Piper Tomahawk [Archive]

Captain Smithy

6th Dec 2006, 10:17

Hello all, first post here, so please be gentle. Heh heh. ;)

I'm about to start my PPL training (just after the New Year) on the Piper Tomahawk. Being an ex-Air Cadet I have flown the Grob G115 and the Viking glider (Twin Astir), but I haven't flown anything else before.

So, has anyone here flown a Tommy? What's it like to fly? Just out of interest what sort of performance can I expect from it, e.g. climb rate, cruise etc.

Also, the Tutor and Viking I flew in the Cadets has a stick... never flown with a yoke before... how does a yoke compare to a stick, does it make the aeroplane feel a bit different to fly?

Any other comments about the Tommy would be welcome.

Cheers

Smithy from EDI :ok:

MIKECR

6th Dec 2006, 10:34

Its not called the traumahawk for nothing......!:eek:

IO540

6th Dec 2006, 10:40

It's a ghastly aeroplane, which is why most instructors like it :) It's stall behaviour makes it good value for money compared to a hairy fairground ride.

You will not want to (or be able to, probably) rent it when you have your PPL, so why train on it? Train on something similar to what you will be renting later. That simple decision will save you £ four figures later on and you will end up being a reasonably proficient pilot on your first solo outings, having had 50-60hrs on the type, rather than trying to get used to a new type, as well as everything else you have to do.

Currency on type is 90% of the job in flying.

All PA38s I have flown in (I have 20 or so hrs on them) also happened to be in terrible condition, with leaking seals, full of water, smelling like a public loo, and had a useless elevator trim. Trim is another very important thing in flying, affecting pilot workload substantially. I walked out of that school eventually, having got sick of appalling maintenance practices where bare wires were left hanging out in the engine compartment.

Airbus38

6th Dec 2006, 10:54

Disagree...what's so bad about it?

1) It's cheap to rent.

2) If you think the stall characteristics are bad, it's because you don't know how to fly in balance. If you approach the stall trying to keep the wings level with aileron, it does tend to drop a wing. If you use the rudder (which the OP is far more likely to do if he's flown gliders) it doesn't even seem to give you anything to worry about.

3) It cruises around 90, which is hardly earth shattering but hey...in the long run it's not that much slower than your PA28s.

4) Loads of fuel in the tanks....at least 4-4 1/2 hours (I've not pushed it to the max but anyone who has feel free to confirm this.)

5) Again, it's cheap to rent.

6) Plenty of force on controls....this is a personal preference one, but personally I like it.

In response to the OP, flying with a yoke is funny at first having done time with a stick. But to be honest it just becomes second nature after a while and you don't really notice it. I fly with a stick about 60% of the time and prefer it, but the yoke is intuitive enough so shouldn't cause too many problems.

Bandit650

6th Dec 2006, 10:56

It's a ghastly aeroplane, which is why most instructors like it :) It's stall behaviour makes it good value for money compared to a hairy fairground ride.

I'll second that. I had a checkout in one once and subsequently took one up solo, didnt like it all. Couldn't wait to get it back on the deck. Mind you, my mind had been polluted by other pilots joking about its real name of "Terrorhawk" or "Traumahawk" :eek: and that it can flick into a spin a bit easily at the stall. My eyes were practically glued to the ASI for the whole flight!

I would go for the PA28. Can't go wrong on that. Not much more expensive at most places, perhaps cheaper if you do training on a Diesel Piper Cadet.

the dean

6th Dec 2006, 11:06

=Captain Smithy;
how does a yoke compare to a stick, does it make the aeroplane feel a bit different to fly?

Any other comments about the Tommy would be welcome.

Cheers

Smithy from EDI :ok:

hi smithy,

i instructed in PA 38s for 12 years..never a problem instructing to CPL/IR/FI...with thousand of hours on type.

good leg room,visibility and handling.

do'nt believe all you may have heard about its spin charactics. we used them in a school for 20 years while spining was still part to the course without a problem.

of course the yoke is a bit different than a stick but not as much as will bother you after a few lwssons.

as far as i recall delivered 750 ft/min at sea level...standard conditions...to about 2000 feet.

due to the T tail elevator stick forced are a bit lighter than C150 and if you're used to flying something with a snout on it you will notice what looks like a noticeable nose down attitude in level flight.

all in all nice plane. had many happy hours in them.

mind you...check the figures but my recollection is if you have full tanks and two average people you may be over gross take off weight..!!:=

if you want more specifics...PM me...:ok:

good luck.:ok:

the dean.

