Skippers V Tomahawks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: over there
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skippers V Tomahawks
I am about to undertake CPL training at YBAF, and considering two flying schools.
One school uses the Tomahawk as its ab-initio trainer, the other the Skipper.
They look very similar. I am interested in the differences in performance, handling etc.
Also I realise I cant mention the schools names, however one school has about 6 tomahawks the other has about 4 skippers (it would probably be obvious if your from YBAF).
Any thoughts on these schools would be appreciated.
One school uses the Tomahawk as its ab-initio trainer, the other the Skipper.
They look very similar. I am interested in the differences in performance, handling etc.
Also I realise I cant mention the schools names, however one school has about 6 tomahawks the other has about 4 skippers (it would probably be obvious if your from YBAF).
Any thoughts on these schools would be appreciated.
Guest
Posts: n/a
the "skipper-school" also has a C182 that I would assume they do the CPL nav training in.
Hours in a C182 will be a lot more helpful towards getting you a job when you finish.
The CPL trainer offered at the "tomahawk-school" is not really used widely (not sure if at all..?) in the industry.
funny though, I did enjoy flying the PA38.
Hours in a C182 will be a lot more helpful towards getting you a job when you finish.
The CPL trainer offered at the "tomahawk-school" is not really used widely (not sure if at all..?) in the industry.
funny though, I did enjoy flying the PA38.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi The Hairy Log Book, top of the morning to you!
The Traumahawk was built as a result of a survey to some 10,000 fright instructors. It is, in theory, everything that a flying instructor wanted from a training aircraft. It has a great big cockpit perspex canopy which offers excellent visibility, a small wing, a very easy fuel management system (with the selector and gauges right in your face on the fuel quadrant), it has docile (yet very responsive and firm) handling characteristics, reasonable performance both as a trainer and tourer, and very low maintenance costs. It also offers a predictable student performance when stepping up into the Piper big brothers.
The one concern that I personally have with the aircraft is that the production aeroplane was not the aircraft that was initially certified in Vero Beach, Florida! Test pilots who flew the PA38 saw the production aircraft roll off the production line and couldn't even identify it. The wing design had changed with a reduction in the number of spars to decrease weight, the tail had undergone modifications and numerous other cosmetic changes were evident. The FAA published a story a few years ago entitled "Tomahawk on Trial" which questioned Pipers motives and brought to light the changes that were made. If I find this story I'll post a link to it. It's really interesting reading.
Having said that, the Tomahawk has proven itself over time to be reliable and safe. The test of time is more revealing than any period of test flying.
I used to teach spinning in the aircraft until quite recently when I came to the conclusion (after a flat spin in the PA38) that the only aircraft worth spinning were ones certified for aerobatics. This stands for the skipper as well.
The Skipper was designed (in response) by Beechcraft to compete with the PA38 and the flooded market of decrepit old 152s. It was designed and modelled on the PA38 (by the same designer) who ensured that the manufacturer actually built the aircraft he put on paper.
I personally find the Skipper boring. It lacks the same 'feel' of the Tomahawk. It is noticeably slower and although it offers the student the logical progression onto bigger Beech aircraft they aren't nearly as common as the Piper types.
Having rambled all that...the aircraft are much-of-a-muchness at your level. You probably wouldn't be able to feel the subtle differences. The aircraft type really shouldn't be a consideration.
The only aircraft I would suggest you steer well clear of is the Cessna 152. Although it's the most popular trainer ever built, I feel this is only because of lack of options over time rather than the appeal of the machine. It is slow and sluggish, it is not responsive and it offers disgracefully poor visibility in all phases of flight. The 152 is also small and cramped (even for two small people), has generally poor performance and it is as ugly!!
Go with the school that you feel more comfortable with. Fly with the instructor that you feel will give you more personal attention. Try and do your training with a company that operates larger commercial aircraft and can give you some commercial exposure on the completion of your licence. If you're doing a CPL, make sure that your instructor has significant commercial experience himself. There are far more important questions than aircraft type.
Good luck!
T.
The Traumahawk was built as a result of a survey to some 10,000 fright instructors. It is, in theory, everything that a flying instructor wanted from a training aircraft. It has a great big cockpit perspex canopy which offers excellent visibility, a small wing, a very easy fuel management system (with the selector and gauges right in your face on the fuel quadrant), it has docile (yet very responsive and firm) handling characteristics, reasonable performance both as a trainer and tourer, and very low maintenance costs. It also offers a predictable student performance when stepping up into the Piper big brothers.
