both, Mark Novak.

[-]

ContributionHour8356@reddit

I’ll say this now: It’s definitely not Mark. I have never met him.

I talked to him about them roughly 7 months ago when we last did an annual on one of his aircraft and he was talking about his experience with both of them. I was asking B-29 questions in general. Not how the whole operation works. All I know is he has flown both in the last 5 years or so and he is more comfortable flying Doc. I don’t blame him. I’m not a fan of FIFI and the CAF because of the people in that group who want to help but cause more problems for the people actually signing off the inspection. I have many scary stories about that. Thankfully, they know to stop messing with the aircraft without supervision from an IA but that paints a bad picture for FIFI. It doesn’t help that they are on a tighter budget. I would say his name but I don’t want to post it out of respect since he is a very good customer. All I will say is he has flown Doc the most recently in the last two years.

[-]

Spitfire222@reddit

I love how you used "worst" instead of "worse" and "nicest" instead of "nicer" as if there's any option other than those two B-29s! haha

[-]

ContributionHour8356@reddit

Caught me there!!

[-]

Strega007@reddit

Not really "sloppy" per se, but the flight controls are meant for flight up in the Flight Levels, and down in the pattern the ratios just require a lot of yoke input.

The complicated part is mostly the energy management (she's very under-powered) and the crew coordination with engine management all taking place on the Flight Engineer panel.

The Superfortress is certainly a better flyer than the B-24 or Privateer.

[-]

fireandlifeincarnate@reddit

I love that back during the war they got some WASPs to do demo flights so the men would stop bitching about it. Weaponized misogyny.

[-]

CannonAFB_unofficial@reddit

T-38C.

“It’s a quite simple airplane. It will also quite simply try to kill you”

-my instructor, day 1 of phase 3 in Air Force UPT.

[-]

Strega007@reddit

The T-38 is one of the most magnificent airplanes I've ever flown. Balanced controls, plenty of power, looks great on the ramp, perfect formation flyer.

Just about perfect in every way.

[-]

J_engstrom@reddit

Is there something in particular about the T-38 that leads to it being a difficult jet to fly, or is it just that it’s a product of 1950s-60s technology and aerodynamics?

[-]

skyHawk3613@reddit

Small swept back wings. You need higher speeds to achieve lift.

[-]

HFentonMudd@reddit

Happy cake day!

[-]

alienXcow@reddit

It was designed to essentially emulate the century series jets (high wing loading, extremely high pattern airspeeds) without being too expensive so it was underpowered compared to those aircraft. It also has a symmetrical airfoil so you need a decent amount of AOA on it to really start making lift.

It is very finicky and unforgiving in the pattern with a very high stall speed and not a ton of power to get you back out of a bad situation. And when it TP stalls the VSI just bottoms out without a significant nose or wing drop.

The C model got a little more power down low and the HUD lets you put the thing on the thing crosscheck the AOA faster but it also added some weight over the A so it got faster over the numbers.

[-]

CannonAFB_unofficial@reddit

In the most basic terms, she does not like to fly slow. At all. She’s killed more pilots in the final turn than every other USAF mishap combined. 720* per second roll rate…if she stalls low to the ground you literally don’t even have time to eject. I had a friend pass exactly that way not even 10 years ago. Shortly after that, it happened again at a different UPT base.

I didn’t even land it on my own until my 3rd flight lol.

[-]

Mattbrooks9@reddit

How come you went to Kc135s after the T38? I thought if you got selected for T38s you went to either fighter or bombers?

[-]

Turbo_Normalized@reddit

Usually true but not always. Sometimes drops just suck and nobody gets fighters, even in 38s. And sometimes the studs realize they don't actually want fighters (happens more than outsiders might think).

Also, depending on how old the other guy is, there was a time in the Air Force when everybody did T-38s. That created a lot of deaths, a high washout rate, and ended with the introduction of the T-1.

[-]

CannonAFB_unofficial@reddit

I am the old guy who realized pulling Gs in the Texas sun from a jet may not be for me.

I was a CSO who went to UPT in my 30’s, PRF complete. I thought I wanted fighters, I was way wrong. KC-135s to England were my #1. I ended up tankers to Fairchild but now I’m retired and still live here. Love it here.

[-]

MountainMan17@reddit

I'm a retired KC-135 nav.

How valuable was your CSO experience when you were at UPT? To what extent were you able to leverage it?

I never had any desire to be a pilot, but I've always wondered what UPT would be like, given my prior nav time.

If the SECDEF offered to send me tomorrow (and if I could find a flight suit large enough to fit me), I'd jump at the opportunity to see how that year of training would go. I'd then happily do a rejoin on my recliner here in Utah...

[-]

CannonAFB_unofficial@reddit

Dude T-6/ phase I and II were a joke for me. I was a CSO who went through the T-6 then T-1 when they still had one pipeline for CSOs, so I knew everything about the T-6, just needed to relearn it and actually do the stick and rudder stuff.

Phase III is the great equalizer. By that point everyone is more or less in the same page. Formation in 38s fucked me up real good. That solidified I didn’t want fighters.

[-]

alienXcow@reddit

I'm not a CSO but I know folks who went through as former Navs and WSOs. You already understand the haze/how tonplay the game and you have the memorization and prioritization skills required. You know how to recognize you're dehydrated or tired or just lost SA and how to fight back to normal. You've at a minimum listened to hundreds of more hours of normal radio chatter than any direct UPT stud. I cant count the number of times I heard "we can teach a monkey to fly the T-6, it's all the other shit that's hard." And Nav is 1/3 of the program when you already have 99.9% of the GK and a better inherent understanding of the IFR environment than any of your instructors.

None of the prior aircrew I knew at my UPT base in the 18 months I was there struggled 1/2 as much with the "normal" UPT shit. Now, spending 12 hours a day in the flightroom with a wife and kids and a dog and getting talked down to by FAIPs...that would seem like the bigger battle.

[-]

fighter_pil0t@reddit

Back in the day T-38 students were universally assignable. T-1 Pilots were not. Now that the T-1 is retired things have changed, they wouldn’t waste the limited T-38 sorties.

[-]

Turbo_Normalized@reddit

Back in the day T-38 students were universally assignable.

That is still true. T-38 studs don't always go fighter/bomber.

[-]

Mattbrooks9@reddit

Oh interesting! So they’d go T6 to T38 and then either stay T38 or go to T1?

