Piper Tomahawk Vs Cessna 152 Vs Cessna 172
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Age: 40
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper Tomahawk Vs Cessna 152 Vs Cessna 172
Hello Everyone ,
I am taking up flight training in Feb and wanted to get your opinion on which aircraft is better to train in first and what the reason is ..
I see most of the school train everyone in 172's or 152's. Only few are training in Tomahawk so wanted to get youy opinion on it
thanks in advance
I am taking up flight training in Feb and wanted to get your opinion on which aircraft is better to train in first and what the reason is ..
I see most of the school train everyone in 172's or 152's. Only few are training in Tomahawk so wanted to get youy opinion on it
thanks in advance
152-sardine tin.
Tomahawk-much maligned, but will actually teach you how to stall properly.
Many people find it easier to transition to low wing from high when it comes to landings, but when it comes down to it, they all fly the same way.
Tomahawk-much maligned, but will actually teach you how to stall properly.
Many people find it easier to transition to low wing from high when it comes to landings, but when it comes down to it, they all fly the same way.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tomahawk has to be one of the most gutless, slow arse things that ever "flew" and I use the term loosely. It only gets off the ground thanks to the curvature of the earth and could easily be called a 'concrete sparrow' but It teaches u how to fly quite nicely cos as the captain says, it teaches u how to stall. Those things do the most fantastic wingdrop ive ever seen a plane do. Huge amounts of fun!! They're built like a brick Sh*thouse too so you'll struggle to break it. The 172s and 152s are all a bit too easy really.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hotel, Crew Bus, Flight Deck, Hotel
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to instruct on both. I did not like the 152, Very narrow and cramped.
I prefered the PA38 and still go for a fly in one occasionally.
The 172 is the nicest of the three you mentioned, but at 160Hp it would be the most expensive to learn on.
I prefered the PA38 and still go for a fly in one occasionally.
The 172 is the nicest of the three you mentioned, but at 160Hp it would be the most expensive to learn on.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it has to be a 152, great little aircraft, high wing, doesnt obscure ground features on nav. ex's!. the tomahawk is a nasty little thing to be avoided.
i even did my commercial GFT & 1179 on the 152, easy flight test, and cheap too,the more basic the better.
i even did my commercial GFT & 1179 on the 152, easy flight test, and cheap too,the more basic the better.
Last edited by memories of px; 31st Jan 2010 at 21:12.
The 152 is the best option for reason of price/availability/ease to fly.
I've found it very easy to teach the basics in the 152 and the stall spin characteristics require attention without being dangerous. If you have access to a 152 aerobat then you can explore even further (with an instructor on board). A student could be talked through their very first flight without much instructor control input at all. Very defined attitudes and good predictable stability allow it to be trimmed well especially in the circuit. Downsides include limited cabin space and performance issues (which can be of benefit).
I would assume the 172 would be more expensive and is also a little harder to land with just two up front. This would apply equally to a PA28 which i would regard as the easiest aircraft ever to fly.
The tomahawk is a rare aircraft in Australia so only a handful of schools operate them, this could mean a conversion to another type if they sell their only one or you move schools.
I've found it very easy to teach the basics in the 152 and the stall spin characteristics require attention without being dangerous. If you have access to a 152 aerobat then you can explore even further (with an instructor on board). A student could be talked through their very first flight without much instructor control input at all. Very defined attitudes and good predictable stability allow it to be trimmed well especially in the circuit. Downsides include limited cabin space and performance issues (which can be of benefit).
I would assume the 172 would be more expensive and is also a little harder to land with just two up front. This would apply equally to a PA28 which i would regard as the easiest aircraft ever to fly.
The tomahawk is a rare aircraft in Australia so only a handful of schools operate them, this could mean a conversion to another type if they sell their only one or you move schools.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're built like a brick Sh*thouse too so you'll struggle to break it.
As a Grade-1 instructor I got checked out on one a few years back, for the purpose of doing some flying with a student in the midst of his instructor rating. I subsequently logged 0.7 of an hour with the student, before politely advising him that I'd had enough of a scare (not because of anything the student was doing), and would be quite happy to return to the field & reimburse him for his troubles. It has to be the most God-awful aeroplane I have ever flown in my life.
Cynical
I would agree - of the aircraft I can think of in that class (not the C172, which is a step above) the Grob 115 is the best of them.
..now that thing is solid.
It is everything the Tommy should have been, and although 100 kg heavier it is still the fastest in its class.
...try finding one for training though!
..now that thing is solid.
It is everything the Tommy should have been, and although 100 kg heavier it is still the fastest in its class.
...try finding one for training though!
This is a bit like the Holden vs Ford argument, there are pros and cons for both.
Yes there are more C152s about, in fact they outnumber Tomahawks about 3 to 1 on the register. There is an approved spar mod available with will add enough life to the airframe to see it being taken out of service for other reasons rather than it's wing spar.
Underpowered? Both C152 and PA-38 have the O235 engine and have very similar MTOWs. Neither will perform well if loaded to max on a hot day.
As for the old chestnut of the wobbling tale. Well if you have a look at most aircraft in the runup bay or even larger T-Tail jets during reverse thrust and breaking - guess what, the tail wobbles a bit more than the rest of the fueselage.
I know some instructors who have thousands of hours in PA-38s and are more than happy to do more and none have ever spooked themselves.
