Piper Tomahawk or Cessna Skyhawk?

[Tuckerr]

Hello all,

Just a quick ask for your opinions on a decision I am going to have to make. I am currently training for my PPL (14 hours or so, going solo hopefully next week) in a Piper Tomahawk, and my flying school has just purchased some new Cessna Skyhawks (all glass cockpit etc) which obviously gives me the opportunity to train further in these new and modern aircraft. I obviously wouldn't make the transition between the two aircraft until my solo is over, but I was wondering what your opinions were on training on a full glass cockpit over the more traditional dials? Would it benefit me in anyway at all for the future (hoping to go the commercial route)?

If anybody could give me their opinons on this it would be much appreciated.

Kind regards

[172driver]

Good question. I really believe it depends on your intentions further down the line. If - as you say - commercial is in your future, then I'd go down the glass route. That way you'll become comfortable with a type of instrumentation that you will be using later on.

If, OTOH, you will continue as PPL and rent the usual rustbuckets :{ that fly around Europe, then the steam gauges are perhaps the better idea. That said, at least in the US an increasing number of rental a/c also come with glass, so even that point may well be moot.

Personally, I'd go for the glass, as it's the way instrumentation is evolving and I'm sure it's a lot easier to get used to the 'steam driven' gauges coming from a glass cockpit, then the other way round.

One - small - word of warning, though: your profile doesn't say where you are based and which license you are training for. Should this by any chance be an FAA license in the US, then be aware that you will have to demonstrate knowledge of ALL a/c systems on the checkride - with a glass cockpit, that may well be a handful..... (disregard this para - didn't see your location as 'Sussex' when writing)

PS: I'm sure there will be all sort of people on here in a second going on about 'looking out the window', 'stopwatch and paper map', etc. Don't worry about them - the future is electronic.

[Captain Stable]

Personally I hate Tomahawks with a vengeance.

I think they're nasty, tinny little machines and I would therefore say go with the nicely-equipped Skyhawks, HOWEVER....

a) You can bet your bottom dollar (and a few more as well) that the 172 will be significantly more expensive over the amount of time you will need to complete the course and
b) There aren't many aircraft you can hire relatively cheaply that have that sort of equipment so you'll find yourself hiring stuff with clockwork steam-driven kit (and you'll need to know how to use it) unless you are prepared to fork out megabucks.

So my answer to you would be to stick with the PA38 for the majority of your training for the cost and the knowledhe but give yourself a few hours for the fun and the experience of all-glass, which IS fun :)

[CessnaCJM]

I think for me its a question over which is the best training aircraft - I personally like the Tomahawk for training as I think it also comes with some handling traits and vices (some I like, others I dont), and on balance I think it is more likely to make a student more 'pilot' aware than perhaps a forgiving Skyhawk.

It should also help for next steps whether it be tail wheel or onto (glass panel) spam cans - you might also need to know how to use those steam driven dials when the lights go out on your PC!

Probably the biggest difference will be in the overall cost of a licence which will should be cheaper if you do it on the PA38.

[foxmoth]

I think the above posts say most of it - no problem per se training on the Glass cockpit Cessna, but if you are learning where I think you are (Big grass field with 3 sets of runways) then the cost for the Cessnas is WAY too much to even think of it unless you have money to burn - personally if I was paying what I understand they are charging for these aircraft I would be looking for something a lot better than a 172! In fact, if I could afford it I would train on the Decathlon which I believe the same school has and is a MUCH nicer aircraft for both handling and learning PILOT HANDLING skills as opposed to learning how to "drive" an aircraft and play at Airline pilot:}

[Tuckerr]

Thank you for all of your quick replies, really has helped in my decision. Foxmouth, you are correct, it would be that certain airfield, and the price is certainly much higher, which I think is one of the reasons I will be sticking to the Tomahawk, even though the 172 did look some-what inviting. As you all say I think in the future I may convert over the the glass cockpit, however, at this moment in time, and still training at a relatively young age, the Tomahawk may be the best option, both financially and in terms of my training.

Again thank you all for your replies, and any more opinons would be appreciated.

[stepwilk]

Thoroughly stall a Tomahawk, and while you're in the latter stages of approaching it, look out back at the tail. You'll be amazed it stays on the airplane.

[A and C]

As usual the half truth & folk lore about the PA38 quickly appears!

