What aircraft would you most like to fly?

If it’s “most like to fly,” I’d pick the Supermarine Spitfire Mk IX. Not because it’s the fastest or most lethal by modern standards, but because it represents a pivotal intersection of design, doctrine, and national survival.

The Spitfire’s story is inseparable from the RAF’s shift toward an integrated air defense system: radar early warning, sector control, and fighter interception. Flying a Spit in that context would be like stepping into the living doctrine of the Battle of Britain and the follow-on air campaigns.

One thing I’d want to do: a controlled formation sortie at altitude, then a few coordinated turns to feel the aircraft’s responsiveness. Reading about it in works like Stephen Bungay’s “The Most Dangerous Enemy” is one thing—feeling the aerodynamics and cockpit workload would be another.

I’m going CH-47 Chinook, purely for the mission set and the “workhorse” factor. Moving people, pallets, ammo, a sling load, CASEVAC—there’s something about an aircraft that’s basically a flying logistics solution.

Also: the crew environment matters. I’ve always been fascinated by how aircrew manage comms, checklists, and gear in a loud, vibrating cabin. If I got one flight, I’d want a short infil/exfil style run with the ramp, seeing how loads are strapped down and how the crew coordinates.

Not gonna lie, I’d show up in the most boring practical kit possible: good boots, ear pro, gloves. Comfort and function beat tacticool when you’re in the noise and wind.

I’d pick the UH-60 Black Hawk. I didn’t fly, but I spent plenty of time around them and in them, and the vibe is real: fast loading, quick comms, people working without drama.

If I could “fly” it for real, I’d want a day/NVG training pattern with a good instructor—basic hover work, transitions, and then a tight approach to a confined area (within safe training limits). What always impressed me was discipline: how the crew sticks to procedures even when it feels routine.

Also, respect for the maintainers. The aircraft feels “cool” because a bunch of tired professionals made it safe and ready.

I know the question is about aircraft you’d like to fly, but my answer is a little sideways: I’d most like to “fly” an MQ-9 Reaper mission from the operator’s seat.

Not because it’s glamorous—because it’s the clearest window into modern airpower: sensor management, comms, handoffs, rules of engagement, and the patience of persistent ISR. The workload is cognitive, not Gs.

If you force me into a cockpit: I’d pick something like the X-47B (if it were available) or any carrier-capable autonomous demonstrator, just to feel how the human-machine interface changes what “piloting” even means.

I’m a tracked-vehicle guy, but I’d still choose an aircraft that directly shapes the ground fight: the AH-64 Apache.

From a mechanized perspective, attack helicopters are like mobile anti-armor ambush platforms with crazy situational awareness—if they’re supported and employed right. The coordination with ground units, deconfliction, and target handoff is where it gets interesting.

One thing I’d want to do: a gunnery training run (sim or live training range) to understand how the sensor suite, ranging, and crew coordination actually feels. People talk “top speed” and forget that the real story is finding, identifying, and engaging under time pressure.

I’d pick the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet specifically for carrier aviation. The aircraft itself is capable, but the draw is the environment: deck ops, procedures, and the sheer precision of a controlled carrier approach.

One thing I’d want to do is a carrier landing cycle (even in a simulator with realistic cues). It’s arguably one of the most demanding, standardized piloting tasks, and it’s tightly tied to naval doctrine—projecting airpower from the sea under constrained space and time.

If we’re talking “most iconic naval aviation,” part of me also wants an S-3 Viking just to experience the multi-crew coordination and the old-school carrier ASW culture.

F-14 Tomcat. I don’t care that it’s retired—if the question is “most like to fly,” the Tomcat is the answer for me.

Variable-sweep wings, big power, two-seat crew dynamics, and that whole era of fleet air defense. Plus it’s a jet where you’d actually feel the aircraft “doing a thing” as you manage energy and configuration.

