Compare: Cessna 152 vs Piper Tomahawk
Ralph Snart
Tomahawk.
Thanks
BTIZ
both are good trainers.. that is what they were designed for.. although the
Cessna's have been called "commuters" by the manufacturer..
ever heard the Tomahawk referred to as a "Trauma hawk".. just look over your
shoulder and watch that T-tail while the CFI does a full stall
Tomahawk maybe easier to get into and have more shoulder room for larger
pilots
150s..(152s) are great fun... more fun if they have the 150HP conversion
soo.. I guess the answer lies in what the use will be.. training or
ownership.. if I was owning.. I'd take the 152 with the bigger engine..
training.. either..
but then again.. I'm partial to the 150/152.. because that's what I learned
in 28 years ago.
TZ
"Ralph Snart" <ralph...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:NJz5a.203605$HN5.8...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Rich
the wing's 11,000-hour fatigue life limit.
Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
> Tomahawk.
> Thanks
I thought I heard somewhere that the Tomahawk was a real widow-maker;
something about the shape of the wing causing it to spin extremely easily,
and that's why they're so cheap.
Rich
http://www.geocities.com/murphyslaw2001/Flypage/Piper_Tomahawk.htm
"Ralph Snart" <ralph...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:NJz5a.203605$HN5.8...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
David Megginson
> I'd like to get pro and con ideas/opinions of the Cessna 152 vs. the
> Piper Tomahawk.
Try them both first and see what you like. You should also talk to
your local shop and find out if they are used to working with both.
All the best,
David
--
David Megginson, da...@megginson.com, http://www.megginson.com/
BTIZ
with many Tomahawks and Beech Skippers is that the spin can tend to be
"flat" if the CG is near the aft limit, some spins were REPORTED to only
recover when both student and CFI released their seat belts and flung
themselves forward to the glare shield to move their CG forward enough to
get the nose to drop to help break the stall/spin.
They are "cheap" because they were "built cheap" in a time when the aircraft
builders were trying to support flight schools to build "brand loyalty".
Cessna already had the 150/152. Piper or Beech had not built a two seat
trainer in years..
yes.. (before the flamers start).. Piper did have their version of the
"Flite" PA28-140, and Beech had the Musketeer, became Sport or "Sport 150"
for primary training.
TZ
"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." <tpal...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ZfA5a.39203$ma2.10...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Kyle Boatright
reason for the STC is the Tomahawk was certified under a more modern set of
rules, and an airframe life limit was mandated in the rules. The C-152, etc
were certified under a set of rules that didn't require life limit(s) on the
airframe.
KB
"Rich" <boo...@waconet.org> wrote in message
news:NNqdnVAQZZ5...@comcast.com...
Kyle Boatright
better visiblity, and handles crosswinds better. The Cessna has a
noticiably lower stall speed, which is great if you're doing short field
work.
The Tomahawk's reputation as a hard to fly airplane is undeserved. Do a
search in the NTSB archives and you'll find that 99% of Tomahawk accidents
(like any other aircraft) were caused by people doing genuinely stupid
things in an airplane. Despite the type's reputation as having nasty spin
characteristics, the NTSB archives are NOT chock full of accidents where a
student and instructor entered a spin at 5,000' and never recovered. As a
matter of fact, there is only one accident in the NTSB archives (Post '83, I
have not searched pre-83) where someone spun one in "from altitude", and
that was a solo student who was doing stall work and hadn't been taught spin
recovery techniques.
KB
"Ralph Snart" <ralph...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:NJz5a.203605$HN5.8...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
Teacherjh
and friendly airplane. Visibility is excellent. Haven't flown one in twenty
years, I miss it.
Yes, my instructor cast a worried eye at the tail when it rattled, and I as a
student didn't know any better. I don't know the statistics of tail failures
in that airplane, but it was quite enjoyable to fly.
Jose
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)
David Megginson
> The Tomahawk's reputation as a hard to fly airplane is undeserved. Do a
> search in the NTSB archives and you'll find that 99% of Tomahawk accidents
> (like any other aircraft) were caused by people doing genuinely stupid
> things in an airplane. Despite the type's reputation as having nasty spin
> characteristics, the NTSB archives are NOT chock full of accidents where a
> student and instructor entered a spin at 5,000' and never recovered. As a
> matter of fact, there is only one accident in the NTSB archives (Post '83, I
> have not searched pre-83) where someone spun one in "from altitude", and
> that was a solo student who was doing stall work and hadn't been taught spin
> recovery techniques.
In contrast, we did have a fatal accident in Canada a few years back
during a practice spin, where the rudder jumped over the stop and
stuck at more than full deflection on a 150 or 152 -- I think it
resulted in an AD, but I'd have to check.
When I took my first intro flight (in 150), the instructor made a big
point of ensuring that the rudder couldn't jump its stops.
Kyle Boatright
"Teacherjh" <teac...@aol.comspam.not> wrote in message
news:20030222091421...@mb-mg.aol.com...
