JF PA-38 Tomahawk coming with A2A-style features

[F737MAX 5,666]

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

Flying death trap, worst aircraft Piper ever made. 

 

52 minutes ago, jon b said:

usually the ground as you spin inverted plummeting towards the earth.

 

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

A year later it crashed into a house in North London!

 

As crappy as it is with spins in real life, it's not a Robinson 22 and it's not real.

I was looking forward to a high-quality C-150 or 152 in MSFS. Not any more:

Quote

According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Air Safety Foundation, which published a Safety Highlight report on the Piper Tomahawk, the Piper Tomahawk has a one-third lower accident rate per flying hour than the comparable Cessna 150/152 series of two-place benchmark trainers.

😅

[bobcat999 8,489]

3 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

I learnt to fly in a Piper tomahawk, flying out of Panshanger in Welwyn Garden City UK (now closed).  A year later it crashed into a house in North London!

I went there once when I was a lot younger.  I remember the lads had an argument in the car on the way home whether it is called Pans-Hanger, or Pan-Shanger.  

What's your take on it?  I might be able to settle the argument after 30 odd years!  

Anyway, I like the Tomahawk so I will be keeping my eye on this, and it's probably sacrilege to say it on this forum, but I really liked the Carenado version in FSX.  The rudder did bang like a dustbin lid as well when it was about to stall.

Edited February 16 by bobcat999

[sd_flyer 6,072]

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

 

 

 

As crappy as it is with spins in real life, it's not a Robinson 22 and it's not real.

I was looking forward to a high-quality C-150 or 152 in MSFS. Not any more:

😅

To be fair If you look at the numbers there were 2,484 Tomahawk ever build vs 23,832 of C150/152. Tomahawk has 0.3 to 0.7 accident rate per 100k flight vs 150/152 0.098 to 0.1 per 100k. Consider proportion of both fleets, numbers are not on the side Tomahawk. I flew 150/152 and span them they not super easy to spin other than incipient spin I think it's a stark difference with Tomahawk which would spin way easier. There must be a good reason why not many flight  schools in US prefer Aerobat to Tomahawk for spin training.

There are always widowmaker airplanes there but people still love them. MSFS is a great opportunity to explore them without dying! 

[MrBitstFlyer 3,882]

54 minutes ago, bobcat999 said:

I remember the lads had an argument in the car on the way home whether it is called Pans-Hanger, or Pan-Shanger.  

Pans-Hanger - lived there for 25 years 😀

[MrBitstFlyer 3,882]

3 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

That is probably the last thing a CFI I knew heard, before he spun into the ground from 5,000 FT AGL. 

To be fair to the aircraft, I lived close to Panshanger airfield for 25 years and never heard of a tomahawk crashing, even though Panshanger School of Flying were buzzing around the circuit all day, everyday (apart from the aircraft that I trained in that crashed in North London).

[jonesrob 98]

First a/c I ever bought from Just Flight, in FS9. Part of their Flying Club series I think. Loved it, used it visiting farm strips with CIX VFR Club. Seems a long time ago now.

[F737MAX 5,666]

4 hours ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

flying out of Panshanger in Welwyn Garden City UK (now closed)

Once took a lesson there in a much more stable Cherokee.

The airfield closed a decade ago this September and ******* developers are *still* to start building houses there – could have had 10 more years of flying over the viaduct.

[Paul K 1,353]

It's not for me. JF's non-turbo Arrow III is still as much GA as I need, even after two years of flying it.

[Bobsk8 12,792]

3 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

To be fair If you look at the numbers there were 2,484 Tomahawk ever build vs 23,832 of C150/152. Tomahawk has 0.3 to 0.7 accident rate per 100k flight vs 150/152 0.098 to 0.1 per 100k. Consider proportion of both fleets, numbers are not on the side Tomahawk. I flew 150/152 and span them they not super easy to spin other than incipient spin I think it's a stark difference with Tomahawk which would spin way easier. There must be a good reason why not many flight  schools in US prefer Aerobat to Tomahawk for spin training.

There are always widowmaker airplanes there but people still love them. MSFS is a great opportunity to explore them without dying! 

The problem with the Tomahawk, was getting it out of the spin, once the spin was developed. The C 152, you could apply a normal spin recovery, and it would start flying again. Try that in the Tomahawk, and you might not live to see the next day. 

[Vel 295]

Ah the "Traumahawk". Managed to avoid to while learning to fly. Its reputation for refusing to exit a spin while making it sound as if you were trapped inside a drum that someone was banging was off putting to say the least.

Day 1 buy for me 😉

[DavidP 1,418]

I have a few hours instructing in one - nasty little machine as others have said.

I'll be passing on this one, but hope those who buy it enjoy it.

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,799]

Tomahawk is not the only one cursed with unrecoverable spins.

The Beechcraft Baron is renowned for asymmetric thrust flipping it into into an unrecoverable flat spin.

Edited February 16 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[Mace 1,936]

At one point they added wing vortex strakes to it which helped on the recovery.

There was a Tomahawk II which was I think the 1982 model (last year) and had slightly larger tires for a little better prop clearance.

[jonesrob 98]

A bit shamefully I had forgotten that an old instructor workmate of mine also lost his life in a spin. Dave Archer RIP; 1980s.

[flyerkg 62]

Tomahawk was the first aircraft I ever flew.