Little correction: The M350 is the only single engine, piston, pressurized airplane *in production*. What airplane do you think belongs on this list? Thank you for watching!
Funny story about the Bonanza: (Yes I have many hours in various versions). After my G/A career as a CFII, I spent the rest at a major airline. One day, we heard Houston Approach ask an RJ on the frequency to increase their rate of descent. The RJ pilot replied, *"We're coming down faster than a Bonanza full of doctors."* We cracked up laughing.
I asked one of my instructors once about the Bonanza and his response was; "who buys Bonanza's? Answer, Doctors and lawyers. What do doctors and lawyers have in common? Answer, they both suffer from IKE syndrome; IKE; I Know Everything...
I know someone who had just gotten his pilot's license and complex certification who bought a glassair on the advice of another friend who owned a V-tail bonanza. You can lookup the accident report on the faa website.
I am 70 years old and finally I’m going to live a dream of getting my pilots license starting in 2021. The vaccine will be here and will be able to do things like that. I’m going to get my license if it takes me the rest of my life
@@Radionut Sir you might want to try Red Stewart Airfield (40I) in Waynesville, Ohio. Not far from Butler. Just North of Lebanon south east of Dayton. They specialize in tail draggers and are cheap. Several different instructors. Family owned and operated airfield. Good people. Champs, Cubs, Cessnas.
I started flying the MU2 in 1989. I brought some "training material" home to study and set it on the night table. My wife freaked out when she read the title of the article on the top of the pile "MU2 - Widow Maker" . She explained that she didn't want to become a widow just yet. Anyway, I agree that it is a fantastic airplane provided the pilot receives proper training, which, at the time was provided by Flight Safety in Huston Texas. Great video!
I have given over 2000 hours of flight training in the PA-38 Piper Tomahawk. Over 2000 hours of dual given in Cessna 150/152s, and 4000+ hour in various other makes and models. The Piper Tomahawk was hands down, my preferred training airplane. When my students passed their checkrides I knew they could fly and deal with a bad situation they may find in other airplanes. I want to know that my students can recover from an uncoordinated stall. that they can actually stop a spin and exit safely, etc. The Cessnas, other Pipers, Beechcrafts, Grummans, Mooneys, and most other light singles are designed to be well mannered, stable airplanes. But they are all capable doing vary bad things. The Tomahawk prepared my students for those undesirable eventualities. Besides, it was a lot of fun to fly.
I was one of the 1st 100 people to get their Private Lic in the Tomahawk. I loved it. Bit noisy inside but overall a great flying plan. NO issues doing three turn spins and i learned the importance of down elevator etc
As a student pilot. Is the piper tomahawk is the best airplane for training. I have seven different other models of haircraft. And one thing about the piper tomahawk I told my flight instructor about Is we will not do stall spins in the Piper tomahawk. Instead we will rent a cessna 172 and do stall spins in that.
@@mm-gg1rj The Tomahawk is one of the best spin trainers out there. I have had the Cessna 172 (and the 150/152) recover from a spin and enter a step spiral simply by removing your hands from the controls during the spin. I want to know that my students can actually recover from a spin. The Tomahawk requires proper control input to recover from a spin. If proper control input is not applied, it will continue spinning until it is applied. Therefore, if my students can recover from a spin in a Tomahawk, I know they can recover from one in any airplane that requires conventional spin recovery.
I learned in the 80s and in a Tomahawk. It was a great comfortable airplane when flown correctly. I learned at a Piper dealer and an instructor and a student had an accident doing spins. Both were ok. The airplane was recovering from the spin when it hit the ground in a swampy area. Both walked away and were OK. At that time the cause was determined to be improper recovery technique. The correct way to recover, I was told at that time, was to use full forward elevator. Partial would delay the recovery. I am surprised in the above video the narrator said "some elevator". Spins were continued to be taught with the proper control input for a safe recovery.
I did all my flight training in a Tomahawk and thought all airplanes stalled that abruptly. Then I went to a 150, which just sort of "mushed" when it stalled. What an experience.
Traumahawk is more like it. Logged about 200 in that plane as a CFI, and only had two departure stalls turn into the beginning of a flat spin...that’s not too bad is it?
The PA30B (twin comanche) I owned for years had a bad rep because they were used for upgrade training to multiengine. When single engine Vmc was taught years ago it resulted in many stall/spin episodes. The maneuver used to be taught low (more density so more rudder until there was none) and by pulling power and feathering prop at once. I miss mine every day. Miller conversion with tip tanks, plan at 165kn and 16gph cruise. Wonderful aircraft.
