Piper Tomahawk

[W.D. Charlwood]

Does anybody else think that the Tomahawk is a very good trainer?

[Big Pistons Forever]

Does anybody else think that the Tomahawk is a very good trainer?

Ummm............No

[A and C]

In a word ................ Yes!

[Captain Smithy]

Yes! Its good fun to fly too.

Smithy

[J.A.F.O.]

Yes, loved it.

[mad_jock]

Done to death on here but yes I do think it the best out of the run of the mill normal flying school machines.

It isn't perfect but its good points more than make up for its bad.

Folk either love them or hate them. If Piper was ever to produce a new tommy a suitable name for the Brit market would be the "Piper Marmite"

[wsmempson]

I only ever had 4 lessons in the PA38 right at the beginning of my training, until someone pointed out that if I did my skills test with the CFI, we wouldn't legally be able to load enough fuel for the exercise.....I then went over to the PA28 to complete my training.


I later flew with someone who owned a tomahawk, who demonstrated a spin and recovery. On the second spin, he had me look back at the tail - which shook and shimmied like a demented belly dancer. I haven't felt the urge to fly in one again.:)

[the dean]

instructed in them for 15 years...never had an issue...controls a bit light for those moving on to heavier/bigger things.... but as a basic trainer we found them reliable and trustworthy. yes, in a deep stall or spin, the T tail did some interesting things....but we never had any huge problems...except maybe the AUW...if a heavy student turned up and the tanks were already full...:eek::=...but had many happy and fun filled hours in them.

[200hp_stall_freak]

No txt spk pls.

[mad_jock]

About the tail....

As an ex Mech Eng I have no worry's at all about the tail wobbling about. Its just logical that it should do that. Elevator up high, vortex shedding from wings its doesn't matter what you make the tail out of you will always see movement because of the length of the elevator.

Its like the chem thrusters of the space shuttle deflect over 1.5 meters when they open the taps.

In fact I have flown next to another T tail seminole and it wobbles around as well.

And the 146 tails waggle. Its just because you can't see them that folk don't worry.

Bitching that the tail waggles just allow's the listener to gauge a) your level of understanding about aerodynamincs and B) you technical knowledge to do with stress/strain and torsional stress levels and also the fact that distance from the point of rotation acts like an amplifier of displacement.

I have had success showing folk using hands out of car windows and twisting bunches of strands of pasta about A)
And limited success with B) by using a seesaw and flagpole as an example.

There are still some people out there though that just don't like the look of it and will refuse any sort of explanation why its meant to be.

[vanHorck]

I loved it, was the closest thing to flying on your own without s plane....
Best visibility, exceptionally sensitive controls and most of them so old and dilapidated it was funny!

Even after my PPL I sometimes rented one just for the fun!

[Ryan5252]

I did my entire private and commercial trainning on this airplane.

How can you do Commercial training on a PA38? (Or any fixed gear non-wobbly?)

[the dean]

Ryan....

It used to be possible in our jurisdiction (and I suspect in many others)...until rules changed and a complex aircraft was required...but that was not always the case....

[Katamarino]

I find it hideously ugly, hate the things :O

[Parson]

....not from the LHS

[200hp_stall_freak]

sorry mayte i didnot mean all of my training (wanted to emphasize on the fact that a huge chunk my the flying i did was in the tomahawk), as a matter of fact i did train in a complex as well a PA34-200.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Firstly i must come clean as a staunch lover of the tommie.

Ihave flown the C152 (although not many hours) and I think they are excellent trainers over the cessna, docille enough for the starter, tricky enough in the landing (early stage students) to provide a challenge and to equip you for faster landing birds. 65 over the fence NO LESS!

Its roomy, it has ample panel room for a full fit, one of the trainers i flew had an ADF and a VOR NAVCOM. It has proper seats, great views (excellent for the circuit) loads of baggage room on the 30kg floor!, great for photo's and scenic flights with the significant other. its nearly viceless!

They are not, Unstable, Underpowered (certainly not the 125HP) prone to spinning, stalls etc, you would have to be dead not to notice your Alpha is getting a little high.