Captain Smithy

6th Dec 2006, 11:18

Cheers for the replies guys... just wanted to find out a bit more about the aeroplane. I look forward to flying her and seeing what I make of it.

The reason I went for the PA38 is that, as Airbus 38 stated, it's cheap... the club I'll be flying with has a PA38 and a Warrior, although they only use the Warrior if you're above a certain weight... obviously the Warrior costs more than the Tommy to fly. And anyway, I'm a skinny runt, bit of a short arse, just under 5' 6"/9 st, so I'll be fine in the PA38. And it won't cost as much. Hopefully. If I'm OK at the training:\

Cheers

Smithy from EDI

the dean

6th Dec 2006, 11:22

[quote=Bandit650;3005062]
and that it can flick into a spin a bit easily at the stall.

not so in my experience bandit...

we had to work at getting it into a spin cleanly and there is a particular technique to it that works 9/10 times..

mind you like some others it may like to spiral instead of spin sometimes ...sooooo...in the autorotation stage and before heading downhill rapido...check the ASI...if the speed is rapidly increasing :eek: ...time to make plans to return to leven flight GENTLY...:ooh: ...and start again..

dean.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

6th Dec 2006, 11:26

One of the better of the 'spam cans'. Much less boring that the PA28, with reasonable handling and a realistic stall. More roomy that the C152, and with better visibility.

The T tail is a silly fashion thing. It means the elevator is out of propwash during T/O, so little elevator response until a reasonable airspeed has been reached. When it rotates, the elevator enters the propwash and becomes more lively, so it gives a non-liear response.

Also, putting the horizontal tail on top of the fin means the fin has to be stronger than usual to take the pitch forces, so it's heavier. In an attempt to alleviate this disadvantage, the PA38 has a short fuselage so that extra weight doesn't have too long a moment arm. This means the fin is less effective and directional stability is compromised. All PA38s wag their tails in all but the smoothest air as a result. You can actually see this from the ground as they fly overhead.

But - I prefer them to the PA28 or C150. They are more fun. You will enjoy doing your PPL on them.

All yokes in small, lively aeroplanes detract from the handling to some extent. There is nothing like a stick for a quick and direct control input. Yokes are well suited to touring and transpoert machines, where large and rapid control inputs are rare.

SSD

Genghis the Engineer

6th Dec 2006, 11:29

One of my favourite aeroplanes, although I don't get to fly them often.

Excellent visibility and ergonomics, with adequate (not good) performance - it does drop a wing somewhat at the stall it must be admitted, and the pitch feel makes it feel that the aircraft is permanently slightly out of the forward CG limits.

Performance figures:

Short field take-off distance: 445m
Short field landing distance: 471m
Climb rate: 720 fpm
Glide performance 8:1

I'd certainly much rather fly a PA38 than a C152, and you don't need a 4-seater to learn to fly in - go for it.

G

Whirlybird

6th Dec 2006, 11:43

Much less boring that the PA28, with reasonable handling and a realistic stall. More roomy that the C152, and with better visibility.

I agree with all of that. And personally I hate the PA28 - floats too much to be any good on short fields (unless you're very experienced), and I loathe having only one door so that I have to wait for my passenger to get out in an emergency.

I learned on Tomahawks, and hired them for a year and had great fun flying all over the country. They're fun. I then changed clubs, and converted to the C152 in a couple of hours - really no big deal.

So have fun!

raejones

6th Dec 2006, 12:15

I feel I must post in defence of the humble 'Tommy' !! :)
Its a lovely little aircraft, its easy to fly, and at my club its quite a bit cheaper than the PA28. Its a great little training aircraft and you'll enjoy doing your PPL in one. Cant agree about it being easy to spin though...never managed to get it to spin yet :(
Good luck with your PPL !