+1, on Jim's comment. The Twin Comanche was a great plane at the right price for flight schools, that fell victim to the rather cavalier VMC training standards of the day. Now, we know better. Fly it high and fast, and know that if you lose one engine just after takeoff and below VMC, then you have a glider. So get fast and get high right after takeoff, to give you more options. My dad has had two Twin-C's, has flown easily 15K hrs in them and is dedicated to the PA-30 and PA-39. Hard to find that speed and low fuel flow, with the insurance of a second engine, in an airplane at that price point.
As a very young child I rode in a Bonanza (late 50's early 60') flown by the father of a friend. He was a doctor (OB/GYN) but before medical school he had been a p-38 pilot in WW-II in Europe. It was an uneventful flight around northern Maryland. I loved it.
Hey! The tomahawk picture of Kilo Yankee towards the beginning of your video is the plane I’m actually learning to fly in right now. It’s owned by a small flight club in South Wales, uk. I flew in it just last week! Crazy Good video man thanks
The picture at the start shows Tomahawk G-TOMS lying on its back. I flew that actual plane a few times back in the mid 1990s when it was owned by our local flight school in Guernsey UK. Yes, they had a vicious spin which required correct recovery - but that's the whole point behind spin training ! The plane is lying on its back because it was blown over in an overnight storm on the airfield and not due to a crash.
Flew my first solo in G-TOMS at Guernsey, waaaaay back. Training on the PA38 Tomahawk taught me proper stall recovery technique, never mind spin recovery. Subsequent CPL training was on the PA28, but my experience as an FI, working for flight schools with a variety of different training aircraft, convinced me that initial training on the Tomahawk produced a safer, more competent PPL than one who had experienced only the docile C150/152 or PA28. RIP G-TOMS and, come to think of it, also G-BIPS and G-BTEX, all remembered with affection.
Fun fact the Bonanzas fuel selector has a push then turn function on it because back in 1984 my uncle and his best friend who both had Bonanzas would often in turbulance bump the fuel selector to the “centre” position causing the engine to die. They both wrote letters every week for 2 months to Beachcraft advising them about the dangerous design flaw and thats why all Bonazas built after now have the push then turn fuel selector
When I was in college in the late '70s, I knew the guy who had the honor of being the first pilot to crash a Tomahawk. Nothing to do with spins though. He was ferrying the Tomahawk from the factory to an FBO in Salt Lake City. The flight was 2,000 nm or so, and it took him 10 days because he could only make small hops because of incredibly bad winter weather the whole way. Naturally, he was frustrated and had a bad case of get-home-itis. On that 10th day he was only 10 or so miles from the airport when weather closed in. Instead of back tracking to an alternate airport (Heber), he tried to make it all the way, but the lower and lower ceiling eventually forced him so low he hit an object and crashed. He spent a couple of weeks in a hospital.
As a 12,000 hour ATP, I also have 2,000 hours dual given in mostly C-150. Your analysis is very good given the limited time allotted. I was, to my knowledge, the only flight instructor at Van Nuys (a Mecca for flight instruction at the time) to demo and teach spin recovery as it would likely be encountered turning base to final with 20 degrees of flaps. A lethal situation but one that can be handled with prompt identification and corrective action. I was also the only instructor I knew of that REQUIRED a successful touchdown to a complete stop with simulated engine failure. We did these in an area that had about 4 suitable places you could choose from. I never did understand the FAAs allowance of a demonstration down to 500 feet with power then given back to the student. It only begins to get interesting at 500 feet. Regardless I was always swamped with students who wanted the in depth training that I would provide.
I fly RC planes and had three crashes after what I thought was a radio related problem. Later I learned I had entered spins after turning sharply at low airspeeds stalling one wing. At the fourth spin (that I did on purpose at high altitude) I applied what I learned (01:18) , the model reacted exactly as expected (01:25) and then recovered. Good video!
@@stevewhite3424 LOL! You’re not a licensed pilot, are you? Otherwise you might already know that a “space shuttle pilot” is not the ultimate level of airmanship... go back to your Star Trek reruns, noob.
@@tomwatson3580 I fly both. RC planes WAY harder fly then sitting in one as you have no physical feedback as to what is happening. Spin Recovery technique is important for any aircraft one is flying manned or RC. I went from RC to full size in Piper Tomahawk 1978. My instructor said I was the first student he had who knew how to properly recover from a spin from the get go.
I trained in a C-152 (1995) but in the middle of my training I went on a business trip and I *really* wanted to fly. So I found a local FBO and linked up with their CFI. All they had available was a PA-38 Tomahawk. I knew nothing about it. The CFI told me about its reputation and what had been done to fix it, etc. I didn’t see it as a big deal and we went flying. I don’t recall spinning it, but we did stalls & steep turns and the usual private pilot air work. The plane was a pleasure to fly. But when I got back to my home ‘drome, my salty old instructor saw the entry in my logbook and said “ahhh I see you logged a couple hours in the Tomachicken and survived.” And that name has stuck in my brain ever since.