[-]

ShIVWilton@reddit

Not quite. If you finished the T-38 program you were done and could move on to any fleet that was available no T1 time necessary.

I assume the logic was (hopefully I don’t offend anyone here) if you had the stick skills, situational awareness and cross check to survive the T-38 you could learn the FMS of a heavy and how to fly them. But I’m sure they felt a bit behind their peers in the beginning of heavy training after not working with any automation up to that point.

[-]

fighter_pil0t@reddit

It wasn’t logic it was lazy personnel and fleet management. If there weren’t fighter/bomber slots available they sent them where there were open slots.

[-]

ShIVWilton@reddit

Oh no I remember I was in that group and lucky enough to get fighters. When your career future talk is “there’s only 8 of you in your year group and we have more O-6 positions than that to fill so I wouldn’t worry” you realize how bad they messed up. I was just referring to the logic of not having the pilots who dropped heavies go learn the T1.

[-]

ChopUrStick@reddit

Allegedly when the t38 first came out. Veteran WW2 pilots did not think it was a good trainer because it was too easy to fly. Read it on Wikipedia once, not sure how true it is. Would love to read more about that

[-]

RO1984@reddit

It is a very easy jet to fly once you're up and moving. Its a hard jet to land when you're learning and punishes mistakes

[-]

Jaquiny@reddit

New comment to say: what others are saying about it being a death trap is a history backed sentiment. Look up AETC’s “Road to Wings,” it has all of UPTs Class A & B mishaps through 2020 I believe.

[-]

CannonAFB_unofficial@reddit

THATS WHAT IT WAS CALLED! I was gonna mention the book but I couldn’t remember what it was called. I got a xerox copy around somewhere.

[-]

Jaquiny@reddit

I mean, when people say the T-38, it’s usually from a student perspective. Yeah when you have 100 hours to your name and youre suddenly flying pattern speeds/final speeds of 220/160 knots, everything is hard.

[-]

MountainMan17@reddit

During my time as a navigator, most of the pilots I flew with were T-38 grads. There was no T-1 when they went through.

Because of this, I accorded all the pilots a certain amount of respect. Even the most junior co-pilots.

It could work against them, too. On a few occasions I asked myself how so-and-so was able to make it past the T-38...

[-]

Turbo_Normalized@reddit

T-38 does 300 knots on the outside downwind!

[-]

Jaquiny@reddit

Yeah I meant the overhead, but true facts

[-]

MountainMan17@reddit

I read exactly the same thing. But it was regarding the T-28, not the T-38.

[-]

Guysmiley777@reddit

T-38 or T-28? I can see a WWII vet thinking the T-28 was "too easy" but I can't imagine them saying that about the T-38.

[-]

KyloRenOverVader@reddit

T38 over the 135? Guessing you didn’t fly the R model 😳

[-]

zck-watson@reddit

The tanker is not that hard to fly

[-]

KyloRenOverVader@reddit

The 135 comparatively to other heavies is very difficult to fly. I was 38’s but have no experience in fighters, but have flown two heavy platforms in the Air Force. If all you have flown is 135’s, you may not perceive it as difficult, but bad equipment + big engines low to the ground + shitty PMC’s + shitty autopilot make it one of the more difficult airframes to fly. As I’m sure you know if you’re 135’s, there’s little room for error with power settings or bank angles on final

[-]

CannonAFB_unofficial@reddit

18” and you bought an inboard pod!

[-]

CannonAFB_unofficial@reddit

I did indeed fly R/Ts. Last flight was in 2024.

[-]

Strega007@reddit

B-24 or PB4Y-2. Unstable and heavy controls.

[-]

Bayou38@reddit

TIL: y’all babies. 👶🍼

[-]

Bayou38@reddit

Sabreliner 65 with tail plane ice…that shit will fuck your life up when you get even close to on speed. Elevator flutter, unpredictable pitch moments, almost zero ability to flair for landing…all with the added bonus of “you don’t know it’s there” til you’re within Vref+20 then holy shit, elevator no worky…and it’s like nothing you’ve ever felt in your life. Oh well, Canada in the spring. 🤷‍♂️

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

U-2.

The wings stall inward from ailerons to wing root and you have to stall the plane to land, so you have to control roll with the rudder during landing. The dance took a bit to get used to.

[-]

CannonAFB_unofficial@reddit

You know what’s crazy?

Like one of the smartest dudes I’ve ever met was a U-2 pilot. He had a wild story…something like flew choppers for the navy and called AFPC to see if they wanted a pilot.

Guy flew the KC-135 kinda shitty but somehow weaseled his way into the U-2. Can you imagine, a Navy helo guy to USAF U-2s?

Anyway, if you’ve made it this far…hi Red! For those reading, this guy is legit and was my flying partner qualifying in the KC-135. Nicest and smartest guy I know.

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

Thanks dude. Altus seems like a whole different world ago!

[-]

DisregardLogan@reddit

You’re what, one out of 80 U-2 pilots? That’s awesome

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

Very lucky and fortunate. Thank you.

[-]

Impossible-Bad-2291@reddit

How did you handle getting cleared out of the Class A airpsace as you climbed above it, and getting cleared back into it on descent? Were the controllers just like "switch to enroute, have a good flight"?

There's the apocryphal story of the U2 asking for FL570 (or something) and the controller saying something to the effect of "sure, you can have it if you can get up there" And the U2 saying back "descending to FL570". But that seems doubtful for a lot of reasons.

What would a typical exchange with ATC actually be like?

[-]

randombrain@reddit

You don't need to be "cleared out of" Class A airspace, and the airspace above Class A is still Class E (controlled). It could be something as simple as "climb and maintain FL630" and that would be a legit ATC instruction and 91.123(b) would still apply.

In reality there won't be anything else up there and a "report VFR-on-top" is sufficient, but it isn't necessary to be either VFR or VFR-on-top. You could be regular IFR.

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

VFR on top is actually an IFR clearance, we remain IFR. Getting VFR on top actually relieves the controller of some workload since we are responsible for see and avoid at that point. The reality is there’s nothing else up there to hit.

But you are correct, we could just stay regular IFR and we do that regularly too.

[-]

randombrain@reddit

Understood, that's why I said "regular" IFR in contrast to "VFR-on-top" IFR. But it's good to clarify.