Pilot DAR

6th Dec 2006, 12:34

Hi Smithy,

The Tomahawk is a fine trainer, go and enjoy it! Yes it is different from the C152 in the way it handles, but it has merits of its own, and when you become competent on both types, you will be well skilled to transition to a wide variety of types.

I agree with all of the positive comments presented here. The only caution with respect to the type will not apply to you, and that is that even a very experienced pilot should be checked out on its takeoff handling before going solo. They will easily get into a pilot induced oscillation (PIO), and you can bang the nosewheel hard. Having lots of "T" tail Arrow time, I jumped into one alone, and startled myself during takeoff. It was successful but not profesional looking! Once I got used to its different handling, I had no problem going in and out of a 1500' grass runway. It is very roomy, and as said, excellent visibility. It will also accelerate very quickly when pointed down. Fun if you're dog fighting, but un-nerving if you're recovering from unusual attitudes!

The "T" tail is cool looking, but perhaps not the best idea in hindsight - it's also hard to brush clean of snow or frost, should that be a factor in your flying. Winter is a reason they are not as common in Canada - low wing types are less happy with snow banks beside runways, taxiways and tiedown spaces.

Don't pay any attention to those who's messages describe aircraft with words like "gastly". It' sound to me like such people are unhappy to be involved in flying, and attempting to discourage others as well.

Oh, and by the way, (IO 540) poor maintenance, though it certainly affects a particular aircraft, is not the fault of the design, or a characteristic of all aircraft of that type! IO 540, when you eventually walked out of that flying school, was it because they asked you to leave? Poor attitude perhaps? What aircraft type do you own?

We're here to support and encourage each other, right?

Smithy, go and have fun. Find an instructor who really enjoys teaching, and learn all the skills you can. Listen to all of the helpful comments of your peers.

It is my opinion that the only "trauma" in a well maintianed Tomahawk, is a closed minded pilot. If my home runway were not a "rough field", with snow banks at both sides a few months of the year, I'd be very happy to own a Tomahawk.

Cheers, Pilot DAR

grow45

6th Dec 2006, 12:47

Hi Smithy,
Smithy, go and have fun. Find an instructor who really enjoys teaching, and learn all the skills you can. Listen to all of the helpful comments of your peers.

That is probably more important than aircraft type and you are unlikely to find better instructors than those at Edinburgh Flying Club. Without wishing to start the usual debate none of them are hours builders waiting for an airline job. They are doing it because they enjoy it and to put something back into the system.
g45

Captain Smithy

6th Dec 2006, 12:55

Now now guys, let's not turn this thread in to a flame-fest, eh? ;)

Grow45, I know what you mean. I visited the EFC a few weeks back and I was very happy to learn that the club is very friendly and helpful. I spoke to the CFI - a very nice chap indeed.

Thanks for the encouragement, too. I most certainly look forward to my first lesson... it was originally meant to be 2 weeks ago, but a nasty bout of Flu and awful weather had me grounded. D'oh!

Smithy

Final 3 Greens

7th Dec 2006, 03:06

Short field take-off distance: 445m
Short field landing distance: 471m
Climb rate: 720 fpm
Glide performance 8:1

When new?

I walked away from this type as the fleet at my first school were tired hangar queens that struggled to deliver a climb rate of 500fpm, generally looked like sh*t and had a fatal flaw as a training platform.

They were clearly aircraft engineered to do a job at a cost (fair enough), but were past their sell by date and provided a poor learning environment.

My main beef with the aircraft was that the trimming system was vague and difficult for a student to use. I only flew fleet of 4 and this is a small % of the whole fleet, but IMHO, it was enough for me to consider these particular aircraft not fit for the purpose intended. Somethng for Capt Smithy to be aware of.

If you read Whirlybird's comments about landing the PA28 (which I completely disagree with BTW, I took them in and out of short fields from well under 100 hrs, without any problems), then the importance of learning how to trim out an aircraft to deliver the intended performance is an absolutely crucial skill and needs to become second nature.

