Piper Tomahawk or Cessna Skyhawk?
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 20 stone instructor and student can't be that uncommon.
I think over the years there have been tens of thousands of comments along the lines of "
me how did that get off the ground" "what was the rate of climb with you two chuffers on board?" "400ft per min your taking the piss" "your tommy looked as if it had rickets when you taxied out you fat "If there is a record out there for the number of times an aircraft type has taken off way over it's MTOW the tommy has got to be in the running for it.
PS I am not advocating this practise or saying its big and hard doing it. It just seems rather common to me from ground level instructors right up to examiners who should know better.
Last edited by mad_jock; 16th Oct 2009 at 16:29.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Age: 35
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smithy, I HAVE flown in several - rather more than I wished I had.
You say Quote:
"Ah, but everyone dies in them, the tail falls off all the time, the trimmer's crap, they all fly like sheds"
My continued existence belies the first complaint. The behaviour of the tail close to the stall DOES alarm me. The other comments I would echo.
I'm not asking everyone to hate it. I fully accept that some people like it. However, I would be very wary of accusing the vast majority of those who dislike the PA38 of having never flown it, because that is calling them all liars.
Nor should you effectively demand that people have the same tastes as you in aircraft. Chacun a son gout, as our cousins on the continent say.
You say Quote:
"Ah, but everyone dies in them, the tail falls off all the time, the trimmer's crap, they all fly like sheds"
My continued existence belies the first complaint. The behaviour of the tail close to the stall DOES alarm me. The other comments I would echo.
I'm not asking everyone to hate it. I fully accept that some people like it. However, I would be very wary of accusing the vast majority of those who dislike the PA38 of having never flown it, because that is calling them all liars.
Nor should you effectively demand that people have the same tastes as you in aircraft. Chacun a son gout, as our cousins on the continent say.
I think the reason I enjoyed flying the PA38 whilst other people dislike them is that our PA38s are looked after well and unlike the neighbouring flying club's PA38s are not falling apart.
Anyway to each his/her own...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: What????
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I'm the proud and happy owner of a shared Tomahawk, does anyone know of any videos of the infamous tail-shake? I've looked all over the net but not uncovered one. I have stalled the tommy quite a few times but have never remembered to look back and I can't remember any horrific banging noises as have been reported. Our tommy is in hospital for a few weeks now so can't try it out for myself yet.
Most of the criticisms of the tomahawk do seem quite fair but the excellent visibility does it for me,
also the fact its only parked about 3 miles from my house.
Beet.
Most of the criticisms of the tomahawk do seem quite fair but the excellent visibility does it for me,
also the fact its only parked about 3 miles from my house. Beet.
like an old Skoda
I've flown one a few times because it was cheap to hire - visibility is excellent and it handles well. But the overriding impression to me was of driving an old Skoda.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PA 38-112?
Well, this digresses, but when the Piper brought them out they were....
1. Designed entirely and totally specifically as an ab initio trainer.
2. One might add that it was designed as an ab initio sea level trainer.
3. It was primarily if not entirely designed for the US market.
4. It was designed after just about every flight school in the USA had been canvassed for the design characterisctics that they would like to see in an ab initio basic and low cost trainer. This was a huge campaign on the part of Piper. They really did try.
5. Piper then conveniently forget to re write the handbook to allow for the stall characteristics of the machine and most specifically the spin and the incipient spin characteristics all of which has a slightly non standard recovery. It is designed to enter a spin if you pick a wing up at the stall with aileron. It was designed to be unforgiving, unstable even at times. If you don't know that little gem, you can flatten out thanks to the T tail. And-never look back at the T tail in a spin!
6. Some instructors were killed on them because of this.
7. The handbook was re written.
The first South African flight school (certainly on the Reef) to have Tomahawks was Grand Central Flight School, in the old days when SL was the supreme CFI and the control tower was a post box.
The Tomahawk did not perform at all well on a fine 8.000ft density altitude day and it did not take long before no one would spin them through three turns because it was just too dangerous. This was when spinning was compulsory for the PPL, let alone the Commercial.
For those in England...FAGC is at about 5,300ft pa and 30C is quite common in summer. Try and work out the climb performance in a 38/112 under those conditions. You could not get sufficient height to be legal stalling, let alone spinning. But, we were young, we were inventive and we survived!
It was quite funny because Piper had no one at Rand trained on the 112 so all the instructors, with open ratings, piled in to the Tomahawk and just started flying - no training-no briefings-not even a proper handbook.
For me, they are not an aerploane. The thing is a disgusting little barn door that can fly and I would not distinguish it by calling it a flying machine. But-the viz is fantastic, the machine is simple, it keeps cool on hot days with two doors and is easy for getting in and out. It is cheap to run and at sea level it is fine. Also, in the mid west and in Africa, the aircraft has a chance to dry out between the rain.
