piper tomahawk vs diamond katena
boschuck
i have been given a choice between two planes in my primary training,
which hasnt really begun yet. The katena is ten bucks more than the
piper tomahawk per hour. Is it at all worth it? I think I am going
to try both out, but all things being equal, or even close to equal, I
would prefer the cheaper plane!
chuck
Bob Gardner
Bob Gardner
boschuck <charle...@hms.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:c92e9357.01081...@posting.google.com...
Rklillywhite
Tomahawks were and I was maybe thinking of getting one and she was insistent
that it would be a bad move for lots of reasons.
Rob L
CPL ASEL IR
Bob Gardner
newsgroup, has done extensive research on the Tomahawk and thinks its
certification should be revoked.
Bob Gardner
Rklillywhite <rklill...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010813183220...@mb-fw.aol.com...
creedbee
now is flying for the airlines. Though he use to refer to the Tomahawk as a
the "Trama"hawk. He eventually shelled out the extra money when he was able
for a better plane.
Tanya
Bob Gardner <bob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:EkZd7.11367$vW2.6...@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com...
Alex L
I've heard that the Tomahawk has nasty stall & spin characteristics.
In a stall, under certain conditions, a wing may drop as much as 90 degrees.
Certification requirements are 15 degrees, no more.
All the actual Tomahawks flying are different from the initial certified
test prototype. This is why it got certified. I'm wondering if the FAA,
NTSB, AOPA, etc. know this.
Dylan Smith
<nob...@somewhere-in-the-uk.com> wrote:
>I would not recommend anyone learns in a Tomahawk, because it is quite
>difficult to land in any significant crosswind.
And that's a bad thing?
Trainers should be a little bit challenging. The C150/2 etc. much as I
prefer Cessnas, are just too docile.
--
Dylan Smith, Houston, TX
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
Ian Hibbert
I beg to differ, I've just started training in a Tomahawk and absolutely
love it! Far better visibility, space and general all round learning
environment than the 150 (don't know about the Katana). I like the fact it
stalls easily, since it makes you far more aware of what you're doing and
makes you fly accurately......mystifies me why they get so much bad press! I
guess it's early days yet though....!
Ian
"Dylan Smith" <dy...@vexed.alioth.net> wrote in message
news:slrn9niql4...@vexed.alioth.net...
JerryK
plane that certified. From what I gather there was little re-engineering
performed on the wing and the tail after the type certificate was granted.
These changes modified the stall characteristics of the plane.
jerry
"Ian Hibbert" <ia...@easynet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lWhe7.13451$LN3.3...@monolith.news.easynet.net...
Kyle Boatright
>
>>I've heard that the Tomahawk has nasty stall & spin characteristics.
>>
>>In a stall, under certain conditions, a wing may drop as much as 90 degrees.
>>Certification requirements are 15 degrees, no more.
>>
>>All the actual Tomahawks flying are different from the initial certified
>>test prototype. This is why it got certified. I'm wondering if the FAA,
>>NTSB, AOPA, etc. know this.
>
>drops a wing VERY quickly if you stall it. If you do nothing about it,
>it goes down almost sideways, and you lose height extremely rapidly.
>1000ft in a few seconds. Beats any fairground ride.
>
>If you are expecting it to stall, you can use the rudder to hold the
>wings level. But you have to be pretty quick with this.
>
>I would not recommend anyone learns in a Tomahawk, because it is quite
>difficult to land in any significant crosswind.
>
>
I've got 250+ hours in Tomahawks, 50+ in C-152's, 80 in an RV-6, and 15 hours
spread between Citabrias and Taylorcraft. In my opinion Tomahawks are much
easier to land than C-152's in a crosswind. The wheel track is wider, and low
wing aircraft are generally better in crosswinds.
Also, the statement that "under certain conditions, the airplane will drop a
wing over 90 degrees" is silly. Any airplane that can be stalled will drop a
wing as far as you let it. It is called a spin entry.
There was a recent thread in rec.aviation.owning (or piloting) on this subject.
Try and find it in the archives. Every argument and counter argument was
made, including both sides of the certification argument. The Fed's final
resolution on that one is that there are/were no problems with how the aircraft
was certified and manufactured.