A light PA28 (especially a tapered wing version) needs accurate speed control to deliver book performance and trimming has a vital role in this respect. Also, the amount of "pull" on the yoke required during the flare can be quite large and inaccurate trimming (on the fast side) will only increase the effect.

Final 3 Greens

7th Dec 2006, 03:13

Andy_RR

7th Dec 2006, 03:55

The two and a half hours I have in a PA38 might not be enough to make an informed judgement, but I would describe it as 'adequate' rather than 'satisfactory'.

I'm glad I am not alone in having a sudden and less than pleasant surprise upon rotation. After a Worrier, the Traumahawk felt way too unpredictable in pitch during take-off.

And the trim is just woeful!

How can the company that brought us the delightful Cub curse the flight training industry with such an inauspicious aircraft?

Airbus38

7th Dec 2006, 04:24

Nobody is claiming it is delightful or auspicious. It's a good, sturdy, cheap training aircraft. So it has its idiosyncrasies...so what?

Would you turn down a flight in a Spitfire because you can't see over the nose while taxying? Would you turn your nose up at the Chipmunk because it gets covered in oil and needs a good clean after every flight? Or because taildraggers are harder to land? It's your shout.

Everybody has their own preference, and just as I won't criticise aircraft that are more benign, it's unfair to try to tell somebody that this aircraft has a 'fatal flaw'. I can't swear to the accident stats, but I'm pretty sure it's no more or less fatal than anything else. The 'fatal flaw' is the person signing as captain, they cause the accident. Andy - If you got in a muddle with the take-off, then maybe I'm sticking my neck out but how much practice did you get before signing as P1? Did the aircraft cause the surprise or did you just pull too hard/too soon? It's not a criticism, just an observation.

Smithy - mate, have a great flight. Don't let it get spoiled by people who try to tell you there's anything funny about the aeroplane. You will love it, like most people loved their first flight. With proper training, this is an ideal aircraft to start on. Yes, maybe in a few more hours you'll realise the trim system is dire (that's one thing I'm sure we can all agree on!) but it won't remotely affect your enjoyment, just add to the challenge.

Andy_RR

7th Dec 2006, 05:41

Airbus,

No I wouldn't turn down a go in a Chippie, or a Spitfire (or a Pitts or a Tiger Moth etc...) All of them have their down sides but all of them have massively redeeming features - I think it's called character. :)

The Tommahawk has few redeeming features - price is probably its most.

My first (and maybe last) flight in a PA38 was a day before my GFT so I was with an instructor. The Worrier had expired its 150 hourly, and I desperately needed some instrument time. I was very much in the PA28 groove, which IME requires quite solid control inputs to get it off the ground. Not so with a PA38, in pitch anyway! :eek:

I think the only fatal flaw with the Tommahawk is that there are better choices of aircraft out there. I don't understand why people should be encouraged to put up with 'average' when 'better' is readily available.

A

A and C

7th Dec 2006, 05:54

As usual all the anti-PA38 rubbish trotted out, IF and i have to say IF the aircraft are well maintained it is a fine training aircraft, it will produce a better pilot than most of the other products from the USA.

Airbus38

7th Dec 2006, 06:15

I don't understand why people should be encouraged to put up with 'average' when 'better' is readily available.

Better a/c are undoubtedly available, but not at the same price. Think of it as a value for money thing - if you train on the 28s, do you stand a better chance of becoming a good pilot than on the 38s? What about 150/152s? You could argue about which is 'better' all day. Frankly though, they all do the same job, with individual differences.

Much of a muchness really isn't it. Just do what's cheapest as far as initial training goes (as long as you receive good instruction), that would be my philosophy. Save money to fly 'better' aircraft later on :ok:

Whirlybird

7th Dec 2006, 07:14

Jeez......

Like many other people, I learned to fly on the PA38. After reading some of these posts, I'm wondering how I ever managed at all!!! But I did....and then I flew them for a while, and then I moved on. And I'd happily go back to them, and not to some aircraft that other people love. We're all different.

