Piper Tomahawk Vs Cessna 152 Vs Cessna 172

[KING PIN]

Hello Everyone ,

I am taking up flight training in Feb and wanted to get your opinion on which aircraft is better to train in first and what the reason is ..

I see most of the school train everyone in 172's or 152's. Only few are training in Tomahawk so wanted to get youy opinion on it

thanks in advance

[mattyj]

are there really still tomahawks with airframe hours left?!!

They will teach you to love every other airplane you ever fly:E

[VH-XXX]

As a beginner you probably won't really care. Later on you will develop your own opinions and then offe them to people on here that ask a similar question.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

152-sardine tin.
Tomahawk-much maligned, but will actually teach you how to stall properly.

Many people find it easier to transition to low wing from high when it comes to landings, but when it comes down to it, they all fly the same way.:ok:

[aileron_69]

The Tomahawk has to be one of the most gutless, slow arse things that ever "flew" and I use the term loosely. It only gets off the ground thanks to the curvature of the earth and could easily be called a 'concrete sparrow' but It teaches u how to fly quite nicely cos as the captain says, it teaches u how to stall. Those things do the most fantastic wingdrop ive ever seen a plane do. Huge amounts of fun!! They're built like a brick Sh*thouse too so you'll struggle to break it. The 172s and 152s are all a bit too easy really.

[toolowtoofast]

152 for initial training right thru to ppl then look at other types once you have it.

[Mr Pilot 2007]

I used to instruct on both. I did not like the 152, Very narrow and cramped.
I prefered the PA38 and still go for a fly in one occasionally.

The 172 is the nicest of the three you mentioned, but at 160Hp it would be the most expensive to learn on.

[memories of px]

it has to be a 152, great little aircraft, high wing, doesnt obscure ground features on nav. ex's!. the tomahawk is a nasty little thing to be avoided.
i even did my commercial GFT & 1179 on the 152, easy flight test, and cheap too,the more basic the better.

[mates rates]

It"s easier to teach peolple to land a low wing aircraft than a high wing.I personally would recommend a PA38 or PA28.

[43Inches]

The 152 is the best option for reason of price/availability/ease to fly.

I've found it very easy to teach the basics in the 152 and the stall spin characteristics require attention without being dangerous. If you have access to a 152 aerobat then you can explore even further (with an instructor on board). A student could be talked through their very first flight without much instructor control input at all. Very defined attitudes and good predictable stability allow it to be trimmed well especially in the circuit. Downsides include limited cabin space and performance issues (which can be of benefit).

I would assume the 172 would be more expensive and is also a little harder to land with just two up front. This would apply equally to a PA28 which i would regard as the easiest aircraft ever to fly.

The tomahawk is a rare aircraft in Australia so only a handful of schools operate them, this could mean a conversion to another type if they sell their only one or you move schools.

[The Bunglerat]

They're built like a brick Sh*thouse too so you'll struggle to break it.

You sure about that? I've seen the wing spar/rib arrangement on the Tomahawk, and I can tell you for a fact that this was an aeroplane built to budget - and a low one at that. And don't get me started on the type's chequered past with respect to the tail assembly having an annoying habit of separating mid-flight when spinning them.

As a Grade-1 instructor I got checked out on one a few years back, for the purpose of doing some flying with a student in the midst of his instructor rating. I subsequently logged 0.7 of an hour with the student, before politely advising him that I'd had enough of a scare (not because of anything the student was doing), and would be quite happy to return to the field & reimburse him for his troubles. It has to be the most God-awful aeroplane I have ever flown in my life.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I would agree - of the aircraft I can think of in that class (not the C172, which is a step above) the Grob 115 is the best of them.

..now that thing is solid.

It is everything the Tommy should have been, and although 100 kg heavier it is still the fastest in its class.

...try finding one for training though! :confused:

[YPJT]

This is a bit like the Holden vs Ford argument, there are pros and cons for both.

Yes there are more C152s about, in fact they outnumber Tomahawks about 3 to 1 on the register. There is an approved spar mod available with will add enough life to the airframe to see it being taken out of service for other reasons rather than it's wing spar.