There has never been a structural failure of a Tomahawk. There have been a
cracks in tail structure, but these problems were addressed by AD's that
were issued back in the 70's and 80's.
KB
Flyer22A
sits there doing nothing.
N9708T
[deleted stuff ...]
> ever heard the Tomahawk referred to as a "Trauma hawk".. just look over
> your shoulder and watch that T-tail while the CFI does a full stall
[deleted stuff ...]
Neil Gould
BTIZ <bnosp...@lvcm.com> wrote:
> ever heard the Tomahawk referred to as a "Trauma hawk"..
> just look over your shoulder and watch that T-tail while the
> CFI does a full stall
>
I have about 60 hrs. of time in a Tomahawk, and have stalled, slipped, and
spun it. The tail stays where it is. That's an old tale has no credibility,
AFAICT.
> Tomahawk maybe easier to get into and have more shoulder
> room for larger pilots
>
Exactly why I chose this over the 152 for my training. That and the fact
that the "Trauma hawk" rumors made it the most available and cheapest plane
in the club. 8-)
The only thing I'll say about it that some might find cause for pause is
that you have to actually fly that plane. And, stalls can be rather
dramatic in comparison to 172s.
Regards,
--
Neil Gould
----------------------------------------------------------------
Terra Tu AV http://www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media
Neil Gould
BTIZ <bnosp...@lvcm.com> wrote:
> Spin easily?? should not be a problem for training... but the
> issue found with many Tomahawks and Beech Skippers is
> that the spin can tend to be "flat" if the CG is near the aft
> limit, some spins were REPORTED to only recover when
> both student and CFI released their seat belts and flung
> themselves forward to the glare shield to move their CG
> forward enough to get the nose to drop to help break the
> stall/spin.
>
I saw this same report that was repeated in some "air safety" rag. As I was
a student at the time, I decided to do a full W&B analysis to determine
just what one would have to do to wind up in such a predicament
unexpectedly. According to the POH, with two people in the plane it would
be next to impossible to get the CG out of range AFT before being seriously
overweight unless both people weighed less than 100 lbs. each and they
exceeded the maximum baggage capacity by 3x.
After doing the math, I then tried to position myself over the dash as
described (while the plane was safely on the ground), and couldn't do it.
Now, I'm on the tall side, which might make a difference, but I would have
to be a contortionist to even come close to what they described. My
conclusion is that this "report" is likely to be B.S.
There are some ADs about control yoke travel that resulted in changes in
the design of later models. The one I was flying didn't have the binding
problem, which I also tested while on the ground.
Regards,
--
Neil Gould, Empiricist
Jim
N23140
Jim
it.
Jim N23140
Kyle Boatright
"Jim" <j...@AOKkivaUBECHA.net> wrote in message
news:3E595533...@AOKkivaUBECHA.net...
Don't you practice stalls in your Tomahawk? I know I did in mine. You
really do need to be current on the stall behavior of whatever airplane
you're flying in order to be truly proficient. Take that bird up to
altitude and stall it. That way, if you ever get in a really screwy
situation and need to use the slow corner of the envelope, you'll know how
the airplane behaves in near stall and stalled flight.
I had almost had a nasty incident (pilot stupidity on my part) in my old
Tomahawk, but had the stick and rudder skills in the airplane to get out of
the nasty situation I created for myself.
KB
T-Boy
says...
> The most dreaded problem for Tomahawk owners, especially flight schools, was
> the wing's 11,000-hour fatigue life limit.
I thought it was the weld that joins the elevator. (I've been told a
few broke - but I can't back up the claim - I just always check it up
close).
--
Regards, Duncan.
T-Boy
ralph...@attbi.com says...
> I'd like to get pro and con ideas/opinions of the Cessna 152 vs. the Piper
> Tomahawk.
> Thanks
OK.. my five cents. I did all my training in the traumahawk. Since
obtaining my PPL (twenty odd years ago) - I have flew mainly Pipers, and
then Cessnas - all as a result of what the club I was with had, not
personal preference.
I think the Tomahawk is a great wee plane. It's advantages (to me) over
a C152 are: better visibility (*unbeatable* visibility, it's bloody
great), low wing so better in an X-wind.
A C152 is to me, the better aircraft once you've completed your
training. If I was to get a choice, I'd go for the Cessna. It seems
more stable, and has a much better stall. The Tomahawk stalls clean and
fast - but hey, that's perfect for training, albiet not what you'll get
in pretty much any other aircraft. I'd say you can "hands off" fly the
Cessna longer than the Tomahawk - once both planes are setup. (The
Tomahawk wants to roll, the Cessna wants to hang there.)
However, the Cessna is considerably dearer than your average Tomahawk.
I think you need to consider your purpose, your budget - and then do
some hours in each, see what you end up with. I think they're both
great wee planes. Performance wise, they're both on the "low" side -
the hint here is to take extra care at airfields at high altitude and
mountain operations, you *won't* power yourself out of trouble.
--
Regards, Duncan.