Piper Tomahawk Vs Cessna 152 Vs Cessna 172
I would have hoped someone would have had some experience on the Boomerang by now
Last edited by YPJT; 1st Feb 2010 at 08:22.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ??
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 ??
Can't be all bad then?
Tommy was still a much better effort than the skipper.
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.
Tommy was still a much better effort than the skipper.
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.
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.
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.
Moderator
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Horsham
Age: 42
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by baron_beeza; 3rd Feb 2010 at 18:53.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: At home
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What ever is cheapest!
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ENZED
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trusty Cessna 152 gets my vote.
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.
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
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.
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
You don't learn to stall an aircraft! You learn how to control an aircraft so you don't unintentionally stall it.
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Moderator
@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.
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.
Sure, but it had real velour high-back seats, imitation wood-grain in the panel, and "proper" door handles, so...
Seriously, did they have the same handling characteristics? Critical aerofoil?
Serious question.