Underpowered? Both C152 and PA-38 have the O235 engine and have very similar MTOWs. Neither will perform well if loaded to max on a hot day.

As for the old chestnut of the wobbling tale. Well if you have a look at most aircraft in the runup bay or even larger T-Tail jets during reverse thrust and breaking - guess what, the tail wobbles a bit more than the rest of the fueselage.

I know some instructors who have thousands of hours in PA-38s and are more than happy to do more and none have ever spooked themselves.

I did my ab-anitio in a C152 up first solo and GFPT. Have logged quite a few hours since in a PA-38 and more than happy to fly either. PA-38 wins hands down though in terms of internal space as you don't have to fly bow legged to keep your knees away from the control yoke.

[RENURPP]

It won't make a significant difference what type you learn on. It will make a significant difference WHO teaches you. I suggest you worry more about that side.
The intention is not too learn to stall an aircraft. The intention is to learn the symptoms of an impending stall and the recovery tecnique.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

KINGPIN, the biggest challenge for you may be sorting out the BS written in here!

I learned in the C150 and have instructed in the C152 and the Tommyaxe. I don't think of the C172 as an ab initio trainer!

If it came to chosing between the 152 and the Tommyaxe, I would be more interested in the intructor than the aeroplane. That said, however, I think those who do their ab initio in the C150/152 generally have better technique than those who learn on low wing aircraft.

As for spin training, yes I have spun both and the Tommyaxe can be exciting, but the only reason to do spin training is for confidence building and as part of an aerobatics endorsement.

I wonder how many spin trained pilots have actually recovered from an inadvertent spin that occured in circumstances where they weren't at least anticipating the possibility? Very few, I suspect!

The focus of ab initio training should be on flying the aeroplane such that there is NO likelihood of it ever entering an inadvertent stall/spin!

Dr :8

[GADRIVR]

Much of a muchness really. All have slightly different flight characteristics but in the main, there's not much difference.
As a few of the posters have indicated, the main thing is WHO is doing you're instruction.
Find a decent school/instructor and you may as well fly an ultralight!
Not a bad idea really now that I think about it!

[18-Wheeler]

I taught people to fly on all three types and would say that the Tomahawk is the best one to learn in, as it teaches the best habits. It's also far more comfortable than the 152 (says me, being 1.97 metres tall) and as mentioned above will demonstrate a stall far better than the Cessna's will.

[frigatebird]

Did Private in Musketeer (low wing- not many about now), Commercial in Victa, Cherokee 140 and 172, and Instructed on Victa, 140 and 172, and stalled and spun them (within limits- spiral dive for Victa) all. Remember a time in the Musketeer with Tony Snell, when the windscreen was filled with the Show at the Showground, way below, when he let me go, and I tried to pick up a downgoing wing at the point of stall with aileron.. "You won't do that again" - as we recovered above 3,000 feet. "No Sir". never have.
Taught my students all about stalls and recoveries, etc, because NOTHING make ME more nervous than flaring too high, and slowing, with the one responsible doing nothing about it.. Those types aren't used much now.. pity..
Fly what is now used and is affordable, but get to know it so it won't bite.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I would have hoped someone would have had some experience on the Boomerang (http://www.dwaviation.com/boomerang.html) by now.

Hope this isn't seen as advertising..

[Warmbrak]

I would also like to know what the Boomerang feels like, and perhaps the Diamond DA 20 as well? Coming from higher density altitudes than where I am know, all my friends trained on 172's, and as self loading cargo that is what I got used to. Enjoyed time in Cherokee's as well, and obviously larger aircraft. Because of of these experiences (relating to hot & high conditions and aircraft age) I will try to stay away from 150's when I do my PPL - admittedly a subjective opinion.

[YPJT]

I would have hoped someone would have had some experience on the Boomerang by now
Two with Flight One at Archerfield and another two with Minovation at Jandakot.

[PA39]

The Tomahawk was purposely built as a trainer.......and train it did. Mishandle a Tommy in various configurations (stall) and it indeed did teach you what a stall with a wing drop/spin meant.