I instructed at a school that had a large fleet of Tomahawks, have many hours instructing in them, and will say it is NOT a good airplane for primary flight training. The wing was modified between approval and production, making it less stiff. This allowed warping, resulting in every airplane having different stall characteristics. One would roll right several knots above stall speed. Another sounded like a group of gorillas beating on the tail as hard and as fast as they could. When I looked back, the entire tail was twisting back and forth. I had the opportunity to speak to a well-know author of training manuals, someone considered an experts on spins, and who also happened to be a former Piper test pilot. I asked him about spins in the plane, he said it came out after he left Piper, but he took one up one time to do spins, and would never do it again - it's unpredictability was unnerving. No, if I have to fly with people who's goal each day is to find new, and inventive ways to kill me, I will stick with a 172, then I only have to worry about outsmarting the person, not the person and the plane.
Yes that's exactly what the experts have ways said. The statement that one "just needs a little training to handle it" doesn't make any sense, it is a trainer...
@@davidbrayshaw3529 If tanks are full, you actually start on the left tank and burn maybe 1/4 tank or so off, then burn your aux tank. The ps5c will return fuel to the left tank at a rate close to a gallon an hour. But you're right, burn the aux first, and the tanks are slightly forwards of CG so you will land with a more aft CG than you took off with if you left with full tanks.
@@pauldzim Carb icing on takeoff is really not much of a thing (not unheard of, but carb icing is far more common in humid weather at low power settings, like on approach). TDTMD was due to an unqualified pilot becoming disoriented in IMC immediately after takeoff.
@@pauldzim According to the NTSB analysis of the accident that I read, the airplane had an attitude indicator with an older display that the young pilot was likely not used to, and he became disoriented after entering the clouds.
I learned in a Traumahawk, too. As long as you kept her above stall speed, she was a pretty decent ride although hot due to no shade from above. HOWEVER, the stall was evil and the airframe fragile. Stalling meant rolling right over and then into an incredibly fast, nearly flat spin unless you had lightning reflexes to stop the spin before it quite got started, which is what stall training in the Traumahawk focused on developing. Even if you stayed rightside up, you'd still lose a ton of altitude. If you let the thing spin (and 3-turn spins were a license requirement back then), you had to be quick getting out or the airframe would bend or break. And that could also happen from the forces needed for recovery. The one good thing I have to say about this is that I sure learned to keep my speed up long before the whole "stall speed + 30%" became a thing. So in summary, I don't think the Traumahawk is a "good plane with a bad rep". She's a bad airplane with a deserved bad rep. Sure, it's possible to survive flying her---I'm still alive, after all. But she has no margin for error at all at low speeds. If something goes wrong low and slow, you're going to be a smoking hole. Flying the Traumahawk is like putting a landmine in your hallway. As long as you don't step on it, you can walk past it every day. But it just takes 1 moment of inattention or 1 misstep to END you. Good airplanes aren't like this.
@@TheBullethead What ever you do, don't turn around and look at the tail during a departure stall! It will scare the sheet out of you. I did one afternoon, and immediately switched to a 152. The tail shakes and twists back and forth so much, you would swear it was going to come off. No joke, it scared me straight to a 152/150 which is a solid plane that can't be beat. It spins fine and predictable every time!!!
@@scotabot7826 I had huge fight with a chief instructor about the Tomahawk. This pile of aluminum junk was one of the early factory demos and he demanded the Tonkahawk be used for spin curriculum. He took me out and wrung it out I wished I had my parachute rig on. The shaking tail, the dents at the aileron hinges the truly scary spin and recovery. The Chief was an ex USAF T38 instructor so the Hawk was docile to him. The first stall from oh 8,000 ft agl we dropped a wing and rolled inverted. Chief got mad at me for recovery and not letting it go into what I saw as a potential flat spin. I've had time in Comanches, Grumman TR 2's Pitts S-2 etc. Nothing like the like this. Give me a docile C150/2 Champ or Taylorcraft any day Oh the next day there was a service billiton on wing spar and the T hawk was grounded..
