Which is the best training Aircraft ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Does anyone remember the recent spin training thread? Any modern training aircraft should be spin resistant - it should not spin unless grossly mishandled. The recovery should be straight forward as long at the aeroplane is correctly loaded (and rigged) and the correct recovery applied. XP-72, disturbed to hear about improperly conducted flight testing for the PA-38, doesn't the FAA have something to say about this?
I haven't flown Chipmunk, Robin, Jet Provost, Slingsby, Zlin etc... However, none of those are exactly widely available training aircraft.
I'm a Traumahawk fan. Plenty of room in the cabin, nice low nose attitude in flight (important for teaching attitude control - difficult to teach attituide selection and control if you can't see the horizon) and simple to land. I think it flies OK, certainly no worse than PA-28 or, worst of all TB-10. And you don't have to spin them here in Oz. And they don't seem to lose too much performance in the heat (obviously I can't justify that, just an observation).
So Vote 1 for Tomohawk.
I haven't flown Chipmunk, Robin, Jet Provost, Slingsby, Zlin etc... However, none of those are exactly widely available training aircraft.
I'm a Traumahawk fan. Plenty of room in the cabin, nice low nose attitude in flight (important for teaching attitude control - difficult to teach attituide selection and control if you can't see the horizon) and simple to land. I think it flies OK, certainly no worse than PA-28 or, worst of all TB-10. And you don't have to spin them here in Oz. And they don't seem to lose too much performance in the heat (obviously I can't justify that, just an observation).
So Vote 1 for Tomohawk.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I have to agree with Weed and CFI. The Traumahawk gets my vote as well. The Tomahawk was built in response to a survey to some 10000 flying instructors in the late 70s and the Tommychuck came to fruition.
I am more than familiar with all the reasons people won't fly the aeroplane. One article I read a while ago published by one of the FAA authorities called "Tomahawk on Trial" suggested that the aircraft that was test flown in Florida was NOT the aircraft that went into mass production. In fact when one of the test pilots first saw the aircraft come off the production line he had to ask what aeroplane it was!
Dr. Kroeger, the designer of the PA38 went on to design the Skipper and then incorporated all the features that were lacking in the Tomahawk. Apparently there were a few which included a reduction in wing spars (for reduction in weight) and raised tail. I believe that this association is trivial because both aeroplanes fly vastly different. They are common in appearance only.
The aeroplane has passed the rigorous test of time and I think that this more than certifies it as safe. I have done hundreds of spins in almost every aerobatic type in OZ and I feel every bit as comfortable in a Tomahawk as I do in a Pitts. The tail shakes a little bit - so what? It doesn't move as much as my wingtip does in turbulence and it certainly doesn't make that "tearing" tin foil noise of the 152.
The Tomahawk has excellent visibility, it teaches an appreciation of rudder, is very stable on approach, it is a piece of cake in a crosswind, the fuel system is in your nose throughout flight, its flight characteristics are superb, it is an excellent low cost navigation platform, makes an excellent tourer and is really good fun to fly. I think that the Tomahawk trained pilot is typically trained to a higher standard than their Cessna stablemates.
Having said all that. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. I have always said that a pilots training is only as good as his worst instruction.
I am more than familiar with all the reasons people won't fly the aeroplane. One article I read a while ago published by one of the FAA authorities called "Tomahawk on Trial" suggested that the aircraft that was test flown in Florida was NOT the aircraft that went into mass production. In fact when one of the test pilots first saw the aircraft come off the production line he had to ask what aeroplane it was!
Dr. Kroeger, the designer of the PA38 went on to design the Skipper and then incorporated all the features that were lacking in the Tomahawk. Apparently there were a few which included a reduction in wing spars (for reduction in weight) and raised tail. I believe that this association is trivial because both aeroplanes fly vastly different. They are common in appearance only.
The aeroplane has passed the rigorous test of time and I think that this more than certifies it as safe. I have done hundreds of spins in almost every aerobatic type in OZ and I feel every bit as comfortable in a Tomahawk as I do in a Pitts. The tail shakes a little bit - so what? It doesn't move as much as my wingtip does in turbulence and it certainly doesn't make that "tearing" tin foil noise of the 152.
The Tomahawk has excellent visibility, it teaches an appreciation of rudder, is very stable on approach, it is a piece of cake in a crosswind, the fuel system is in your nose throughout flight, its flight characteristics are superb, it is an excellent low cost navigation platform, makes an excellent tourer and is really good fun to fly. I think that the Tomahawk trained pilot is typically trained to a higher standard than their Cessna stablemates.
Having said all that. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. I have always said that a pilots training is only as good as his worst instruction.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capt Homesick - you do know that BAe consider an ex-RAF Bulldog with more than 114 FI as life-expired?? Well - 2 of the 3 listed as £8.5-£10K are past that and the 3rd has 113.13 FI. Does that make these goods 'unfit for their intended purpose'??