The 152 was built as a personal tourer, more gentle as a trainer. Piper introduced stall strips to the Tommy to cushion the stall......

2500+ in a Tomahawk and 1700 in 152 (instructing as CFI) but as a roomy TRAINER give me the PA38.

However having said all that perhaps there are better TRAINERS out there now...The Boomerang being a good example.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Interesting statistic (yes, I know they can be twisted to suit and no, I can't remember the source, may have been an FAA report) quoted the accident rate as around a third lower (I think) per hour flown on the tomahawk.

Theory was maybe tommy pilots have better practised low speed handling skills.

AS PA39 said, the tomahawk was designed in response to a survey to a very large number of instructors in the US asking what they wanted in a trainer.

[gupta]

Trained mostly in the Tommy - good trainer, needs to be flown or it can bite. Finished off in the Warrior at ASP, was like driving a big sedan.
C152 is far too narrow for chunky people. Mind you, when the Airscare CFI & I got into the Tommy, no room for much fuel.
Tail is supposed to flex - look at your wings in a 2G steep turn/reverse figure 8.
Love 'em
Boomerang is essentially a straight tail Tommy built to modern regs ??

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Can't be all bad then?
Tommy was still a much better effort than the skipper.:rolleyes:
Anyone know where (out of some macarbe interest) there is a site with any data on the GAW-1 aerofoil the tommy used?
Looking for a CL graph or wind tunnel data.

Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me.:E

[XRNZAF]

Tomahawk.... :ok: Accept no substitutes

[RENURPP]

Cynical Pilot
Isn't that what I said?

You don't learn to stall an aircraft! You learn how to control an aircraft so you don't unintentionally stall it. You learn about engine failures so you can handle a real one not so you can have real ones for fun!
It's a bit like saying holdens crash better than fords. You don't learn to crash a car (I hope) you learn how to avoid one, and ideally recover from a bad situation.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

I've got about 800 hours in the Boomerang and it does exactly what it is designed to do, be a modern replacement for the Tomahawk built to the latest Part 23 standards and which works in the fleet so that students can change from one to the other without problems. It is the closest you can get to a brand new Tomahawk.

A bit more nose heavy than the Tomahawk at slow speeds, higher nose attitudes for the same speeds, built like a tank, uses technology (eg 0235 engine) that has stood the test of time, no gimmicks, just a sturdy, reliable aircraft with plenty of room inside and some very nice avionics. Nothing compromised to try and squish into LSA. 7.5 hours endurance with one POB.

I personally find the 152 a very uncomfortable aircraft and I'm average size. Being squished up next to the stude doesn't make a very pleasant working environment and the size of people these days makes it hard to carry much fuel, but each to their own, I like to have a bit of space. I find high wings have bad blind spots in the circuit compared to low wings.

I've got about 4000 hours on Tomahawks and plan to do plenty more. In my experience, most people who think it is cool to talk about nonsense like "tails falling off" have never, or hardly ever flown them.

[27/09]

The Boomerang!! It might have potential But.......

From what I've seen of it and heard from those that flew the one that came to NZ it needs quite a bit of work before it's a serious contender in the flight training arena. The build quality was shocking, you couldn't read the compass without dislocating your neck.


One trainer that hasn't really been mentioned is the PA28, a good all round trainer. Much better than the C152 or C172, the stabilator requires smoother control inputs and helps teach the student to be smooth with control inputs. The later taper wing variants teach good energy control on the approach much better then the Cessna's which with their barn door flaps can rectify many poorly set up hot and high approaches.

Plus with the low wing it has better visibility in the turn which when you are in the circuit with other aircraft is very important.

[remoak]

Grumman AA1 thru AA5A. Simple, strong, nice handling. Definitely more bang for your buck than Cessnas or Pipers.

Beech Skipper was interesting, sort of a luxury Tomahawk. If you think a Tomahawk has interesting stall/spin characteristics, try a Skipper!

If you limit it to Cessnas and Pipers though, it's the PA38 by a wide margin. 152s are simply horrible (although the Aerobat was fun).

