Piper Tomahawk
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
As usual all the anti-PA38 rubbish trotted out, IF and i have to say IF the aircraft are well maintained it is a fine training aircraft, it will produce a better pilot than most of the other products from the USA.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
From: SE England
I don't understand why people should be encouraged to put up with 'average' when 'better' is readily available.
Much of a muchness really isn't it. Just do what's cheapest as far as initial training goes (as long as you receive good instruction), that would be my philosophy. Save money to fly 'better' aircraft later on
The Original Whirly
Joined: Feb 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 4,327
Likes: 2
From: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Jeez......
Like many other people, I learned to fly on the PA38. After reading some of these posts, I'm wondering how I ever managed at all!!! But I did....and then I flew them for a while, and then I moved on. And I'd happily go back to them, and not to some aircraft that other people love. We're all different.
So, Smithy, I can only agree with Airbus38's comment...
Read and learn from all these comments, but don't get caught up in all the vehement arguments. It's not wonderful, or awful; it's just an aircraft you can learn to fly on.
Like many other people, I learned to fly on the PA38. After reading some of these posts, I'm wondering how I ever managed at all!!! But I did....and then I flew them for a while, and then I moved on. And I'd happily go back to them, and not to some aircraft that other people love. We're all different.
So, Smithy, I can only agree with Airbus38's comment...
have a great flight. Don't let it get spoiled by people who try to tell you there's anything funny about the aeroplane. You will love it, like most people loved their first flight.
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 913
Likes: 1
From: somewhere in Oz
IMO you'll get better value for money and develop better habits training in an aircraft you can trim properly.
Joined: Feb 2006
Aviation Qualifications: LAME
Posts: 1,129
Likes: 168
From: Station 42
As a point of interest, the trim can be improved by the installation of a ground-adjustable tab on the right elevator. Easy enough to do: a bit of Dural and a few rivets. It's in the maintenance manual but not easy to find.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
From: SE England
...you'll get better value for money and develop better habits training in an aircraft you can trim properly.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Farm strip on the Fens in South Lincs
Hi Smithy
Firstly, let's get this fact out of the way. I own a T'Hawk, so in some peoples eyes I must be biased.
Having said that I could go on and on about the bad points of other aircraft types I've flown in the last 30 years to support my bias but I shan't.
I shall only state the facts based on experience that apply to my use of a T'Hawk.
Take off and landing distances. Often quoted in the POH and based on no wind and MAUW. My strip is 580m of rough grass (very soggy at the moment) and I fly from it on average twice a week, even in it's current state.
I take off and land within the parameters of the conditions that apply at the time and find no problems with the take off and landing distances i.e. fuel/passenger load, wind direction and speed, ground conditions.
Visabliity. As good as and in some respects better than some open cockpit types I've flown.
Comfort. Loads of room.
Performance. I believe my T'Hawk to have the highest airframe hours of any other T'Hawk on the UK register (10620) and an engine with 3100 hrs since last o/h. Does this make it a "tired aircraft", not in the slightest. I use it regularly and ask it to perform like it's fresh out of the factory gates and it does.
Value for money. Depends on where you're coming from. I had a limited budget and T'Hawk was available, so I bought it. The running costs are roughly the same as similar CofA spamcans, so no disadvantages or advantages in that respect.
Odours. Does it smell like a toilet? Not being an officianado of lavatorial smells (like someone I could mention), it smells in the cockpit when it gets damp inside but what do you expect when it sits outside in all weathers and the cockpit cover gets left off because I can't be bothered to cover it up. Strange as it may seem, the odours soon disappear and during it's smelliest periods, the aircrafts performance remains unaffected. Strange that!
Trim control. You get used to it, assuming you are of average intelligence and have a memory.
Elevator control. Rough grass strips and nosewheel assemblies are not an ideal combination but despite rumours to the contrary, I can get my nosewheel off the deck on a takeoff run at 20kts and hold it off on the landing roll until the ASI is nudging 15kts. Saves a load of unnecessary stress on the nosewheel assembly and goes to prove the elevator control is effective with little airflow over it.
