Piper Tomahawk or Cessna Skyhawk?

[Tuckerr]

Hello all,

Just a quick ask for your opinions on a decision I am going to have to make. I am currently training for my PPL (14 hours or so, going solo hopefully next week) in a Piper Tomahawk, and my flying school has just purchased some new Cessna Skyhawks (all glass cockpit etc) which obviously gives me the opportunity to train further in these new and modern aircraft. I obviously wouldn't make the transition between the two aircraft until my solo is over, but I was wondering what your opinions were on training on a full glass cockpit over the more traditional dials? Would it benefit me in anyway at all for the future (hoping to go the commercial route)?

If anybody could give me their opinons on this it would be much appreciated.

Kind regards

[172driver]

Good question. I really believe it depends on your intentions further down the line. If - as you say - commercial is in your future, then I'd go down the glass route. That way you'll become comfortable with a type of instrumentation that you will be using later on.

If, OTOH, you will continue as PPL and rent the usual rustbuckets that fly around Europe, then the steam gauges are perhaps the better idea. That said, at least in the US an increasing number of rental a/c also come with glass, so even that point may well be moot.

Personally, I'd go for the glass, as it's the way instrumentation is evolving and I'm sure it's a lot easier to get used to the 'steam driven' gauges coming from a glass cockpit, then the other way round.

One - small - word of warning, though: your profile doesn't say where you are based and which license you are training for. Should this by any chance be an FAA license in the US, then be aware that you will have to demonstrate knowledge of ALL a/c systems on the checkride - with a glass cockpit, that may well be a handful..... (disregard this para - didn't see your location as 'Sussex' when writing)

PS: I'm sure there will be all sort of people on here in a second going on about 'looking out the window', 'stopwatch and paper map', etc. Don't worry about them - the future is electronic.

[Captain Stable]

Personally I hate Tomahawks with a vengeance.

I think they're nasty, tinny little machines and I would therefore say go with the nicely-equipped Skyhawks, HOWEVER....

a) You can bet your bottom dollar (and a few more as well) that the 172 will be significantly more expensive over the amount of time you will need to complete the course and
b) There aren't many aircraft you can hire relatively cheaply that have that sort of equipment so you'll find yourself hiring stuff with clockwork steam-driven kit (and you'll need to know how to use it) unless you are prepared to fork out megabucks.

So my answer to you would be to stick with the PA38 for the majority of your training for the cost and the knowledhe but give yourself a few hours for the fun and the experience of all-glass, which IS fun

[CessnaCJM]

I think for me its a question over which is the best training aircraft - I personally like the Tomahawk for training as I think it also comes with some handling traits and vices (some I like, others I dont), and on balance I think it is more likely to make a student more 'pilot' aware than perhaps a forgiving Skyhawk.

It should also help for next steps whether it be tail wheel or onto (glass panel) spam cans - you might also need to know how to use those steam driven dials when the lights go out on your PC!

Probably the biggest difference will be in the overall cost of a licence which will should be cheaper if you do it on the PA38.

[foxmoth]

I think the above posts say most of it - no problem per se training on the Glass cockpit Cessna, but if you are learning where I think you are (Big grass field with 3 sets of runways) then the cost for the Cessnas is WAY too much to even think of it unless you have money to burn - personally if I was paying what I understand they are charging for these aircraft I would be looking for something a lot better than a 172! In fact, if I could afford it I would train on the Decathlon which I believe the same school has and is a MUCH nicer aircraft for both handling and learning PILOT HANDLING skills as opposed to learning how to "drive" an aircraft and play at Airline pilot

[Tuckerr]

Thank you for all of your quick replies, really has helped in my decision. Foxmouth, you are correct, it would be that certain airfield, and the price is certainly much higher, which I think is one of the reasons I will be sticking to the Tomahawk, even though the 172 did look some-what inviting. As you all say I think in the future I may convert over the the glass cockpit, however, at this moment in time, and still training at a relatively young age, the Tomahawk may be the best option, both financially and in terms of my training.