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

Ah, gotcha. We are saying the same thing!

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

On the climb up, in the US, class A ends at FL600. More often than not the controller tells us to report VFR on top and sends us on our merry way. Often, the only time I’ll talk to a controller is handoff between ARTCCs. Sometimes I’ll teleport VFR on top and not talk to them again.

On the descent it’s simply ‘center, request descent’. They’ll give me a flight level and I’ll descend down.

[-]

nightlanding@reddit

Very cool. Two things I remember about them:
One landed ahead of me with gear up and got debris on the runway. I think car drove behind it while it landed.

One drifted down towards the beach at idle and was so quiet hardly anyone noticed it that wasn't looking that way and then the pilot firewalled it and scared the crap out of numerous sunbathers.

I bet you could tell some stories! They always looked like really big motor-gliders to me.

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

Yup, a car chases to talk the pilot down on every landing. We obviously train to do it without a chase car but it’s a reassuring feeling to know an another pilot is there to talk you to the ground. Particularly after being in the suit for 12-13 hours.

That beach story is hilarious. I think I know who that was 😂😂

And yeah, it’s 100% a motor glider. With light fuel loads, I’ve gotten over 10,000 fpm climb rates down low.

[-]

BustedMeJesusNut@reddit

motor gilder

nah, it’s a jet glider: a motor glider can’t spool up and cause an entire beach to have fecal release. those old low/no bypass turbines screech like a fucking banshee.

figure the LD is at least 40 maybe in the 60s

too bad about the p-suit blues

[-]

SpatulaWholesale@reddit

What information is the chase pilot in the car providing? Is he helping keep you centered and wings-level, or more?

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

Yes to all. Primarily the chase car pilot gives altitude calls based off of the main gear. We start our calls at ten feet and talk the flying pilot down from there. It would be something like ‘10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1, inches’. There is a cadence that’s hard to convey in text, but as the flying pilot we get used to the rate of speech and can tell if we are settling too fast or too slow and will adjust accordingly.

Our goal is to get the main gear to two feet above the runway and then hold the jet there as speed keeps bleeding off till we fully stall and land. The goal is to land tailwheel first then the main gear.

And the chase pilot will also make yaw calls, I.e, ‘left rudder’, or ‘raise your right’ (to adjust for a low wing). There may also be something like ‘let it down’ if the plane gets hung up at 3-4’, or a ‘hold it off’ if the pilot settles too quickly.

[-]

nightlanding@reddit

I assume then the gear-up landing was intentional, as in the gear would not go down, otherwise the chase car would have mentioned something.

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

I actually don’t know that incident specifically but I 100% agree that it would’ve been intentional

[-]

roehnin@reddit

There's a job req published by the Skunk Works looking for a qualified U2 pilot.

Seems strange it was published publicly since it would seem they would already just have a list of everyone who met the criteria and contact them directly.

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

That job has been advertised internally for awhile. I’m not sure why it went public because we all know about it. It might just be a legal requirement that I’m unaware of.

[-]

roehnin@reddit

legal requirement

Ah, like how government agencies need to advertise for public bids even when everyone knows only one vendor is able to perform the requirements

[-]

Donut@reddit

It's been operational for over 60 years, there have been over 1,000 U2 pilots.

[-]

goatfuckersupreme@reddit

Most important question- is it fun to fly?

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

Absolute blast. The challenge each flight is what makes me want to keep flying. Because I want to be a little bit better each time to make it easier.

[-]

MountainMan17@reddit

What aircraft did you fly prior to your U-2 assignment?

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

I flew a variety of aircraft, primarily tankers

[-]

deezknots78@reddit

What kind of screening is there for claustrophobic tendencies? Can you scratch an itchy leg through the suit? What about an itchy nose?

I apologize for the basic questions, but being suited up for hours on end would be tough. I doubt a lot of people could mentally handle that sort of thing, pilot or not.

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

For claustrophobia, as part of the interview process you will get fully into the suit and helmet and see how you handle it. It’s usually not a big deal, people who are claustrophobic tend to self select out of it.

To scratch an itch on the body, it’s easy to scratch through the suit. To itch your nose the water bottle tubes and food tubes can be angled in a way that you can reach that itch.

[-]

Carre_Munuts@reddit

Talked to a U-2 pilot about this at NASA. This plus flying the WB-57 Canberra which are pretty similar high altitude capable had similar landing techniques from what I remember due to the high wing design.

[-]

AccurateLion8097@reddit

Dance of the dragon..lady?

[-]

seamusisoutside@reddit

Woah, that's one hell of an accolade for the resume. Are they fairly reliable aircraft? Any gremlins?

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

Pretty reliable. Nothing that I would consider significantly worse than any other aircraft I’ve flown.

[-]

Calling_left_final@reddit

Being high up at the altitudes the U2 usually flies at, I have to ask, have you seen anything weird or UFOish up there?

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

Full honesty, I have not. What I did have to get used to was stars being below me on the horizon. Which at first I was like ‘wtf is that’. But then flying you’d realize it doesn’t shift and I was like ‘oh, ok, that was a star’

[-]

Calling_left_final@reddit

Have you heard of anyone else that has experienced remotely anything in the UFO territory? I figured, if anyone would see weird stuff, it'd be you guys going at that high of an altitude.

[-]

LateralThinkerer@reddit

Username checks out.

[-]

Kowallaonskis@reddit

Mother fucker walks in and drops the mic with that one.

(We're not worthy)[https://youtu.be/c3sOuEv0E2I?si=92T0n0cF5COHK5Ze]

[-]

PlaneRot@reddit

You flew the U-2?? What other stories can you share about its flight characteristics? I’ve always imagined it was hard flying in a space suit.

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

The flight handling down low is heavy but it’s not cumbersome. Up high it’s so incredibly nimble and snappy it feels like a high performance jet. That’s opposite of a normal plane where the controls tend to get sluggish and slow to respond as you climb.

The approach profile is a decelerating final approach speed. Unlike a normal plane where you fly a constant speed until power pull, you’ll start at 90 knots and decelerate to threshold crossing speed, which can be upwards of 15 knot decrease while on short final. The changing deck angle comes with a power change. Since you change power and airspeed the aircraft is inherently unstable (as compared to a ‘stabilized approach’). With the roll characteristics, you’re constantly using rudder to correct the roll in a way that isn’t a normal habit pattern.