Would I buy another T'Hawk? I'll stick with this one for as long as I can and when the wing life extension modification is finally approved, I shall have it installed and then have an aircraft with an 18500hr airframe life instead of the 11000hr life it currently has. I suppose I could scrap it at 11000hrs and get something else but I'm comfortable with the old girl and she deserves better than the scrapyards cutting torch.
I think the words "each to his own" applies to everyone and if you don't like toilet smells put a peg on your nose if you get in a T'Hawk or anything else that smells for that matter.
Firstly, let's get this fact out of the way. I own a T'Hawk, so in some peoples eyes I must be biased.
Having said that I could go on and on about the bad points of other aircraft types I've flown in the last 30 years to support my bias but I shan't.
I shall only state the facts based on experience that apply to my use of a T'Hawk.
Take off and landing distances. Often quoted in the POH and based on no wind and MAUW. My strip is 580m of rough grass (very soggy at the moment) and I fly from it on average twice a week, even in it's current state.
I take off and land within the parameters of the conditions that apply at the time and find no problems with the take off and landing distances i.e. fuel/passenger load, wind direction and speed, ground conditions.
Visabliity. As good as and in some respects better than some open cockpit types I've flown.
Comfort. Loads of room.
Performance. I believe my T'Hawk to have the highest airframe hours of any other T'Hawk on the UK register (10620) and an engine with 3100 hrs since last o/h. Does this make it a "tired aircraft", not in the slightest. I use it regularly and ask it to perform like it's fresh out of the factory gates and it does.
Value for money. Depends on where you're coming from. I had a limited budget and T'Hawk was available, so I bought it. The running costs are roughly the same as similar CofA spamcans, so no disadvantages or advantages in that respect.
Odours. Does it smell like a toilet? Not being an officianado of lavatorial smells (like someone I could mention), it smells in the cockpit when it gets damp inside but what do you expect when it sits outside in all weathers and the cockpit cover gets left off because I can't be bothered to cover it up. Strange as it may seem, the odours soon disappear and during it's smelliest periods, the aircrafts performance remains unaffected. Strange that!
Trim control. You get used to it, assuming you are of average intelligence and have a memory.
Elevator control. Rough grass strips and nosewheel assemblies are not an ideal combination but despite rumours to the contrary, I can get my nosewheel off the deck on a takeoff run at 20kts and hold it off on the landing roll until the ASI is nudging 15kts. Saves a load of unnecessary stress on the nosewheel assembly and goes to prove the elevator control is effective with little airflow over it.
Would I buy another T'Hawk? I'll stick with this one for as long as I can and when the wing life extension modification is finally approved, I shall have it installed and then have an aircraft with an 18500hr airframe life instead of the 11000hr life it currently has. I suppose I could scrap it at 11000hrs and get something else but I'm comfortable with the old girl and she deserves better than the scrapyards cutting torch.
I think the words "each to his own" applies to everyone and if you don't like toilet smells put a peg on your nose if you get in a T'Hawk or anything else that smells for that matter.
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
From: E Anglia
The Tomahawk is a great little aeroplane: Ok many of them are tatty , the snow comes in (really) , but the visibility is great and if you can land a PA38 well you can land anything.
Guaranteed PPL training enjoyment.
Get your instructor to spin it for you after you have a few hours and sneak a peep at the tail assembly as you plummet...............
Safe training.
Cusco
Guaranteed PPL training enjoyment.
Get your instructor to spin it for you after you have a few hours and sneak a peep at the tail assembly as you plummet...............
Safe training.
Cusco
Chocks Away!
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
From: Manchester Barton
I did a few hours training in a Tomahawk right in the beginning of my training then did the rest in a PA28.
A couple of weeks back I went back in a Tomahawk and realised how good the forward visibility was - you see a good deal of ground, which is great. I did find the trim very strange (it's basically a spring tensioner) but with all things I'm sure it's possible to get used to it.