@@scotabot7826 The tail did come off for a few poor sods. My stupid instructor (a C152 90-day wonder) permanently bent it on me 1 time, showing me the "fun" way to do spins. IOW, he started with high-speed snap-rolls, throttled back, and let the nose fall so it became a spin. So we went around 6 or so times I guess. Anyway, it took both me and him with all 4 feet on the right rudder to recover and then half an hour of all our strength to get home alive. it took us about 5 minutes for our legs to be willing to climb us out of the thing and AFAIK the plane never flew again. I only ever stalled a Traumahawk once after that, on my check ride, to show off my HIGHLY developed lighting reflexes stopping the spin before it started. I flat out refused to spin the thing and still passed. It's a saner world these days, where the focus is on AVOIDING stalls and spins, rather than accepting them as inevitable and focusing on recovering from them. Hell, most planes these days are prohibited from intentionally spinning at all. And a stall/spin turning base to final is pretty much guaranteed fatal even if you know how to recover from a spin, so what was the point of spin training back in the day? Seriously, most GA planes (the Traumahawk excepted) then and now won't spin unless you deliberately force them to., and the spin stops when you stop forcing. So how likely are you to get into an unintentional spin without flying into a tornado? So why bother with it? I'm glad to see a bit of sense somehow leaked into flight training ;)
@@scotabot7826 In 1984 I turned around because my instructor directed me to look. Chilled me to the core. That T tail was furiously wobbling. I've never done a spin since. Otherwise, the plane was awesome.
The Tomahawk was my favorite of all of the trainers that I flew, low cost and a unbeatable view even looking down wasn't bad because of the narrow wing cord... wish I had one.
It just needed a little more power! I remember it needing considerable pressure on the right pedal during slow flight much unlike the Cessna 150 or the Luscombe 8.
I flew a rental Tomahawk on a couple of occasions. Very loud in the cockpit. Low powered. My checkout instructor decided to enter a spin for his entertainment. Did not care for this airplane.
Learned to fly in the Tomahawk.. I heard the stories also. I never had a problem with it. I was a little concerned after a hard rain one night i was going to do a hour worth with the instructor, he went to the back of the tail gabs it, pulling it down and all this water flows out the tail...My WTF radar went off! Could have had a cg problem lol Either way it was interesting.
@@danmckeever7740 The takeoff tail strike generally only happenes to a pilot once. But that first one is quite a surprise. Hint: In a Tomahawk, when doing a soft field takeoff, don't hold full up elevator until you lift the nosewheel. The tail will be stalled until you hit a magic airspeed, then will unstall and slam the rear tie-down into the runway much faster than the unprepared pilot can react.
When I trained for my UK PPL in 1993 I opted to undergo spin training in the Piper Tomahawk (not a mandatory requirement), and went on to fly quite a number of hours solo on this aircraft. Most of my other hours were in PA28 airframes. Tomahawk was basic, but cheap to hire for building hours and offered great visibility compared with the PA28.
I did the bulk of my training in the Tomahawk in 1984. My CFI was a big advocate of avoiding stall/spins in T-hawks. At that time a T-hawk somewhere allegedly lost its tail in a spin. An AD was put out and strengthening bars were installed on all the T-hawks in our fleet. I actually like the squirrelly little aircraft overall. I didn't care for how cramped it was with 2 full grown men. Also didn't like that door latch in the ceiling during moderate turbulence as my head kept bashing it. It taught you how to fly as in keeping on top of it every second. On a hot day with gusting crosswinds it would make me work all the way to 3 wheels on the runway. My CFI grew up in northern Minnesota with tall trees so he was big on slips and short field landings. Great plane to learn slips.
One day I had a trip to do to party Island with family. Had Tomahawk. I had half tanks and well within CG and weight. I had 4 on board. How is that possible? Well had wife 1 yr old and pregnant wife. I was a CFII at fbo. Much more visibility and room than Cessna 152.
The comment that the Piper m350 is the only pressurized single engine prop plane on the market is INCORRECT .The Pilatus PC12 is also pressurized and single engine.
Was a flight instructor for 16 years. There is no airplane that's a widomaker just people that think if they have enough money they can fly airplanes their not qualified too fly
This is extremely interesting. I actually have several hundred hours logged in the Tomahawk as an instructor, as well as a a few dozen hours in the Grumman AA-1B (also as an instructor), the first two aircraft mentioned. Maybe I should count myself lucky to have survived, however, I found the Tomahawk in particular a joy to fly and an easy airplane to learn. Granted, I never required spin training as part of my PPL course. The Tomahawk flew faster and had more cockpit room than the 150/152 (also better visibility). It did require a slightly higher landing speed, but, due to its propensity to float less, could easily be landed on a dime with proper throttle control. Actually, because of these characteristics, it turned out to be a great transition airplane from single to multi-engine flying. The AA-1B, however, was a different story. The airplane could not be spun, otherwise it had a terrifying tendency to enter into an unrecoverable flat-spin. The nose wheel was castering, which is difficult enough to teach to a new student and certainly was not safe in the hands of an amateur. Additionally, the fuel gauges were actually sight gauges full of fuel in the cockpit itself, not ideal in the case of a crash landing. You also tried to forget the fact that the wings were actually glued on, rather than bolted or secured by a more traditional means. Regardless, it was still cool that the cockpit canopy could be slid back in flight for a true "open cockpit" experience. All in all, I'll take the Tomahawk any day over the Cessna 150/152. However, as a beginning aircraft, I would highly recommend staying away from the Grumman until more experience is obtained.