As for flying in the suit, the biggest difference is the lack of ‘feel’ that you get when having the gloves on. Plus, you can’t turn your head to see the wings so it’s a seat of the pants feel for wing leveling. Which goes back to being able to anticipate the roll with your feet.

[-]

Occams_ElectricRazor@reddit

Tell more stories, grandpa! We love them!

[-]

PlaneRot@reddit

That sounds pretty terrifying. Was there ever a time you really felt like you were gonna lose the plane?

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

Yeah, turbulence bull-riding. Stratospheric turbulence can be insidious because it won’t follow the normal patterns you’d get in jet-stream or mountain wave turbulence. Our weather shop is really good at predicting it but sometimes you hit it and all you can do is hang on and wait for it to end. One of my scariest flights ever was one of those pockets, autopilot failed, almost overspend and over-g’d the jet at the same time in recovery. Wings flapping at an ungodly angle.

[-]

PlaneRot@reddit

Wow man. Pleasure to talk to you. I’m sure you have a lot of great stories. I appreciate you answering these questions!

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

Of course! Always a pleasure to talk flying with other enthusiasts.

[-]

ENdeR_KiLLza@reddit

Thank you for this man, what I wouldn't give to grab a beer and listen to some of your stories! You guys rock, I always dreamt of flying the U2, just born in the wrong country I guess aha. What an incredible machine.

[-]

Hour_Tour@reddit

Little nuggets like these are the only reason I still zombie scroll reddit

[-]

ybitz@reddit

My favorite U2 story is about a Taiwanese U2 pilot, on his 7th flight, made an emergency landing without power or autopilot in Cortez Colorado!

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0889cortez/

Is this story widely known among the U2 pilots?

Also the article said the pilot was doing celestial navigation. Is that something you also learned as a backup, or obsolete now? I imagine operating a sextant in a pressure suit must be a pain

[-]

themeatspin@reddit

That story was replicated in Top Gun 2, when Maverick walked into the diner in his pressure suit. The actual story about the Tawainese guy was similar but it was a sheriff that found him.

And the sextant was actually built into the viewfinder in the plane. It’s been removed as clerical is no longer taught, but it wasn’t a sextant like the old school idea of a sailor holding it up to his eye.

[-]

Refined_redneck@reddit

Agree. She’s a pain in the ass to learn but absolutely beautiful once you figure her out. And just when you thought you were getting good she’d humble you a bit.

[-]

SaltyCraka@reddit

Easily metroliner single pilot 135

[-]

ywgflyer@reddit

Single pilot on a Metro is ridiculous. I'm assuming yours had autopilot to enable that, then? Ours never had one installed, flying in northern Canada it was both cheaper and more practical to have a FO (the FO unloads freight as part of their job, the autopilot doesn't). I have 4000 hours on that machine. Fun times.

[-]

SaltyCraka@reddit

No Autopilot. No Flight Director. Cant imagine flying that thing for 4000 hours!

[-]

ywgflyer@reddit

Yeah. It makes you a good pilot at least, you either get good fast or you die.

Did I mention that we were flying these things into 3000ft gravel strips surrounded by trees, at night, in the winter, in all weather, doing raw-data NDB approaches, back when I flew them only about half the fields had RNAV approaches and our GPS was the ol' KLN-90B, none of this fancy Garmin stuff.

[-]

SaltyCraka@reddit

Awww hell

[-]

flyby2412@reddit

Ameriflight?

[-]

Eirikur_da_Czech@reddit

To fly those do you have to have a Swearingen ceremony?

[-]

planegoeswoosh@reddit

What is it, dont think I ever got one?

[-]

hardyboyyz@reddit

Jokegoeswoosh

[-]

Blackwater_Park@reddit

I want you to know how much I appreciate this comment

[-]

Environmental_Log792@reddit

Can confirm, one of the most common comments that I get when someone reads my resume is “oh wow, you survived the metro”.

[-]

Scottzilla90@reddit

Doing single-pilot max weight wet takeoffs are a workout.. especially at 4am

[-]

Wandrews123@reddit

The metroliner is the only plane that makes me question my career aspirations just by looking at it.

[-]

SaltyCraka@reddit

I’ll mention that I flew that with my captains and their first response is “you flew that by yourself and you’re still alive?”

[-]

Wallphotography@reddit

I’ve always heard that it was a tough sinks pilot aircraft, what made it so bad?

[-]

planegoeswoosh@reddit

Heavy controls, very fast and not much room for error. Flying single is really crazy especially if you mix that with low hour pilot that care only about flying. If you dig even further, lot of things could go wrong and kill you, especially that nasty wheel well fire (which I got in flight, tho it was a false warning light). This thing killed multiple pilots which is why most airlines stopped using them

[-]

JadedJared@reddit

It flies smooth but doesn’t handle very well, which makes single engine flying tough at times. Requires a very heavy foot. The ailerons aren’t at the end of the wing like most aircraft so the roll is a little delayed and heavy. A lot of these cargo metros don’t have autopilot either.

[-]

planegoeswoosh@reddit

I miss flying that ugly thing, but I dont at the same time. I would never see myself fly this thing on my own especially with no autopilot

[-]

SaltyCraka@reddit

I do miss it from time to time. Then I think back to shooting approaches down to mins with no autopilot and then I’m like nah

[-]

Darrell456@reddit

Was gonna say the same thing. Thought it was always trying to kill me.

[-]

Eirikur_da_Czech@reddit

You could fly MQ-9s then. It’s like a metroliner but with half the engines.

[-]

Carbon_Based_MeatBag@reddit

Yep. LRE school was the hardest flying school I’ve been too.

[-]

CessnaBandit@reddit

Jesus christ

[-]

SSMDive@reddit

If you mean difficult as ‘physical handling’ it would be either the Pitts S1S or the Robinson R22.

The Pitts only for landing and only a bungie gear normal TW. It’s not difficult, but it comes in pretty quick and you can’t see in front of you so you align yourself with the runway before the flare and then keep yourself on the runway by looking at the runway edges out the side of the canopy. Now add in that it is responsive as hell and any overcorrection can bite you. You do get used to it, but those first few landings are…ahem ‘sporty’.