The Tomahawk that I've seen advertised for sale seem to be very good value. In my opinion it's a good piece of kit for the money.
A couple of weeks back I went back in a Tomahawk and realised how good the forward visibility was - you see a good deal of ground, which is great. I did find the trim very strange (it's basically a spring tensioner) but with all things I'm sure it's possible to get used to it.
The Tomahawk that I've seen advertised for sale seem to be very good value. In my opinion it's a good piece of kit for the money.
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
From: A place where something is or could be located; a site.
Traumahawk
Just my 2 pennies worth:
I trained in a PA38 all the way up to PPL plus 5 hours solo from Barton. I remember one of my instructors saying that if you can land a PA38 at Barton in a 15 kt crosswind, you can land just about anything. Which means that when you nail those circuits and then change to another type, it's well easy.
Is the PA38 unstable in the stall? Yup. You HAVE to keep the A/C in balance.
Is the trim !!!!!e? Yes, but it teaches you to trim well.
Does it float for ever on the flare (compared to other 2 seaters)? Yes, but it teaches you to nail that final approach speed early on.
The visablility is fantastic and you have to work hard on your scan (for a PPL) to maintain S&L.
When you consider that it's (in my experience) by far the cheapest A/C that flying schools run, it is a fantastic A/C to do your PPL in. No regrets from me.
Just joined a PA28-181 group (beautiful A/C). A dream to fly after the Tommy.
Do your PPL with a good school as cheaply as possible. And the Tommy is cheap.
EK
I trained in a PA38 all the way up to PPL plus 5 hours solo from Barton. I remember one of my instructors saying that if you can land a PA38 at Barton in a 15 kt crosswind, you can land just about anything. Which means that when you nail those circuits and then change to another type, it's well easy.
Is the PA38 unstable in the stall? Yup. You HAVE to keep the A/C in balance.
Is the trim !!!!!e? Yes, but it teaches you to trim well.
Does it float for ever on the flare (compared to other 2 seaters)? Yes, but it teaches you to nail that final approach speed early on.
The visablility is fantastic and you have to work hard on your scan (for a PPL) to maintain S&L.
When you consider that it's (in my experience) by far the cheapest A/C that flying schools run, it is a fantastic A/C to do your PPL in. No regrets from me.
Just joined a PA28-181 group (beautiful A/C). A dream to fly after the Tommy.
Do your PPL with a good school as cheaply as possible. And the Tommy is cheap.
EK
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: AUH
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...LE%2011-06.pdf
I couldn't recommend the tommy highly enough. I did most of my PPL training in one, and bought a share after getting my PPL. It's fabulous fun; I found the quirks definitely make for a more accurate pilot. In my view, the spring loaded trim and necessary speed discipline are a plus for a trainee.
waterpau
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,089
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
PilotDAR
We're here to support and encourage each other, right?
Yes, but support does not always mean being positive, it also means sharing your concerns.
Capt Smithy has a range of comments, all of which are shared sincerely and can make a more informed decision - best of luck by the way Capt - hope you find some enjoyable "diamonds in the sky."
I am surprised that you should say that IO540 might be asked to leave a school because of poor attitude; he has strong beliefs that some find challenging, but has constantly helped his peer group on PPrune and many have benefited from ideas and research freely shared.
We're here to support and encourage each other, right?
Yes, but support does not always mean being positive, it also means sharing your concerns.
Capt Smithy has a range of comments, all of which are shared sincerely and can make a more informed decision - best of luck by the way Capt - hope you find some enjoyable "diamonds in the sky."
I am surprised that you should say that IO540 might be asked to leave a school because of poor attitude; he has strong beliefs that some find challenging, but has constantly helped his peer group on PPrune and many have benefited from ideas and research freely shared.
