From what I heard/read Tomahawks are notoriously slow in spin recovery. Never instructed in them. Over 20 years of flying I saw only few in private ownership, but  I can't remember any school that would operated them. 150 aerobat would be "go to" and the most popular choice for CFI  spin training.

In US we are neither required nor teach students to spin (unless it is of course an acrobatic training).  Once in while I read about local CFIs  managed to  kill themselves and student by teaching them spins in 172 (which were not utility). Not sure what they were driven by, but it definitely contributed in  "loss of control" accident category which dominate  USA GA statistic in recent years. And so yes in US we more likely got in accident in GA airplane than in car on the way to the airport. This rule however doesn't apply to Part 125/135 ops, their records are golden!

I refused to fly in this thing "Traumahawk" when I was doing my PPL. I also find it one of the ugliest planes I've seen!

 Oddly enough I chose to do my training in another airplane with the same config (low wing, T-tail)  - the Katana. 

43 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

 

In US we are neither required nor teach students to spin (unless it is of course an acrobatic training). 

I believe it was, in the far  distant past, a requisite in Australia for any licence - presumably dating back to the bad old days where aircraft would spin if you parted your hair the wrong way. In those days I suppose it was sensible. Spin training is in fact probably part of the reason why the Aerobat 152 even exists.

These days it is a separate certification here. It is probably still part of the CPL in Australia, not sure.  In the US I believe it was apparently required for any licence at all prior to 1949 and may still be required to qualify as a CFI in the US,  even now.

Edited September 28, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

In Canada, you cannot get a license without training spins and spin recovery... and I am VERY thankful for it. Takes the fear out, teaches recovery. I can't imagine never having done spins, and I still practice them every once in awhile. 

10 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

I believe it was, in the far  distant past, a requisite in Australia for any licence - presumably dating back to the bad old days where aircraft would spin if you parted your hair the wrong way. In those days I suppose it was sensible. Spin training is in fact probably part of the reason why the Aerobat 152 even exists.

These days it is a separate certification here. It is probably still part of the CPL in Australia, not sure.  In the US I believe it was apparently required for any licence at all prior to 1949 and may still be required to qualify as a CFI in the US,  even now.

The US dropped the spin requirement for everything except CFI's, since data showed that not only were people being killed doing spin training, but most real-world spins happened in situations (usually low level maneuvering) where there wasn't enough altitude to recover from the spin anyway.

Instead, the emphasis shifted to teaching pilots how to avoid getting into a spin in the first place, and since there wasn't a huge spike in spin-related accidents and the few spin accidents that still happen in the US often take place in situations where the spin probably wasn't recoverable, that approach seems to have worked pretty well.

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

  In the US I believe it was apparently required for any licence at all prior to 1949 and may still be required to qualify as a CFI in the US,  even now.

Yes FAA still requires spins for CFI.

Spin training is still part of the glider curriculum, since thermalling involves slow turns with your head out of the cockpit...so spins can occur...

On topic, just bought the Arrow, don't see any attraction in the Tomahawk...surely JustFlight have more interesting planes to recreate?

41 minutes ago, keithb77 said:

Spin training is still part of the glider curriculum, since thermalling involves slow turns with your head out of the cockpit...so spins can occur...

It's also possible to spin off a winch launch, since you are getting close to many of the ingredients - high angle of attack, potentially low speed, laying off with ailerons and rudder and possibly some adverse yaw - and if you stall and spin on a winch launch, you're going to have to be right on it to recover in time. That's why they make you do a spin recover from and entry of 1,000 feet AGL at Camphill before they sign you off for solo flight from that airfield.

Sort of interestingly, when I was doing that 1,000 foot soin recovery there to get signed off for solo flying, I did it in the PZL Bielsko SZD-50 Puchacz, which like the PA-38 Tomahawk, is a training two seater with a reputation for being dangerous in a spin, with many fatalities from spins having occurred on the type. Personally, I liked spinning the Puchacz and never had a problem with it and I tend to agree with what most pilots who have flown it say with regard to that #spin bogeyman' and that is that: it was designed to faithfully obey control inputs, and that includes foolish or incorrect ones.