I went out and bought a Pitts S1S without ever landing a two seat Pitts. So after I bought the thing insurance required 10 hours in an S2 with a CFI. First lesson I thought there was no way I could land this thing and that I just wasted a bunch of money. The CFI was amazing (and now a dear friend) and I flare the plane and he senses me being off and asks, ‘What’s up?’ Just super casually. I tell him that I can’t see the runway. He just responds conversationally, ‘Is it to the left of you? No. ‘Is it to the right of you?’ Again no. ‘Then you are over it’…and at that point we touch down and I realized you are never gonna see the runway, get used to it and use other clues. After that I was ready by hour 6 and we spent the rest of time learning spins and Acro.

The R22 because it is so light it just moves quick with very small inputs. It has been 20 years since I flew one but I recall thinking it was damn near impossible. 20 years later a guy had a Brantly and asks me if I want to help balance the blades. I figured I’d be running the balancer while he flew.. Nope in less than 30 mins I am hovering this thing and he is running the balancer. I have not flown an R22 since but every helicopter pilot I talk to says it is one of the most difficult.

[-]

PlasticDiscussion590@reddit

My first landing in an s2c was easy! I probably wasn’t overthinking anything. The next few dozen probably didn’t count as landings.

I thought I wanted an S1 so I flew the s2 before buying one, then I bought a decathlon.

[-]

segelflugzeugdriver@reddit

You bought a decathlon over a Pitts? Wild

[-]

SSMDive@reddit

A Decathlon is maybe the best all around airplane. You can do Sportsman level acro, which is more than most people ever want to do. You can take it on a comfy XC for breakfast. You can do some short field work with it.

Does nothing spectacularly, but it does a bit of everything. I hated flying out of State for a contest in my S1S. Could not pack anything, had to plan a bunch of fuel stops, and you have to fly the thing all the time.

[-]

segelflugzeugdriver@reddit

Good point. Pitts is a better flying airplane but a decathlon is certainly more practical.

[-]

SSMDive@reddit

‘Better flying’ certainly not if we are talking about XC. Certainly not talking about ease of landing.

It all depends on what the pilot wants. I say this having owed an S1

[-]

nightlanding@reddit

A Decathlon is very easy to land. If you can't fly one, you can't fly. If you don't feel like having a very steep learning curve, it is a good choice.

[-]

segelflugzeugdriver@reddit

I agree, but a Pitts is a Pitts 😉

[-]

nightlanding@reddit

I flew a 2-seat Pitts and it was an absolute delight in the air. I have never adapted to a new airplane that fast, it did whatever I asked it to in the way my dream airplane that previously only existed in my mind would do.

In all operations involving touching the ground it seemed designed to crash, unlike the Decathlon where I am pretty sure I could have taught myself to fly it no problem, I didn't even feel remotely close to being able to be let loose in the Pitts by myself after an hour and I am sure at least half the flying population would NEVER be safe in it. I might even be in that half, I did not fly it again because I moved bases.

[-]

segelflugzeugdriver@reddit

I think that's pretty over the top. My checkout ride in a two seat Pitts was 45 mins and I was wheel landing it at the end. A decathlon is just a champ, so yeah it's more stable on the ground. A Pitts isn't a monster that's out to kill you, it's just different.

[-]

nightlanding@reddit

I was flying it for fun with someone I met, I was not specifically checking out in it. It landed fast with very bad visibility. Judging from my work checking out rental pilots, I don't think very many of them would have been able to check out in it.

[-]

segelflugzeugdriver@reddit

Well that's fair, but you don't need to make it sound hard. No airplane is that hard to fly, just different.

[-]

nightlanding@reddit

YMMV, if about 99% of your time is nosewheel airplanes and 95% of your tailwheel time is a Decathlon, it seems pretty different. I didn't get the idea I would be safe to be let loose in an hour. Could be wrong, I wasn't really trying to check out in it. The owner landed by coming in quite fast, doing a 450 degree roll about 80 feet off the deck, then turning a hard 360 at nearly 90 degrees bank and rolling out on to the pavement. It seemed like something I would need to practice a LOT to not kill myself.

[-]

segelflugzeugdriver@reddit

Yeah low level aerobatics is not the same as landing an airplane. Good on ya

[-]

OCFlier@reddit

Many helo pilots I’ve met have told me that if you can fly the Robbie, you can fly anything. There’s a reason why it has special training requirements.

[-]

oldschoolguy90@reddit

Why are they so common with the flight schools then? I have a grass strip that I share with the neighbor and I've invited the 2 local helicopter schools to do practice here. Theres at least 3 or 4 r44's regularly burning around here.

I live vicariously through their training. Plus my kids go apeshit

[-]

OCFlier@reddit

They’re relatively cheap to run

[-]

PG67AW@reddit

No such thing as twitchy airplanes, just twitchy pilots!

[-]

West-Organization450@reddit

That’s pretty funny…I did similar. Couple hundred hour PPL…bought my first Pitts sight unseen. Jumped in the front seat of my friend’s S-2B and rode thru the first landing without touching controls and all I could think was ‘Good God what have I done?!!!’ Did about 3-4 circuits on the controls and it was fine after that. The S-1S took a few hours to get used to because I’d learned in a Champ sitting in the front mostly. I think someone who learned in a J-3 would’ve had an easier time.

[-]

Skydance98@reddit

Inhabited, the Pitts or Robinson Helicopters. The Slepcev Storch wasn't hard exactly, but had some peculiar behaviors. Remote? Well I've flown some very unstable systems, such as tailsitter UAS that used differential thrust for yaw and pitch control, roll control was more conventional, and the challenge was heaviliy influenced by the maturity (or lack of maturity) of the fly-by-wire flight control system. In the early R&D days, I was flying purely rate based direct law, and without passive stability to lean on, it was a real handful. The challenges of flying something remotely which didn't have a fuselage to offer visual orientation also added another degree of challenge. Then there was the airborne wind turbines - basically 250mph kites on a tether that whipped around in a knife-edge lay down 8 sort of flight profile. Tether tension would vary and completely change the dynamics of the system. That was very exciting flight testing too.

[-]

ContributionHour8356@reddit

An Ercoupe if you have never flown one before and wing it without any research. Besides that, they’re amazing aircraft and rudder pedals ruin them.
PZL 104 Wilga 35. It’s an amazing aircraft that flies just like an oversized Super Cub but there are two things you need to be careful about. The Trailing Link Landing Gear is very good but if you come down a bit too hard on one wheel or hit a dip in grass, the gear will squat down making it easy to ground loop if you don’t feel it or aren’t staying ahead of it.