Go fly one, then fly a C-15X. Choose whichever aircraft you enjoy flying most.
KB
Dylan Smith
<nob...@somewhere-in-the-uk.com> wrote:
>>And that's a bad thing?
>>Trainers should be a little bit challenging. The C150/2 etc. much as I
>>prefer Cessnas, are just too docile.
>
>to fly and what they might be flying when they get their PPL.
That would favour the Tomahawk, actually. The Tomahawk, by being a little
more tricky to fly, better prepares the pilot for other types of aircraft.
If you are competent in the Tomahawk, it should be trivial to get checked
out in a C150. It might be more difficult going the other way.
highflyer
It sounds like you are looking for someone to confirm your thinking.
I will be happy to do that. You are going at it in the right way.
By all means fly both of them. Then realize that the differences
won't make a great deal of difference in what you learn and what you
have to learn at this point in your flying career. I do think it is
wise to fly several different airplanes before you go off on your
own.
I think it is important to know that all airplanes have similiarities
and differences. The similiarities ease the transition from one
aircraft
to another. The differences are what makes a transition needed.
Little things, like the placement of a control or a switch, can be
quite jarring in an emergency when your newly ingrained habits are
taking care of things for you! :-)
--
HighFlyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Miller Robert
it was, if I'm not mistaken, the later certified version of the Tomahawk that
exhibited several dangerous characteristics in the now famous NASA tests of the
aircraft. NASA concluded that theaircraft was unsafe because of its stall/spin
behavior... including flattening in a spin which is unrecoverable. (There is a
video of the NASA tests showing the airplane getting into a flat spin.)
These issues have been raised, documented, and tested by others, in cluding Mr.
Gardner's friend mentioned above. I guess all of this is enough for me....
meaning that even if the conclusion that the aircraft is unsafe is not correct and
these testers were wrong in those conclusions, why would I take the chance when
other choices were available? Why not just avoid the question in the first place?
So I chose a flught school that flies Cessnas (the school with Tomahawks also had
Warriors, but they cost more to train in).
Robert
Ryan W
You're right. Stick with the cheaper aircraft. I am training at a
school that has tomahawks as their primary aircraft for ppl. While
all these bad things may happen to the plane, a qualified cfi should
be able to recognize what the plane is about to do. No one is saying
use the tomahawk for an acrobatic experience flight, but it is more
than competent to complete all the maneuvers that you'll need to learn
for your ppl. I agree with Dylan on learning in a tougher aircraft,
to make the transistions to others easier.
Michael Chancey
fly a tomahawk to my wife's family in labelle 89 nautical one way.
For me I find the tomahawk fun to fly and less expensive. I could take a
172, but for my wife and I it would be a 2.3 @ $70 or $161.00 compared to
$45.00 @2.3= $103.50 thats 57.50 difference or a little more than one flight
hour.
My father has a 210 that I will be flying but insurance wants 500 hr (I'm at
253) and the instrument so I figure I need hours and the tomahawk gives me
that at price I can handle.
One more thing, if you fly on a smooth day and trim her up its pretty much
hands off.
Michael Chancey
PP-ASEL IA
"Ryan W" <rwyk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eae7eba7.01081...@posting.google.com...
highflyer
I have heard that the Tomahawk has nasty stall & spin characteristics
also. However, when I flew one I found it quite delightful to fly. It
is amazing what I have heard about many different airplanes over the
years. Almost always, I am told this as utter gospel truth by people
who have never even been a PASSENGER in the airplane they are happily
badmouthing. It really makes me wonder sometimes about the human race.
In a stall, under certain conditions, a wing may drop as much as 90
degrees?
I have seen that behavior in any NUMBER of CERTIFIED airplanes.
Airplanes
like Cessna 150, Cessna 152, Cessna 172, Piper Warrior, Bonanza,
Debonair,
Comanche, Mooney, Piper Cub, Aeronca Champ, Taylorcraft, etc.
Please give me the reference for 15 degree wingdrop at stall required
for certification. I don't recall ever seeing that.