To get back to the question then....if money is not a problem or the price is not different-same thing I guess-fly whichever one you like but I suggest you stay with whatever you are on now until you have at least done one full solo nav ex. Perhaps even do one extra nav ex in the 172 and then do the test in that machine so that it can be part of your learning curve?
It makes no difference to any future employer as to which aircraft you trained in. Only thing is though-if you come and tell me, looking for your RHS jet job, that you are an RAF fast jet pilot, I will tell you to go and do some work with Bomber Command so that you can learn some cockpit manners.
(Taking off from carriers again!)
Well, this digresses, but when the Piper brought them out they were....
1. Designed entirely and totally specifically as an ab initio trainer.
2. One might add that it was designed as an ab initio sea level trainer.
3. It was primarily if not entirely designed for the US market.
4. It was designed after just about every flight school in the USA had been canvassed for the design characterisctics that they would like to see in an ab initio basic and low cost trainer. This was a huge campaign on the part of Piper. They really did try.
5. Piper then conveniently forget to re write the handbook to allow for the stall characteristics of the machine and most specifically the spin and the incipient spin characteristics all of which has a slightly non standard recovery. It is designed to enter a spin if you pick a wing up at the stall with aileron. It was designed to be unforgiving, unstable even at times. If you don't know that little gem, you can flatten out thanks to the T tail. And-never look back at the T tail in a spin!
6. Some instructors were killed on them because of this.
7. The handbook was re written.
The first South African flight school (certainly on the Reef) to have Tomahawks was Grand Central Flight School, in the old days when SL was the supreme CFI and the control tower was a post box.
The Tomahawk did not perform at all well on a fine 8.000ft density altitude day and it did not take long before no one would spin them through three turns because it was just too dangerous. This was when spinning was compulsory for the PPL, let alone the Commercial.
For those in England...FAGC is at about 5,300ft pa and 30C is quite common in summer. Try and work out the climb performance in a 38/112 under those conditions. You could not get sufficient height to be legal stalling, let alone spinning. But, we were young, we were inventive and we survived!
It was quite funny because Piper had no one at Rand trained on the 112 so all the instructors, with open ratings, piled in to the Tomahawk and just started flying - no training-no briefings-not even a proper handbook.
For me, they are not an aerploane. The thing is a disgusting little barn door that can fly and I would not distinguish it by calling it a flying machine. But-the viz is fantastic, the machine is simple, it keeps cool on hot days with two doors and is easy for getting in and out. It is cheap to run and at sea level it is fine. Also, in the mid west and in Africa, the aircraft has a chance to dry out between the rain.
To get back to the question then....if money is not a problem or the price is not different-same thing I guess-fly whichever one you like but I suggest you stay with whatever you are on now until you have at least done one full solo nav ex. Perhaps even do one extra nav ex in the 172 and then do the test in that machine so that it can be part of your learning curve?
It makes no difference to any future employer as to which aircraft you trained in. Only thing is though-if you come and tell me, looking for your RHS jet job, that you are an RAF fast jet pilot, I will tell you to go and do some work with Bomber Command so that you can learn some cockpit manners.
(Taking off from carriers again!)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stick to the PA38 till you've got your licence, consolidate your hours then think about converting to something a bit better suited to load carrying.
I trained in three different tomahawks and loved 'em. Later converted to C182, didn't like it and have flow Arrows ever since.
If you can land a PA 38 you can land anything. And if you're worried about the empennage during spin awareness, just don't look.
Cusco
I trained in three different tomahawks and loved 'em. Later converted to C182, didn't like it and have flow Arrows ever since.
If you can land a PA 38 you can land anything. And if you're worried about the empennage during spin awareness, just don't look.
Cusco
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a few exceptions, most who moan about the Tomahawk usually have never even flown in one
I HAVE flown, and instructed, on the Pa38, am not a fan, but then I am NOT putting Pa28s and C152s up against it (you may notice earlier in this thread I said stay on the Tommy rather than go Expensive C172)
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Myself. I have instructed in.
C150 awful
C152 cramped and sweaty
C152 with sunroof even worse than awful.
C172
C182- checkouts
Gaurda Horizon- Quite liked it actually was a bit weird winding the gear up and down.
PA38 of course
PA28- Slab wing (my preferred PA28)
PA28 the common one.
Katana
And done the 1 hour with the instructor in Robins and various PFA types which I have no clue at all what they are to this day.
The Robins seemed quite nice but I never manage to get to do ex 3-12 to see what they were really like to instruct in.
C150 awful
C152 cramped and sweaty
C152 with sunroof even worse than awful.
C172
C182- checkouts
Gaurda Horizon- Quite liked it actually was a bit weird winding the gear up and down.
PA38 of course
PA28- Slab wing (my preferred PA28)
PA28 the common one.