Well, as a veteran thirty-six year enroute air traffic controller I can assure you that the Doctor Killer moniker for the BE-35 was well deserved. I had found that the doctors & lawyers flying these aircraft were rude snd arrogant. They flew into weather we’ve warned them about then they are begging for vectors out, panicky and confused while they’re in the weather and a few had over controlled their aircraft and crashed. Retired (ZAB/ZDV) I am sure that you’re familiar with the Mooney Spike..?
I got most of my basic training in a Tomahawk. Great visibility. It was interesting to watch the “T” tail vibrate severely during stalls. I always wondered what kind of plane it would have been with a convention tail installed. Still, a fun little plane to fly.
I always thought it would make a great airplane if it had retractable gear. I did all of my primary training in the PA38 and my initial spin training. I actually kinda miss it.
It was pretty scary to see how much the tail moved side to side. When I went for my check ride the examiner had never flown in one but had heard about the stall characteristics. He said "I will tell you when to recover for the stall demonstration". At the first nibble of stall he screamed "recover" and said "I don't want to be in one of these things when the tail comes off". Great memories!
A friend of mine instructed on them. His school was one of the first in North America to use them. One day he was demonstrating an incipient spin to his student. He started at 5500 AGL. The thing snapped into a full spin and he finally recovered at about 800 AGL. The back window was smashed by the fire extinguisher that came out of its holder and the tail was bent to the point of requiring replacement from the aft cabin bulkhead rearward.
I took my spin training for my CFI in a Tomahawk and found it a really nice trainer. Sure many high wing aircraft have gentler stall characteristic to the point you have to actually force them to spin. The Tomahawk made you aware of real situations. This plane was great, can't say the same for the instructors.
The worst spin recovery plane I ever flew was the De Havilland Chipmunk. It would wrap up into a tight spin and even with full opposite rudder and full forward stick it would take several long seconds for the rotation to stop. When it finally did stop, the plane was in a dive which was beyond vertical. Very, very scary!
In the late '80s, I did a lot of spin training in the Tomahawk mainly because it was fun. I remember one of the Tomahawks that I flew had a nasty habit of going almost completely inverted after entering the spin. I had to look above my head to see the ground. After two spins, the aircraft settled into a nose-down spin. That aircraft did require opposite rudder and neutral controls to start recovery.
I love the Beechcraft Bonanza V35. Would love to own a V35B. Best airplane I have ever flown cross-country. These are high performance aircraft. Quick on their feet. Very responsive. Training. Training. Training. You have to stay ahead of her. No weekend pilots. You fly often. Not part time. Best airplane I have ever flown.
Trained and did my check ride in a Tomahawk. What a great little airplane to learn in. Last solo cross country at night lost an engine during the second leg. I put it in a snowy field 18 miles west of Iowa City. They came the next morning fixed it, pulled it onto a gravel road, and flew it back to home base. Got my ticket two weeks later.
I learned to fly in a '73 C150 and although it's very docile and forgiving - even at stall - the placard specifically says that you shouldn't use it for spin *training* unless it's modified for it. That said, It will happily recover with a boot of rudder. You're just not supposed to get it there in the first place.
I actually know a couple of people with bonanzas. They’re all extremely good pilots though and ironically one is a doctor now. All of them have had the majority of their life’s filled with aviation which has shaped their ability to fly. Love those guys, amazing people who have helped me so much after over the years.
Wolf, I owned a Beech C33 Debonair for ten years. I absolutely loved and trusted that plane and even though I sold it 20 years ago, I miss it to this day!
Most PA38 Tomahawk pilots were very low time and often a pain in the rear for air traffic controllers to work (sequence) so I use to put them in the computer as a PAIN vs. PA38. As for being Doctor Killers, it wasn't just the V Tail bonanza, the Mooney shared that distinction too.
Flew the PA 38 as a private pilot...man!!! That thing could spin and was a late to recover ...and was a HAND FULL. The IFR ,Commercial, jet, was a breeze after flying the tomahawk. After 20,000 hours I still see the odd one , it still makes me grin and grimace at the same rime. Flying the 777 is much easier hands and feet, than the Tomahawk- Chop. Found memories overall.