So, Smithy, I can only agree with Airbus38's comment...
have a great flight. Don't let it get spoiled by people who try to tell you there's anything funny about the aeroplane. You will love it, like most people loved their first flight.
Read and learn from all these comments, but don't get caught up in all the vehement arguments. It's not wonderful, or awful; it's just an aircraft you can learn to fly on. :ok:

Andy_RR

7th Dec 2006, 07:18

Better a/c are undoubtedly available, but not at the same price. Think of it as a value for money thing...

...do you stand a better chance of becoming a good pilot...

IMO you'll get better value for money and develop better habits training in an aircraft you can trim properly.

stevef

7th Dec 2006, 07:42

As a point of interest, the trim can be improved by the installation of a ground-adjustable tab on the right elevator. Easy enough to do: a bit of Dural and a few rivets. It's in the maintenance manual but not easy to find.

Airbus38

7th Dec 2006, 08:02

...you'll get better value for money and develop better habits training in an aircraft you can trim properly.

Or alternatively, learn to trim in the Tomahawk and you'll never have trouble trimming again. Just thinking about it positively :ok:

rogcal

7th Dec 2006, 09:29

Hi Smithy
Firstly, let's get this fact out of the way. I own a T'Hawk, so in some peoples eyes I must be biased.
Having said that I could go on and on about the bad points of other aircraft types I've flown in the last 30 years to support my bias but I shan't.
I shall only state the facts based on experience that apply to my use of a T'Hawk.
Take off and landing distances. Often quoted in the POH and based on no wind and MAUW. My strip is 580m of rough grass (very soggy at the moment) and I fly from it on average twice a week, even in it's current state.
I take off and land within the parameters of the conditions that apply at the time and find no problems with the take off and landing distances i.e. fuel/passenger load, wind direction and speed, ground conditions.
Visabliity. As good as and in some respects better than some open cockpit types I've flown.
Comfort. Loads of room.
Performance. I believe my T'Hawk to have the highest airframe hours of any other T'Hawk on the UK register (10620) and an engine with 3100 hrs since last o/h. Does this make it a "tired aircraft", not in the slightest. I use it regularly and ask it to perform like it's fresh out of the factory gates and it does.
Value for money. Depends on where you're coming from. I had a limited budget and T'Hawk was available, so I bought it. The running costs are roughly the same as similar CofA spamcans, so no disadvantages or advantages in that respect.
Odours. Does it smell like a toilet? Not being an officianado of lavatorial smells (like someone I could mention), it smells in the cockpit when it gets damp inside but what do you expect when it sits outside in all weathers and the cockpit cover gets left off because I can't be bothered to cover it up. Strange as it may seem, the odours soon disappear and during it's smelliest periods, the aircrafts performance remains unaffected. Strange that!
Trim control. You get used to it, assuming you are of average intelligence and have a memory.
Elevator control. Rough grass strips and nosewheel assemblies are not an ideal combination but despite rumours to the contrary, I can get my nosewheel off the deck on a takeoff run at 20kts and hold it off on the landing roll until the ASI is nudging 15kts. Saves a load of unnecessary stress on the nosewheel assembly and goes to prove the elevator control is effective with little airflow over it.
Would I buy another T'Hawk? I'll stick with this one for as long as I can and when the wing life extension modification is finally approved, I shall have it installed and then have an aircraft with an 18500hr airframe life instead of the 11000hr life it currently has. I suppose I could scrap it at 11000hrs and get something else but I'm comfortable with the old girl and she deserves better than the scrapyards cutting torch.
I think the words "each to his own" applies to everyone and if you don't like toilet smells put a peg on your nose if you get in a T'Hawk or anything else that smells for that matter.;)

Cusco

7th Dec 2006, 11:35

The Tomahawk is a great little aeroplane: Ok many of them are tatty , the snow comes in (really) , but the visibility is great and if you can land a PA38 well you can land anything.

Guaranteed PPL training enjoyment.

Get your instructor to spin it for you after you have a few hours and sneak a peep at the tail assembly as you plummet...............

Safe training.

Cusco:uhoh:

tiggermoth

7th Dec 2006, 12:37

I did a few hours training in a Tomahawk right in the beginning of my training then did the rest in a PA28.