At your stage of flying the PA38 is a very good trainer, I could name a number of better aircraft all at a price far above the PA38 and a glass C172 would not be one of them.

Stay with the PA38 untill you have your PPL it will be cheaper, as for all this bull about glass cockpits, if you can fly the clockwork aircraft then glass will be a piece of Cake (the B737-800 IR renewal is easy its the PA34 that makes me work!)

[BoeingMEL]

...until you've got your PPL! Why change a/c type half-way into your course? More expensive and more complex... and you'll prob need an extra hour two. For what? Fair enough, the Tomahawk is no Rolls - but it's not meant to be. Crack on, hone your basic flying skills and enjoy! Glass, dangly wheels and VPPs will wait for you! Good luck anyway. bm:ok:

[poss]

PA38 is good for building your handling skills and the C172 is good for navigation flights due to it been more comfortable and roomy.

[IO540]

I too hate Tomahawks. Ghastly piece of junk. Did the 1st 20hrs of my PPL in them before walking out due to spotting some awful maintenance issues under the bonnet. They were made for only about 2 years, around 1980 (too many people got killed in them) and all seem to be in a poor condition, They leak during the rain (those I used to fly had puddles on the floor) and stink like a public phone box, they leak into the tanks (I once drained out about five test beakers before any fuel started to come out, after some heavy rain), the elevator trim is a spring pushing against the yoke (in effect) and doesn't work properly... it is too lively to fly from A to B which is why instructors like them (they have an "interesting" stall behaviour where they suddenly drop a wing and since the ailerons are ineffective you have to be quick on the rudder otherwise you plummet sideways very fast. I used to enjoy doing the stalls...

I would train in the plane which you want to rent afterwards. Anything else is a waste of money - probably a waste of 20 hours' training, counting from zero not to the point of getting a PPL but to the point of getting confident to go somewhere.

[mad_jock]

Tomahawks you either love them or hate them.

The "nah there horrible and ****e" people do have points.

They do leak water and if not looked after stink of mildew. A 400quid cover sorts this out.
The trimmer is a pain in the bum especially if the clutch is a bit dodgy.

But after 800 odd hours in them they are still my favourite aircraft to teach in.

They stall properly, none of your cessna wafting down with a deranged duck nonsense. Buffet, followed by a positive nose drop. Wing dropping, yes they do if you don't do what your meant to and keep the controls centralised. Hang on isn't that what your meant to be learning anyway. But if you recover from the stall as your meant to and not hang in space fannying around with the rudder. (There are numerous safety coms about not doing this due to the number of accidents in all types). It really isn't an issue.

The handling is reasonably sporty compared to others in the same class.

Lots of shoulder room in the cockpit.

Brillant viz.

Mechanical Flaps.

Main Gear is very very forgiving. Nose wheel still needs protecting but if you keep it out of the way they soak up alot of punishment.

It was designed as a trainer, it was designed not to be a touring aircraft. It was designed to bite as an aircraft should do. It was designed to show bad technique. It was designed to be a learning environment to impart the skills required for the rest of your flying career.

Personally I think it does the job exceptionally well.

Now learning to fly and Glass. WHY WHY do you need it?

Your attention should be 95%+ outside flying by attitudes looking out the window. Having a whole load of fancy avionics inside isn't going to help the learning curve of looking out the window and flying accurately using the horizon.

Glass is great for IFR work. It doesn't really add to much to the looking out the window experience in my view.

The conversion onto other types (the C172 was the other club machine) was a really none event. Usually an hour max but because G-BCYR was such a bitch to land (it was the partially sighted leading the blind on that one) some had another hour in the circuit by request.

[IO540]

I agree 100% about "glass" being not necessary for VFR flight. I fly a 2002 TB20 with the "steam gauge" avionics and would not have glass even if somebody offered to put in a G600 for nothing. I like the maintenance flexibility, not having to fly back to a certain Garmin dealer each time something needs attending to, etc.

But my main point was a focus on what one will be flying afterwards. If one does their PPL in the same type, then one comes out with 50-60hrs (the average UK PPL time) in that type. This is priceless.

Most UK pilots do their training in Type A and then spend thousands getting used to Type B. Many give up along the way.

And I can hardly think of a type less useful for going somewhere than the Tomahawk. It is a total dead end plane.