The one concern that I personally have with the aircraft is that the production aeroplane was not the aircraft that was initially certified in Vero Beach, Florida! Test pilots who flew the PA38 saw the production aircraft roll off the production line and couldn't even identify it. The wing design had changed with a reduction in the number of spars to decrease weight, the tail had undergone modifications and numerous other cosmetic changes were evident. The FAA published a story a few years ago entitled "Tomahawk on Trial" which questioned Pipers motives and brought to light the changes that were made. If I find this story I'll post a link to it. It's really interesting reading.
Having said that, the Tomahawk has proven itself over time to be reliable and safe. The test of time is more revealing than any period of test flying.
I used to teach spinning in the aircraft until quite recently when I came to the conclusion (after a flat spin in the PA38) that the only aircraft worth spinning were ones certified for aerobatics. This stands for the skipper as well.
The Skipper was designed (in response) by Beechcraft to compete with the PA38 and the flooded market of decrepit old 152s. It was designed and modelled on the PA38 (by the same designer) who ensured that the manufacturer actually built the aircraft he put on paper.
I personally find the Skipper boring. It lacks the same 'feel' of the Tomahawk. It is noticeably slower and although it offers the student the logical progression onto bigger Beech aircraft they aren't nearly as common as the Piper types.
Having rambled all that...the aircraft are much-of-a-muchness at your level. You probably wouldn't be able to feel the subtle differences. The aircraft type really shouldn't be a consideration.
The only aircraft I would suggest you steer well clear of is the Cessna 152. Although it's the most popular trainer ever built, I feel this is only because of lack of options over time rather than the appeal of the machine. It is slow and sluggish, it is not responsive and it offers disgracefully poor visibility in all phases of flight. The 152 is also small and cramped (even for two small people), has generally poor performance and it is as ugly!!
Go with the school that you feel more comfortable with. Fly with the instructor that you feel will give you more personal attention. Try and do your training with a company that operates larger commercial aircraft and can give you some commercial exposure on the completion of your licence. If you're doing a CPL, make sure that your instructor has significant commercial experience himself. There are far more important questions than aircraft type.
Good luck!
T.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great well presented post TUBINE.
However there is one point I will take you up on re the C152.
The C152 and A152 are the one of the best training aircraft around. The A152 in particular is a much better aircraft than the PA38 or BE(whaterver it is). It is aerobatic and useable for all modes and types of training flight plus its very strong.
Your comments about size (inside the cabin) are irrelevant, the 152 takes a student of exactly the same size as the other two and its a dam sight easier to get into and out of.
Infact the only thing the PA38 does better than the 152 is visibility in turn. There is a great deal of truth in your comment about the amount of 152s used worldwide for training in comparison to the other trainers, and its because they are a much more popular aircraft.
Personaly, I have a few hundred hours in each one and know which I would rather use.
If it don't fly upsidedown forget it.
Unfortunatly this dose not progress the original thread, but its true. What turbine says is good for everything but the 152 stuff.
However there is one point I will take you up on re the C152.
The C152 and A152 are the one of the best training aircraft around. The A152 in particular is a much better aircraft than the PA38 or BE(whaterver it is). It is aerobatic and useable for all modes and types of training flight plus its very strong.
Your comments about size (inside the cabin) are irrelevant, the 152 takes a student of exactly the same size as the other two and its a dam sight easier to get into and out of.
Infact the only thing the PA38 does better than the 152 is visibility in turn. There is a great deal of truth in your comment about the amount of 152s used worldwide for training in comparison to the other trainers, and its because they are a much more popular aircraft.
Personaly, I have a few hundred hours in each one and know which I would rather use.
If it don't fly upsidedown forget it.
Unfortunatly this dose not progress the original thread, but its true. What turbine says is good for everything but the 152 stuff.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hiya AMRAAM, the points on the C152 are my own personal opinion. I'm sure the majority of pilots and flying instructors out there will disagree with me. After all, the 152 was, and still is, the worlds most popular training aircraft. Once again I think the success was a lack of cost effective commercial options rather than the appeal of the actual machine...who knows.
I feel that the C152 offers poor visibility in almost every phase of flight. Its nose sits about 8 inches higher than the PA38 in a climb. The PA38 flies level with a noticeable nose down attitude and the C152 does not. The C152 has huge wings that obscure visibility above the aircraft at all times and below the aircraft in turns. The Tommychucks wing is very narrow and has a constant chord from root to tip. Visibility is undoubtedly better. The 152s cabin is boxed in with 'limited' windows and the PA38 has a brilliant bubble canopy.
