Piper Tomahawk
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper Tomahawk
Hello all, first post here, so please be gentle. Heh heh. 
I'm about to start my PPL training (just after the New Year) on the Piper Tomahawk. Being an ex-Air Cadet I have flown the Grob G115 and the Viking glider (Twin Astir), but I haven't flown anything else before.
So, has anyone here flown a Tommy? What's it like to fly? Just out of interest what sort of performance can I expect from it, e.g. climb rate, cruise etc.
Also, the Tutor and Viking I flew in the Cadets has a stick... never flown with a yoke before... how does a yoke compare to a stick, does it make the aeroplane feel a bit different to fly?
Any other comments about the Tommy would be welcome.
Cheers
Smithy from EDI
I'm about to start my PPL training (just after the New Year) on the Piper Tomahawk. Being an ex-Air Cadet I have flown the Grob G115 and the Viking glider (Twin Astir), but I haven't flown anything else before.
So, has anyone here flown a Tommy? What's it like to fly? Just out of interest what sort of performance can I expect from it, e.g. climb rate, cruise etc.
Also, the Tutor and Viking I flew in the Cadets has a stick... never flown with a yoke before... how does a yoke compare to a stick, does it make the aeroplane feel a bit different to fly?
Any other comments about the Tommy would be welcome.
Cheers
Smithy from EDI
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a ghastly aeroplane, which is why most instructors like it 
It's stall behaviour makes it good value for money compared to a hairy fairground ride.
You will not want to (or be able to, probably) rent it when you have your PPL, so why train on it? Train on something similar to what you will be renting later. That simple decision will save you £ four figures later on and you will end up being a reasonably proficient pilot on your first solo outings, having had 50-60hrs on the type, rather than trying to get used to a new type, as well as everything else you have to do.
Currency on type is 90% of the job in flying.
All PA38s I have flown in (I have 20 or so hrs on them) also happened to be in terrible condition, with leaking seals, full of water, smelling like a public loo, and had a useless elevator trim. Trim is another very important thing in flying, affecting pilot workload substantially. I walked out of that school eventually, having got sick of appalling maintenance practices where bare wires were left hanging out in the engine compartment.
It's stall behaviour makes it good value for money compared to a hairy fairground ride.You will not want to (or be able to, probably) rent it when you have your PPL, so why train on it? Train on something similar to what you will be renting later. That simple decision will save you £ four figures later on and you will end up being a reasonably proficient pilot on your first solo outings, having had 50-60hrs on the type, rather than trying to get used to a new type, as well as everything else you have to do.
Currency on type is 90% of the job in flying.
All PA38s I have flown in (I have 20 or so hrs on them) also happened to be in terrible condition, with leaking seals, full of water, smelling like a public loo, and had a useless elevator trim. Trim is another very important thing in flying, affecting pilot workload substantially. I walked out of that school eventually, having got sick of appalling maintenance practices where bare wires were left hanging out in the engine compartment.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE England
Age: 50
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disagree...what's so bad about it?
1) It's cheap to rent.
2) If you think the stall characteristics are bad, it's because you don't know how to fly in balance. If you approach the stall trying to keep the wings level with aileron, it does tend to drop a wing. If you use the rudder (which the OP is far more likely to do if he's flown gliders) it doesn't even seem to give you anything to worry about.
3) It cruises around 90, which is hardly earth shattering but hey...in the long run it's not that much slower than your PA28s.
4) Loads of fuel in the tanks....at least 4-4 1/2 hours (I've not pushed it to the max but anyone who has feel free to confirm this.)
5) Again, it's cheap to rent.
6) Plenty of force on controls....this is a personal preference one, but personally I like it.
In response to the OP, flying with a yoke is funny at first having done time with a stick. But to be honest it just becomes second nature after a while and you don't really notice it. I fly with a stick about 60% of the time and prefer it, but the yoke is intuitive enough so shouldn't cause too many problems.
1) It's cheap to rent.