Boomerang looks like a Tomahawk with an Airtourer tail stapled on to it...

[joelgarabedian]

Only a low hour PPL here, but I tried both the 152 and Tomahawk during my PPL training, and I preferred the Tomahawk. Plus I seem to be the only one that flies it at my club - so availability is never a problem :)

[baron_beeza]

The Tomahawk would have to be a good choice. Much more comfortable than the C152.
You may hear many stories about the aircraft type, most are just bar gossip. I have been involved the type as an engineer and pilot since it's inception.

No issues anywhere. Built strong and fly well.
The wing life is just a certification issue. Cessna took a penalty on power settings on the 152 as they piggy backed off the C150 type certificate.
All Tomahawks had the stall strips added in the early '80's so many of the journalists comments that are oft repeated refer to a different handling machine altogether.

I wouldn't hesitate...... I have done too much time in cramped and hot Cessnas.

Hope you enjoy the experience.

[minimum_wage]

What ever is cheapest!:ok:

No one will care what you did your training in when you go for a job, just so long as you have the licence.
I wasted money on different types when I should have stuck with the most cost effective option.

[LocoDriver]

The trusty Cessna 152 gets my vote.:ok:

I have done most of my instructing in the 152/172 range, as a trainer the 152 teaches students how to handle cross wind, and have a bit of finesse on landing.
It also makes them look out the window more, they have to, to see past the wings!, and, four hour cross countries in them, keeps you fit, you have to, to avoid the cramp!

I have a fair bit of instructing in 'Tommy's, yes, they are more pleasant to fly, and like most low wingers, arrive, rather than land. In fact, I am loooking for a Tomahawk at present to put on line, to complement a large contingent of Cessnas, something different for the punters to fly, and some do prefer them.

The PA28(Cherokee) is also a good trainer, like the 172, more of a dual purpose trainer/hire aircraft, and better for taller pilots (like me)
Older PA28's in good condition, are quite good value, and sturdy.

Overall, they are all good, I feel it tends to come down to personal preference, the PA28 and 172 would be slightly more expensive to run, due to higher fuel burn, but not much.

Remoak, we need to talk, call in for that coffee please! soon!
AA1-A?? 'concrete sparrow' ?? looks like a tin blow-fly, glide like bricks.:E
But, yes, the AA5 four seater is not a bad ship, plenty of room......
But, I am totally biased, Cessna born and bred............

My advice to students, is fly what you prefer, they are all different, then when you have licence, spread your wings, and try the others.
I enjoy the lot!
Any sort of flying is got to be better than staying on the ground!

Cheers
:ok:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

You don't learn to stall an aircraft! You learn how to control an aircraft so you don't unintentionally stall it.

Correct, but you are taught how to recover properly in case you completely screw it up one day. The tommy is a much better aircraft for this purpose.
If someone wants to crash into me, I'll take the holden, thanks.

People will often quote "if you fly the aircraft properly, you shouldn't need things like ballistic parachutes". So what? If something goes wrong, it doesn't necessarily have to be your fault, but you have another way out.

Beech Skipper was interesting, sort of a luxury Tomahawk

Luxury.....read as 15 kts slower.

[18-Wheeler]

Correct, but you are taught how to recover properly in case you completely screw it up one day. The tommy is a much better aircraft for this purpose.

True, as it really does stall kinda properly - the 150/152 just run out of elevator and don't stall properly.

I always liked the taper-wing PA-28 - It just wouldn't stall as it again would run out of elevator power. I remember showing a bloke transitioning onto it how idiot-proof it was by holding full back-stick then turning it left & right with both the ailerons and rudder, then adding power and climbing away still with full back-stick. :)

[remoak]

Luxury.....read as 15 kts slower.

