Poll: best looking GA prop plane of all time?

As far as any other comparison goes, the P180 crushes the
King Air.

Agreed, except for the BE200's 1000lb higher MTOW. I'm not sure how
much of that is useful load though.

Useful load is comparable but the Piaggio is so much more fuel efficient
that it can carry about twice the payload on 1500nm flights and get there an
hour earlier too. The Piaggio with its four lifting surfaces (the fusilage
also provides lift) incredibly tight tolerance surface finish and low drag
shape is simply an amazing airplane. It is light years ahead of the King
Air.

Mike
MU-2

wrote in message
ups.com...
As far as any other comparison goes, the P180 crushes the
King Air.

Agreed, except for the BE200's 1000lb higher MTOW. I'm not sure how
much of that is useful load though.

wrote:


I vote for the Cardinal! It just look GOOD!

Best regards,

Jer,

Thank you for your vote ;-) I hope to have a chance to show off my
Cardinal to you in person in the near future. We stopped at Fort
Collins airport in our trip to Denver late last August to see if we
could schedule a mountain flying session but you were not around. We
will try to contact you ahead of time if we plan another NY-CO trip.

Best regards,

Hai Longworth

The Piaggio with its four lifting surfaces (the fusilage
also provides lift) incredibly tight tolerance surface finish and low drag
shape is simply an amazing airplane. It is light years ahead of the King
Air.

From the perspective of an aircraft structural design engineer, the
King Air appears to be the result of generations of add-ons. Most
fuselage stations look different from each other. Note the different
windows and skin panels. It appears that rather than spend a few
dollars to clean up the design they just kept adding on as the airframe
models got larger. Even the outboard wing looks like it is added on to
a center wing. Scabed together compared to the clean Piaggio. Can
anyone verify if this how the Beechcraft developed?

When I was 13 years old I thought Jim Bede's BD-5 looked great. In
hindsight he was selling a cute design that was hard to fly bordering
on unsafe. But then Kitplanes are a whole another area from GA.

The variety of aircraft over the past 100 years is amazing. Quite a
survival of the fittest - evolution going on. For every plane in
service, others did not get past the prototype stage. For each
prototype, many more were tested in the wind tunnel and detailed on
paper. The 1930s to 1940s were an explosion of aircraft design. I love
it.

James

James,

King Air appears to be the result of generations of add-ons. Most
fuselage stations look different from each other.

You broke the code. The King Air evolved from the Twin Bonanza and
then the Queen Air.

It's a lovely flying airplane, so it's beautiful in that respect, but
it's slow as molasses for a turboprop.

I always wondered why Beech had allowed such poor aerodynamics on the
Duke (the thing is drag incarnate); then realized that had they cleaned
it up, it would have been substantially faster than the King Air, which
would not have done their turbine marketing any good at all.

All the best,
Rick

Hai,

Sorry I wasn't there... I'm SURE I was out flying. Please do email or
call ahead for scheduling and I'll be SURE to have time for you when
you come thru.

If at all possible, I highly recommend the mountain flying course put
on by Colorado Pilots Association... Usually in Denver, May and
August of each year. I even teach the ground school. :-)

I'll look forward to flying with you in 2006!

I'm at 3V5, Fort Collins Downtown Airport.
Note that FNL, Fort Collins - Loveland Airport is nearby.
Of course, we consider ourselves THE "Fort Collins Airport" :-)

wrote:
I vote for the Cardinal! It just looks GOOD!
Best regards,
Jer,

Thank you for your vote ;-) I hope to have a chance to show off my
Cardinal to you in person in the near future. We stopped at Fort
Collins airport in our trip to Denver late last August to see if we
could schedule a mountain flying session but you were not around. We
will try to contact you ahead of time if we plan another NY-CO trip.

Hai Longworth

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 234 Young Eagles!

Montblack wrote:
("Matt Whiting" wrote)

Yes, compared to a Wilga.

http://www.pzl-okecie.com.pl/wilga.htm
Wilga

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=322
Wilga

This thread, and the ugly thread, have been driving me bonkers. Nobody
posts links.

Agreed on the Wilga, also to the ugly list:
Any of the Aerocats http://www.creativeflight.com
Barr 6 http://www.barraircraft.com (Looks like a pregnant Skylane)
There are numerous ugly ultralights...

In the beauty catagory:
I would take a Four Winds over a Cardinal http://www.fourwindsaircraft.com
A 6 place version of this http://www.mini-imp.com
or better yet this http://www.sgaviation.com

I'd also add most of the new generation canards...

Darrel Toepfer wrote:

Montblack wrote:

("Matt Whiting" wrote)

Yes, compared to a Wilga.


http://www.pzl-okecie.com.pl/wilga.htm
Wilga

http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=322
Wilga

This thread, and the ugly thread, have been driving me bonkers. Nobody
posts links.


Agreed on the Wilga, also to the ugly list:
Any of the Aerocats http://www.creativeflight.com
Barr 6 http://www.barraircraft.com (Looks like a pregnant Skylane)
There are numerous ugly ultralights...

In the beauty catagory:
I would take a Four Winds over a Cardinal http://www.fourwindsaircraft.com

Nah, the Four Winds has too low of a "beltline" and the tail looks
oversized. I much prefer the Stallion.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Darrel Toepfer wrote:

Agreed on the Wilga, also to the ugly list:
Any of the Aerocats http://www.creativeflight.com
Barr 6 http://www.barraircraft.com (Looks like a pregnant Skylane)
There are numerous ugly ultralights...

In the beauty catagory:
I would take a Four Winds over a Cardinal
http://www.fourwindsaircraft.com

Nah, the Four Winds has too low of a "beltline" and the tail looks
oversized. I much prefer the Stallion.

I remember when it was featured in the mag, still not many flying,
especially with the Barr 6...

I wanted to add but forgot, of course if I owned any of the "ugly"ies,
they'd be the most beautiful thing... ;-)

Phunnie how ownership changes ones point of veiw...

"Bob Chilcoat" wrote in message
...
I vote for the Cessna 195,

Does it have to be GA? I've always thought the DC3 one of the most
attractive planes ever built.