If you KNOW BEYOND DOUBT, that every Tomahawk built is significantly
different from the aircraft that were certified and that someone at
Piper REGULARLY, for EVERY single one of the airplanes built, put in
WRITING a certification of compliance that was knowingly false, the
fines alone would cover the recent "tax rebate." If you have heard
this, with your intimate connections into the inner workings of the
corporation, I strongly suspect that the FAA, AOPA, NTSB, and everyone
else has heard similiar stories. I am sure that someone from the
government would be happy to beard those nasty people at Piper and
collect all of the fines and put those aircraft inspectors in prison.
You should hear some of the stories I have heard from people who have
never flown one about some of the airplanes I have personally owned
and flown for many hours.
After all that, I take such claims with a considerable serving of salt!
highflyer
>
> Chaps,
>
> I beg to differ, I've just started training in a Tomahawk and absolutely
> love it! Far better visibility, space and general all round learning
> environment than the 150 (don't know about the Katana). I like the fact it
> stalls easily, since it makes you far more aware of what you're doing and
> makes you fly accurately......mystifies me why they get so much bad press! I
> guess it's early days yet though....!
>
> Ian
Bad press is a funny thing, Ian. Many years ago, the very first
airplane
that I ever landed "all by myself" with no help from the instructor, was
a Luscombe 8A.
Twenty years later I was solemnly informed that the Luscombe is a "holy
terror to land" and that "it will eat your lunch." When I asked this
"aeronautical expert" how much Luscombe time he had, he admitted he
had never actually flown one himself, but ...
It sorta like the mangled scubadiver found on the forest fire site.
Or the Chevrolet Impala found sticking out of a cliff in Arizona.
or any of the other "mythtakes" that make up our modern mythos.
Kyle Boatright
>because in the time it takes to look down at a map the thing has
>rolled 30 degrees. It is very much a hands-on a/c. It has a crude and
>barely usable elevator trim, something which was never modified
>presumably because the FAA would have had to start on it all over
>again.
You've gotta be kidding! With fuel balanced between tanks, and the elevator
trim set, mine would fly hands off and maintain course and altitude until fuel
burn resulted in a climb or a turn because of uneven fuel. It was a great
little airplane.
What did you find objectionable about the trim system? It is a wheel between
the seats that tensions a cable/spring assembly which gives the elevator up or
down bias. I found that it was easy to use and had plenty of authority.
KB
flying...@gmail.com
I have trained on and still fly a PA38... i have ratings in several other A/C including several 2 place like the 152.
The Tomahawk in my opinion and there are a lot of those here is a great trainer, as it prepares you for faster aircraft. It has a higher landing speed than most and requires a bit more "pilot stuff" which i think makes it better to train in than the too docile 152. It really drills in Proper energy management... too many times i've seen 152 pilots dragging it in from 5 miles at 2000 rpm... land the plane already!
I have also just come back from a 3 day cross country with a bunch of other planes (3 of which were 152) 8 hours in the seat - and i can tell you the Tommie is a little slower at 2400, correctly leaned it will burn the same as a 152 (little under 25 ltr an hour) but has more fuel capability and has more space and baggage than a 152... my PNR was a little longer than the other planes! It will haul its ass out of a strip a little overweight very comfortably.
Its a comfortable enough tourer! I agree with some the trim is not as positive as say the 152 but I have a go pro movie show me refolding a map hands off in smooth air perfectly trimmed, no loss of height no heading change.
The wing drop is interesting, but you really and i mean really have to want to do it before it gets bad... if you do that accidentally then the wing drop characteristics of the tommie are not your first problem!!!! learning how to fly an aeroplane is!
Even at my club alot of people are afraid of the PA38... they haven't flown it... if you are an idiot yes you will do something stupid,... but you're gonna have the same issue in a 152 or anything else.
Long live the tommie... a proper trainer. this argument will go on forever....
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2001 at 7:24:27 AM UTC+12, boschuck wrote:
>> hello,
>> i have been given a choice between two planes in my primary training,
>> which hasnt really begun yet. The katena is ten bucks more than the
>> piper tomahawk per hour. Is it at all worth it? I think I am going
>> to try both out, but all things being equal, or even close to equal, I
>> would prefer the cheaper plane!
>> chuck
>
>
> You Guys!
>
> I have trained on and still fly a PA38...
has made a decision by now.
--
Jim Pennino