Sure, but it had real velour high-back seats, imitation wood-grain in the panel, and "proper" door handles, so... ;)

[GADRIVR]

Charlie Foxtrot India...... the Boomerang builders must have changed their figures and handling characteristics somewhat cause when I flew them, rubbish.....pure and simple. The flight manual was a work of the brothers Grimm and as for the endurance....rot. Two average sized people, reserves and just enough left to go for 20 min jaunt. All in all, a complete waste of time and money.
A pity really, I was so looking forward to working in them on a long term basis. At least it had some room and the view was great and most importantly, they were built here.
Ah well.....back to the drawing board for them I guess.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

@GADRIVER

If you want to accuse me of posting "rubbish"and "rot" that is up to you, however I have been operating them for over two years now, each aircraft averaging three hours a day; and perhaps, just maybe, I know a little bit about operating them and how cost effective they are as trainers. If you can only carry 20 minutes of fuel then your average bods must be enormous.

The Boomerangs certainly haven't been a waste of my time and money.

Quite happy if my competitors carry on buying the tupperware trainers or using the old hardware if that's all they can afford. :E

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Sure, but it had real velour high-back seats, imitation wood-grain in the panel, and "proper" door handles, so...

I see.....That's why they were so successful!:D

Seriously, did they have the same handling characteristics? Critical aerofoil?
Serious question.

[GADRIVR]

Charlie....didn't accuse you of anything. I apologise whole heartedly if that was the impression you got.....BUT,
when I flew them, I found them overall a huge disappointment, along with the rest of the staff as well. There were one or two good points but overall, not worth the bother.
At the time, two average sized people could not do a decent sized sortie....legally.
As for you having operated for a couple of years.....so what? (with respect)
They just weren't up to the task when we had them. The airframe build quality was average to say the least, electrics had a mind of their own, manuals were a flight of fantasy, brakes weren't much chop, doors did their own thing...the list goes on.
If you are happy with them, great. I'd not be putting the amount of money into that airframe the builder was asking when for less than half the price, I could get a very good 152 or Tomahawk, spend a bit of money on them to tart them up, and make more money.
I can understand your passion.....but a dog is a dog.
Sorry to have an opinion that doesn't agree with yours.
Cheers;)

[remoak]

Seriously, did they have the same handling characteristics? Critical aerofoil?

They were pretty close. They both used the same wing section (GA(W)-1), but the Beech was slower. Of the two, the Skipper was more exciting to spin; if you induced a wing drop, it would flop over onto it's back before pulling through into a spin. Great fun.

The skipper didn't fail because it was a bad aircraft, it was simply a victim of the times it was introduced in. Most manufacturers retrenched in the early '80s. Even the 172 had it's production halted in 1985, and that lasted for eleven years, so the Skipper had no chance. Neither did the Tomahawk, which ceased production in 1983, and the 152 which ended in 1985. Most people don't realise that the 152 was only produced for eight years.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Often described as the famous God Awful Wing section aerofoil.

I personally quite enjoyed one visit by the Boomer to Caloundra. Especially when the company test pilot decided to park inside the flight strip (up against the bitumen, actually) while my student was conducting his second set of circuits despite several requests for what the hell was he doing.

CFI, does the Boomerang use the GA(W)-1 as well?

[baron_beeza]

Many aircraft use that particular airfoil section.

Airfoils (http://www.aerofiles.com/airfoils.html)

Airfoils (http://www.aerofiles.com/airfoils.html)
Airfoil Usage (http://agert.homelinux.org/~fredrik/flyg/aircraft.html)
Not sure about the Boomerang but it can be seen there is a diverse range of types.

I am guessing that there will be a few more aircraft utilising the particular airfoil than some journalists would have you believe.

AeroKuhlmann SCUB
Aerotek Hummingbird
Agrolot PZL-126P Mrowka
American Jet Industries Hustler
Bhel LT-IIM Swati
Civil Aviation Dept LT-1 Swati
Beech 77 Skipper
Edgley Optica
Fairchild T-46A
General Avia F.600 Canguro
Harbin Aircraft Y-11T
Harbin Aircraft Y-12 II
Hawk GafHawk 125
Heintz Zenith CH 100
ICA IAR-46
Jastreb VUK-T

Kappa 2
Khrunichev T-430

Piper PA-38 Tomahawk

RANS S-16 Shekari
SIAI-Marchetti SF.600
Sova

VulcanAir SF.600 Canguro