flight training rates

I've got a little time in the Tomahawk and last year, I trained a PPL student in a 170. The 170 flies wonderfully. Landings seemed like you were barely moving just before touchdown. I'd recommend getting your first few hours in the 170, then switch if you want.
 
elmetal said:
that's exactly it. I'd kill to fly a tomahawk rather than a 172 while training, it's much more fun to fly.

But a 170, that's a whole other world!
Click to expand...

Tomahawks are fun once you get to altitude, but the 20 minutes it takes to get up there are pretty boring lol. That and the 150/152 are good training planes as long as you are teaching small children. Get an adult in there and the think is like a sack of bricks.

As far as the tail wheel goes it does not necessarily MAKE you a better pilot. It all goes back to those first couple hours of fundamentals. My students only get to see the airspeed and altimeter the first few hours. I can't tell you how many pilots I have flown with that can't hold the plane straight and level just by reference to the horizon. And god forbid you ask them to keep the airplane coordinated without looking at the turn coordinator.

Whether you fly or learned to fly on a tricycle or conventional gear airplane doesn't matter really. It all goes back to how much your primary instructor actually taught you about the basics. just looking at the horizon to fly then incorporate instruments to back it up. Or being able to tell whether you're coordinated based on what the nose is doing, and how your ass feels in relation to that seat haha.

But yeah take the 170, just make sure you have a GOOD instructor who will teach you how to actually fly. Either way enjoy the experience. I just don't like seeing pilots that have been cheated out knowing how to fly correctly and safely. thats all. not try to rant. have a good one everybody.
 
jrh said:
Right. Cheapest always = best. :rolleyes:



In case my sarcasm isn't obvious enough, I think this is terrible advice.
Click to expand...

Yeah but saving money is more important than doing it properly....ohh wait no no no reverse that
 
BTW, the Tomahawk does not get its nickname from its basic handling characteristics but from its spin recovery characteristics... or lack thereof. It has a spin accident rate 3.5-5.5 times greater than the 150/152. That's significant for a trainer that was certified for spins. Rich Stowell has an entire appendix devoted to the Traumahawk in his book on stall/spin awareness. In addition it was an AD queen. In its first 5 years the Tomahawk earned more ADs than the Cessna 150 did in 25 years.
 
Did my spin endorsement in a Tomahawk. It was just fine as long as you waited for 3/4 of a turn before beginning the recovery, otherwise you risk recovering inverted.
 
subpilot said:
Did my spin endorsement in a Tomahawk. It was just fine as long as you waited for 3/4 of a turn before beginning the recovery, otherwise you risk recovering inverted.
Click to expand...

Tomahawks seem to vary widely in their handling in spins from one to another. In several countries- Australia and Sweden for example- it was found that it did not comply with Part 23 certification standards in relation to stalls/spins. While not prohibited by an AD, most spin experts recommend against spin training in the PA-38.
 
Blackhawk said:
Tomahawks seem to vary widely in their handling in spins from one to another. In several countries- Australia and Sweden for example- it was found that it did not comply with Part 23 certification standards in relation to stalls/spins. While not prohibited by an AD, most spin experts recommend against spin training in the PA-38.
Click to expand...

Tomahawks certainly get a bad wrap due to its spin recovery characteristics. Aside from that though its a great training airplane. Doesn't burn much fuel, very responsive, feels like a bigger aircraft, easy to fly, just make sure you learn proper stall recovery techniques. I have nearly 800hrs teaching in PA38s and never had any student training problems. I feel it teaches better stick and rudder skills than a PA28. That being said, anytime anyone approaches me about spin training in it, no dice. For that a 150 or 172 will do the trick.
 
I'm biased since I'm a Tomahawk Owner, hard to beat 4.5 gallons an hour when fuel is so expensive. They have a history for sure, but I still find the numbers make it very affordable compared to a training flight with an empty backseat.
 
USMCmech said:
Cheapest airworthy airplane is generally the best choice.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. Unfortunately, until a person has a few hundred hours, they really don't know what's airworthy and what's not. A brand new person has to rely 100% on the word of their instructor for if a plane is airworthy.

And I don't trust most people in charge of the "cheap" places to give an accurate indication of if something is airworthy. They're too interested in keeping their planes in the air.

A classic example from a few days ago: My friend rented a Cessna 150 from the local cheap, no-frills operator. The shimmy dampener was completely shot...he said it felt like the plane was going to rattle itself to pieces during both takeoff and landing unless he held full aft elevator.

