Piper Tomahawk
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
Done to death on here but yes I do think it the best out of the run of the mill normal flying school machines.
It isn't perfect but its good points more than make up for its bad.
Folk either love them or hate them. If Piper was ever to produce a new tommy a suitable name for the Brit market would be the "Piper Marmite"
It isn't perfect but its good points more than make up for its bad.
Folk either love them or hate them. If Piper was ever to produce a new tommy a suitable name for the Brit market would be the "Piper Marmite"
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
From: london
I only ever had 4 lessons in the PA38 right at the beginning of my training, until someone pointed out that if I did my skills test with the CFI, we wouldn't legally be able to load enough fuel for the exercise.....I then went over to the PA28 to complete my training.
I later flew with someone who owned a tomahawk, who demonstrated a spin and recovery. On the second spin, he had me look back at the tail - which shook and shimmied like a demented belly dancer. I haven't felt the urge to fly in one again.
I later flew with someone who owned a tomahawk, who demonstrated a spin and recovery. On the second spin, he had me look back at the tail - which shook and shimmied like a demented belly dancer. I haven't felt the urge to fly in one again.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
From: 10 west
instructed in them for 15 years...never had an issue...controls a bit light for those moving on to heavier/bigger things.... but as a basic trainer we found them reliable and trustworthy. yes, in a deep stall or spin, the T tail did some interesting things....but we never had any huge problems...except maybe the AUW...if a heavy student turned up and the tanks were already full...
...but had many happy and fun filled hours in them.
...but had many happy and fun filled hours in them.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
About the tail....
As an ex Mech Eng I have no worry's at all about the tail wobbling about. Its just logical that it should do that. Elevator up high, vortex shedding from wings its doesn't matter what you make the tail out of you will always see movement because of the length of the elevator.
Its like the chem thrusters of the space shuttle deflect over 1.5 meters when they open the taps.
In fact I have flown next to another T tail seminole and it wobbles around as well.
And the 146 tails waggle. Its just because you can't see them that folk don't worry.
Bitching that the tail waggles just allow's the listener to gauge a) your level of understanding about aerodynamincs and B) you technical knowledge to do with stress/strain and torsional stress levels and also the fact that distance from the point of rotation acts like an amplifier of displacement.
I have had success showing folk using hands out of car windows and twisting bunches of strands of pasta about A)
And limited success with B) by using a seesaw and flagpole as an example.
There are still some people out there though that just don't like the look of it and will refuse any sort of explanation why its meant to be.
As an ex Mech Eng I have no worry's at all about the tail wobbling about. Its just logical that it should do that. Elevator up high, vortex shedding from wings its doesn't matter what you make the tail out of you will always see movement because of the length of the elevator.
Its like the chem thrusters of the space shuttle deflect over 1.5 meters when they open the taps.
In fact I have flown next to another T tail seminole and it wobbles around as well.
And the 146 tails waggle. Its just because you can't see them that folk don't worry.
Bitching that the tail waggles just allow's the listener to gauge a) your level of understanding about aerodynamincs and B) you technical knowledge to do with stress/strain and torsional stress levels and also the fact that distance from the point of rotation acts like an amplifier of displacement.
I have had success showing folk using hands out of car windows and twisting bunches of strands of pasta about A)
And limited success with B) by using a seesaw and flagpole as an example.
There are still some people out there though that just don't like the look of it and will refuse any sort of explanation why its meant to be.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,275
Likes: 21
From: London
I loved it, was the closest thing to flying on your own without s plane....
Best visibility, exceptionally sensitive controls and most of them so old and dilapidated it was funny!
Even after my PPL I sometimes rented one just for the fun!
Best visibility, exceptionally sensitive controls and most of them so old and dilapidated it was funny!
Even after my PPL I sometimes rented one just for the fun!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: Underground
sorry mayte i didnot mean all of my training (wanted to emphasize on the fact that a huge chunk my the flying i did was in the tomahawk), as a matter of fact i did train in a complex as well a PA34-200.
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
From: New Zealand
Firstly i must come clean as a staunch lover of the tommie.
Ihave flown the C152 (although not many hours) and I think they are excellent trainers over the cessna, docille enough for the starter, tricky enough in the landing (early stage students) to provide a challenge and to equip you for faster landing birds. 65 over the fence NO LESS!
Its roomy, it has ample panel room for a full fit, one of the trainers i flew had an ADF and a VOR NAVCOM. It has proper seats, great views (excellent for the circuit) loads of baggage room on the 30kg floor!, great for photo's and scenic flights with the significant other. its nearly viceless!
They are not, Unstable, Underpowered (certainly not the 125HP) prone to spinning, stalls etc, you would have to be dead not to notice your Alpha is getting a little high.
As for the fuel load + RHS guy, i'm not a small chap (not fat just typical kiwi large) and i flew with equally strapping chaps with 50 lt a side.
I performed landings and takeoffs very safely that the P-charts said were outside parameters. On a hot day with midling pressures you certianly gave it a bit more runway but 690M is more than enough! (shortest RWY where i trained) Just because the P-Chart says no, doesn't mean it can't be done and done safely... (Mr CAA)...
And don't look at the tail if it bothers you, yes it waggles but its designed too :-)
Ihave flown the C152 (although not many hours) and I think they are excellent trainers over the cessna, docille enough for the starter, tricky enough in the landing (early stage students) to provide a challenge and to equip you for faster landing birds. 65 over the fence NO LESS!
Its roomy, it has ample panel room for a full fit, one of the trainers i flew had an ADF and a VOR NAVCOM. It has proper seats, great views (excellent for the circuit) loads of baggage room on the 30kg floor!, great for photo's and scenic flights with the significant other. its nearly viceless!
They are not, Unstable, Underpowered (certainly not the 125HP) prone to spinning, stalls etc, you would have to be dead not to notice your Alpha is getting a little high.
As for the fuel load + RHS guy, i'm not a small chap (not fat just typical kiwi large) and i flew with equally strapping chaps with 50 lt a side.
I performed landings and takeoffs very safely that the P-charts said were outside parameters. On a hot day with midling pressures you certianly gave it a bit more runway but 690M is more than enough! (shortest RWY where i trained) Just because the P-Chart says no, doesn't mean it can't be done and done safely... (Mr CAA)...
And don't look at the tail if it bothers you, yes it waggles but its designed too :-)
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
From: Surrey, England
Anybody flown the Beech lookalikes?
Hi Guys,
If I recall correctly, Beech manufactured two aircraft that were almost dead ringers for Piper equivalents and I have often wondered how these Beeches compared to their Piper equivalents.
In the case of the P38, Beech made a lookalike called the 'Skipper'.
Has anybody flown the 'Skipper'?
More to the point, has anybody flown both the 'Skipper' and the Pa38?
If so, how did they compare?
Regards,
BP.
If I recall correctly, Beech manufactured two aircraft that were almost dead ringers for Piper equivalents and I have often wondered how these Beeches compared to their Piper equivalents.
In the case of the P38, Beech made a lookalike called the 'Skipper'.
Has anybody flown the 'Skipper'?
More to the point, has anybody flown both the 'Skipper' and the Pa38?
If so, how did they compare?
Regards,
BP.