Again thank you all for your replies, and any more opinons would be appreciated.

[stepwilk]

Thoroughly stall a Tomahawk, and while you're in the latter stages of approaching it, look out back at the tail. You'll be amazed it stays on the airplane.

[A and C]

As usual the half truth & folk lore about the PA38 quickly appears!

At your stage of flying the PA38 is a very good trainer, I could name a number of better aircraft all at a price far above the PA38 and a glass C172 would not be one of them.

Stay with the PA38 untill you have your PPL it will be cheaper, as for all this bull about glass cockpits, if you can fly the clockwork aircraft then glass will be a piece of Cake (the B737-800 IR renewal is easy its the PA34 that makes me work!)

[BoeingMEL]

Stick with the PA38...

...until you've got your PPL! Why change a/c type half-way into your course? More expensive and more complex... and you'll prob need an extra hour two. For what? Fair enough, the Tomahawk is no Rolls - but it's not meant to be. Crack on, hone your basic flying skills and enjoy! Glass, dangly wheels and VPPs will wait for you! Good luck anyway. bm

[poss]

PA38 is good for building your handling skills and the C172 is good for navigation flights due to it been more comfortable and roomy.

[IO540]

I too hate Tomahawks. Ghastly piece of junk. Did the 1st 20hrs of my PPL in them before walking out due to spotting some awful maintenance issues under the bonnet. They were made for only about 2 years, around 1980 (too many people got killed in them) and all seem to be in a poor condition, They leak during the rain (those I used to fly had puddles on the floor) and stink like a public phone box, they leak into the tanks (I once drained out about five test beakers before any fuel started to come out, after some heavy rain), the elevator trim is a spring pushing against the yoke (in effect) and doesn't work properly... it is too lively to fly from A to B which is why instructors like them (they have an "interesting" stall behaviour where they suddenly drop a wing and since the ailerons are ineffective you have to be quick on the rudder otherwise you plummet sideways very fast. I used to enjoy doing the stalls...

I would train in the plane which you want to rent afterwards. Anything else is a waste of money - probably a waste of 20 hours' training, counting from zero not to the point of getting a PPL but to the point of getting confident to go somewhere.

[mad_jock]

Tomahawks you either love them or hate them.

The "nah there horrible and ****e" people do have points.

They do leak water and if not looked after stink of mildew. A 400quid cover sorts this out.
The trimmer is a pain in the bum especially if the clutch is a bit dodgy.

But after 800 odd hours in them they are still my favourite aircraft to teach in.

They stall properly, none of your cessna wafting down with a deranged duck nonsense. Buffet, followed by a positive nose drop. Wing dropping, yes they do if you don't do what your meant to and keep the controls centralised. Hang on isn't that what your meant to be learning anyway. But if you recover from the stall as your meant to and not hang in space fannying around with the rudder. (There are numerous safety coms about not doing this due to the number of accidents in all types). It really isn't an issue.

The handling is reasonably sporty compared to others in the same class.

Lots of shoulder room in the cockpit.

Brillant viz.

Mechanical Flaps.

Main Gear is very very forgiving. Nose wheel still needs protecting but if you keep it out of the way they soak up alot of punishment.

It was designed as a trainer, it was designed not to be a touring aircraft. It was designed to bite as an aircraft should do. It was designed to show bad technique. It was designed to be a learning environment to impart the skills required for the rest of your flying career.

Personally I think it does the job exceptionally well.

Now learning to fly and Glass. WHY WHY do you need it?

Your attention should be 95%+ outside flying by attitudes looking out the window. Having a whole load of fancy avionics inside isn't going to help the learning curve of looking out the window and flying accurately using the horizon.

Glass is great for IFR work. It doesn't really add to much to the looking out the window experience in my view.