A couple of weeks back I went back in a Tomahawk and realised how good the forward visibility was - you see a good deal of ground, which is great. I did find the trim very strange (it's basically a spring tensioner) but with all things I'm sure it's possible to get used to it.

The Tomahawk that I've seen advertised for sale seem to be very good value. In my opinion it's a good piece of kit for the money.

EK4457

7th Dec 2006, 15:49

Just my 2 pennies worth:

I trained in a PA38 all the way up to PPL plus 5 hours solo from Barton. I remember one of my instructors saying that if you can land a PA38 at Barton in a 15 kt crosswind, you can land just about anything. Which means that when you nail those circuits and then change to another type, it's well easy.

Is the PA38 unstable in the stall? Yup. You HAVE to keep the A/C in balance.

Is the trim sh*te? Yes, but it teaches you to trim well.

Does it float for ever on the flare (compared to other 2 seaters)? Yes, but it teaches you to nail that final approach speed early on.

The visablility is fantastic and you have to work hard on your scan (for a PPL) to maintain S&L.

When you consider that it's (in my experience) by far the cheapest A/C that flying schools run, it is a fantastic A/C to do your PPL in. No regrets from me.

Just joined a PA28-181 group (beautiful A/C). A dream to fly after the Tommy.

Do your PPL with a good school as cheaply as possible. And the Tommy is cheap.

EK

waterpau

7th Dec 2006, 16:24

I can't think of an instance of anyone getting killed due to them being badly maintained.

I suppose it could be argued that this was as a result of poor maintenance but guess it could also be argued that fatalities might have been avoided by landing ahead, but that's purely conjecture based on the report...

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/Piper%20PA-38-11%202%20Tomahawk,%20G-BYLE%2011-06.pdf

I couldn't recommend the tommy highly enough. I did most of my PPL training in one, and bought a share after getting my PPL. It's fabulous fun; I found the quirks definitely make for a more accurate pilot. In my view, the spring loaded trim and necessary speed discipline are a plus for a trainee.

waterpau

Pilot DAR

8th Dec 2006, 02:42

PilotDAR

We're here to support and encourage each other, right?

Yes, but support does not always mean being positive, it also means sharing your concerns.

Capt Smithy has a range of comments, all of which are shared sincerely and can make a more informed decision - best of luck by the way Capt - hope you find some enjoyable "diamonds in the sky."

I am surprised that you should say that IO540 might be asked to leave a school because of poor attitude; he has strong beliefs that some find challenging, but has constantly helped his peer group on PPrune and many have benefited from ideas and research freely shared.

///////

Yes, Final 3 greens, I do not intend to be unfairly harsh, though I do have a concern. I do not enjoy reading unsupportive "challenging" statments, within which I can find no beneficial ideas or research. For example:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"There is a pretty major difference between the two:

If you are a girl student, of reasonable (or better) looks, you are more likely to end up pregnant after 50hrs in a C150 than after 50hrs in a C152.

Ask any ATPL hour builder, and watch the grin ;)

Both are ghastly planes, and the sooner they vanish from the GA scene the sooner we might move forward into the 20th century (notice I am being very conservative here; best to not over-innovate in this game). It's not as ghastly as the Tomahawk though :yuk:"

<<<<<<<<<<<<

I just cannot see how such a statement could meet your measure of constantly helping a peer group. I can see how female pilots, C150, C152 and Tomahawk owners, and pilots, could take offense.

In the spirit of helping my peers, I shall curb my harsh observations, and concentrate on being supportive.

I do appreciate your valid opinion...

Cheers, Pilot DAR

rottenlungs

8th Dec 2006, 03:18

I flew a Pa-38 up to and including solo consolidation and had no problems.

I can vouch for the undercarriage. I did an almighty botched bounce followed by some really quite scary porpoising followed by a go-round. I did one last circuit sweating bullets thinking that I had broken something. Landed uneventfully and got back to the aero club and `fessed up to the CFI. He chuckled and mentioned that he had seen a Tomy with tyre marks on the underside of the wing. Dunno if its true but I could well believe it!