I did my ab-anitio in a C152 up first solo and GFPT. Have logged quite a few hours since in a PA-38 and more than happy to fly either. PA-38 wins hands down though in terms of internal space as you don't have to fly bow legged to keep your knees away from the control yoke.
Yes there are more C152s about, in fact they outnumber Tomahawks about 3 to 1 on the register. There is an approved spar mod available with will add enough life to the airframe to see it being taken out of service for other reasons rather than it's wing spar.
Underpowered? Both C152 and PA-38 have the O235 engine and have very similar MTOWs. Neither will perform well if loaded to max on a hot day.
As for the old chestnut of the wobbling tale. Well if you have a look at most aircraft in the runup bay or even larger T-Tail jets during reverse thrust and breaking - guess what, the tail wobbles a bit more than the rest of the fueselage.
I know some instructors who have thousands of hours in PA-38s and are more than happy to do more and none have ever spooked themselves.
I did my ab-anitio in a C152 up first solo and GFPT. Have logged quite a few hours since in a PA-38 and more than happy to fly either. PA-38 wins hands down though in terms of internal space as you don't have to fly bow legged to keep your knees away from the control yoke.
Last edited by YPJT; 31st Jan 2010 at 23:40.
It won't make a significant difference what type you learn on. It will make a significant difference WHO teaches you. I suggest you worry more about that side.
The intention is not too learn to stall an aircraft. The intention is to learn the symptoms of an impending stall and the recovery tecnique.
The intention is not too learn to stall an aircraft. The intention is to learn the symptoms of an impending stall and the recovery tecnique.
KINGPIN, the biggest challenge for you may be sorting out the BS written in here!
I learned in the C150 and have instructed in the C152 and the Tommyaxe. I don't think of the C172 as an ab initio trainer!
If it came to chosing between the 152 and the Tommyaxe, I would be more interested in the intructor than the aeroplane. That said, however, I think those who do their ab initio in the C150/152 generally have better technique than those who learn on low wing aircraft.
As for spin training, yes I have spun both and the Tommyaxe can be exciting, but the only reason to do spin training is for confidence building and as part of an aerobatics endorsement.
I wonder how many spin trained pilots have actually recovered from an inadvertent spin that occured in circumstances where they weren't at least anticipating the possibility? Very few, I suspect!
The focus of ab initio training should be on flying the aeroplane such that there is NO likelihood of it ever entering an inadvertent stall/spin!
Dr
I learned in the C150 and have instructed in the C152 and the Tommyaxe. I don't think of the C172 as an ab initio trainer!
If it came to chosing between the 152 and the Tommyaxe, I would be more interested in the intructor than the aeroplane. That said, however, I think those who do their ab initio in the C150/152 generally have better technique than those who learn on low wing aircraft.
As for spin training, yes I have spun both and the Tommyaxe can be exciting, but the only reason to do spin training is for confidence building and as part of an aerobatics endorsement.
I wonder how many spin trained pilots have actually recovered from an inadvertent spin that occured in circumstances where they weren't at least anticipating the possibility? Very few, I suspect!
The focus of ab initio training should be on flying the aeroplane such that there is NO likelihood of it ever entering an inadvertent stall/spin!
Dr
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much of a muchness really. All have slightly different flight characteristics but in the main, there's not much difference.
As a few of the posters have indicated, the main thing is WHO is doing you're instruction.
Find a decent school/instructor and you may as well fly an ultralight!
Not a bad idea really now that I think about it!
As a few of the posters have indicated, the main thing is WHO is doing you're instruction.
Find a decent school/instructor and you may as well fly an ultralight!
Not a bad idea really now that I think about it!
I taught people to fly on all three types and would say that the Tomahawk is the best one to learn in, as it teaches the best habits. It's also far more comfortable than the 152 (says me, being 1.97 metres tall) and as mentioned above will demonstrate a stall far better than the Cessna's will.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did Private in Musketeer (low wing- not many about now), Commercial in Victa, Cherokee 140 and 172, and Instructed on Victa, 140 and 172, and stalled and spun them (within limits- spiral dive for Victa) all. Remember a time in the Musketeer with Tony Snell, when the windscreen was filled with the Show at the Showground, way below, when he let me go, and I tried to pick up a downgoing wing at the point of stall with aileron.. "You won't do that again" - as we recovered above 3,000 feet. "No Sir". never have.
Taught my students all about stalls and recoveries, etc, because NOTHING make ME more nervous than flaring too high, and slowing, with the one responsible doing nothing about it.. Those types aren't used much now.. pity..
Fly what is now used and is affordable, but get to know it so it won't bite.
Taught my students all about stalls and recoveries, etc, because NOTHING make ME more nervous than flaring too high, and slowing, with the one responsible doing nothing about it.. Those types aren't used much now.. pity..
Fly what is now used and is affordable, but get to know it so it won't bite.
Last edited by frigatebird; 1st Feb 2010 at 02:00. Reason: 3,000
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Perth
Age: 49
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would also like to know what the Boomerang feels like, and perhaps the Diamond DA 20 as well? Coming from higher density altitudes than where I am know, all my friends trained on 172's, and as self loading cargo that is what I got used to. Enjoyed time in Cherokee's as well, and obviously larger aircraft. Because of of these experiences (relating to hot & high conditions and aircraft age) I will try to stay away from 150's when I do my PPL - admittedly a subjective opinion.