As for the fuel load + RHS guy, i'm not a small chap (not fat just typical kiwi large) and i flew with equally strapping chaps with 50 lt a side.
I performed landings and takeoffs very safely that the P-charts said were outside parameters. On a hot day with midling pressures you certianly gave it a bit more runway but 690M is more than enough! (shortest RWY where i trained) Just because the P-Chart says no, doesn't mean it can't be done and done safely... (Mr CAA)...

And don't look at the tail if it bothers you, yes it waggles but its designed too :-)

[BroomstickPilot]

Hi Guys,

If I recall correctly, Beech manufactured two aircraft that were almost dead ringers for Piper equivalents and I have often wondered how these Beeches compared to their Piper equivalents.

In the case of the P38, Beech made a lookalike called the 'Skipper'.

Has anybody flown the 'Skipper'?

More to the point, has anybody flown both the 'Skipper' and the Pa38?

If so, how did they compare?

Regards,

BP.

[octavian]

Getting back on thread. Yes

[FlyingKiwi_73]

From the handling notes the 'Skipper' looks a little more spritely than the PA38 but not too much more... surely there is a copyright quivalent in Aviation, its nearly impossible to tell them apart.

[Captain Smithy]

The Skipper seems pretty rare. I think it was produced in very small numbers but it is almost identical to the Tomahawk both in spec and appearance. In terms of flying I don't know though, and I haven't come across anyone who's been around one. Like I say they are pretty rare.

Mad Jock - the Marmite description is most justified... few aircraft provoke such strong pro/anti feelings as the humble Tommy... its a shame though that most of its detractors are talking out their fartpiece as most have never flown one!

Smithy

[Big Pistons Forever]

... its a shame though that most of its detractors are talking out their fartpiece as most have never flown one!

Smithy

I flew the first one ever imported into Canada, Sn 31, and by chance got an hour in one of the very last ones built. It was, if I recall, about 25 units from the end of the traumahawk production run. The build quality of the early ones was simply terrible and while the last were a bit better they were still had a very Yugo-ish feel. I think one wing on a C 152 has more rivets than the entire tomahawk and you only have to look at the great long list of major structural Airworthiness Directives as an indication of what a POS this airplane is. As for flying qualities as a trainer, this is a purely subjective area of personal opinions, but as far as I am concerned the C 152 is the clear winner. It is easy to fly but surprisingly hard to fly really well.

In the end it doesn't matter because the market has spoken. The C 152 is significantly cheaper to own because it is so robust. I know of at least 2 major schools in Canada that went from C 150's to Tomahawks but then after 10 to 12 years sold all the Pipers and went back to C152's, a decision made purely due to the relative costs of operation, between the 2 types.

[FlyingKiwi_73]

I have to agree with Captain Smith, most people i have talked to about this (some of these are CPL chaps) who tell me how unstable and 'twitchy' the tommies are have never flown one.

I'm not a gifted pilot, chuck Yeager or similar but i survived and enjoyed nearly 100 hours in the 'Traumahawk' I don't understand how this whole myth came about.

As an Ag pilot i know once eloquently quoted "if you F**k about in it, it will tell you to F**k off!" :ok: spot on!

[Captain Smithy]

If you big jessies are worried about the tail moving about, I suggest you don't fly on any passenger jets, or if you do don't look out across the wings. :suspect:

I like your Ag-pilot's quote Flying Kiwi. Rather apt with a certain to-the-point!

Smithy

[Mictheslik]

Have to agree with the above....just switched over to a cherokee 180 after starting and completing 10 hours on a tomahawk. The 28 is much more benign and easier to handle in a crosswind after flying the 38 which is twitchy and requires a bit more work....very fun though :D

.mic

[A and C]

When looking for two aircraft to lease out I was first tempted with the PA38, to fly it is a delight but when it comes to the operating cost Big pistons is correct when he says that the C152 is cheaper to run. So with some regret I had to buy the Cessna on economic grounds.

[Cat.S]

I loved it. Far more shoulder room for me than either the 172 or the Warrior.