I`m a low timer , probably about an even split of 20 hours each on Pa-38 and C152. Definitely prefer refuelling a Tomy, the visibility, room (I`m 6'3") and the no-nonsense flap control. However, the 152 is way easier to land ,has a better door lock (i.e one the seems to work generally) and a nicer trim control.

The only spins I have experienced are in the 152 though the Tomy did drop a wing in the stall and accelerate quickly if not recovered smartly (flow strips installed on the one I flew).

Cheers

James

Final 3 Greens

8th Dec 2006, 06:02

Airbus

So it is unfair to talk about a "fatal flaw?"

Well I didn't, maybe you should read my post again, I said (in the context of a sub fleet of 4 particular aircraft) that "had a fatal flaw as a training platform."

i.e. the lousy trim on these 4 examples killed them as an effective training platform, I didn't impy that the PA38 is inherently dangerous.

BTW, EK4457 I disagree that learning to trim with an inaccurate trimming system delivers any useful learning.

By way of comparison, the C150 or Pup are both aircraft that are challenging to trim accurately, but which do very much create better skills as a result; the difference is that they have decent trimming mechanisms that teach the pilot to develop a better feel for what s/he is doing.

Final 3 Greens

8th Dec 2006, 06:07

Pilot DAR

Irony often eludes North Americans and IO540 likes his irony.

rogcal

9th Dec 2006, 08:56

F3G said:
BTW, EK4457 I disagree that learning to trim with an inaccurate trimming system delivers any useful learning.

Sorry to disagree but it will teach a pilot under training to successfully cope with additional problems during a period of high cockpit activity.
All a/c types have their individual quirks and it from these that we learn to cope with the unexpected turn of events.
Show me the "perfect" training aircraft and I'll show you an aircraft that will result in people becoming complacent and easy meat for the unexpected event that kills people!

foxmoth

9th Dec 2006, 09:22

Or alternatively, learn to trim in the Tomahawk and you'll never have trouble trimming again.

The trouble with the Pa38 is that it needs very little trimming, thanks to the T tail there is little pitch change with flap etc so students who then fly other aircraft find this a problem on conversion.
Good points on the Aircraft as mentioned are the vis and a nice cockpit layout,also the fact that it has a decent stall and spin.
on the bad side it has awful control harmonisation (very sensitive in pitch but poor in roll).

how me the "perfect" training aircraft and I'll show you an aircraft that will result in people becoming complacent and easy meat for the unexpected event that kills people!
Not so, IMHO an ideal training aircraft is not necesarily an aircraft that is particularly easy to fly!

Final 3 Greens

9th Dec 2006, 09:22

Rogcal

That has got to be the most illogical post I've read for some time on Proon and that's saying something!

Your obvious lack of understanding of pedagogy is so great, that there is really very little I can say, apart from you don't understand what you are talking about.

Final 3 Greens

9th Dec 2006, 09:26

Foxmoth

Not so, IMHO an ideal training aircraft is not necesarily an aircraft that is particularly easy to fly!

Although I think you misunderstand Rogcal's comment, you do nail the issue bang on.

That's why I think that the C152 and the Pup are good tutors, they need to be flown accurately and that breeds good habits, whereas the PA28s I did a lot of my training on were rather less challenging and it was a good job that my instructor compensated by demanding perfection in areas such as trimming.

Charlie Foxtrot India

9th Dec 2006, 11:29

I've got around 2000 hours teaching in Tomahawks and have found that they are the best (and most comfortable) training aircraft I have worked with at the ab-initio stage in terms of teaching studes good handling and attitude skills from go. The Tomahawk can be flown with the fingertips. It has sensible ergonomics. You can have a good look at all the gubbins under the bonnet. It also makes a good starter to move onto other Pipers later on in the training.

So, go for your flight, and make up your own mind. Take no notice of the doomsayers, many of whom have limited or no experience of flying them. Like so many myths in aviation, the ones that get bandied about about the Tomahawk are just that - myths. Some were allegedly part of a dirty tricks campaign by another manufacturer whose product was outsold many times over by the Tomahawk.

I'm the proud owner of serial number 6, the oldest in this country, and she goes like the clappers. Am soon to buy a "21st century Tomahawk" the Whitney Boomerang.