Yes, Final 3 greens, I do not intend to be unfairly harsh, though I do have a concern. I do not enjoy reading unsupportive "challenging" statments, within which I can find no beneficial ideas or research. For example:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"There is a pretty major difference between the two:
If you are a girl student, of reasonable (or better) looks, you are more likely to end up pregnant after 50hrs in a C150 than after 50hrs in a C152.
Ask any ATPL hour builder, and watch the grin
Both are ghastly planes, and the sooner they vanish from the GA scene the sooner we might move forward into the 20th century (notice I am being very conservative here; best to not over-innovate in this game). It's not as ghastly as the Tomahawk though
"<<<<<<<<<<<<
I just cannot see how such a statement could meet your measure of constantly helping a peer group. I can see how female pilots, C150, C152 and Tomahawk owners, and pilots, could take offense.
In the spirit of helping my peers, I shall curb my harsh observations, and concentrate on being supportive.
I do appreciate your valid opinion...
Cheers, Pilot DAR
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere between Cape Reinga and Invercargill
I flew a Pa-38 up to and including solo consolidation and had no problems.
I can vouch for the undercarriage. I did an almighty botched bounce followed by some really quite scary porpoising followed by a go-round. I did one last circuit sweating bullets thinking that I had broken something. Landed uneventfully and got back to the aero club and `fessed up to the CFI. He chuckled and mentioned that he had seen a Tomy with tyre marks on the underside of the wing. Dunno if its true but I could well believe it!
I`m a low timer , probably about an even split of 20 hours each on Pa-38 and C152. Definitely prefer refuelling a Tomy, the visibility, room (I`m 6'3") and the no-nonsense flap control. However, the 152 is way easier to land ,has a better door lock (i.e one the seems to work generally) and a nicer trim control.
The only spins I have experienced are in the 152 though the Tomy did drop a wing in the stall and accelerate quickly if not recovered smartly (flow strips installed on the one I flew).
Cheers
James
I can vouch for the undercarriage. I did an almighty botched bounce followed by some really quite scary porpoising followed by a go-round. I did one last circuit sweating bullets thinking that I had broken something. Landed uneventfully and got back to the aero club and `fessed up to the CFI. He chuckled and mentioned that he had seen a Tomy with tyre marks on the underside of the wing. Dunno if its true but I could well believe it!
I`m a low timer , probably about an even split of 20 hours each on Pa-38 and C152. Definitely prefer refuelling a Tomy, the visibility, room (I`m 6'3") and the no-nonsense flap control. However, the 152 is way easier to land ,has a better door lock (i.e one the seems to work generally) and a nicer trim control.
The only spins I have experienced are in the 152 though the Tomy did drop a wing in the stall and accelerate quickly if not recovered smartly (flow strips installed on the one I flew).
Cheers
James
Guest
Posts: n/a
Airbus
So it is unfair to talk about a "fatal flaw?"
Well I didn't, maybe you should read my post again, I said (in the context of a sub fleet of 4 particular aircraft) that "had a fatal flaw as a training platform."
i.e. the lousy trim on these 4 examples killed them as an effective training platform, I didn't impy that the PA38 is inherently dangerous.
BTW, EK4457 I disagree that learning to trim with an inaccurate trimming system delivers any useful learning.
By way of comparison, the C150 or Pup are both aircraft that are challenging to trim accurately, but which do very much create better skills as a result; the difference is that they have decent trimming mechanisms that teach the pilot to develop a better feel for what s/he is doing.
So it is unfair to talk about a "fatal flaw?"
Well I didn't, maybe you should read my post again, I said (in the context of a sub fleet of 4 particular aircraft) that "had a fatal flaw as a training platform."
i.e. the lousy trim on these 4 examples killed them as an effective training platform, I didn't impy that the PA38 is inherently dangerous.
BTW, EK4457 I disagree that learning to trim with an inaccurate trimming system delivers any useful learning.