Well, my pops had no spin or stall recovery problems with his marvelous 2,200 horsepower Grumman F6F Hellcat, no problems at all with his 6 Browning .50 caliber machine guns that functioned beautifully to shred 9 Japanese planes, and no issues with landings or take -offs from aircraft carriers.
Your remark had me do a little detective work. There were two USN pilots named Harris with 9 kills. One was in VF-17 (Jolly Rogers) and flew Corsairs, so I don't think that's your dad. However there is a Leroy Eugene Harris, credited with 9.25 kills, who flew F6Fs in VF-2, a squadron that operated both off the USS Hornet and USS Enterprise. If that's your dad, you should have mentioned the Silver Star that he received for diving unarmed (ammo exhausted) through a 3 plane formation to disrupt their harassment of his second section leader. Quite the hero.
Thomas S. Harris. He had a lot of help winning the war. There were many like him. After the was he was a test pilot for North American Aviation, and then McDonald Douglas here in St Louis.
Flew a Grumman AA-1B for some 10-20 hours while training for my Commercial cert. Thing was a joy to fly, and you could keep the nose up on landing to some ludicrously low speeds on landing. Never really bothered with the flaps with how much runway we had, since they were so slow and ineffective though. But sporty, cool, and fantastic for rudder usage (especially with the free nosewheel) it's a great little plane.
flew them for years. only had any spin issues when students didnt follow the brief. one delayed recovery but then m0st aeroplanes have . their off days.
One day while I was on the ramp at KRRL, a guy came in in an A36...next to the vent in the pilot's window was a little sticker: MD inside the international NOT symbol. Got a good laugh out of that.
I too earned my license in a Tomahawk, but admittedly, I never could recover from a full stall while in training with an instructor. Unlike something like a Piper Warrior which simply dropped a nose, the Tomahawk dropped a wing and quickly lost altitude. It was a true "fly by the numbers" airplane, especially when in the landing pattern as there was no forgiving from this aircraft if you pushed the limits.
The AA1 "yankee" was a wonderful trainer. Only problem I ever saw were Cessna plilots getting in them and not knowing about switching tanks, expecting them to glide at 45mph, or expecting them to climb in hot weather. It was a great trainer because it taught you to actually fly a plane.
Ha! All my PPL, commercial & instrument training was done in Cessnas. It took me _many hours_ to get used to paying attention to and switching the fuel tanks in the Pipers & Beeches I flew after school.
At the age of 17 I logged couple hundred hours in a V tail Bonanza I loved it. I had an instructor who flew for Continental Airlines who put me under the hood and we practiced unusual attitudes every time he got an airplane with me. That was 48 years ago. Time flies when you're having fun!!!!
The one thing I wholeheartedly agree with, is the noise level of an MU-2 ! When I was working at an FBO, while building flight time, I had the distinct pleasure to deal with MU-2's daily. They have a distinct sound and will deafen line personnel without really good hearing protectors. Great video !
@@leohorishny9561 The MU-2 had Garrett engines, as opposed to PT-6 engines found on more common turboprop aircraft. Those Garrett’s earned the “MU-2 Salute” (hands over ears). But, this was only the case on the ground and were supposedly actually quieter in flight. That, along with the top wing configuration probably contributed. Still, the MU-2 was considered THE safest aircraft, large or small, during ice conditions. That’s why some corporations chose them to carry executives. Shoney’s Restaurant Corp. used them exclusively at one time in the early 80’s
Meh. I learned to fly in a Tomahawk 32 years ago. Great little plane with excellent visibility and performance. It requires you actually fly it...not be lazy with flying coordinated or spin recovery technique.
The V-tail Bonanza (Doctor killer) was the plane that I got my first ride in. It was owned by my high school best friends dad. I will never ever forget the feeling of my first flight...
I really liked digging into the history of the Yankee and Tiger, I learned a lot. The Yankee sorta looks like an RV6, which is understandable since it was meant to be a homebuilt. And it’s tubular spar and bonded wing is pretty interesting...
@@FloridaFlying - I really love my Tiger. She has been totally restored. New paint, plexiglass, interior, engine, and prop. She’s actually at the avionics shop right now getting all new Garmin avionics suite and new panel. “Toni” is like a brand new airplane now. I’ve also installed a few other goodies such as electric aileron trim and a Power Flo exhaust system (good for about 10% power increase). I imagine that I will own and fly her until I’m no longer physically able to do so.
@@USNVA11 . I am envious of you. I took a hard look at the Tiger 30 years ago when they could be had for $25000 plus. I ended up buying an Experimental biplane...Starduster Too with a 205 hp Lycombing , out of a helicopter. It was always a treat to fly.
