Scudrunners

I have my own thoughts on this but I’m interested in yours. What qualities make an airplane ‘nice’ to fly?

In My limited experience the Extra 330lt is the nicest. Its a slightly detuned Extra but with the same power and a lower drag semi sym wing.

The controls are just perfect. Sensitive but not twitchy, smooth as silk, its fast, exhilarating. Not a bad habit anywhere in the envelope. But control harmony, power and smoothness top my list. Those give you instant confidence in a plane.

A stick.

Power, with a throttle or power lever that is sensibly rigged (eg, don't go from idle to full power in the last half inch of travel)

Minimal/no vibrations.

Lots of visibility in all phases of flight.

The ability to feel what the plane will do, especially around the slow flight regime.

This sort of answer is why I’m such a digits fan.

Add a cup holder, some useful load and good range. If I decide to fly around again someday, I would be pretty stoked!

Good thread Slick.

(1) it doesn't break in flight
(2) it doesn't need much maintenance, at all
(3) maintenance can be conducted quickly and economically and easily, and doesn't kill you after

That's probably not what you were looking for, but most people would agree with the above.

The rest is subjective. I mean, you could argue that a powerful airplane (fewer lbs/hp) is good,
but some people don't like a powerful airplane. I have never flown an airplane that is "too powerful"
because I know that I don't need to jam the throttle all the way forward like a buck fifty.

I personally like an aircraft with a high wing loading (lbs/sq ft of wing area) because it gives me a
fast and smooth ride in the bumps and it's trivial to land with gusty/strong crosswinds. But you'd
better have a looong paved runway (and no obstacles). If you don't have long paved runway, a light
wing loading is the answer, but it's slow and painful in the bumps, and during a strong, gusty
crosswind ... well ... ask that internet hero with the red turbine taildragger about that. He rolled it
up into a ball on takeoff. Not landing. Takeoff. I am not making this up.

I personally like an aircraft with light, effective ailerons and mass centralized in the fuselage -
virtually weightless wings - because it makes it pleasing and easy to maneuver. But some
people don't like that - they want heavy, ineffective ailerons. Four bars.

C of G. If C of G is too far aft, it's going to be twitchy in pitch which is almost never a good
thing for 99.9% of pilots that are fond of PIO's. But I do like a "square stick" where the pitch
forces are the same as the roll forces. I detest an aircraft that has heavy roll forces and light
pitch forces on the stick.

Oh yeah, I like a stick in my right hand, where my wrist rests on my right knee, and my left
hand on the throttle(s). Subjective. I am sure four bars hate that.

I hate aircraft with heavy rudder pedals. T-34 sucks.

I like excellent visibility, all around and behind me. F-16 is the best example of this. They
fought really hard to get the pilot up - the engineers wanted him buried down - but the drag
cost was not that bad. Bubble canopy all the way. And as much as I love biplanes, the top
wing drives me nuts in slot.

An airplane should be able to climb like an angel and drop like a manhole cover, on demand.
Freedom in the vertical is precious.

An airplane should have as few gauges and switches as possible. Excess systems (like MCAS)
I am not fond of. Systems simplicity goes a long way to ease of training and fewer accidents.

It should be easy to start, and tolerant of pilot fuckups wrt systems operation. It should not
have a tricky shutdown sequence.

It should be easy to refuel. This sounds obvious, but ...

It should be easy to maneuver on the ground. Pogo stick under the tail, anyone?

Buckets of fuel. You don't have to fill the tanks every time, but when you do, 10 hours range
so you can go someplace without refuelling stops. I hate refuelling stops. Adding fuel to
an aircraft is always better than increasing cruise speed, because it has more of an effect
on your block-to-block time because you're non-stop. The percentage of an aircraft's gross
weight which is fuel is an interesting metric. John Boyd fought for this on the F-16.

When you swallow your gum when the throttle goes full forward.

If you can fly a circuit within the lateral confines of the airport property, that's nice, too:

Somebody else paying for it.

If we're strictly talking about the actual act of me flying it, then its all about the seat and windows, and it does what its designed to do. Fly slow, fly fast, be maneuverable, lift loads, whatever. Lets just assume that we can all agree no one likes a plane that breaks. Most of the other things are what makes an airplane easy or economical to operate, which is an inexhaustible list. If we're talking about the interval of time between when I leave the ground until when I get back on the ground, I need a good seat and window. That means I can sit in that seat for more than an hour without having to visit the bone cracker. Stuff is where its supposed to be in relation to the seat. the window shouldn't be hard to look out of from the seat. I don't care much where the stick/yoke/wheel is as long as its not a stretch from the seat. Though I'm not a fan of some planes that put the stick too close to my balls.

That means I can sit in that seat for more than an hour

I gave up caring. I have spent thousands of hours sitting on parachutes :^)