By way of comparison, the C150 or Pup are both aircraft that are challenging to trim accurately, but which do very much create better skills as a result; the difference is that they have decent trimming mechanisms that teach the pilot to develop a better feel for what s/he is doing.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: Farm strip on the Fens in South Lincs
F3G said:
Sorry to disagree but it will teach a pilot under training to successfully cope with additional problems during a period of high cockpit activity.
All a/c types have their individual quirks and it from these that we learn to cope with the unexpected turn of events.
Show me the "perfect" training aircraft and I'll show you an aircraft that will result in people becoming complacent and easy meat for the unexpected event that kills people!
BTW, EK4457 I disagree that learning to trim with an inaccurate trimming system delivers any useful learning.
All a/c types have their individual quirks and it from these that we learn to cope with the unexpected turn of events.
Show me the "perfect" training aircraft and I'll show you an aircraft that will result in people becoming complacent and easy meat for the unexpected event that kills people!
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: Oop North, UK
Or alternatively, learn to trim in the Tomahawk and you'll never have trouble trimming again.
Good points on the Aircraft as mentioned are the vis and a nice cockpit layout,also the fact that it has a decent stall and spin.
on the bad side it has awful control harmonisation (very sensitive in pitch but poor in roll).
how me the "perfect" training aircraft and I'll show you an aircraft that will result in people becoming complacent and easy meat for the unexpected event that kills people!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rogcal
That has got to be the most illogical post I've read for some time on Proon and that's saying something!
Your obvious lack of understanding of pedagogy is so great, that there is really very little I can say, apart from you don't understand what you are talking about.
That has got to be the most illogical post I've read for some time on Proon and that's saying something!
Your obvious lack of understanding of pedagogy is so great, that there is really very little I can say, apart from you don't understand what you are talking about.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Foxmoth
Not so, IMHO an ideal training aircraft is not necesarily an aircraft that is particularly easy to fly!
Although I think you misunderstand Rogcal's comment, you do nail the issue bang on.
That's why I think that the C152 and the Pup are good tutors, they need to be flown accurately and that breeds good habits, whereas the PA28s I did a lot of my training on were rather less challenging and it was a good job that my instructor compensated by demanding perfection in areas such as trimming.
Not so, IMHO an ideal training aircraft is not necesarily an aircraft that is particularly easy to fly!
Although I think you misunderstand Rogcal's comment, you do nail the issue bang on.
That's why I think that the C152 and the Pup are good tutors, they need to be flown accurately and that breeds good habits, whereas the PA28s I did a lot of my training on were rather less challenging and it was a good job that my instructor compensated by demanding perfection in areas such as trimming.
Moderator
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,137
Likes: 38
From: Australia
I've got around 2000 hours teaching in Tomahawks and have found that they are the best (and most comfortable) training aircraft I have worked with at the ab-initio stage in terms of teaching studes good handling and attitude skills from go. The Tomahawk can be flown with the fingertips. It has sensible ergonomics. You can have a good look at all the gubbins under the bonnet. It also makes a good starter to move onto other Pipers later on in the training.
So, go for your flight, and make up your own mind. Take no notice of the doomsayers, many of whom have limited or no experience of flying them. Like so many myths in aviation, the ones that get bandied about about the Tomahawk are just that - myths. Some were allegedly part of a dirty tricks campaign by another manufacturer whose product was outsold many times over by the Tomahawk.
I'm the proud owner of serial number 6, the oldest in this country, and she goes like the clappers. Am soon to buy a "21st century Tomahawk" the Whitney Boomerang.
As with all aircraft, read the POH!
So, go for your flight, and make up your own mind. Take no notice of the doomsayers, many of whom have limited or no experience of flying them. Like so many myths in aviation, the ones that get bandied about about the Tomahawk are just that - myths. Some were allegedly part of a dirty tricks campaign by another manufacturer whose product was outsold many times over by the Tomahawk.
I'm the proud owner of serial number 6, the oldest in this country, and she goes like the clappers. Am soon to buy a "21st century Tomahawk" the Whitney Boomerang.
As with all aircraft, read the POH!