@@jamesharber7820 - I looked up the Starduster. That is a really sweet looking biplane ! I can only imagine what a blast it is to fly one. Great performance numbers too, even if you power it with the baseline O-360. Hope you’re still enjoying it !
@@USNVA11 .Thank you for the reply. I retired and sold it for a few reasons in 1995: My IA/AP died so I lost my inexpensive hanger rent at his sod field airport (C-40) and that coupled with no longer having a good income, owning/operating a nice aircraft was no longer in the cards. I have no complaints because I owned a few airplanes and flew them for about 15 years. One last thing. A big reason I did not purchase one of those beautiful and FAST Tigers was that the horizontal tail would not fit in that airport’s T Hangers and I did not want the hassle of a community hanger.
I used a AA-1 as a primary trainer for several years. It’s a great trainer because it demands precise speed control, and once a student learns this by getting slow on approach a time or two they tighten up they’re flying. A person learning in an AA-1 never has a problem transitioning to a heavier or more complex aircraft. Like all of the aircraft described the flight envelope is smaller and less forgiving than some other aircraft. As long as your a well trained and disciplined pilot all are safe aircraft.
39 yrs pilot, CFI-II-ME and ATP, airlines. The Tomahawk was the first plane I owned in partnership after I got my Pvt in a C-150. I flew the heck out of it late 80's early 90's. I was aware of the history. I used it to build hours, practice for instrument and commercial ratings (while renting other planes like C172 and Piper Arrow to take the check ride). I commuted 60 mi to work round trip, all building hours. I loved the plane. Took some vacations from WA state down coast to San Fransico area. Lots of fun affordable flying. When doing deep stalls I looked back at the T-Tail once. It was shaking like crazy. 😮. I stopped doing deep stalls.
I owned a 82 Piper Tomahawk II for several years, it was a honest airplane, never had any problems with its flying characteristics, I think Piper could have done a better job on; its wiring could be neater, place a ground lead on the gages, the airframe is not a good ground, replaced the fuel selector value it had a plastic core that failed, the ventilation system should be like other Pipers, the trim chain may fall off the sprockets if the trim wheel is moved to its forward/aft limits, there is an aileron universal joint beneath the left seat it had play in it was nosy, sounded like it would fail, had an A&P tighten up the pins was better, I think the overall quality of fit and finish could be better. I learned to fly in the PA-28-140, rented the 150, 151, 180, 181, the piper control wheel can be stiff if not lubricated properly. The Carb Heat/Alt Air Lever has always been a poor thing, it should be a Push/Pull Knob.
First time I flew a Tomahawk was a check out flight being given by a new flight instructor. I was already an experienced flight instructor but had never flown the Tomahawk. The instructor was scared silly of entering a spin with the Tomahawk and became extremely vocal after requesting i perform a departure stall. While maintaining, and deepening the stall, I explained to him the plane would only enter a spin if improper control inputs were made. I maintained a power on controlled stall with a descent rate close to 250'/minute to demonstrate that fact. After a 600' loss of altitude in a nose high, level attitude I recovered from the stall and asked about the next maneuver. That stall was enough to demonstrate to the instructor that I could fly the plane better than him. We went back to the airport for a sign off. The plane was and is not dangerous, but those flying them sure can be.
great explanation of this very gentle airplane. sounds like a normal trainer that can go into advanced spins and just requires opposite rudder, level ailerons, & nose down inputs ..... Gentle yoke down, ease it back up, get that foot back off of that right rudder. Spinning left harrowing, Spinning right not as roller-coaster-ish. If you have a weak stomach , prepare to up-chuck all over the panel in projectile vomit fashion....which can destroy electrical components if you're not careful. Just teasing on that last part.
I learned to fly in a traumahawk. 😎. The only problem we ever really had was when the T-tail hit the prop wash when you flared for landing. The tail skid on the air plane was half ground off.
I used to work at an fbo, I personslly met a family who had recently transitioned from a C182 to a brand new bonanza. Later in the week I found out, that same entire family passed from a tragic accident in that bonanza. It was extremely shocking to me since I had just had a conversation with them days earlier. The pilot (dad) flew into IMC of which he was not certified to do, and it did not end well. May they rest in peace :(
I did my PPL training in a Tomahawk, plus about another 100 hours after that for recreational flying, until the place I flew got rid of them with high time on the Hobbs.. Near the end my instructor said spins were not required, but offered to teach me the recovery if I wanted. I said I would rather learn that with him in the right seat, than no one there. We did a few, and it recovered as it should have. A couple of interesting notes: The FAA ordered stall strips be put on the leading edge of any PA-38s (Tomahawks) used for training. They (the FAA) still didn't like the lackadaisical way the Tomahawk entered the stall, so they ordered a second set of stall strips on the leading edge. And...for the equivalent of a private license in Canada, spin training and recovery is taught, and tested as part of the check ride.