When he called the owner to report the problem, he was told, "Yeah, that plane's been like that for a long time. You just gotta pull back."

My friend didn't think it was too big of a deal because the owner said it wasn't.

I told my friend, do you think Cessna designed it to shimmy like that? No? That means it needs to be fixed then.

That's what drives me nuts, dealing with pilots who learn at the cheap places. Too often they have a really skewed view of what an "acceptable" problem is. One time I was giving a rental checkout to a customer who had learned at such a place. During the preflight, we found a big oil streak coming out from the cowling. Before I had a chance to say anything, he said, "Ehh, these planes, they get greasy just from sitting, you know?"

He was ready to hop in and fly. I said, "Well, our planes don't. I'm going to have a mechanic figure out what's going on before we fly." I can't remember the exact issue, but it was some sort of blown seal somewhere I believe. There was definitely a problem. The customer wasn't even going to squawk it, because that's how things were done at the cheap place.

USMCmech said:
Cheapest CFI is a bad idea.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
jrh said:
That's what drives me nuts, dealing with pilots who learn at the cheap places. Too often they have a really skewed view of what an "acceptable" problem is. One time I was giving a rental checkout to a customer who had learned at such a place. During the preflight, we found a big oil streak coming out from the cowling. Before I had a chance to say anything, he said, "Ehh, these planes, they get greasy just from sitting, you know?"

He was ready to hop in and fly. I said, "Well, our planes don't. I'm going to have a mechanic figure out what's going on before we fly." I can't remember the exact issue, but it was some sort of blown seal somewhere I believe. There was definitely a problem. The customer wasn't even going to squawk it, because that's how things were done at the cheap place.
Click to expand...

That sounds exactly like me... There's a busted seal in the plane I do my instrument training in, makes me uncomfortable. Small amounts of oil come down the cowling and onto the window, and I watch those oil gauges like a hawk. The guy I fly with (chief pilot) insists that it will be fine, and gets irritated when I ask him why they havn't fixed this stuff when it has been like this for a week. Beacon light was burned out today, as much as I'd like to fly nice and newer aircraft I'm simply unable afford it. That's just one of the many maint. issues I have with this company, they finally did fire their POS mechanic and hire two more which have already proven themsevles more much qualified.

It crosses my mind, because I've already had a cylinder head crack on me during my cross country which I had to deal with. (Almost ended putting it down in a field). I don't want my dream to come to an end before I even make it out of beat down, single piston aircraft.
But, that's just the risk you take when you get into this I suppose.
 
Ayork62493 said:
That sounds exactly like me... There's a busted seal in the plane I do my instrument training in, makes me uncomfortable. Small amounts of oil come down the cowling and onto the window, and I watch those oil gauges like a hawk. The guy I fly with (chief pilot) insists that it will be fine, and gets irritated when I ask him why they havn't fixed this stuff when it has been like this for a week. Beacon light was burned out today, as much as I'd like to fly nice and newer aircraft I'm simply unable afford it. That's just one of the many maint. issues I have with this company, they finally did fire their POS mechanic and hire two more which have already proven themsevles more much qualified.

It crosses my mind, because I've already had a cylinder head crack on me during my cross country which I had to deal with. (Almost ended putting it down in a field). I don't want my dream to come to an end before I even make it out of beat down, single piston aircraft.
Click to expand...

You've convinced yourself you're not able to afford it.

Being able to "afford" something is a very relative term. If you placed maintenance as a high priority in your mind, you'd find a way to get into better aircraft. You might not fly as much, but everything has a limit. Even now, in the cheaper aircraft you currently fly, I'm guessing you don't have enough cash to fly two hours every day. Yet you've figured out a way to make do. You probably save enough money to fly once every X days. Flying a nicer aircraft would simply require you to fly once every X+3 days or something.

Ayork62493 said:
But, that's just the risk you take when you get into this I suppose.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but actually that's the risk *you* take. I know plenty of pilots who do not take these types of risks.

Flying with maintenance squawks you're not comfortable with is entirely your choice. Other options are available. This is not an inevitable situation.

Talk to any professional pilot who's been flying for a while and they can probably tell you a story of turning down a flight because they weren't comfortable with a maintenance squawk. It might not have been a popular decision, but they did it anyway.

Now, if a professional pilot, who's getting paid to get a job done, has the power to make those kinds of decisions, imagine how much power you, as a paying customer, has. If you fly something you don't feel safe in, you really have nobody to blame but yourself.
 
jrh said:
You've convinced yourself you're not able to afford it.