[Captain Smithy]

Why not have a chat with your instructor and see about trying the Cessna at a later stage in your training.

I trained in a Tomahawk, still fly it regularly. I quite like it, my club's '38 is a nice example. Depends how well it's been looked after, as with all other types I suppose.

P.S. IO540...

they have an "interesting" stall behaviour where they suddenly drop a wing and since the ailerons are ineffective you have to be quick on the rudder otherwise you plummet sideways very fast

That's the point, you don't use ailerons to counter a wing drop at the stall... that's how you get into a spin... :uhoh:

Smithy

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Personally I'd stick with the PA38 until you've finished your PPL - my view is it's important to learn on something steam driven for the basics at least, but I do understand your temptation!

I should probably add that I have no experience or time in either PA38s or glass fitted 172s, so I'm only speculating on what I believe :ok:

[mad_jock]

I wouldn't say its thousands to get used to a C172. Although to be fair landing G-BCYR is still a bit of a challenge after 200 hours in the old girl but I think that is an airframe issue not a type. I don't know any other C172 that makes "airwolf" noises when you flare to land.

What you learn flying a tommy is just as relevant to flying a turbo prop as it is to a SEP. I use exactly the same method I teach in the tommy as I do when doing a session on stalls in the sim for a LPC. And actually my aircraft type apart from control loads has remarkably similar characteristics in the stall.

I still reckon that a PPL on a PA38 is a firm foundation to the rest of your career be it PPL or CPL. Actually thats bollocks its all about the instructor. If you have a instructor that hates them or scared of them you ain't going to get taught properly in them. So you will loose 50% of what you could gain from learning in them.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm probably being unfashionable here, but I like the PA38 as a training aeroplane. For the following reasons;

- Good visibility
- Good ergonomics
- Mildly unforgiving handling, which breeds good flying skills
- Low wing loading, which bounces around a bit in turbulence, and again breeds good flying skills.
- Cheap to run
- Hard to break.

For my money, the C172 in its many flavours only really has the last of these advantages. It is a very safe aeroplane, but it's big, heavy, over-complex for a basic trainer, and the main handling deficiency is that the control forces are fairly high - but that doesn't necessarily make for a safe pilot when transferring to something else.

So, I'd personally stick to the Tomahawk.

G

[Captain Smithy]

With a few exceptions, most who moan about the Tomahawk usually have never even flown in one.

"Ah, but everyone dies in them, the tail falls off all the time, the trimmer's crap, they all fly like sheds" etc. seem to be common old wives' tales oft repeated.

True, the trimmer isn't as effective as other types but it seems to work well enough. I think it flies quite nicely, but you need to watch the weight.

Us Tomahawk likers seem to be a rare breed in public. Perhaps we should have our own sub-forum on PPRuNE :)

Smithy

[Captain Stable]

Smithy, I HAVE flown in several - rather more than I wished I had.

You say"Ah, but everyone dies in them, the tail falls off all the time, the trimmer's crap, they all fly like sheds"

My continued existence belies the first complaint. The behaviour of the tail close to the stall DOES alarm me. The other comments I would echo.

I'm not asking everyone to hate it. I fully accept that some people like it. However, I would be very wary of accusing the vast majority of those who dislike the PA38 of having never flown it, because that is calling them all liars.

Nor should you effectively demand that people have the same tastes as you in aircraft. Chacun a son gout, as our cousins on the continent say.

[dont overfil]

Surely 36000 customers (up to 1986) can't be wrong?
PA38 is OK but not enough carrying capacity. The 20 stone instructor and student can't be that uncommon.
DO.

[mad_jock]

The 20 stone instructor and student can't be that uncommon.

And the 17 stone trial flight student and full tank of fuel.

I think over the years there have been tens of thousands of comments along the lines of ":mad: me how did that get off the ground" "what was the rate of climb with you two chuffers on board?" "400ft per min your taking the piss" "your tommy looked as if it had rickets when you taxied out you fat :mad:"

If there is a record out there for the number of times an aircraft type has taken off way over it's MTOW the tommy has got to be in the running for it.

PS I am not advocating this practise or saying its big and hard doing it. It just seems rather common to me from ground level instructors right up to examiners who should know better.

[poss]

Smithy, I HAVE flown in several - rather more than I wished I had.