How Arfur Daley gets away with flogging off life-expired aircraft is beyond me!! The other 3 Bulldogs, listed at £12-£14K, have 92.39 - 108.82 FI.
How Arfur Daley gets away with flogging off life-expired aircraft is beyond me!! The other 3 Bulldogs, listed at £12-£14K, have 92.39 - 108.82 FI.
Guest
Posts: n/a
C152/PA28 for normal PPL training. PA38 pisses me off with that crappy spring trim system, but otherwise very good - I think stalls should be a bit attention-getting. If we're talking slightly more advanced I'd have to say the Zlin 526 is the best ever and the Decathlon very nice too. But then there aren't 10 of either in the country (as far as I know).
Glasgow's Gallus Gigolo .... PPRuNeing is like making love to a beautiful woman ... I take hours.
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, I loved flying the Bulldog, for that price I would spend the money for the respar programme (in the current issue of Pilot, probably 20k, but possibly as little as 7k if BAE can be persuaded to fully support it).
For that I get an aeroplane that I can go cross country in (reasonably- at work it's M0.73) quickly, throw about when I have the inclination, and pretend I am a 17 year old stude again.
Thanks for the info about prices, do you happen to know which ones are for sale?
For that I get an aeroplane that I can go cross country in (reasonably- at work it's M0.73) quickly, throw about when I have the inclination, and pretend I am a 17 year old stude again.
Thanks for the info about prices, do you happen to know which ones are for sale?
Guest
Posts: n/a
ANOTHER TOMAHAWK FAN HERE. I HAVE MANAGED TO LOG A FEW HOURS IN THESE AND HAVE SPUN THEM PLENTY OF TIMES - I'M STILL ALIVE. I HAVE A THEORY REGARDING THE STALL/SPIN ACCIDENTS. THE PA38 IS NOT A C152 AND SHOULDN'T BE SPUN LIKE ONE. NEVER GO INTO A SPIN "CROSSED UP" AND WATCH THE RECOVERY. THE PA38 SPINS NOSE DOWN AND PICKS UP SPEED PRETTY QUICKLY IN THE RECOVERY. IF THE RUDDER CONTROL IS NOT NEUTRALISED IMMEDIATLY ON ROTATION STOP YOU'LL GO STRAIGHT THROUGH Va WITH THE RUDDER FULLY DEFLECTED. DO THAT A FEW TIMES AND THE TAIL WILL EVENTUALLY BE DAMAGED! AS FOR THE TAIL MOVING, ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING? IF IT REMAINED RIGID IT WOULD PROBABLY SNAP. LOOK AT ANY LARGE COMMERCIAL AIRLINER. THEY HAVE WINGS THAT PRACTICALLY FLAP DURING FLIGHT! ANY ONE ELSE GOT ANY IDEAS? SPIN A PA38 LIKE A PA38 AND YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY DRAMAS.
Guest
Posts: n/a
ANOTHER TOMAHAWK FAN HERE. I HAVE MANAGED TO LOG A FEW HOURS IN THESE AND HAVE SPUN THEM PLENTY OF TIMES - I'M STILL ALIVE. I HAVE A THEORY REGARDING THE STALL/SPIN ACCIDENTS. THE PA38 IS NOT A C152 AND SHOULDN'T BE SPUN LIKE ONE. NEVER GO INTO A SPIN "CROSSED UP" AND WATCH THE RECOVERY. THE PA38 SPINS NOSE DOWN AND PICKS UP SPEED PRETTY QUICKLY IN THE RECOVERY. IF THE RUDDER CONTROL IS NOT NEUTRALISED IMMEDIATLY ON ROTATION STOP YOU'LL GO STRAIGHT THROUGH Va WITH THE RUDDER FULLY DEFLECTED. DO THAT A FEW TIMES AND THE TAIL WILL EVENTUALLY BE DAMAGED! AS FOR THE TAIL MOVING, ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING? IF IT REMAINED RIGID IT WOULD PROBABLY SNAP. LOOK AT ANY LARGE COMMERCIAL AIRLINER. THEY HAVE WINGS THAT PRACTICALLY FLAP DURING FLIGHT! ANY ONE ELSE GOT ANY IDEAS? SPIN A PA38 LIKE A PA38 AND YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY DRAMAS.
Moderator
Agree with both your posts there deaddog!
In a C152 the recovery CAN be effected by saying "And this is what a spin looks like" and letting go of everything. It doesn't take much more than that to get out of it.