Wearing shoes will also get you killed in it. Yes. I am serious. If you wear shoes while flying it and you push wrong on a pedal for any reason, you can get your shoe stuck between the Pilot and Co-Pilot pedals, locking you into hard right or left rudder depending on where you are sitting. It is not fun at all especially when you’re about to touch down.. been there, done that, never worn shoes in aircraft again.

Any aircraft that has gained a bunch of unnecessary weight. A Cessna 150 with 300 lbs of interior really flies like a turd.

Besides that, a T6, Pitts, and Twinkie would be my next guesses but I haven’t flown any of them personally. I know the Twinkie is scary because of the laminar flow wing if you don’t understand how to fly one.

[-]

LowAndSlow__@reddit

Landing a UH-60 w AFCS off

[-]

Baystate411@reddit

I found flying a 737 with no hydraulics (manual reversion) was just about the same.

[-]

Lormar@reddit

Sopwith Camel. It's extremely tail heavy, has buckets of adverse yaw, twitchy in the controls, has negative dynamic stability, the rudder is too small and heavy, has incredible gyroscopic force from the engine, the engine management for the rotary engine is complicated and requires constant attention, it has almost no forward visibility during takeoff and landing, no wheel brakes and a tail skid. It's also the most fun and rewarding aircraft I've flown.

[-]

Smiggles0618@reddit

I bet that was extra fun at Old Rhinebeck. It's a pretty small strip with a lot of obstacles, isn't it?

[-]

nightlanding@reddit

IIRC they were intended to be flown out of a literal field, not off a runway, so you landed into the wind always.

[-]

Lormar@reddit

Yeah, like all airplanes of the era they flew out of big square fields called aerodromes. You can't land a camel on a paved runway , only grass. Out of all the WW1 types I've flown the camel handles crosswind landings fairly well comparatively speaking.

[-]

HydrodynamicShite@reddit

R22

[-]

Back_once_again@reddit

This guy pilots

[-]

Ancient_Juice_1127@reddit

Citation X took some getting used to.

[-]

DrHookEmMD@reddit

Still the most challenging jet I've ever flown, especially managing it into places like Aspen. It was fun but I'm glad I've moved on.

[-]

BagOfMoneyNoChange@reddit

Really? It could be a tiny bit squirrely when landing, but I never found it very difficult to fly. Aspen...4000 ft strips, contaminated runways...no problem.

[-]

DrHookEmMD@reddit

Different strokes for different folks I guess? It was only my third type rating and I never felt truly comfortable in it, granted I only flew it for ~700 hours. My training at CAE DFW was also tied for my least favorite in terms of feeling like the instructors set me up for success to hit the line running, which probably unconsciously negatively affected my perception of the airplane. At one point on Initial Sim 4, I had the instructor trying to get me to fly a OEI ILS with full HYD failure, incapacitated PM, 30kt x-wind component, with nothing but the standby attitude indicator and was all up my ass whenever I kept going around at the inevitable full-scale deflection instead of trucking on down to the 1800RVR runway that existed in his scenario somewhere. I felt like he was out to prove that the airplane would kill me, and there was nothing I could do about it. I stopped the sim then and there and met with his PM and ripped them all a new one. I could fly the sim and airplane just fine but that scenario destroyed my confidence for a long time.

It was a very capable aircraft, but between a bad vibe from the start thanks to negative training, laws of primacy impacting my perception of the plane, and my lack of appreciable time in it, I never got comfortable. It's also been 5 type ratings and 6 airplanes ago now, so my memories of it are getting fuzzy (still remember that stupid fucking sim just fine though).

[-]

Perfect_Big_5907@reddit

Lear 24 with standard wing. Not that it was too hard to fly but that thing would always be looking for a way to kill you.

[-]

Funkshow@reddit

I was coming to say the say thing.

[-]

ndrulez15@reddit

B-1. Wing sweep was weird at first. AR was difficult. EPs could get complicated fast

[-]

alienXcow@reddit

Whoever placed your AAR slipway should be shot. End of the pendulum, ruddervators in your way, and your visibility getting trashed with the fuel spray.

[-]

ndrulez15@reddit

You gotta be a boom op! You literally read my mind.

[-]

alienXcow@reddit

I'm at the other end of the jet but I've seen it all. I'd like to formally apologize for all the brand new copilots that start at 4 pumps and put you in IMC 6-9 seconds after contact

[-]

ndrulez15@reddit

Hahaha naw man. We appreciate all the work yall put in. The fuel spray normally happens when it’s beyond cold near Alaska. Everything becomes a giant blob and just pray we don’t turn us into a 🦄

[-]

weggaan_weggaat@reddit

C172? Or is the 150 more difficult?

[-]

Feathered_Indian_@reddit

TH-57B

[-]

The_Big_Obe@reddit

73

[-]

Enough_Professor_741@reddit

Mu-2. Spoilers instead of aileorns. Garret engines. Followed closely by the Lear 24/25. Fast, fuel burning hot rod.

[-]

OrionX3@reddit

Probably the B25, In the air it's not so bad but landings suck and directional control is pretty not great either.

[-]

minfremi@reddit

Agree. Also having wonky brakes and free cantering nose wheel made turns and straight taxi difficult.

[-]

OrionX3@reddit

Yep. And it also makes you look stupid to pax lol

[-]

Background-Wrap-1156@reddit

C180

[-]

BagOfMoneyNoChange@reddit

😆

[-]

Cessnateur@reddit

Why the laughing emoji?

[-]

BagOfMoneyNoChange@reddit

Because that's funny. Normally people laugh when they're amused.

[-]

Cessnateur@reddit

What's funny about it?

[-]

BagOfMoneyNoChange@reddit

You must be dense.

[-]

Cessnateur@reddit

You come across as really disrespectful and/or insecure.

OP didn't ask people to define the aircraft that is the most objectively difficult to fly. They asked everyone what the most difficult aircraft they have personally flown might be.

Laughing at someone's reply and then mocking others for their impressions demonstrates a real lack of class and maturity.

[-]

BagOfMoneyNoChange@reddit

😂

[-]

bean327@reddit

Q400

[-]

PlaneShenaniganz@reddit

Landing a light MD-11 with an aft CG and a quartering tailwind

[-]

ultralights@reddit

Jabiru LSA. Tiny rudder.

[-]

throaway691876@reddit

I’m only a lowly PPL, but the PA28 is less forgiving than a 172 and I’ll die on that hill!

[-]

mrmcderm@reddit

That’s so interesting. I don’t fly anymore but my flight school had both and I very much liked the stability of the Archer. It felt like I was strapping the Cessna on to my back.

[-]

throaway691876@reddit

Oh wow, I have to be transparent, I have 130 hours in a 172 and 30 in a PA28, so maybe that’s why?

Why don’t ya fly anymore?

[-]

FlydirectMoxie@reddit

Hondajet. Narrow gear with less footprint than a Goldwing. Pylon sails, you’d better be on your game or you’ll drag a wing in a xwind. Damp runway.. better not attempt with less than 6000’ because the anti-skid is real slow to release. I heard that around 10% of the active airframes have departed the runway. Like the Cessna 195, you need to pay attention to it until you’re in the blocks.

[-]

Lumberjack-1975@reddit

747-400

[-]

stinkyelbows@reddit

C46 Commando

[-]

nightlanding@reddit

Is that the one where you sit pointed to the center a few degrees instead of directly forward?

[-]

stinkyelbows@reddit

Yes, along with a very tall/fat fuselage that catches any little crosswind paired with a relatively small rudder and the fact it is a tail wheel aircraft with the main gear about 10 feet behind you. Quite tricky in normal conditions let alone any sort of wind.

[-]

BlackPocket@reddit

The first one

[-]

mfsp2025@reddit

This is it right here for us simple guys.

Hardest plane I ever struggled with landing was a C172 when I had like 20 hours of total time. Everything else after was a piece of cake.

[-]

Ramrod489@reddit

To be fair, while I still maintain that it’s the best trainer ever, the 172 can be a challenge to land. It’s floaty.

[-]

trozei@reddit

I definitely found that to be the case. My licensing training was 95% on the 152 which I found to be very simple. Any time I was running a 172 my landings were trash because of how floaty it was.

Looking back I’m sure that if I knocked the speed down slightly it would’ve been simple but at the time I was too green to understand what was happening and why it would be so different from the seemingly identical but smaller 152.

[-]

sftwareguy@reddit

I had a 172RG for about 500 hrs time and could put it anywhere I wanted after a while. Basically control the speed on final and give it a touch of power at 20' and use pitch to grease it in.

[-]

AdExcellent6967@reddit

In my career so far the ATR 72-600 has been the hardest. The engines are slow to respond to PL adjustments, so landing in turbulence can be tricky. The engines are also very underpowered which can be annoying at times during climb where you either need to cruise at a low flight level or accept a loooooooong time to reach cruise level. The main landing gear is also on the fuselage so it can be difficult to control on ground during crosswind landing and takeoff. You must have the yoke into the wind. Of course this was my first «big» airplane after flying MEP and SEP so that added a bit more to the challenge. But still some instructors told me during the type rating that «if you can land an ATR you can land anything»

[-]

FrankCobretti@reddit

The Bell JetRanger. Learning to hover my first helo was challenging.

[-]

blizzue@reddit

Frasca simulator

[-]

Otherwise-Pen70@reddit

Yeah, United washed out a lot of prospective pilots using the Frasca. They no longer use it

[-]

Rocketship10@reddit

Back in the day UA put me in the Dc10 sim, I felt so intimidated walking up to it. I guess I did ok and was hired. Sure am glad it was not that infamous Frasca probably would never have got hired

[-]

Swiper_The_Sniper@reddit

There is a special place in hell for the control column of those Frasca sims

[-]

bigbadcrusher@reddit

Is it worse than a Redbird? I can fly an approach nails in the real thing, but I’m all over the thing in the sim

[-]

Discount_Confident@reddit

Franca is so much easier than the gtx Sims

[-]

MungaMike@reddit

OMG, ha. Didn’t expect this response but it is spot on. I learned on the Frasca 142. Then taught it. I was a damn good instructor on it too. Then I left for a King Air charter job and lost some of the skills that thing taught me. When I went to interview at TWA, I found out the sim ride was in a Fresca 142, so I went to a local school and bought a couple hours of time. When I got to the interview, they had me do a simple take off to a hold, then do 2 steep turns. It was supposed to be a 360 turn in each direction, but when I got to the 180 they changed it up and told me to go back the other way 180. Then they stopped the sim and said they’d seen enough. I was really worried, thinking I had done something wrong. I asked and they said they had never seen anyone hop into a Frasca and hold altitude within 25 feet. I had proven I could fly instruments. I was offered a job the next day…..And then they told me AA had just bought them. Oh what could have been.

[-]

billtho111@reddit

So true

[-]

Wavebuilder14UDC@reddit

Get this man a true

[-]

manlilipad@reddit

Why was I coming here to say this too 😂 god I love Reddit

[-]

7nightstilldawn@reddit

Yes. I used to work for the largest EMS company in the world and they had an instructor who hated his job. He’d immediately simulate a T/R failure to make the pilots sick, then he’d say: ‘Are you sick? Ok that was 1 hour. Good job.’ And then be done. Quality training.

[-]

mirassou3416@reddit

OMG this is so true lol

[-]

MrAflac9916@reddit

I don’t care if my students can’t hold +/- 100ft in those, because I can barely do that

[-]

Muschina@reddit

I distinctly remember that goddam Frasca that United used to use in their interviews. You'd look away from the horizon for a single second to, say, change a freq and you've rolled off 30° in one direction or another. Flying an ILS in that MF was like Al Haynes flying the critically disabled DC-10 in KSUX.

[-]

skylaneguy@reddit

That was Planesense’s sim evaluation machine back in the day….

[-]

miianwilson@reddit

I had to take off, fly an approach with a holding pattern entry etc. in a Fresca for my OO interview back in the day.

[-]

StarlightLifter@reddit

If somehow manage to fly an “approach” in one of those godforsaken machines and it is even remotely close to the runway when you break out - I consider that a pass.

That fucking thing is easily 5x harder than IRL

[-]

Mispelled-This@reddit

At first I had misgivings about maintaining my currency in a Frasca because it’s the wrong model of plane, but every time I have to do an approach in a real plane, it is so much easier that I realized them being such terrible sims unintentionally makes them quite useful.

