Warrior vs Tomahawk

[Scouse_Phil]

Are there any advantages to paying to do a PPL in a Warrior as opposed to in a Tomahawk (the Warrior being about £15 an hour more expensive). I've noticed that some of the bigger schools such as OAT and BA train on Warriors and other schools doing ab-initio to Frozen ATPL either use Warriors or similar aircraft (i.e. Cessna 172's).

[Ken Wells]

Hi Phil I used to teach at Woodvale not far from in the good old days when West Lancs Aero Club was in it's Heyday. We had both Cessna and Pipers. I always prefered Cessnas as a teaching mount.

Warriors have the control panel in the main field of vision making "looking out" a continuious emphasis in teaching.

Cessnas have alot better visablity, also from a rear passenger point of view.

I found that students who learnt on Cessnas had no trouble converting to Warriors but those who learnt on Pipers tended to need abit more of a check-out on Cessnas.

Also Cessna 150's stall and spin better with Warriors not cleared for spinning and a benign stall only lulls students into a false sense of security.

But I know some instructors disagree and prefer Pipers.

At the end of the day it is "horses for courses":ok:

[TheOddOne]

Ken,

I do agree with what you've said. I did my FIC in C152s and gained a new respect for them as a classroom. I think they were very cleverly designed to demonstrate the classic effects of the controls and stalls etc in a way that the Warrior particularly doesn't. The main issue with the C152 is its physical cabin size and loading limitations. The human race has generally in the West at any rate got a lot bigger over the past 50 years. I was fortunate that my instructor is particularly slim.

I now spend my working life in Warrior IIIs and I've folded my map so that it just nicely covers up all the instruments. I find this an effective way of getting students to concentrate in looking out of the window. I actually had a student get a wing drop stalling a PA28 the other day, most unusual!

Another issue is customer acceptance of aircraft appearance. A row of tired C152 with old fashioned panels with the plastic trim all cracked is unappealing. Relatively new Warrior IIIs have more appeal, even if their serviceability isn't actually any better. Also, by using the same fleet for training and post-PPL hire has cost and efficiency savings.

I do find that the trim in even a quite new aircraft suffers mightily from student use, I'm forever picking up small pieces of plastic, bits of vents etc off the floor during DIs. What we need is something of military robustness for a trainer, but commonality with a good touring machine.

TheOddOne

[Ken Wells]

I sold my share in this nangchang Cj6 two years ago, and it was a great trainer.

Not a glass screen in sight!!!
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg224/kenwells_photo/229_CJ6_turn_under3D7U6862.jpg
http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg224/kenwells_photo/cj.jpg

[Captain Smithy]

I'm currently training in a Tomahawk, nothing wrong with it... at the end of the day it's up to you, perhaps if you discuss it with an instructor that may help you make your decision.

If the Tommy's £15/hr cheaper you might be as well just taking that.

Smithy.

[poss]

Having flown both, I'd say the Tomahawk is a much better trainer. It is designed in such a way as to make you actually learn how to properly fly. It requires specific inputs for certain things and has harsher spin and stall characteristics than most other aircraft to make you do things properly, which is a reason why a few pilots wont fly it. I've never flown a Cessna but from what i've heard from various pilots that practically flies itself out of a spin, where a Tomahawk doesn't.
It climbs slow but it's a solid trainer and I'd recommend learning to fly that one and then transitioning onto the Warrior.

[mad_jock]

I to would say the tommy.

The tommy will do everything it says in the book mostly.

It does have a few irritants which will annoy your instructor more than you.

With out going into a huge list. The tommy is more fun to fly, more comfy with the twin doors, better veiw, more forgiving UC, alot more responsive.

Its a bit like learning to drive in a mini compared to a 205. They both do roughly the same thing but after 10 years you will be quite happy to have a shot of a mini again because its fun. The 205 will get a match flicked at it if no one is looking.

You will get a heap of conflicting views on this one because some people really do hate tommys and would happly see them grounded for no reason.

So my advice is have a shot of both and see which one suits you better or if you feel its worth the extra money. You will have saved enough money using the tommy to convert to the warrior anyway after you pass. It will give you something to do to stay current while waiting for your book to arrive.

