If we include warbirds, the Corsair is my hardest plane to land without clipping a wing or tipping over.
For flying in general, the Boeing 247 is the hardest to fly without exploding an engine. It is possible to do consistently but you’ve got to manage oil temperatures and pressures very closely.
If not to late, take a look to the Gee Bee Model Z …
I’ve tipped over in the Spit on taxi turns more times than I’d care to admit. 
Oh - the Kodiak 100 is rather fun too; it tries to model startup failures so you have to do the turboprop starter/ng/condition dance correctly, and because it has a high torque/weight ratio it loves to leap up and kill you on takeoff.
At least it’s not a taildragger. 
I have the Kodiak. It’s cool. But I’m sorta waiting for the big update that’s coming because apparently with the new CFD it’s a fair bit more twitchy atm than what it should be. So it may be artificially more difficult atm.
What about the Anzani RIP Blériot XI? 
They admit it isn’t quite accurate with this current build and needs an update but it has always been torque-y, twitchy, and temperamental.
That was on sale once for like $4 and I picked it up.
Never fly it these days.
But crossing the channel in it was well worth the price!
I picked up the Spitfire this week and I’m finding it a real handful. I can take off most of the time without incident, but I find it very difficult to keep it on the runway while landing, and I frequently tip it over.
That’s accurate. The Corsair landing characteristics were so hazardous that the USN did not originally approve it for carrier operations and handed their stock over to the Marines.
It was the British who finally sorted it out for carrier landings, and that’s largely because they were in desperate need of carrier capable fighters.
The pilot position makes it very hard to see the carrier on a straight approach. You have to fly in side slipping to see what the deck is doing.
The shocks bounced hard on landing and could jump the wire. It also had a nasty wing drop on stall, that I’m given to understand was in the same direction as the power torque as well, so much fun…
There were reasons they called it the Ensign Eliminator.
The Hellcat is a far more benign and docile warbird. It just likes flying.
The Hellcat is a late war plane and has the benefits of engineers learning exactly what kind of plane was needed for the job.
An early war Spitfire is so beautiful, sophisticated, complex, powerful, and finicky. A work of art that showcases the best of Britain. But it wasn’t built to be mass produced for a large scale world war.
The Hellcat has great views, a blocky, easy to mass produce design, a time tested engine used in many other planes throughout the war, and a fairly simple, intuitive cockpit with for the time, excellent views. More stable wing shape and placement.
It was easier to make, build, learn, and fly.
Still one of my top picks for most difficult GA plane to fly in sim! It is a rowdy hot rod of an engine with a plane built around it. Torque. Free castering tail wheel on ground if you unlock it. An engine that will fail on you in many ways… etc.
But it was relatively easy to fly… for a warbird. Compared to those that came before it. Especially takeoffs and landings.
Now, the P-38 Lightning was the plane American pilots dreamed about. Counter rotating props to cancel torque. Tricycle gear for better control and visibility for takeoff and landing. Compared to other fighters, she was a pilot’s dream!
There’s more to it than just being late war. Grumman got its start in carrier landing gear, like before they even designed planes they were designing floats and landing gear for float planes.
Pretty much from the FF-1 they had fantastic carrier landing characteristics. Crosswind was sketchy, but you don’t do crosswind on a carrier.
The F4U was different. It was designed specifically to be the first 400mph aircraft in the US inventory, and I believe it broke that even before anything in the USAAF inventory did aside from the twin engine P-38. But it was extremely focused on that and had a number of compromises to deck handling come out of that. The inverted gull wings help reduce drag, but are part of why the landing gear is short and stiff.
The leading edge radiators also reduce drag, but are part of why the fuel tanks had to be moved into the fuselage at the cog, which is why the pilot enders up so far back, and I suspect they’re also part of the reason the stall had the wing stop too.
The funny thing about the P-38, it’s Lockheed’s first combat designed aircraft. Everything before that was air liners and converted airliners. That’s why the cruising and general pilotage ergonomics are so nice, but its combat ergonomics are actually really bad. To go from cruise to armed war emergency, it’s something like 15-20 steps that are not in the same area, and several of which, if you do them wrong or in the wrong order, you can disable the aircraft. And your doing this while someone is shooting at you…
I’ll have to go track down the list, but it’s pretty wild how easily the P-38 can accidentally break itself.
I’m stretching the definition of GA here but the Cabri G2 for sure! Makes the Spitfire look like a pussycat!
Honestly that thing flies itself - if there’s a R22 with a decent helicopter flight model ( what happened to that free external heli FM from a year ago or so? ) then I’m pretty sure you won’t get anything twitchier, at least…While neither of the defaults do a very good job of being a helicopter, I think the Bell is the harder one.
Well, it kinda was past the very very early marks - there are interchangeable parts ( wings etc ) and so on, and the Mk IX can trace directly back to the Mk I ( unlike say, a Mk VIII which is in a branch design, or a Mk XIV which is a major redesign ). What didn’t get much thought is the cockpit design,calling it a mess is bing fairly generous
the F104 was called the „Widow Maker“ for a reason…
It did get better! Most early war planes did.
All I am saying is the Hellfire was custom built to down Zeroes in the Pacific… and to work well enough with a new pilot!
Ah yes, the Spit was a no-compromise interceptor, that’s for sure. Then again we used the Corsair on carriers when we were being told it was no good for carriers ( Spitfires too ), so there was a definite air of “deal with it” for Commonwealth WW2 pilots
I grabbed this cus it is a beautiful looking plane and not too expensive, but I was a little apprehensive because Carenado models tend to be fairly docile.
Unfortunately this was no exception. You do have to dance a little bit with the rudder on takeoff landing, as with any tail dragger, but it otherwise pretty much flies itself. Even in a fairly decent 8-10kt wind, you can pretty much trim it off and it will fly level with no yoke input. I actually wonder if something is wrong with it, because it really doesn’t seem to be affected by wind. Making turns requires a bit of yoke to get to bank angle and then you can just let go and it’ll stay @ perfect bank without input. Neither do I notice any rotation from engine torque. It is possibly one of the easiest tail draggers in my hanger to fly tbqh (flight model reminds me very much of their Cessna 195).
Oh well. At least it is easy on the eyes 
Well I have to disagree with you on this one I’m afraid - it’s one of the most underrated aircraft in the sim in my books.
Their C170 definitely feels too placid on touch down but this one sure ain’t . You have to fly this one to a full stop which isn’t true for the vast majority of the ‘draggers in the sim…
You do need to let it slow a lot on the rollout, but in terms of actual flight in the air, you don’t think it’s far too docile?