You say Quote:
"Ah, but everyone dies in them, the tail falls off all the time, the trimmer's crap, they all fly like sheds"
My continued existence belies the first complaint. The behaviour of the tail close to the stall DOES alarm me. The other comments I would echo.

I'm not asking everyone to hate it. I fully accept that some people like it. However, I would be very wary of accusing the vast majority of those who dislike the PA38 of having never flown it, because that is calling them all liars.

Nor should you effectively demand that people have the same tastes as you in aircraft. Chacun a son gout, as our cousins on the continent say.

The Tomahawk MK1 is infamous for the tail falling off but the MK2 came out with a strengthened tail section and a lot of (if not all) the banging is from the trimmer spring hitting the sides.
I think the reason I enjoyed flying the PA38 whilst other people dislike them is that our PA38s are looked after well and unlike the neighbouring flying club's PA38s are not falling apart.
Anyway to each his/her own...

[Beethoven]

Although I'm the proud and happy owner of a shared Tomahawk, does anyone know of any videos of the infamous tail-shake? I've looked all over the net but not uncovered one. I have stalled the tommy quite a few times but have never remembered to look back and I can't remember any horrific banging noises as have been reported. Our tommy is in hospital for a few weeks now so can't try it out for myself yet.

Most of the criticisms of the tomahawk do seem quite fair but the excellent visibility does it for me,:) also the fact its only parked about 3 miles from my house.

Beet.

[rusty sparrow]

I've flown one a few times because it was cheap to hire - visibility is excellent and it handles well. But the overriding impression to me was of driving an old Skoda.

[Der absolute Hammer]

The PA 38-112?

Well, this digresses, but when the Piper brought them out they were....

1. Designed entirely and totally specifically as an ab initio trainer.
2. One might add that it was designed as an ab initio sea level trainer.
3. It was primarily if not entirely designed for the US market.
4. It was designed after just about every flight school in the USA had been canvassed for the design characterisctics that they would like to see in an ab initio basic and low cost trainer. This was a huge campaign on the part of Piper. They really did try.
5. Piper then conveniently forget to re write the handbook to allow for the stall characteristics of the machine and most specifically the spin and the incipient spin characteristics all of which has a slightly non standard recovery. It is designed to enter a spin if you pick a wing up at the stall with aileron. It was designed to be unforgiving, unstable even at times. If you don't know that little gem, you can flatten out thanks to the T tail. And-never look back at the T tail in a spin!
6. Some instructors were killed on them because of this.
7. The handbook was re written.

The first South African flight school (certainly on the Reef) to have Tomahawks was Grand Central Flight School, in the old days when SL was the supreme CFI and the control tower was a post box.
The Tomahawk did not perform at all well on a fine 8.000ft density altitude day and it did not take long before no one would spin them through three turns because it was just too dangerous. This was when spinning was compulsory for the PPL, let alone the Commercial.
For those in England...FAGC is at about 5,300ft pa and 30C is quite common in summer. Try and work out the climb performance in a 38/112 under those conditions. You could not get sufficient height to be legal stalling, let alone spinning. But, we were young, we were inventive and we survived!
It was quite funny because Piper had no one at Rand trained on the 112 so all the instructors, with open ratings, piled in to the Tomahawk and just started flying - no training-no briefings-not even a proper handbook.

For me, they are not an aerploane. The thing is a disgusting little barn door that can fly and I would not distinguish it by calling it a flying machine. But-the viz is fantastic, the machine is simple, it keeps cool on hot days with two doors and is easy for getting in and out. It is cheap to run and at sea level it is fine. Also, in the mid west and in Africa, the aircraft has a chance to dry out between the rain.

To get back to the question then....if money is not a problem or the price is not different-same thing I guess-fly whichever one you like but I suggest you stay with whatever you are on now until you have at least done one full solo nav ex. Perhaps even do one extra nav ex in the 172 and then do the test in that machine so that it can be part of your learning curve?
It makes no difference to any future employer as to which aircraft you trained in. Only thing is though-if you come and tell me, looking for your RHS jet job, that you are an RAF fast jet pilot, I will tell you to go and do some work with Bomber Command so that you can learn some cockpit manners.

(Taking off from carriers again!)

[Captain Smithy]

The Tomahawk: aviation's equivalent of Marmite. Don't mind Marmite myself :)

Indeed, each to his own and all that.