Do this in a tomahawk and they'll keep spinning. You have to do the recovery right first time or it can wind up. As for the tail, next time you shut down your little training aircraft have a listen to that metallic shudder over the airframe as the engine stops. That is what the tail is doing in a tomahawk spin. Buffetting, not falling off!
In a C152 the recovery CAN be effected by saying "And this is what a spin looks like" and letting go of everything. It doesn't take much more than that to get out of it.
Do this in a tomahawk and they'll keep spinning. You have to do the recovery right first time or it can wind up. As for the tail, next time you shut down your little training aircraft have a listen to that metallic shudder over the airframe as the engine stops. That is what the tail is doing in a tomahawk spin. Buffetting, not falling off!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well the Tomahawk and C152 are both excellent enclosed-cockpit basic trainers. I definitely prefer the C152 for spinning and throwing about, but it can't touch the visibility and idiot proof landing characteristics of the Tomahawk in the circuit.
My dream flying school would have to have a big shiny hangar full up with Super Cubs. They are an absolute pearl of an aircraft from nose to tail.
My dream flying school would have to have a big shiny hangar full up with Super Cubs. They are an absolute pearl of an aircraft from nose to tail.
Guest
Posts: n/a
All very interesting points but we must ask ourselves what it is the student is going on to become. Airlines,puddle-jumping,FFJ pilot or helicopters. Each, in my opinion would require a different intro to this 3rd dimension of ours.
I myself found the C152 a little 'faint'and the Chippy an experience that gave me a good foundation. Unfortunately I was not able to try my hands at the Harvard. Friends said it was a 'Sugar-Mommy'taking young men away from wet dreams and on to a mans job.
Now I'm with The Scarlet Pimpernel to get hold of a Chippy. Just a few grand to get one but sadly they seem to have all been taken. Something fishy about where all the military Chipmunks went.
[This message has been edited by SPACEMAN SPIFF (edited 11 March 2000).]
I myself found the C152 a little 'faint'and the Chippy an experience that gave me a good foundation. Unfortunately I was not able to try my hands at the Harvard. Friends said it was a 'Sugar-Mommy'taking young men away from wet dreams and on to a mans job.
Now I'm with The Scarlet Pimpernel to get hold of a Chippy. Just a few grand to get one but sadly they seem to have all been taken. Something fishy about where all the military Chipmunks went.
[This message has been edited by SPACEMAN SPIFF (edited 11 March 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Spacey, a lot of Chippys are locked away inside their owner's hangars ! From what is available the Chippy would be close to the top of the list.
Any trainer with aerobatic capability and a tailwheel produces a thinking pilot. Maybe all the Chippy needs is a big radial in the front (ok for Chippy maybe a small radial..)
The Tomahawk I think is the best of the nose wheel trainers, because it teaches the student to look for individual characteristics in aircraft - the Tomahawk has plenty that stand out, some quite bizarre/hilarious. (I had to ferry one and I was hooked !)
Maybe the unpredictable spin characteristcs are seen too much in terms of risk of non recovery - which comes back to spin training or lack thereof. The problem may well be what the pilot knows, or does not, and not what the aircraft does.
[This message has been edited by Vx (edited 10 March 2000).]
Any trainer with aerobatic capability and a tailwheel produces a thinking pilot. Maybe all the Chippy needs is a big radial in the front (ok for Chippy maybe a small radial..)
The Tomahawk I think is the best of the nose wheel trainers, because it teaches the student to look for individual characteristics in aircraft - the Tomahawk has plenty that stand out, some quite bizarre/hilarious. (I had to ferry one and I was hooked !)
Maybe the unpredictable spin characteristcs are seen too much in terms of risk of non recovery - which comes back to spin training or lack thereof. The problem may well be what the pilot knows, or does not, and not what the aircraft does.
[This message has been edited by Vx (edited 10 March 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
I enjoy teaching in the Tomahawk; roomy, great visability, good control/instrument layout, easy to fly. It's a good "Private Pilot take your friend for a trip in the training area aircraft". Problem is though that it really is a one performance aircraft. (Realistically) it has one take-off, one climb-out, one approach and one landing configuration. That's all that the Tomahawk's wing, flap & power combination can offer.
Students should get the whole picture during their ab-initio training, something I believe only a high wing, slotted fowler flapped aircraft can offer. And if the C150/152 is too cramped, a C172 is only a few dollars extra per hour.
I'm not sure what the case is elsewhere, but in Australia when a young low hour commercial pilot does the big trip to the bush for that first job, the check flight won't be in a Piper...
Students should get the whole picture during their ab-initio training, something I believe only a high wing, slotted fowler flapped aircraft can offer. And if the C150/152 is too cramped, a C172 is only a few dollars extra per hour.
I'm not sure what the case is elsewhere, but in Australia when a young low hour commercial pilot does the big trip to the bush for that first job, the check flight won't be in a Piper...