Katana
And done the 1 hour with the instructor in Robins and various PFA types which I have no clue at all what they are to this day.
The Robins seemed quite nice but I never manage to get to do ex 3-12 to see what they were really like to instruct in.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Oop North, UK
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to me this is the problem!
Go fly, and ideally instruct, in the Robin a bit more (the Aerobatic one for preference), Chippie, Bulldog, Beagle Pup 150 or other decent handling aircraft, then you might find that it is actually instructors with a much wider experience level who are not so keen on the Pa38 rather than those that have not flown it
Go fly, and ideally instruct, in the Robin a bit more (the Aerobatic one for preference), Chippie, Bulldog, Beagle Pup 150 or other decent handling aircraft, then you might find that it is actually instructors with a much wider experience level who are not so keen on the Pa38 rather than those that have not flown it
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately we are limited by what we are given.
Robins haven't been seen up North since that poor lad died in the cromarty Firth way before my time. And the folk in know reckon they are way to expensive and the spares are a bitch to get hold of. I think there is one used for tugging in Abyone.
But can you get them for 120 quid an hour?
There rest of them I believe are permit aircraft and unless you own them you can't train in them.
Still reckon out of the normal heaps of crap that 95% of flying schools use the tommy comes out on top.
And lets face it there are too few people like yourself who have years of experience who could teach to the full potential of the aircraft. Your average FI(R) being produced these days teaching in them will be the blind leading the blind. If the majority of FI's think the tommy is too sporty and **** themselves stalling it because it drops a wing like its meant to when you don't do it right. What hope have you got with a better performing machine.
As I said before its more about the instructor than it is about the aircraft. Even an awful C150 with a good instructor will more than out perform a PA38 with a rubbish one that's scared of it.
Robins haven't been seen up North since that poor lad died in the cromarty Firth way before my time. And the folk in know reckon they are way to expensive and the spares are a bitch to get hold of. I think there is one used for tugging in Abyone.
But can you get them for 120 quid an hour?
There rest of them I believe are permit aircraft and unless you own them you can't train in them.
Still reckon out of the normal heaps of crap that 95% of flying schools use the tommy comes out on top.
And lets face it there are too few people like yourself who have years of experience who could teach to the full potential of the aircraft. Your average FI(R) being produced these days teaching in them will be the blind leading the blind. If the majority of FI's think the tommy is too sporty and **** themselves stalling it because it drops a wing like its meant to when you don't do it right. What hope have you got with a better performing machine.
As I said before its more about the instructor than it is about the aircraft. Even an awful C150 with a good instructor will more than out perform a PA38 with a rubbish one that's scared of it.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My own experience:
PA38
PA28(-161, -181)
G115
Currently at just over 90 hours, a large proportion of which are on the '38. Still a tyro as yet, and absolutely no expert! Still have much to learn.
My only point is that from my standing the PA38's OK. Not everyone's cup of tea but that's fine. The one thing I will say is that I do challenge much of the bad publicity it gets, most of which is unwarrented nonsense... or as we Northerners say, a load of haver
Cannot comment on anything from an instructional point of view of course but from my perspective it's alright.
I like the comparison with the old Skoda. Haven't seen any of the old Estelles for years, ah what memories.
Smithy
PA38
PA28(-161, -181)
G115
Currently at just over 90 hours, a large proportion of which are on the '38. Still a tyro as yet, and absolutely no expert! Still have much to learn.
My only point is that from my standing the PA38's OK. Not everyone's cup of tea but that's fine. The one thing I will say is that I do challenge much of the bad publicity it gets, most of which is unwarrented nonsense... or as we Northerners say, a load of haver
Cannot comment on anything from an instructional point of view of course
but from my perspective it's alright.I like the comparison with the old Skoda. Haven't seen any of the old Estelles for years, ah what memories.
Smithy
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know he has 90 hours and has flown a Grob Tutor 115 which tends to tell me that he has been in the University Air Squadron.
If that is the case he is more than likely to have way more proper "to the edge of the envelope" training than most, myself included depending when he was chopped
If that is the case he is more than likely to have way more proper "to the edge of the envelope" training than most, myself included depending when he was chopped
I'm pretty sure that anybody can train in or rent a G115 at Dundee, not limited to the UAS of EFTS.
The lad that perished in the Robin up in the Cromarty Firth was a very good friend of mine, I believe that the sister ship of his aircraft suffered a similar fate.
The lad that perished in the Robin up in the Cromarty Firth was a very good friend of mine, I believe that the sister ship of his aircraft suffered a similar fate.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: .
Age: 37
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nah, just been up quite a few times with the Cadets, when I was a lad.
DO - Presume you're mainly referring to the Estelle comment... I didn't say they were fine memories
Smithy
DO - Presume you're mainly referring to the Estelle comment... I didn't say they were fine memories
Smithy