There's a lot of this in the Tomahawk's reputation too. It was designed specifically to be 'more spinnable' than a typical Cessna training aeroplane, so that it actually required pilots to input some control movements to get it out of a spin. And that's a good thing, since knowing how to get out of a spin is something all pilots should be able to do, and it should not be some kind of bogeyman. But, it should be something people are very aware of, especially when turning finals, which is where most stall-spin accidents occur, and certainly where most PA-38 accidents have occurred because it is a bit more easily inclined to go into a spin than a Cessna 105/152 if you take liberties with it, and even the most easily recoverable aeroplane isn't going to have room to do it from 400 feet off the deck. So if you give a dog a bad name, it can sometimes stick, but statistically, the PA-38 has an accident rate per hour of flying time which is one third lower than that of the Cessna 150/152. The PA-38 has a lot more stall-spin fatalities recorded than the 150/152 - as much as five times as many according to some statistical analysis, which is pretty sobering, but to me, what that tells me above everything else, is to fly the thing safely and to not take liberties with it at low altitude.

Personally, if it was up to me, I'd say initial spin training on a spam can should be done with the doors off and the pilots wearing 'chutes, whilst at +5,000 feet, and it beggars belief to me these days that they don't even teach spin recovery techniques at all on the PPL curriculum in many countries, instead teaching pilots to be aware of what causes spins and to avoid that, which would be fine until you actually have a spin and your first try at getting out of one is when it's a genuine emergency situation. Madness. I complained about this very vocally at the time when they changed this on the UK PPL and wrote many letters about it to various organisations and aviation publications, trying to point out how stupid it was as a policy decision, because it's one of those things which must inevitably have been behind a good many unnecessary fatalities.

So anyway, here's hoping JF's Tomahawk is capable of going into a fairly vicious spin which it takes a few autorotations to come out of. If they do that, they'll have done more of a service to new PPL holders than that change in the rules did.

Edited September 28, 20214 yr by Chock

2 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

I believe it was, in the far  distant past, a requisite in Australia for any licence - presumably dating back to the bad old days where aircraft would spin if you parted your hair the wrong way. In those days I suppose it was sensible. Spin training is in fact probably part of the reason why the Aerobat 152 even exists.

These days it is a separate certification here. It is probably still part of the CPL in Australia, not sure.  In the US I believe it was apparently required for any licence at all prior to 1949 and may still be required to qualify as a CFI in the US,  even now.

Not any longer. Incipient spin is as far as it goes unless you are doing an aerobatic endorsement.

Spin recovery is a requisite for Flight Instructors.

I soloed in a PA-38 and always liked it. Spin training was all done in a S2A or Chippy, but the Traumahawk did instill a healthy spin avoidance mindset… I’ve always had a soft spot for her…

40 minutes ago, cavaricooper said:

Spin training was all done in a S2A or Chippy

Yup, I did it in a Chipmunk; doing that is guaranteed to have you ending up with grit in your eyes, mouth, ears etc from all the cack on the floor of the thing. 🤣

12 hours ago, Mike S KPDX said:

There is a reason it is called the 'Trauma Hawk'.  I this one of these twice.  The first time it was so whack on final approach I assumed I just really screwed up.  Second time I with a fellow pilot we discovered that the wings blanked out the elevator authority right when you needed it the most.  I made the decision and have never flown this type again.

I am with you.  I view that aircraft as an accident waiting to happen. 

I did a lot of stall & spin recovery training in the Tomahawk when doing my PPL many moons ago.  Spinning was voluntary then in the UK, I believe, but naturally I wanted to do it for the sheer thrill.  Had I known then what I know now I'd have given it a miss, I think!  I'm looking forward to the JustFlight aircraft though; it's the very Piper I've been hoping for.  

5 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

I believe it was, in the far  distant past, a requisite in Australia

I did my CPL in Australia in 1991 and at that time I think we just did the “advanced stalls “ rather than actual spins and we did those in tomahawks, which I believe were prohibited from deliberate spinning on the Australian register, or maybe the American, can’t quite remember but it was one of those, maybe both.

The tomahawk itself is quite pleasant to fly, especially in the circuit. It’s only when you start playing with those out of envelope manures that is can bite.

I remember there was one particular tomahawk VH-TVO which was particularly viscous which would always violently drop a wing when stalling and the thing would end up upside down, to the point that no one wanted to fly that particular aircraft anymore . The T tails also used to make a sound like someone kicking a metal bin down the road when they were stalling.

But for pattern work and even a bit of light touring they were ok, although I did prefer the 152.

I have the just flight tomahawk in P3D and XP and it’s one of my favourite GA sim aircraft where they’ve really captured the feel and character of the little aircraft, it’s very nice in VR with its bubble style canopy.

4 minutes ago, jon b said:

The T tails also used to make a sound like someone kicking a metal bin down the road when they were stalling.

I have heard about this, and in fact the Carenado version used to make this noise when stalling.  Why is this?  Which part of the tailplane makes this noise?