2) If you think the stall characteristics are bad, it's because you don't know how to fly in balance. If you approach the stall trying to keep the wings level with aileron, it does tend to drop a wing. If you use the rudder (which the OP is far more likely to do if he's flown gliders) it doesn't even seem to give you anything to worry about.
3) It cruises around 90, which is hardly earth shattering but hey...in the long run it's not that much slower than your PA28s.
4) Loads of fuel in the tanks....at least 4-4 1/2 hours (I've not pushed it to the max but anyone who has feel free to confirm this.)
5) Again, it's cheap to rent.
6) Plenty of force on controls....this is a personal preference one, but personally I like it.
In response to the OP, flying with a yoke is funny at first having done time with a stick. But to be honest it just becomes second nature after a while and you don't really notice it. I fly with a stick about 60% of the time and prefer it, but the yoke is intuitive enough so shouldn't cause too many problems.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: EGLL 270° 4DME
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and that it can flick into a spin a bit easily at the stall. My eyes were practically glued to the ASI for the whole flight!I would go for the PA28. Can't go wrong on that. Not much more expensive at most places, perhaps cheaper if you do training on a Diesel Piper Cadet.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 10 west
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
=Captain Smithy;
how does a yoke compare to a stick, does it make the aeroplane feel a bit different to fly?
Any other comments about the Tommy would be welcome.
Cheers
Smithy from EDI
how does a yoke compare to a stick, does it make the aeroplane feel a bit different to fly?
Any other comments about the Tommy would be welcome.
Cheers
Smithy from EDI
hi smithy,
i instructed in PA 38s for 12 years..never a problem instructing to CPL/IR/FI...with thousand of hours on type.
good leg room,visibility and handling.
do'nt believe all you may have heard about its spin charactics. we used them in a school for 20 years while spining was still part to the course without a problem.
of course the yoke is a bit different than a stick but not as much as will bother you after a few lwssons.
as far as i recall delivered 750 ft/min at sea level...standard conditions...to about 2000 feet.
due to the T tail elevator stick forced are a bit lighter than C150 and if you're used to flying something with a snout on it you will notice what looks like a noticeable nose down attitude in level flight.
all in all nice plane. had many happy hours in them.
mind you...check the figures but my recollection is if you have full tanks and two average people you may be over gross take off weight..!!
if you want more specifics...PM me...
good luck.
the dean.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheers for the replies guys... just wanted to find out a bit more about the aeroplane. I look forward to flying her and seeing what I make of it.
The reason I went for the PA38 is that, as Airbus 38 stated, it's cheap... the club I'll be flying with has a PA38 and a Warrior, although they only use the Warrior if you're above a certain weight... obviously the Warrior costs more than the Tommy to fly. And anyway, I'm a skinny runt, bit of a short arse, just under 5' 6"/9 st, so I'll be fine in the PA38. And it won't cost as much. Hopefully. If I'm OK at the training
Cheers
Smithy from EDI
The reason I went for the PA38 is that, as Airbus 38 stated, it's cheap... the club I'll be flying with has a PA38 and a Warrior, although they only use the Warrior if you're above a certain weight... obviously the Warrior costs more than the Tommy to fly. And anyway, I'm a skinny runt, bit of a short arse, just under 5' 6"/9 st, so I'll be fine in the PA38. And it won't cost as much. Hopefully. If I'm OK at the training
Cheers
Smithy from EDI
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 10 west
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=Bandit650;3005062]
and that it can flick into a spin a bit easily at the stall.
not so in my experience bandit...
we had to work at getting it into a spin cleanly and there is a particular technique to it that works 9/10 times..
mind you like some others it may like to spiral instead of spin sometimes ...sooooo...in the autorotation stage and before heading downhill rapido...check the ASI...if the speed is rapidly increasing ...time to make plans to return to leven flight GENTLY...