[foxmoth]

"most of its detractors are talking out their fartpiece as most have never flown one"

"I have to agree with Captain Smith, most people i have talked to about this (some of these are CPL chaps) who tell me how unstable and 'twitchy' the tommies are have never flown one. "

Well I have flown it, I do NOT think it is unstable and 'twitchy', but I still think it is a rubbish trainer and can point to the specifics - harmonisation is poor, being sensitive in pitch and sluggish in roll. It does not teach trimming well as a lot of pitch changes are lost with the T-tail (great in an aircraft that is NOT used for training). It does have its plus points, having a well thought out cockpit layout and good viz. This does not mean I am a big fan of the 152, but I can at least see why schools use that for economic reasons!:}

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Having recently flown a C152 and having trained almost exclusively in the Tommie i have the opposite opinion of the trim? I found the trim to be in effective on the 152 needing large amounts of movement to effect any change. where as the tommie can be 'flown' with the trim tab. accidently wind on a bit more pitch than is usual on take off and watch that nose come up real fast, ask me how i know!

FK

[foxmoth]

I did not say that the trim was innefective, but once trimmed that is pretty much it, when training you want the trim changes that you get with change in power/flap in order to get the student in the habit of using the trimmer - in the Cessna you get those changes, in the Pa38 you do not because of the T-tail!
But why so much emphasis on the Pa38 Vs Cessna, I have already said I am not an advocate of EITHER, personally I would rather a Beagle Pup, Chippie or one of the 2 seat Robins but for spares/finance these are not realistic for most clubs:rolleyes:

[FlyingKiwi_73]

Oh i totally agree anything like to beagle pup, or the Bulldog would be far more fun than either! There is a DR200 here for sale,.. its in mint condition but they want just a little too much for a 2 seater.

I guess some of us sticking up for the tommie are slightly dismayed at its alleged twitchy nature by some to the high wing chaps. I found the thing pretty docile (except for the wing drop stall). what i do like is the speed your forced to land it at, i feel it would give you a bit of experience when you proceed to faster craft.

[PotentialPilot]

I know of a tomahawk for sale if anyones interested.. Just to drop in the topic :)

[FlyingKiwi_73]

:ok: If its crated up and heading to NZ let me know!

Otherwise i'll have to pass :(

[Mrya]

Well Gentleman,

In my opinion (150h teaching, 80h in C172 the rest in Pa38) the Tommy make a fantastic trainer in some points:

- for future CPL... specially if you have Tommy -> Arrow -> Seminole (first question when i entered the Seminole: "who put two engines on a that poor ol' Tommy??") Step up is great, controls feel of a way heavier plane (i'm coming from Bonanza school....)

- for people at aeroclub level who think of stepping up on a low winged, high performance (VP and or RG)

As for training a bit elder people (no offense meant) who wish to fly a Cessna for fun and that's it, I believe training in a C172, or C152+stepup C172 would be a better option.

But it's true that if you know the Tommy you can fly almost anything. By the matter of fact I learned CPL IR all exclusively on a Bonanza and going back to the Tommy after that wasn't as easy as i bragged about.

For spins...well flat spins area deadly, and we have too much stuff (emergency equip) in the back (CG!!) to risk it. On top, ours has 3500h and is year '78, which isn't the youngest, if you see my point... We have a no-spin policy. Just teachin' the spin entry recovery and the stud's get it darn well :E Enough in my (our) opinion.

Wouldn't mind getting a nice fleet of 3-4 Tommies, 2 Arrows and a Seminole, overhauled, new panel (or new Arrow+Seminole) for a nice CPLIRMEPfATPLmaybeMCC outfit :cool::cool:

Enjoy your Tommy :D, and if you don't like it, stick to you Whatever:yuk: :ugh: ...

Happy landings!

Mrya :cool:

[TCU]

Flew in the former Cape Town Flying Club's PA-38 a few years ago and after flying PA-28's, 172 and 182's it felt like starting all over again...could I trim that thing....could I hell. But the view from that cockpit...amazing!

Anyway after nice 3 hrs jaunt from CPT to Cape Agulhas and back I finally felt I was coming to terms with the little beastie and am certainly glad to have the little Tommie in my log book