Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes Cessna 150 vrs Piper Tomahawk

George,
Wasn't it something about, the airplane was certified with x-number of wing ribs and they reduced the number for production planes? I can't recall exactly, but I remember reading something about it at one time.

Bengie Phillips

Bengie, as I recall there were a number of changes beteween the certification articles and production. Among them were fewer wing ribs resulting in some loss of torsional stiffness, the ommision of a "glove" at wing root and I think some simplification of the fin attachment.

I could be wrong in this, but I think this airplane employed a GAW airfoil, which was quite intolerant of any distortions. I know you can grab a wing tip and twist the wing with not too much force, resulting in some oil canning.

I believe there was at least one AD, if not more, calling for stall strips. The Tomahawk does have a lot of stall strips.

Piper does say that non-standard techniques may be required to accomplish spin recovery. The Aviation Consumer article of some years ago related a story of a couple of test pilots, maybe FAA, who got into a flat spin and were obliged to get up and lean over the instrument panel to get the CG far enough foward to recover. I guess that qualifies as a non-standard procedure. My hat is off to those guys!

William Kierschner probably has more time spinning 150s than I have total time, and gives it a clean bill of health, at least in stock form. William Thompson, ex Cessna manager of flight test, states that large engine conversions tend to go flat due to a greater polar moment of inertia due to the battery in the tail cone for CG purposes.

Geo.

Hey, I like the looks of the Traum... er, um, Tomahawk. It's like something out of the Jetsons.

Then again, I am, quite literally, a red-headed stepchild myself. So maybe that explains the kinship.

I haven't ridden in one either, but I did look into the T-Hawk myself for a first plane. But I'm still leaning toward the 150/152, and for mostly the same reasons already mentioned. The ubiquity of the Cessna is a big plus for me. Parts, mechanics, unsolicited advice... all easier to find when you're a 150/152 driver.

And the life-limited wing is a bit of a turn-off too. Plus the fact that for the kind of flying I do--mostly sightseeing, taking pictures, taking up passengers who sightsee and take pictures--a high-wing makes more sense.

That said, if I stumbled on to a good deal on one, I'd certainly still give it a look.

FWIW, here's an article from AOPA Flight Training [flighttraining.aopa.org] on the Tomahawk.

- Jeff

A friend of mine bought one just for the engine, and used it to stay current while building his Long-eze. I asked him about those articles on stall/spin accidents. He said he never really had any issues with the airplane, but said once, when loaded heavy and with the the CG just forward of the aft limit, he experimented with stalls at altitude. At one point, he got the tail in the wings slipstream, and couldn't push the nose over enough to break the stall. Adding power just pitched the nose up more. He finally kicked left rudder and rolled off on one wing into a dive, which he more easily recovered from. He ended the story with "Altitude IS your friend!" When he finished the Long-eze, he stripped the Tomahawk, and sold the airframe to a flight school as spare parts for $2,000.

I can't say that article gives me a warm feeling!

Geo.

Thanks for all the input. I think I will keep my eyes (and mind) open incase a nice one comes up for sale around here. As someone mentioned, there is a lot of AD's on them, so I would really need to have it checked out well. If you could find one with low enough hours I dont thing the limited lifetime on the wings would be a problem. Someone also mentioned resale value. Yea, I can see where selling a 152 might be easier.

Thanks again,
Glad I joined this group.

Dale

Ain't nothing wrong with spinning tomahawks.

What the test pilots probably did was give up on the standard recovery too soon, played around with it and made it worse!! All a T-hawk needs to recover is constant recovery technique.

It's not like a 150/2 which comes out of a spin within a quarter turn, it takes a minimum of one, usually 2 with opposite rudder and nose down elevator the entire time!! That's basically all you need to keep in mind.

Now... my .02 on the airplane. It's not my favorite, I think the doors are poorly made and designed (even the nicest one leaks like a sieve) and they are no fun cross country on a sunny day (bumpy, weird yawing motion in turbulence, hot because it's just a flying greenhouse, which also sucks because of the water that leaked in from that rainstorm the day before adding to the moisture inside.)

BUT

I think it's a hell of a training aircraft. Sure tought me how to fly and stall and recover, and landings are pretty nice. It has a little more range than a 150/2 which is a plus.

So all in all it just boils down to personal preferance.

Just a thought from a very old pilot! I have owned many airplanes over the years, from a Beechcraft Duke to my current 150 tail-dragger. You can compare specifications and pilot reports all day long, but you will not really know the truth until you actually fly one. I have flown both, and would not trade my 150 for two Tomahawks. Flying characteristics can not be read about, but must be experienced. Just a thought! Larry

Hi, new here but it seems the recent Oct 2005 fatal accident instructor and pupil at Biggin Hill UK was because the Tomahawk tail came off in flight. I have just bought my son a 150 to train on, the sooner it gets here the better !!

I have about 40 hours in rented Tomahawks and I own a 150L. I flew both during my training before deciding to purchase the 150. In my opinion, the T'hawk is not a bad aircraft at all and it has several advantages over the 150. The other posts are correct that the T'hawk has more cockpit room and is more comfortable. I'm 6'2" and I definitely noticed that the T'hawk has more leg room, more head room and is easier to enter/exit. Another thing, the added visibility of all that glass and the low-wing design is a big plus on that base turn to final. I can't ever remember overshooting the runway center line on a turn to final in the T'hawk. It is easier to fuel and has cowl openings on both sides, which allows for a more detailed and complete pre-flight inspection of the engine compartment. Two other advantages: it has an electric fuel pump which gave me some additional comfort as a backup, and it has an electric stall indicator/horn, which was easy to test during the preflight.

That being said, the 150 is a much easier plane to fly, land and handle. The 150 feels alot more stable and is easier to land in almost all conditions. I think that is because the T'hawk has that T-tail design, which moves the stabilizer out of the propeller slipstream (seems to make low-speed handling a little more dicey). My decision as to which to buy came down to three factors: handling characteristics, availability of parts, and resale. I've been very happy with the decision to purchase the 150 and would make the same decision today that I made before.

Just thinking ... it would be interesting to see and fly the T'hawk with a conventional empennage. Hmmmmmm, I wonder how difficult it would be to .......