...and start again..
dean.
and that it can flick into a spin a bit easily at the stall.
not so in my experience bandit...
we had to work at getting it into a spin cleanly and there is a particular technique to it that works 9/10 times..
mind you like some others it may like to spiral instead of spin sometimes ...sooooo...in the autorotation stage and before heading downhill rapido...check the ASI...if the speed is rapidly increasing
...time to make plans to return to leven flight GENTLY... ...and start again..dean.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the better of the 'spam cans'. Much less boring that the PA28, with reasonable handling and a realistic stall. More roomy that the C152, and with better visibility.
The T tail is a silly fashion thing. It means the elevator is out of propwash during T/O, so little elevator response until a reasonable airspeed has been reached. When it rotates, the elevator enters the propwash and becomes more lively, so it gives a non-liear response.
Also, putting the horizontal tail on top of the fin means the fin has to be stronger than usual to take the pitch forces, so it's heavier. In an attempt to alleviate this disadvantage, the PA38 has a short fuselage so that extra weight doesn't have too long a moment arm. This means the fin is less effective and directional stability is compromised. All PA38s wag their tails in all but the smoothest air as a result. You can actually see this from the ground as they fly overhead.
But - I prefer them to the PA28 or C150. They are more fun. You will enjoy doing your PPL on them.
All yokes in small, lively aeroplanes detract from the handling to some extent. There is nothing like a stick for a quick and direct control input. Yokes are well suited to touring and transpoert machines, where large and rapid control inputs are rare.
SSD
The T tail is a silly fashion thing. It means the elevator is out of propwash during T/O, so little elevator response until a reasonable airspeed has been reached. When it rotates, the elevator enters the propwash and becomes more lively, so it gives a non-liear response.
Also, putting the horizontal tail on top of the fin means the fin has to be stronger than usual to take the pitch forces, so it's heavier. In an attempt to alleviate this disadvantage, the PA38 has a short fuselage so that extra weight doesn't have too long a moment arm. This means the fin is less effective and directional stability is compromised. All PA38s wag their tails in all but the smoothest air as a result. You can actually see this from the ground as they fly overhead.
But - I prefer them to the PA28 or C150. They are more fun. You will enjoy doing your PPL on them.
All yokes in small, lively aeroplanes detract from the handling to some extent. There is nothing like a stick for a quick and direct control input. Yokes are well suited to touring and transpoert machines, where large and rapid control inputs are rare.
SSD
One of my favourite aeroplanes, although I don't get to fly them often.
Excellent visibility and ergonomics, with adequate (not good) performance - it does drop a wing somewhat at the stall it must be admitted, and the pitch feel makes it feel that the aircraft is permanently slightly out of the forward CG limits.
Performance figures:
Short field take-off distance: 445m
Short field landing distance: 471m
Climb rate: 720 fpm
Glide performance 8:1
I'd certainly much rather fly a PA38 than a C152, and you don't need a 4-seater to learn to fly in - go for it.
G
Excellent visibility and ergonomics, with adequate (not good) performance - it does drop a wing somewhat at the stall it must be admitted, and the pitch feel makes it feel that the aircraft is permanently slightly out of the forward CG limits.
Performance figures:
Short field take-off distance: 445m
Short field landing distance: 471m
Climb rate: 720 fpm
Glide performance 8:1
I'd certainly much rather fly a PA38 than a C152, and you don't need a 4-seater to learn to fly in - go for it.
G
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much less boring that the PA28, with reasonable handling and a realistic stall. More roomy that the C152, and with better visibility.
I learned on Tomahawks, and hired them for a year and had great fun flying all over the country. They're fun. I then changed clubs, and converted to the C152 in a couple of hours - really no big deal.
So have fun!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel I must post in defence of the humble 'Tommy' !!
Its a lovely little aircraft, its easy to fly, and at my club its quite a bit cheaper than the PA28. Its a great little training aircraft and you'll enjoy doing your PPL in one. Cant agree about it being easy to spin though...never managed to get it to spin yet
Good luck with your PPL !