Smithy

[Cusco]

Stick to the PA38 till you've got your licence, consolidate your hours then think about converting to something a bit better suited to load carrying.

I trained in three different tomahawks and loved 'em. Later converted to C182, didn't like it and have flow Arrows ever since.

If you can land a PA 38 you can land anything. And if you're worried about the empennage during spin awareness, just don't look.

Cusco

[foxmoth]

With a few exceptions, most who moan about the Tomahawk usually have never even flown in one

I have had this stated on a number of posts on the Pa38 and my question back has always been "what have you flown other than the Pa38 and what are you comparing it to?", strangely I have not had any replies yet!:}
I HAVE flown, and instructed, on the Pa38, am not a fan, but then I am NOT putting Pa28s and C152s up against it (you may notice earlier in this thread I said stay on the Tommy rather than go Expensive C172)

[mad_jock]

Myself. I have instructed in.

C150 awful
C152 cramped and sweaty
C152 with sunroof even worse than awful.
C172
C182- checkouts

Gaurda Horizon- Quite liked it actually was a bit weird winding the gear up and down.

PA38 of course
PA28- Slab wing (my preferred PA28)
PA28 the common one.

Katana

And done the 1 hour with the instructor in Robins and various PFA types which I have no clue at all what they are to this day.

The Robins seemed quite nice but I never manage to get to do ex 3-12 to see what they were really like to instruct in.

[foxmoth]

And to me this is the problem!

Go fly, and ideally instruct, in the Robin a bit more (the Aerobatic one for preference), Chippie, Bulldog, Beagle Pup 150 or other decent handling aircraft, then you might find that it is actually instructors with a much wider experience level who are not so keen on the Pa38 rather than those that have not flown it:}

[mad_jock]

Unfortunately we are limited by what we are given.

Robins haven't been seen up North since that poor lad died in the cromarty Firth way before my time. And the folk in know reckon they are way to expensive and the spares are a bitch to get hold of. I think there is one used for tugging in Abyone.

But can you get them for 120 quid an hour?

There rest of them I believe are permit aircraft and unless you own them you can't train in them.

Still reckon out of the normal heaps of crap that 95% of flying schools use the tommy comes out on top.

And lets face it there are too few people like yourself who have years of experience who could teach to the full potential of the aircraft. Your average FI(R) being produced these days teaching in them will be the blind leading the blind. If the majority of FI's think the tommy is too sporty and **** themselves stalling it because it drops a wing like its meant to when you don't do it right. What hope have you got with a better performing machine.

As I said before its more about the instructor than it is about the aircraft. Even an awful C150 with a good instructor will more than out perform a PA38 with a rubbish one that's scared of it.

[Captain Smithy]

My own experience:

PA38
PA28(-161, -181)
G115

Currently at just over 90 hours, a large proportion of which are on the '38. Still a tyro as yet, and absolutely no expert! Still have much to learn.

My only point is that from my standing the PA38's OK. Not everyone's cup of tea but that's fine. The one thing I will say is that I do challenge much of the bad publicity it gets, most of which is unwarrented nonsense... or as we Northerners say, a load of haver :)

Cannot comment on anything from an instructional point of view of course :) but from my perspective it's alright.

I like the comparison with the old Skoda. Haven't seen any of the old Estelles for years, ah what memories. :)

Smithy

[dont overfil]

Smithy,
That was a dead giveaway that your judgement is questionable.
DO.

[Final 3 Greens]

I've done a little on the PA38 and a lot on the Pup (series 1 and 2.)

The Pup is a fine flying machine.

[mad_jock]

I don't know he has 90 hours and has flown a Grob Tutor 115 which tends to tell me that he has been in the University Air Squadron.

If that is the case he is more than likely to have way more proper "to the edge of the envelope" training than most, myself included depending when he was chopped ;)

[youngskywalker]

I'm pretty sure that anybody can train in or rent a G115 at Dundee, not limited to the UAS of EFTS.

The lad that perished in the Robin up in the Cromarty Firth was a very good friend of mine, I believe that the sister ship of his aircraft suffered a similar fate. :(

[Captain Smithy]

Nah, just been up quite a few times with the Cadets, when I was a lad.

DO - Presume you're mainly referring to the Estelle comment... I didn't say they were fine memories ;)

Smithy