The conversion onto other types (the C172 was the other club machine) was a really none event. Usually an hour max but because G-BCYR was such a bitch to land (it was the partially sighted leading the blind on that one) some had another hour in the circuit by request.

[IO540]

I agree 100% about "glass" being not necessary for VFR flight. I fly a 2002 TB20 with the "steam gauge" avionics and would not have glass even if somebody offered to put in a G600 for nothing. I like the maintenance flexibility, not having to fly back to a certain Garmin dealer each time something needs attending to, etc.

But my main point was a focus on what one will be flying afterwards. If one does their PPL in the same type, then one comes out with 50-60hrs (the average UK PPL time) in that type. This is priceless.

Most UK pilots do their training in Type A and then spend thousands getting used to Type B. Many give up along the way.

And I can hardly think of a type less useful for going somewhere than the Tomahawk. It is a total dead end plane.

[Captain Smithy]

Why not have a chat with your instructor and see about trying the Cessna at a later stage in your training.

I trained in a Tomahawk, still fly it regularly. I quite like it, my club's '38 is a nice example. Depends how well it's been looked after, as with all other types I suppose.

P.S. IO540...

they have an "interesting" stall behaviour where they suddenly drop a wing and since the ailerons are ineffective you have to be quick on the rudder otherwise you plummet sideways very fast

That's the point, you don't use ailerons to counter a wing drop at the stall... that's how you get into a spin...

Smithy

[Halfbaked_Boy]

Personally I'd stick with the PA38 until you've finished your PPL - my view is it's important to learn on something steam driven for the basics at least, but I do understand your temptation!

I should probably add that I have no experience or time in either PA38s or glass fitted 172s, so I'm only speculating on what I believe

[mad_jock]

I wouldn't say its thousands to get used to a C172. Although to be fair landing G-BCYR is still a bit of a challenge after 200 hours in the old girl but I think that is an airframe issue not a type. I don't know any other C172 that makes "airwolf" noises when you flare to land.

What you learn flying a tommy is just as relevant to flying a turbo prop as it is to a SEP. I use exactly the same method I teach in the tommy as I do when doing a session on stalls in the sim for a LPC. And actually my aircraft type apart from control loads has remarkably similar characteristics in the stall.

I still reckon that a PPL on a PA38 is a firm foundation to the rest of your career be it PPL or CPL. Actually thats bollocks its all about the instructor. If you have a instructor that hates them or scared of them you ain't going to get taught properly in them. So you will loose 50% of what you could gain from learning in them.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'm probably being unfashionable here, but I like the PA38 as a training aeroplane. For the following reasons;

- Good visibility
- Good ergonomics
- Mildly unforgiving handling, which breeds good flying skills
- Low wing loading, which bounces around a bit in turbulence, and again breeds good flying skills.
- Cheap to run
- Hard to break.

For my money, the C172 in its many flavours only really has the last of these advantages. It is a very safe aeroplane, but it's big, heavy, over-complex for a basic trainer, and the main handling deficiency is that the control forces are fairly high - but that doesn't necessarily make for a safe pilot when transferring to something else.

So, I'd personally stick to the Tomahawk.

G

[Captain Smithy]

With a few exceptions, most who moan about the Tomahawk usually have never even flown in one.

"Ah, but everyone dies in them, the tail falls off all the time, the trimmer's crap, they all fly like sheds" etc. seem to be common old wives' tales oft repeated.

True, the trimmer isn't as effective as other types but it seems to work well enough. I think it flies quite nicely, but you need to watch the weight.

Us Tomahawk likers seem to be a rare breed in public. Perhaps we should have our own sub-forum on PPRuNE

Smithy

[Captain Stable]

Smithy, I HAVE flown in several - rather more than I wished I had.

You say

"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.

[dont overfil]

Surely 36000 customers (up to 1986) can't be wrong?
PA38 is OK but not enough carrying capacity. The 20 stone instructor and student can't be that uncommon.
DO.