Its a lovely little aircraft, its easy to fly, and at my club its quite a bit cheaper than the PA28. Its a great little training aircraft and you'll enjoy doing your PPL in one. Cant agree about it being easy to spin though...never managed to get it to spin yet
Good luck with your PPL !
Moderator
Hi Smithy,
The Tomahawk is a fine trainer, go and enjoy it! Yes it is different from the C152 in the way it handles, but it has merits of its own, and when you become competent on both types, you will be well skilled to transition to a wide variety of types.
I agree with all of the positive comments presented here. The only caution with respect to the type will not apply to you, and that is that even a very experienced pilot should be checked out on its takeoff handling before going solo. They will easily get into a pilot induced oscillation (PIO), and you can bang the nosewheel hard. Having lots of "T" tail Arrow time, I jumped into one alone, and startled myself during takeoff. It was successful but not profesional looking! Once I got used to its different handling, I had no problem going in and out of a 1500' grass runway. It is very roomy, and as said, excellent visibility. It will also accelerate very quickly when pointed down. Fun if you're dog fighting, but un-nerving if you're recovering from unusual attitudes!
The "T" tail is cool looking, but perhaps not the best idea in hindsight - it's also hard to brush clean of snow or frost, should that be a factor in your flying. Winter is a reason they are not as common in Canada - low wing types are less happy with snow banks beside runways, taxiways and tiedown spaces.
Don't pay any attention to those who's messages describe aircraft with words like "gastly". It' sound to me like such people are unhappy to be involved in flying, and attempting to discourage others as well.
Oh, and by the way, (IO 540) poor maintenance, though it certainly affects a particular aircraft, is not the fault of the design, or a characteristic of all aircraft of that type! IO 540, when you eventually walked out of that flying school, was it because they asked you to leave? Poor attitude perhaps? What aircraft type do you own?
We're here to support and encourage each other, right?
Smithy, go and have fun. Find an instructor who really enjoys teaching, and learn all the skills you can. Listen to all of the helpful comments of your peers.
It is my opinion that the only "trauma" in a well maintianed Tomahawk, is a closed minded pilot. If my home runway were not a "rough field", with snow banks at both sides a few months of the year, I'd be very happy to own a Tomahawk.
Cheers, Pilot DAR
The Tomahawk is a fine trainer, go and enjoy it! Yes it is different from the C152 in the way it handles, but it has merits of its own, and when you become competent on both types, you will be well skilled to transition to a wide variety of types.
I agree with all of the positive comments presented here. The only caution with respect to the type will not apply to you, and that is that even a very experienced pilot should be checked out on its takeoff handling before going solo. They will easily get into a pilot induced oscillation (PIO), and you can bang the nosewheel hard. Having lots of "T" tail Arrow time, I jumped into one alone, and startled myself during takeoff. It was successful but not profesional looking! Once I got used to its different handling, I had no problem going in and out of a 1500' grass runway. It is very roomy, and as said, excellent visibility. It will also accelerate very quickly when pointed down. Fun if you're dog fighting, but un-nerving if you're recovering from unusual attitudes!
The "T" tail is cool looking, but perhaps not the best idea in hindsight - it's also hard to brush clean of snow or frost, should that be a factor in your flying. Winter is a reason they are not as common in Canada - low wing types are less happy with snow banks beside runways, taxiways and tiedown spaces.
Don't pay any attention to those who's messages describe aircraft with words like "gastly". It' sound to me like such people are unhappy to be involved in flying, and attempting to discourage others as well.
Oh, and by the way, (IO 540) poor maintenance, though it certainly affects a particular aircraft, is not the fault of the design, or a characteristic of all aircraft of that type! IO 540, when you eventually walked out of that flying school, was it because they asked you to leave? Poor attitude perhaps? What aircraft type do you own?
We're here to support and encourage each other, right?
Smithy, go and have fun. Find an instructor who really enjoys teaching, and learn all the skills you can. Listen to all of the helpful comments of your peers.