Cessna's are ok but a bit cramped, pain in the bum to refuel, boring in the stall and spin.

Isn't the old slab wing cleared to spin?

[Squawk7143]

The Tomahawk is a great little aircraft, superb visibility and lots of fun to trim correctly. I trained on it and enjoyed every minute. Conversion to the Warrior amounted to a 1 hour ride with an instructor. If it's £15 per hour cheaper then for me there would be no contest. There will always be those who fake a shudder when you mention it's name , I have never had a fright in a Tomahawk. Enjoy it....

cheers,
Squawk

[stocker]

I agree with Squawk,

that 15 quid will soon mount up. I fly both and to be honest would go for the Tommy everytime unless there is a need to carry extra bodies.
Most Warriors have a more complex panel than your average Tommy but youd soon get used to that.

I also prefer having my own door to get in and out.

Keep it cheap now, there will be plenty of opportunity to throw cash around once youve got your licence.

[Ivor_Novello]

Well if you're doing nav trips the Warrior will get you there a bit quicker so you might end up spending the same amount of money :)

[stocker]

Quite often on club flyouts the Tom`s turn up just a few minutes after the Warrior so not a huge difference there but yes on much longer trips that you may do after gaining your ppl then there may be a cost issue.
I still say the Tom would be a more cost effective way of gaining your licence.

[CABUS]

I would agree with the above post that a Tom will save you money but the warrior is a lovely stable aircraft in which you can learn some great skills which you could possible define at a later date. From my little experience in a Tom, I can see how it is known in the training world as a traumahawk as it can be quite unstable at low speeds but this could be both good and bad. I think it depends on what you want from your flying, if you are going for the full ATPL I would go for the cheaper option but if you are looking at flying friends and poss getting your IMC or IR I would reccomend the Warrior poss to progress to the Arrow at a later date.

Enjoy;)

[Cusco]

Go for the Tomahawk: It's cheaper to train on, was designed by a committee of instructors as a trainer and teaches you precise flying such as for landings etc.

Conversion to the warrior will be a doddle later when you've got your PPL as by then you'll be totally sold on the Piper concept rather than those floaty cramped Cessna things...........

Whatever you choose , enjoy it

Cusco;)

[Windy Militant]

I did my Training in a Terrorhawk, as they were known as round the club. The Tommy was described by one of the Instructors as a Squirrelly Aircraft. That is, that it requires flying all the time. Maybe not as much as some aerobatic types, but it shows up any bad habits so the instructor can point them out to you! (Now I know why they're called clip boards :ouch:)
The Warrior is designed to be a cruising platform, is more stable and a whole heap easier to fly on Instruments which is why the "Profesional" training establishments tend to use them.
One thing people haven't mentioned is that the Tommy is great fun for earholing around the little puffy clouds.
And to Para phrase Biggles If you can fly a Tommy a Warriors going to be a Doddle! So I'd say go for the Tommy :ok:

[mad_jock]

If it required to be flown all the time it was because nobody had been bothered trimming the thing properly.

You have to do it through a series of lessons and adjust the tabs after every lesson. Then warn everyone that if they unbend any bits of metal on the flight surfaces that are already bent they will have to clean the club bogs before being signed out solo again.

Then the tommy will sit sweet as you like hands off and feet off at 2500ft and 1800rpm noding its nose slightly with a carb heat application. Its just instructors not knowing how to trim it or they can't be bothered or some prat doesn't like seeing bent bits of metal and straightens them.

[foxmoth]

Forget the American rubbish and find a school that has Robins - much nicer handling and better viz than either Piper or Cessna, even better, find a school that has Bulldogs/Chipmunk etc.:E

[Captain Smithy]

...the PA-38 has very good all-round visibility, that I shall testify to.;)

[Robbo0885]

I'm training in the Warrior. Choice between two scholls was the Tommy or Warrior, and I chose Warrior. Reason-I will be doing pro training after PPL, and gonna use Warrior for S/E CPL. (Unsure about doing M/E CPL at this stage). Figured if I do S/E CPL, i'll be fairly familiar with the Warrior. Granted, not much to converting between Tommy and Warrior I imagine, but still, start in what you mean to go on in made sense.