Being able to "afford" something is a very relative term. If you placed maintenance as a high priority in your mind, you'd find a way to get into better aircraft. You might not fly as much, but everything has a limit. Even now, in the cheaper aircraft you currently fly, I'm guessing you don't have enough cash to fly two hours every day. Yet you've figured out a way to make do. You probably save enough money to fly once every X days. Flying a nicer aircraft would simply require you to fly once every X+3 days or something.
Click to expand...

Maybe if the difference is 15 or so dollars per hour, but I'm talking about going from an aircraft that I rent 78 wet for, KLN 89B, Dual VOR/ILS, it's a great aircraft. The next viable option is a jump to 105 an hour, followed by 122 an hour for the real nice stuff at other airports. Add instruction, the price climbs from 108 an hour at the cheapest, to 157 an hour. Two hours of flying, plus instruction now comes to 314. I can assure you, that would eat my checkbook insanely fast.

I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but actually that's the risk *you* take. I know plenty of pilots who do not take these types of risks.

Flying with maintenance squawks you're not comfortable with is entirely your choice. Other options are available. This is not an inevitable situation.

Talk to any professional pilot who's been flying for a while and they can probably tell you a story of turning down a flight because they weren't comfortable with a maintenance squawk. It might not have been a popular decision, but they did it anyway.

Now, if a professional pilot, who's getting paid to get a job done, has the power to make those kinds of decisions, imagine how much power you, as a paying customer, has. If you fly something you don't feel safe in, you really have nobody to blame but yourself.
Click to expand...

I could throw out unique situations all day on this, bottom line though is that you are correct. It is my problem
 
jrh said:
.

That's what drives me nuts, dealing with pilots who learn at the cheap places. Too often they have a really skewed view of what an "acceptable" problem is. One time I was giving a rental checkout to a customer who had learned at such a place. During the preflight, we found a big oil streak coming out from the cowling. Before I had a chance to say anything, he said, "Ehh, these planes, they get greasy just from sitting, you know?"

He was ready to hop in and fly. I said, "Well, our planes don't. I'm going to have a mechanic figure out what's going on before we fly." I can't remember the exact issue, but it was some sort of blown seal somewhere I believe. There was definitely a problem. The customer wasn't even going to squawk it, because that's how things were done at the cheap place.
.
Click to expand...

This could become a thread all of its own. The place where I learned to fly didn't start out as cheapskates, but by the time I decided to go elsewhere to finish my commercial, they- or at least my CFI- had turned into a "Don't sqwak the (landing light/shimmy-damper/DG/Nav-Light/bad comm radio/fuel gauge/questionable tire) because it might ground the airplane". Also "don't use the landing/taxi lights for taxiing"
 
Ayork62493 said:
But, that's just the risk you take when you get into this I suppose.
Click to expand...

The first flight school I worked at had HORRIBLE maintaince. I left that buisness because of it, and went to a school that had good MX. That decision cost me a lot of time and money including a lot of multi time.

I don't regret it one bit.


Now paying extra for a G1000 airplane, or simply for the "new plane smell" is a waste of money in most cases. A classic 172 is the best bang for your buck for primary flight training.
 
USMCmech said:
Now paying extra for a G1000 airplane, or simply for the "new plane smell" is a waste of money in most cases. A classic 172 is the best bang for your buck for primary flight training.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%

Lots of flight schools out there push new students on the newer more expensive aircraft because the student doesn't know any better.

Coming from our world where a car that is 10 years old is too old, flying something from the 70s or 80s terrifies some people until they learn the things that need be done before an aircraft can fly.

I looooove flying airplanes with nothing but a 6pack and maybe a vor or 2.
 
Lots of flight schools out there push new students on the newer more expensive aircraft because the student doesn't know any better.

Coming from our world where a car that is 10 years old is too old, flying something from the 70s or 80s terrifies some people until they learn the things that need be done before an aircraft can fly.
Click to expand...
Wholeheartedly agreed. A primary trainer doesn't need all of that equipment and, to be honest, it distracts the hell out of the student.

drunkenbeagle said:
Those bulbs are expensive!! (Actually, I turn them off when I don't need them too...)
Click to expand...

Yer' dangerous, the FAA wants you to run them at all times below 10,000'! ;)

6-pack? I'm usually flying a 3-pack. (ASI, Tach, Altimeter)
Click to expand...
Isn't it glorious? You really have a fourth instrument, too (the finely-tuned seat of your pants).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top