Orval Fairbairn wrote:
In article .com,
"Bret Ludwig" wrote:

Get an A&P license via the EXPERIENCE method or at a community college
and join a flying club. Or become a CFI, and do likewise. No homebuilt
flies that cheap.

I know of no currently-produced factory planes that fly as well as most
of the homebuilts out there (RVs MM-IIs, Falcos, Swearingens, Pitts
Model 12s, etc.)

When did Cessna, Beech, Piper decide that they had to produce planes
that feel and fly like dump trucks?

For all its killer reputation (and not wholly undeserved) the old
Beech Bonanza flies pretty good. The controls are harmonized nicely and
everything is on good bearings and it's difficult to condemn it for
that.

What is a "good flying airplane"? I personally (although I have to
admit I never soloed one) think the T-6 is a good flying airplane. Yes
it makes you work. That's the idea. I think the T-38 is a good flying
airplane (I got two backseat rides, one in CAP, one when my sister
married a Air Force captain-I probably would buy some dual from Chuck
Thornton but he's kind of a dick). I think the Navion is a good flying
cross country airplane, heavy, but since it is not aerobatic anyway, no
big deal. My one ride in a RV (it was the first side by side one,
whatever that was) made me think it was too skittish and light to be a
good cross country airplane and I didn't like it. The Pitts is a ****ty
flying airplane to me-but I don't do competitive aerobatics, if I did
i'd probably love it. The other biplane I got to handle a little was a
colossal old Waco and that seemed pretty good to me. I never flew a
Falco but I got a ride in a SF.260, very well laid out, much better
airplane structurally than Falco.

Bigger the airplane, in general, better it flies. Not a strict rule
but that's the tendency. make your little homebuilt fly like military
trainer and you are good to go.