The PA38 has an access panel to the engine for pre-flights and the Cessna 152 does not. I know it’s a small point but it is an important part of training. The PA38 teaches fuel management, it has the student handle a marginally faster aircraft and teaches what I believe to be slightly better stick-and-rudder skills.
I feel that the PA38 has a better cockpit and a more ergonomic set-up. The PA38 has a 3-inch divider between the two seats and the 152 has nothing - in fact asses touch in flight. AMRAAM. I personally find it much easier to get in and out of a PA38 and find it has HEAPS more room (partly because I am a big bast@rd)!
Having rambled that, the C152 handles better at low speeds (and in the stall) than the Tomahawk. The 152 is also better ventilated and you don’t have the added maintenance costs of a fuel pump.
I think that Piper, Cessna and Beechcraft have done for GA training aircraft what McDonalds has done for fine food. The standards of today’s training and the quality of pilot is all a result of the very limited operating envelope of modern day training aircraft.
Bottom line...let the student decide. It's generally not the performance that they are interested in but the cosmetics. History suggests girls will pick the 152 and guys will go with the Tomahawk. Sad but true.
All my views only. I still do a bit of destructing but when it came time to buy a few machines I didn’t go with any of the aircraft in question, but that’s another story…
The Hairy Log Book, sorry to take your post as an opportunity to vent my curiously sad frustrations
I feel that the C152 offers poor visibility in almost every phase of flight. Its nose sits about 8 inches higher than the PA38 in a climb. The PA38 flies level with a noticeable nose down attitude and the C152 does not. The C152 has huge wings that obscure visibility above the aircraft at all times and below the aircraft in turns. The Tommychucks wing is very narrow and has a constant chord from root to tip. Visibility is undoubtedly better. The 152s cabin is boxed in with 'limited' windows and the PA38 has a brilliant bubble canopy.
The PA38 has an access panel to the engine for pre-flights and the Cessna 152 does not. I know it’s a small point but it is an important part of training. The PA38 teaches fuel management, it has the student handle a marginally faster aircraft and teaches what I believe to be slightly better stick-and-rudder skills.
I feel that the PA38 has a better cockpit and a more ergonomic set-up. The PA38 has a 3-inch divider between the two seats and the 152 has nothing - in fact asses touch in flight. AMRAAM. I personally find it much easier to get in and out of a PA38 and find it has HEAPS more room (partly because I am a big bast@rd)!
Having rambled that, the C152 handles better at low speeds (and in the stall) than the Tomahawk. The 152 is also better ventilated and you don’t have the added maintenance costs of a fuel pump.
I think that Piper, Cessna and Beechcraft have done for GA training aircraft what McDonalds has done for fine food. The standards of today’s training and the quality of pilot is all a result of the very limited operating envelope of modern day training aircraft.
Bottom line...let the student decide. It's generally not the performance that they are interested in but the cosmetics. History suggests girls will pick the 152 and guys will go with the Tomahawk. Sad but true.
All my views only. I still do a bit of destructing but when it came time to buy a few machines I didn’t go with any of the aircraft in question, but that’s another story…
The Hairy Log Book, sorry to take your post as an opportunity to vent my curiously sad frustrations
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also have a bit of time on both. The Cessna is typically unresponsive and more like a flying sponge (IMHO) in comparison.
Turbine, I have never been able to get a PA38 into a "flat spin". In fact, if you simply release the controls, the thing will recover by itself in 2 or 3 rotations. At least that's been my experience in over 500 hours in the thing.
I don't particularly like the PA38, but it has been misrepresented. Usually by people who've never flown it.
Haven't flown the Skipper, so I can't comment on it's good or bad points.
HLB, as far as choosing the school is concerned, go with the one you think is going to look after YOU. There are a lot of sharks out there. At your stage (pre GFPT) the type you learn on is largely irrelevant. You can worry about that around the time you start doing your Com navs.
In the meantime, try to find yourself an instructor that is dedicated, a company that has your interests at heart, and a flying program that won't milk you of your hard-earned readie$.
It's a big ask.
If you have narrowed it down to A/C types, think about going for a fly in the ones you haven't already tried. This will most likely expose you to a couple of diffferent instructor types, so you're killing 2 birds with one stone.....Then you can choose the plane and instructor to suit YOU.
Good luck.
Turbine, I have never been able to get a PA38 into a "flat spin". In fact, if you simply release the controls, the thing will recover by itself in 2 or 3 rotations. At least that's been my experience in over 500 hours in the thing.
I don't particularly like the PA38, but it has been misrepresented. Usually by people who've never flown it.