One thing I’d want to do: a DACT-style training setup in a safe environment—learn basic BFM, feel the pull, then run a radar intercept profile with a RIO calling out the picture. It’s the full experience: stick-and-rudder plus tactics.

If I could fly anything once, it’d be a T-6 Texan II. Not the flashiest, but it’s where a lot of military aviation journeys become real.

It’s also a good reminder that “most like to fly” can mean “most meaningful to earn.” For anyone reading this thread and thinking about making it real: start with fitness, academics, and talking to an actual recruiter or officer accessions source (requirements vary by country/service).

One thing I’d do: a basic contact sortie—stalls, patterns, and some aerobatics with an instructor. Mastery of fundamentals is what separates daydreaming from capability.

I’m picking an MH-47G Chinook (SOF config). Not because it’s “secret,” but because the mission profile is intense: long-range, low-level, at night, with a crew that’s absolutely locked in.

What I’d want to do: a training infil/exfil under NVGs with a legit crew and strict safety. The coordination between aircrew and ground team is the part that fascinates me—timing, comms brevity, and contingency planning.

And to be clear: the cool factor is the professionalism, not the patches.

I’d go with a small utility helicopter like a UH-1 Huey (or a modern equivalent) because it’s tied to the kinds of real-world problems I think about: getting into rough terrain, weather changes, emergencies, and decision-making.

One thing I’d want to practice (with a qualified instructor) is emergency procedures and off-airfield landing planning—how you read terrain, pick an LZ, and manage risk. That’s the side of flying that feels most “real” to me.

And I’ll always respect any pilot who says “no-go” when conditions aren’t right. That’s survival mindset 101.

E-3 AWACS (or E-7 Wedgetail) for me. Not sexy, but it’s arguably where modern air warfare gets orchestrated.

If I could sit in that cockpit/crew environment, I’d want to experience how the air picture is built and maintained—track management, ID processes, deconfliction, and how decisions flow under uncertainty. That’s where strategy meets real-time execution.

From a geopolitics angle, these platforms also symbolize coalition warfare: different rules, different comms standards, interoperability issues, and the politics of who shares what data.

C-17 Globemaster III. I’m biased toward logistics and combat support, and the C-17 is basically global mobility in metal form.

The engineering/logistics appeal is huge: short/rough field capability (relative to its size), rapid onload/offload, and the fact that one aircraft can shift an entire operation’s tempo. It’s not dogfights—it’s making the plan possible.

One thing I’d want to do: a tactical approach into a training airfield and watch the loadmaster workflow. The coordination between aircrew, ground crews, and cargo planning is the real art.

I’m still learning, so this might be a basic pick, but I’d love to fly an F-16. It’s like the “default fighter” in my head because so many countries use it and there’s a ton of footage and docs.

Question for the folks who know: if you only got one flight in a fighter, would you rather do a short high-G BFM training hop, or something like air-to-air refueling (seems terrifying but awesome)?

Also, how different does a simulator feel compared to the real thing for a first-timer?

F-35A, and my reasoning is less “cool jet” and more “I want to understand the kill chain.”

If you’re thinking in force-structure terms, the F-35 is a node: sensors, fusion, datalinks, and decision advantage. A single sortie can be about shaping the battlespace for everyone else—air, ground, and maritime.

One thing I’d want to do: a complex training mission where you manage emissions, collaborate with other assets, and see how the aircraft supports a broader plan. The interesting part isn’t top speed; it’s information dominance and coordination.

I’d choose a loyal-wingman style platform—something in the direction of the XQ-58 Valkyrie concept—where “flying” is really supervising autonomy and managing mission intent.

The cockpit experience I want is the future HMI: how many vehicles can one operator meaningfully command, how do you trust autonomy, and how do you intervene safely when the system behaves unexpectedly?

If I had to pick a crewed aircraft that points that direction, I’d take an F-35 simply because it’s already closer to a sensor-fusion computer with a pilot than a classic stick-and-rudder jet.