As with all aircraft, read the POH!

EK4457

9th Dec 2006, 13:07

BTW, EK4457 I disagree that learning to trim with an inaccurate trimming system delivers any useful learning.

How can a trim system be inaccurate?

It can be unusual, counter intuitive, not have the right 'feel' etc.

I described all of the above as 'Sh*te'.

My point is, you can trim the aircraft, even if it is difficult. So it works. I don't see how it is, or can be, 'inaccurate'.

I can only go off my own experience. I learnt to fly on a Tommy. Now I fly an Archer III. I now find the trim system works a treat after my PA38 experience.

So call the trim system what you want. It did me the world of good.

EK

Final 3 Greens

9th Dec 2006, 13:43

How can a trim system be inaccurate?

When it is virtually impossible to trim off the pressure as required.and turning the wheel results in either over or under trimming, despite one's careful efforts.

By way of comparison, the C152 and C172 both trim accurately, as did your PA38 ny the sound of it.

BTW, please note (CFI too) that I am not knocking the whole PA38 fleet, but commenting from experience, the 4 I flew were similar in this respect and not up to the job.

rogcal

9th Dec 2006, 19:02

To reiterate and possibly incur some additional retorts from F3G, the ideal trainer I spoke of was an aircraft with no vices or quirks and therefore an aircraft that would not prepare a student pilot for the unexpected but this point was possibly missed in my conveying it in the way I did.
As for my wishing to be an educationilist, I don't profess to be one and given my limited postings on here, I would rather leave that to those who appear to believe that quantity rather than quality endows them with the ability to be "spot on" every time.;)

Final 3 Greens

9th Dec 2006, 19:47

Rogcal

I am a professional educator and am relieved to hear that you openly say you are not.

Your honesty is appreciated.

pipertommy

14th Jan 2007, 09:09

Hi,Just wondering if anyone knows where i can get my hands on a fuel measuring stick for more accurate fuel planning/measuring?I normally just top the tanks up and work on having 4 hours to play with.I remember being told about the cross(x)in the tank`s rear wall.Would it be fair to say the half mark on the "X" give`s 2 hours.Thanks

rogcal

14th Jan 2007, 10:31

You may wish to do as I did when I first got my T'Hawk. I purchased one of the clear hollow plastic fuel gauges (the universal model) and progressively logged the levels on the chart that comes with the gauge, as I filled the tanks from empty.

I commenced filling each tank until the fuel at the bottom of the tank had crept up to the point where it was directly below the fuel filler cap and noted how much fuel had been dispensed at this point. I then continued filling the tank in 10ltr stages, marking off on the chart the position the fuel in gauge in relation to the graduations marked on it.

All done on a level surface and extremely time consuming but when completed, an accurate method of determining the fuel quantities in the tanks.

Of course, you could transfer the readings from the chart directly onto the gauge but make sure whatever method you use, the fuel doesn't remove the figures you mark on it. The method I used was to engrave the figures into the gauge and rub some black paint which is not affected by fuel into the engraved marks.

Hope this is of some use.

pipertommy

14th Jan 2007, 12:35

Thats brilliant thanks.I`ll have to get one of those fuel tubes/gauges:ok:Out of interest on your tube does the quantity go up in uniform ie 10ltrs=Xcm,20ltrs=twice Xcm ect thanks for any help.I may find it hard emptying the fuel out as i don`t own the a/c:rolleyes:

matelot

14th Jan 2007, 13:57

When learning to drive, most accept the car the particular school has to offer. After the test has been passed, you move on and likely buy something completely different. No problem.

My first three 'gift' flights were in a C152 (EMA and in Florida). Lessons actually started in a Tomahawk (in which I soloed). Certainly not traumatic: just different. I then took my skills test after 8 hours in a PA28. No drama, just enjoyably different.

And so it is I suspect with all aircraft. They are different. They've all got quirks and virtues. A good pilot will master it and enjoy it.

@ Capn Smithy - Fly a Tomahawk. If for some reason it turns out unsuitable for you, then change, but don't be put off by adverse comment. You'll never know unless you try it. :ok: