Pilots......opinions please.

[Dantilla]

Originally Posted by Embraer

if you're going to jump up to big boy airplanes, I'd say learn in a low wing such as a warrior/Cherokee, then go to the other high performance low wings. then again, buying a cirrus or a bonanza isn't a smart thing at all to begin with.

I was renting 152s at the local airport when I was offered a partnership in a V-tail.
Insurance required ten hours of instruction before I was covered to fly the airplane solo.

Ten hours was more than enough for a thorough check-out. I've been a big Bonanza fan ever since.

[Dantilla]

"a bonanza isn't a smart thing at all to begin with."

I've never been accused of being smart.

[Embraer]

yep. when I was at the artcc, I worked several fatal accidents. there's a whole 'nother level of goofiness when you get into TBM and Pilatus guys. (every one of my crashes was one of those two airplanes) flying into weather, poor judgment, bad decision-making. lack of wisdom.

when im up in the tower cab monitoring operations now, I cringe when I see some of the certificated pilots doing stupid things. weather might be VMC, but marginal. I'll have my controller re-iterate weather to pilots as a sort of "Do you REALLY wanna go?" ...most don't get it.

a lot of guys mentioned stick and rudder stuff in this thread. knowing the rules, and working with other aircraft and atc is just as important.

[rattlsnak]

i think the low wings fly/feel better but the high wings offer so much better visibility. You really can't go wrong with a PA28 or a C172 to learn in.

[petrolhead611]

Actually, for visibilty among US planes a 177 is hard to beat, and they are nice and simple to fly and own. For best visibilty and looks, you cant beat the Socata family. But airmanship as has already been mentioned, is more about planning and decision making(most often before take off) than about what plane you fly.There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but no old bold pilots.

[t6dpilot]

IMO easiest to fly, which is the OP's question are the Piper PA-28 series aircraft and the Cessna 152 and 172. There is a reason why many flight schools use them. For tail draggers, the Cub is the choice of champions. These are all great choices for very low time pilots. While I agree that there are other aircraft that may be "easy-ish" to fly like the Bonanza, things happen too quickly for a low time pilot. You need to get your brain trained to be comfortable at speed before you upgrade to higher performance aircraft. I am sure there are some light sport category planes that would fit the easy to fly category.

I completely agree with the comments regarding judgement and that is a whole 'nother can of worms. I used to read Aviation Safety regularly and nearly all of the reported accidents could be attributed to poor judgment. Flying a poorly (or incorrectly) maintained aircraft, improper preflight, pushing the fuel limits, pushing the performance limits, pushing the pilot's limits, flight into IMC by a VFR pilot, flight into known icing conditions without deice equipment.

[tttoon]

Best bet would be what schools use, so 172 or Piper Warrior. Another alternative is the Diamond DA-20, it has benign slow speed handling, and with a landing speed around 52 kts everything happens so slowly it's easy to correct or go-around. Pretty decent cruise speed and range too, but only seats 2. I have around 1000 hours instructing in those (graduated to the B737NG now) and I never had a student who I couldn't teach to land it. Flew one from Phoenix to London, Ontario in two and a half days. The only challenging thing sometimes is getting it to slow down, and it's VFR only.

The DA-40 is also pretty good although less speed stable and less performant (never knew why they bothered with the 4th seat in those). Cirrus is nice but not an ideal first airplane, it tends to give low hour pilots a little too much confidence.

[RF5BPilot]

For simplest/easiest, Google Ercoupe.

[gamin]

Ercoupe? One needs to learn to fly with rudder pedals. Some Ercoupes had them.
I'd go with a J-3. Now there is simple.

[Otter74]

As a non-pilot who has "flown" a Cub (I got about an hour of stick time when we were in the air), I'll say that it was a piece of cake to fly.

[flipper35]

They increased the chord on the C35 tail and on all the later models and they have a more narrow weight and balance. The control surfaces need to be balanced properly as well.

[Concestor0]

mostly A to B stuff

It sounds like you are looking for fun transportation. Most modern light planes are reasonably safe, the biggest factors that influence safety are "human factors" (ie. being an idiot) and proper training. I have always liked the Mooney series of aircraft, they're fast, efficient and safe as long as you don't do anything idiotic and receive the proper training.

If your definition of "easy to fly" translates as "I don't have to spend much time and money in training" then you had better stick with ground transportation.

[flipper35]

The Mooney is like a 911. Four seats but only two are meant for people if you want to go very far. They are fast though.

[304065]

To me, "easy to fly" has two components:

1) Stability in flight and on the ground. Most production airplanes have positive static and dynamic stability: if displaced they tend to return to the trimmed state after a couple of oscillations diminishing in amplitude. The 172 and taper-wing PA28s are pretty good at this. The early "Hershey-Bar Wing" series of PA28 with a constant width span have a tendency to fall out of the sky at very low speeds in the landing regime-- not dangerously so, but if you have never flown one it can be a surprise.

Ground handling, would have to go with the PA28s, the wide gear spacing and forgiving stroke are pretty tolerant of small misalignments. Which is not to say you should be sloppy, it's only to say that it takes time and experience to develop proficiency.

I owned a Citabria which was a very forgiving taildragger, I found the ground handling and visibility to be fine-- contrast this with something like a Cessna 195 where you are constantly S-turning to see where you are going. Again, with time comes proficiency.

2. Ergonomics. Old airplanes often have a gauge stack that does not follow the "six-pack" configuration of ASI AI ALT on the top and TC, DG VSI at the bottom. They fly just fine, but for serious instrument work many people prefer the modern configuration. Also, with the advent of "Glass Cockpits" in the GA community, the opportunity for GREATLY enhanced situational awareness is present-- and that makes a BIG difference and can mean the difference between survival and not if you push the weather and fuel in defiance of good judgment as stated above.

So, what does that mean? Get a late-model 172 with the Garmin glass cockpit and have fun.

[Rinty]

Originally Posted by aap1966

Assuming cost no option, what is the easiest aircraft to fly once on solo, and why?

Suggest fixed prop / fixed tricycle gear Cessna (152 / 172) or Piper PA 28 for starters. High wing or low wing, they're very easy to fly.

Once you get some hours, you can consider transitioning to a constant speed prop / retractable gear aircraft.

It's a bit like learning to drive on an automatic, then transitioning to standard after you get comfortable with it.

...I have always liked the Mooney series...Concestor

+1