It is my opinion that the only "trauma" in a well maintianed Tomahawk, is a closed minded pilot. If my home runway were not a "rough field", with snow banks at both sides a few months of the year, I'd be very happy to own a Tomahawk.
Cheers, Pilot DAR
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
g45
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now now guys, let's not turn this thread in to a flame-fest, eh?
Grow45, I know what you mean. I visited the EFC a few weeks back and I was very happy to learn that the club is very friendly and helpful. I spoke to the CFI - a very nice chap indeed.
Thanks for the encouragement, too. I most certainly look forward to my first lesson... it was originally meant to be 2 weeks ago, but a nasty bout of Flu and awful weather had me grounded. D'oh!
Smithy
Grow45, I know what you mean. I visited the EFC a few weeks back and I was very happy to learn that the club is very friendly and helpful. I spoke to the CFI - a very nice chap indeed.
Thanks for the encouragement, too. I most certainly look forward to my first lesson... it was originally meant to be 2 weeks ago, but a nasty bout of Flu and awful weather had me grounded. D'oh!
Smithy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Short field take-off distance: 445m
Short field landing distance: 471m
Climb rate: 720 fpm
Glide performance 8:1
When new?
I walked away from this type as the fleet at my first school were tired hangar queens that struggled to deliver a climb rate of 500fpm, generally looked like sh*t and had a fatal flaw as a training platform.
They were clearly aircraft engineered to do a job at a cost (fair enough), but were past their sell by date and provided a poor learning environment.
My main beef with the aircraft was that the trimming system was vague and difficult for a student to use. I only flew fleet of 4 and this is a small % of the whole fleet, but IMHO, it was enough for me to consider these particular aircraft not fit for the purpose intended. Somethng for Capt Smithy to be aware of.
If you read Whirlybird's comments about landing the PA28 (which I completely disagree with BTW, I took them in and out of short fields from well under 100 hrs, without any problems), then the importance of learning how to trim out an aircraft to deliver the intended performance is an absolutely crucial skill and needs to become second nature.
A light PA28 (especially a tapered wing version) needs accurate speed control to deliver book performance and trimming has a vital role in this respect. Also, the amount of "pull" on the yoke required during the flare can be quite large and inaccurate trimming (on the fast side) will only increase the effect.
Short field landing distance: 471m
Climb rate: 720 fpm
Glide performance 8:1
When new?
I walked away from this type as the fleet at my first school were tired hangar queens that struggled to deliver a climb rate of 500fpm, generally looked like sh*t and had a fatal flaw as a training platform.
They were clearly aircraft engineered to do a job at a cost (fair enough), but were past their sell by date and provided a poor learning environment.
My main beef with the aircraft was that the trimming system was vague and difficult for a student to use. I only flew fleet of 4 and this is a small % of the whole fleet, but IMHO, it was enough for me to consider these particular aircraft not fit for the purpose intended. Somethng for Capt Smithy to be aware of.
If you read Whirlybird's comments about landing the PA28 (which I completely disagree with BTW, I took them in and out of short fields from well under 100 hrs, without any problems), then the importance of learning how to trim out an aircraft to deliver the intended performance is an absolutely crucial skill and needs to become second nature.
A light PA28 (especially a tapered wing version) needs accurate speed control to deliver book performance and trimming has a vital role in this respect. Also, the amount of "pull" on the yoke required during the flare can be quite large and inaccurate trimming (on the fast side) will only increase the effect.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 7th Dec 2006 at 03:24.
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
The two and a half hours I have in a PA38 might not be enough to make an informed judgement, but I would describe it as 'adequate' rather than 'satisfactory'.
I'm glad I am not alone in having a sudden and less than pleasant surprise upon rotation. After a Worrier, the Traumahawk felt way too unpredictable in pitch during take-off.
And the trim is just woeful!