[englishal]

Cessnas have alot better visablity, also from a rear passenger point of view
True, for sightseeing. That high wing is lethal though, so many other aeroplanes try and hide above it :eek: Gimmie low wing any day (and then you can see if the fuel filler cap has come off and all your fuel is being sucked out too ;))....

[SkyHawk-N]

englishal said

True, for sightseeing. That high wing is lethal though,

Oh my god! thanks for the heads-up on that, I never knew. Sheesh, I must be really lucky not to be dead :eek: I know what I'm going to do next week and that is go shopping for a low wing aeroplane. :ok:

[Blinkz]

Captain Smithy, how is NU doing? I did a fair chunk of my PPL in it before converting onto the Warrior. Hope everyone at EFC is good too!

This is a very hard question to answer and to be honest there isn't one correct answer. I think it all depends on your own situation and what you want to do in the future. If you are planning on just getting a PPL and flying friends around then the Warrior will generally be a much better tourer and if you are only going to be flying this then it makes sense to do all your training on it. If you are planning on expanding your horizons and flying different types etc then the tomahawk is a better steed for the reasons given above (more responsive and actually needs you to fly it instead of the Warrior which is extremely forgiving)

However, when it all comes down to it they are all aircraft and they generally all fly in the same way! I fly a 737 now and it flies exactly the same way a Warrior or Tomahawk does! (just a little higher and faster lol)

[Captain Smithy]

Hi Blinkz,

NU is doing great, all are well at the club too ;)

Smithy

[mixture]

Scouse_Phil,

To be perfectly honest, you're talking chalk and cheese.

I would suggest you take a lesson in both and come back if you still can't tell the difference. :cool:

The PA38 is great for SSAT, and maybe basic exercises .... but unless you're one for pain, there's no way I'd recommend doing navex in a PA38 ....

I wasn't being rude when I suggested trying them both ... you don't need long to be able to distinguish some of the handling characteristics present in the PA28 that you won't find in the PA38.

But each to their own preferences .... don't get me started on the whole high vs low wing debate that some people have hinted at here ... :cool:

Have fun ... and happy flying !

[Mickey Kaye]

As an (ex) AFI I always preferred the extra should/elbow room in the tomahawk over a 152.

[foxmoth]

I agree - the Extra is a MUCH better machine than a Cessna/Piper - a bit much for basic training though:p

[ArcherCol]

I trained RPL in a Tomahawk and found it was a good plane for the basics. Very good for dramatic stalls and wing drops, the odd incipient spin made life interesting, but very good for your training as you could handle them if it happened in real life.
The Warrior is a good plane for navs as they are good and stable so you can concentrate on your navigation/radio CLEAROFF checks etc i/o fighting with turbulence. Also more power and room for long navs. Once trimmed out they can be like riding in an armchair.
I did my PPL navs in a Warrior and found it a stable aircraft. I did a 3 hr nav in a Cessna 152 and found it was hard work because of turbulence and being a bit "fidgety".
I now fly an Archer II and this is a great plane for long flights as it stable and cruises about 110kts, can carry 4ppl and full fuel + a toothbrush each. The Cessna 182's cant do this. For mustering the Cesnas are okay but I have found the Archer is still pretty good.
Hope this helps

[Cusco]

I now fly an Archer II and this is a great plane for long flights as it stable and cruises about 110kts, can carry 4ppl and full fuel + a toothbrush each. The Cessna 182's cant do this.


I think a few 182 drivers on here might take you to task on this assertion..............

Cusco

[Scouse_Phil]

Thanks everyone for your replies.

My plan is to get myself a Frozen ATPL so its looking like a Tommy for the numerous reasons mentioned.

One less thing to think about now...only 999,999,999 left!:)

[Final 3 Greens]

I think a few 182 drivers on here might take you to task on this assertion..............

I was thinking the same Cusco.

With a few hundred hours on the Archer, I appreciate it as a fine low powered tourer, but the 182 has far better performance, more comparable in many ways to the Dakota (PA28)