[-]

mvpilot172@reddit

Doing a job interview on a frasca!

[-]

PlasticDiscussion590@reddit

Fresca 142 without any visuals.

[-]

lnxguy@reddit

BD5. Disastrous engine management.

[-]

millionaire111111@reddit

172

[-]

nightlanding@reddit

I have to ask compared to what?

[-]

millionaire111111@reddit

It’s a joke lol

[-]

Otherwise-Pen70@reddit

A Piper Chieftain, improperly loaded by ground crew with an aft CG off the charts

[-]

humpmeimapilot@reddit

Howafta howafta Howafta....sry ill see myself out.

[-]

Yellowtelephone1@reddit

I flew a twin Cessna, I think it was a C414, and that humbled me.

Easy plane to actually fly, but it was a lot of airplane for me at the time, especially on a narrow runway.

[-]

chaoticcole_wgb@reddit

A 1in paper airplane. Could even sit in it

[-]

First-Structure-2407@reddit

That Mad dog

[-]

PG67AW@reddit

No such thing as a difficult aircraft, just a different aircraft.

[-]

dat_gooby@reddit

Pitts s2a

[-]

ASSTORIA92@reddit

Any plane flown with a former military guy. These guys don't know how to fly lmao

[-]

Resident_Report_5854@reddit

I’m a 1600h pilot and haven’t received a training date at my airline yet, so my experience is minimal. The MU-2 is pretty finnicky, but if you fly it exactly like the book like you are supposed to, it’s a great airplane.

[-]

IceBlock12@reddit

I would argue that the plane I fly now could be hard at the beginning but once you learn it, it becomes the simplest plane you’ve ever flown.

[-]

buzzliteyear22@reddit

Shorts SC7 Sky Van. Everything about that plane is weird and trying to land with any kind of xwind component is a real chore

[-]

Best_Big_9456@reddit

Man, those things do NOT look like they should be able to fly. A brick is probably more aerodynamic.

[-]

buzzliteyear22@reddit

Highly agreed

[-]

Gromgutt1@reddit

C-421B

[-]

LigerSixOne@reddit

Stearman PT-17 , upside down hanging by a 1943 harness in an open cockpit, my only concern is the 11kt crosswind I left behind.

[-]

Ornery-Ad-2248@reddit

Q400

[-]

DatBeigeBoy@reddit

ITT: I realize I haven’t flown shit.

[-]

infowhiskey@reddit

I flew an MU2 professionally, it wasn't exactly difficult but you had to understand the spoilerons or it'll kill you when you lose one.

[-]

Wingnut233@reddit

This. Any change in power means having to re-trim pitch, yaw, AND roll.

Also those full span flaps could bite you hard if you don't know what you're doing after an engine failure.

Then there's also the re-fuelling dance of main, main, outer, outer, tip, other tip to full, then back to the other tip. Every fueller's nightmare.

[-]

aybaer@reddit

To fly? The Cessna 421c with geared engines. Gigantic pain in the ass. There’s about 6 different ways to blow your engines up by flying incorrectly.

To land is definitely the Great Lakes 2T-1A. It’s a bi plane that you fly from the back seat. Can’t see anything when taxiing or landing, has no flaps, and has super sensitive brakes. Fun to fly, stressful to land.

[-]

Hour_Tour@reddit

Started on gliders, got humbled by how long it took me to figure out coordinated turns. Any aircraft since has been a breeze to fly, although I've never touched anything exotic or particularly exciting.

[-]

LikenSlayer@reddit

AV-8B Harrier II, will forever in my heart hold that title

[-]

TheIronPilot@reddit

Twin Otter in a gusty cross wind

[-]

retiredaaer@reddit

The B-52. Very stiff on controls.

[-]

FlyBR@reddit

Second the B-52. Heavy, sloppy controls with very little automation or things telling you something is wrong.

[-]

Turbo_Normalized@reddit

T-6 & B-52? No T-38?

[-]

adventuresofh@reddit

The Cessna 195 - it flies beautifully but there is a lot of mass behind you, and it will absolutely bite you quick on the ground! It was fun to fly one a couple times, but I’ve crossed that off my “want to own” list. Never have I felt so humbled in an airplane 😅

The Culver Dart - and not because it’s a poor handling airplane. It’s really fun, tracks straight, and is very responsive. But the heel brakes are under the rudder pedals making it damn near impossible to get to them (I physically can’t bend my feet back the way you’d need to to use them properly) which makes landing/taxiing in any amount of wind or landing on shorter strips a bit interesting. It also has a weird trim system that takes some gettin used to, and if you are not on speed you will go floating down the runway worse than I’ve experienced in any other airplane.

[-]

nightlanding@reddit

Besides for crappy sims:

The Seneca MK 1 on a windy turbulent day for a BFR. It has absolutely awful wallowing handling with the linked ailerons and rudder. It has the odd combination of being very responsive to external inputs, i.e. gusts knock it all over the place, but is very unresponsive to pilot control inputs. When the CFI failed one engine it took me a bit to realize it had died, I was like "Now this thing is even worse than before and kinda sluggish too".
An old Bell 47: I had never flown a helicopter before and it had a lot of slop in the ancient controls. I felt like I could barely fly it for the first half hour or so until I learned to hold the cyclic very loosely and let it rattle around, holding it tight turned all the slop and vibration into control inputs. It did have a cool feature, the rotor blade were heavy, to park it we hovered about 10 feet over the spot and turned the engine off. It slowly lowered itself to the ground. My understanding is the R-22s most places have now have very light rotors that are a challenge when the engine quits.

[-]

NoPhysics1129@reddit

MQ9 the lag is so annoying.

[-]

Ok-Literature7648@reddit

Drones don’t count lol

[-]

NoPhysics1129@reddit

Ha, considering we dont land or take off, fair. But it was like 5000+ Ping equivalent when flying so essentially probably faster to just be on the phone with a local flier and monitor the feeds lmao.

[-]

Carbon_Based_MeatBag@reddit

Agreed. Learning to fly it at Creech was challenging as well.

[-]

nbd9000@reddit

weeelllllll..... the MD11 was definitely the hardest type. it had a lot of things that COULD go wrong and would get complicated really fast. but actually flying it was incredibly easy.

conversely, the 737 classic was constantly trying to kill you and had to be treated with kid glives.

[-]

Hopefully change that in the next few months