Haven't flown the Skipper, so I can't comment on it's good or bad points.
HLB, as far as choosing the school is concerned, go with the one you think is going to look after YOU. There are a lot of sharks out there. At your stage (pre GFPT) the type you learn on is largely irrelevant. You can worry about that around the time you start doing your Com navs.
In the meantime, try to find yourself an instructor that is dedicated, a company that has your interests at heart, and a flying program that won't milk you of your hard-earned readie$.
It's a big ask.
If you have narrowed it down to A/C types, think about going for a fly in the ones you haven't already tried. This will most likely expose you to a couple of diffferent instructor types, so you're killing 2 birds with one stone.....Then you can choose the plane and instructor to suit YOU.
Good luck.
Grandpa Aerotart
Have flown and instructed in two of the three aircraft being discussed. My advice for pre RPPL is find someone with a Decathlon,Chippy,Cub or some such real aeroplane.
Chuck
PS I am serious!!
Chuck
PS I am serious!!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I can't vouch for the Tomahawk school, I do have personal experience of the Skipper school as I'm doing my CPL training there. As well as the C182, they also have a C210, a Piper Arrow and a Piper Seneca that all get a lot of use (well the 210 and the Seneca do anyway).
The emphasis there is more on training for real pilot jobs not just training you for the airlines which seems to be the in thing for most flying schools these days. They aren't one of those schools that expect you to wear a uniform while you're training (to make you feel profesional, what a **** ). They're more a polo shirt and jeans kind of school. To paraphrase the QUT ads, they're a flying school for the real world. That's not to say they're no good if you're after an airline job. They have plenty of former students now working for airlines.
On the personal side, the instructors there are a pretty good bunch. I won't say too much about that since most of them check out Pprune pretty regularly and I'd hate for them to get too big headed on reading this.
I guess the best reference I could give them is to say that their two newest staff members recently came over from the school that has several Tomahawks.
This is starting to sound like a plug for them so I won't go on. Whatever you decide, good luck with it.
The emphasis there is more on training for real pilot jobs not just training you for the airlines which seems to be the in thing for most flying schools these days. They aren't one of those schools that expect you to wear a uniform while you're training (to make you feel profesional, what a **** ). They're more a polo shirt and jeans kind of school. To paraphrase the QUT ads, they're a flying school for the real world. That's not to say they're no good if you're after an airline job. They have plenty of former students now working for airlines.
On the personal side, the instructors there are a pretty good bunch. I won't say too much about that since most of them check out Pprune pretty regularly and I'd hate for them to get too big headed on reading this.
I guess the best reference I could give them is to say that their two newest staff members recently came over from the school that has several Tomahawks.
This is starting to sound like a plug for them so I won't go on. Whatever you decide, good luck with it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I can second Max Meggers post.
I have been to both schools and agree with his assessment in all aspects.
Do a bit of homework and check the commercial experience of the instructors of both schools, you might be suprised what you find.
Max, can you check your private msg please..
[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: hellfish ]
I have been to both schools and agree with his assessment in all aspects.
Do a bit of homework and check the commercial experience of the instructors of both schools, you might be suprised what you find.
Max, can you check your private msg please..
[ 09 September 2001: Message edited by: hellfish ]
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: QLD
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day HLB. I have also been involved with the "skipper school" and think it is the way to go too. The reasons Max Megger outlined are spot on with regard to the other school.
All the best with your adventures
All the best with your adventures
Join Date: Jul 1998
Location: just floating about
Age: 54
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quality training at the tomahawk school. For early stages of training I would recommend them. Skipper school may have large range of aircraft but quality of them is poor.
Which ever school you feel the most comfortable with is the one you should go with. By the way, the reason those instructors left was not indicative of the training standard.
Which ever school you feel the most comfortable with is the one you should go with. By the way, the reason those instructors left was not indicative of the training standard.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aust,
There's nothing really wrong with the Skipper school's fleet, it's just they get a hell of a lot of work (which I think is the case with the Tomahawks too) and they're getting a bit tired.
New windscreens on the C172s would be nice if nothing else.
Something else I didn't mention in my previous post, where else would you get to legally fly at 500 feet past the city in the open cockpit of an Agcat?
There's nothing really wrong with the Skipper school's fleet, it's just they get a hell of a lot of work (which I think is the case with the Tomahawks too) and they're getting a bit tired.
New windscreens on the C172s would be nice if nothing else.
Something else I didn't mention in my previous post, where else would you get to legally fly at 500 feet past the city in the open cockpit of an Agcat?