How can the company that brought us the delightful Cub curse the flight training industry with such an inauspicious aircraft?
I'm glad I am not alone in having a sudden and less than pleasant surprise upon rotation. After a Worrier, the Traumahawk felt way too unpredictable in pitch during take-off.
And the trim is just woeful!
How can the company that brought us the delightful Cub curse the flight training industry with such an inauspicious aircraft?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE England
Age: 50
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nobody is claiming it is delightful or auspicious. It's a good, sturdy, cheap training aircraft. So it has its idiosyncrasies...so what?
Would you turn down a flight in a Spitfire because you can't see over the nose while taxying? Would you turn your nose up at the Chipmunk because it gets covered in oil and needs a good clean after every flight? Or because taildraggers are harder to land? It's your shout.
Everybody has their own preference, and just as I won't criticise aircraft that are more benign, it's unfair to try to tell somebody that this aircraft has a 'fatal flaw'. I can't swear to the accident stats, but I'm pretty sure it's no more or less fatal than anything else. The 'fatal flaw' is the person signing as captain, they cause the accident. Andy - If you got in a muddle with the take-off, then maybe I'm sticking my neck out but how much practice did you get before signing as P1? Did the aircraft cause the surprise or did you just pull too hard/too soon? It's not a criticism, just an observation.
Smithy - mate, 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. With proper training, this is an ideal aircraft to start on. Yes, maybe in a few more hours you'll realise the trim system is dire (that's one thing I'm sure we can all agree on!) but it won't remotely affect your enjoyment, just add to the challenge.
Would you turn down a flight in a Spitfire because you can't see over the nose while taxying? Would you turn your nose up at the Chipmunk because it gets covered in oil and needs a good clean after every flight? Or because taildraggers are harder to land? It's your shout.
Everybody has their own preference, and just as I won't criticise aircraft that are more benign, it's unfair to try to tell somebody that this aircraft has a 'fatal flaw'. I can't swear to the accident stats, but I'm pretty sure it's no more or less fatal than anything else. The 'fatal flaw' is the person signing as captain, they cause the accident. Andy - If you got in a muddle with the take-off, then maybe I'm sticking my neck out but how much practice did you get before signing as P1? Did the aircraft cause the surprise or did you just pull too hard/too soon? It's not a criticism, just an observation.
Smithy - mate, 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. With proper training, this is an ideal aircraft to start on. Yes, maybe in a few more hours you'll realise the trim system is dire (that's one thing I'm sure we can all agree on!) but it won't remotely affect your enjoyment, just add to the challenge.
Airbus,
No I wouldn't turn down a go in a Chippie, or a Spitfire (or a Pitts or a Tiger Moth etc...) All of them have their down sides but all of them have massively redeeming features - I think it's called character.
The Tommahawk has few redeeming features - price is probably its most.
My first (and maybe last) flight in a PA38 was a day before my GFT so I was with an instructor. The Worrier had expired its 150 hourly, and I desperately needed some instrument time. I was very much in the PA28 groove, which IME requires quite solid control inputs to get it off the ground. Not so with a PA38, in pitch anyway!
I think the only fatal flaw with the Tommahawk is that there are better choices of aircraft out there. I don't understand why people should be encouraged to put up with 'average' when 'better' is readily available.
A
No I wouldn't turn down a go in a Chippie, or a Spitfire (or a Pitts or a Tiger Moth etc...) All of them have their down sides but all of them have massively redeeming features - I think it's called character.
The Tommahawk has few redeeming features - price is probably its most.
My first (and maybe last) flight in a PA38 was a day before my GFT so I was with an instructor. The Worrier had expired its 150 hourly, and I desperately needed some instrument time. I was very much in the PA28 groove, which IME requires quite solid control inputs to get it off the ground. Not so with a PA38, in pitch anyway!
I think the only fatal flaw with the Tommahawk is that there are better choices of aircraft out there. I don't understand why people should be encouraged to put up with 'average' when 'better' is readily available.
A