I flew most of my training in the Tomahawk. I iced it once at night in a snow storm, did spins, landed at maximum crosswind component, flew it with a door that partially unlatched, flew 60 bank sustained turns, did instrument training, and took my check ride in one. It always treated me well.
Wichita here. Love the Starship shirt! ...and yes, the Bonanza (I had a feeling it would be #1 on the list) has a reputation around here, especially since we made it. 😵
In Germany we call the Starfighter "Witwenmacher" or "Erdnagel" (earthnail). Actually there was also a big scandal and it had - at least in the German version - a bunch of technical issues. If you type Witwenmacher in the German Wikipedia you get a list of things which it could mean. The Starfighter is the only aircraft within this list.
The First Time I Remember The Term Being Used Was In Reference To The Martin B-26 Marauder & If I'm Not Mistaken, It Had One Of The Best Safety Records Of The War.
The B-26 was the first plane to be called the Widowmaker. And it did go on to have a better safety record after modifications which added a larger wing, and better pilot training. The German F-104 was called the widowmaker, but it was more the pilots than the plane. The Spanish Air Force never lost one. They even did takeoff, roll, land in the same stretch of runway.
I have stalled and spun a Grumman AA-1 a number of times during my flight training. I never thought that there was anything special about it. I loved it's sensitive controls.
Pilots doing the initial and basic training in a Tomahawk turned out to be better pilots than pilots trained in C-152/172 or PA-28. I did hundreds of hours of instruction in the PA-38 and the plane was perfect for this. Me, I did my initial training in PA-28 so I turned out not to be not such a good pilot. Hopefully I improved over the years. Now, how about the Ted Smith’s Aerostar or the Piper built PA-60 Aerostar. I’m still in love with that plane and got about 1000+ hours in that. This is one candidate for a bad boy with a questionable rap?
I was told by a commercial pilot who used to fly MU-2's that it's a real nice flying airplane but it's just different enough from other planes (it uses spoilers instead of ailerons to turn) that you have to keep "in type" and not spend as much time with other planes while you're working one.
I have a Cessna 180 ... you have to be on the ball with 180/185's. I'd put the Robinson R22 and R44 in there as well for carb icing and mast bumping respectively, combined with a need to enter Autorotation within 1/2 second of engine out, you have to be ready to put that stick down asap.
I had a friend who was part owner of a beautiful 1950s Bonanza V-tail. It had recently been restored with new upholstery and shiny paint job, plus had all the modern avionics. Looked like it was brand new. He took us for a ride from one end of SF Bay to the other and back, let me handle it for a few minutes. Gorgeous airplane. I never felt unsafe in it, but then again, he was an experienced pilot who knew his business.
The Bonanza in and of itself is not dangerous but pilots who don’t stay current and know of its quirks are to blame. Planes are inanimate objects. In my mind some of the mentioned planes don’t belong on this “list”
The guy standing on the Bonanza at 6:38 looks like Mercury Seven Astronaut Gordo Cooper. Also it was a Bonanza that crashed killing guitarist Randy Rhoads of the Blizzard Of Oz band.
I owned a tomahawk. I'll take a tomahawk over a cessna 150/152 any day. More room, wider cabin, faster cruise, and it was just a better airplane. People who have ever called one a traumahawk without ever having flown one need to stay out of them. They can keep flying their sardine cans. Excellent value for the money because all of the panty waists are afraid of them, so they're cheap. They should be selling for +5k more than the cessna's in my opinion, but they're usually cheaper. With the ADs in place, they're a solid plane. I was always trying to get somewhere so hanging around stall speed was never a thing. Then I got into tailwheels and the rest is history. No more training wheels for me.
Definitely more comfortable than a 150. Lots more legroom too. There was a story that they changed the wing by getting rid of one of the ribs between the time it was certified and went into production resulting in oil-canning on the skin that exacerbated the spin. Don't know if that's true or not but I really think the story that the instructors all got together and said they wanted a plane that would spin easier is BS. I don't think the Beech Skipper, which has the same airfoil, had the same spin issues.
I own an AA1B...total sweetheart of a plane. It has to be flown inside its design envelope and you will be fine. Don't overload it; keep it in C of G limits, and learn how to manage energy as it does not like to go slow on final. I've flown T-hawks over the years and again, a total joy to fly; spun the h*ll out of them and recoveries were effortless. Both airplanes have undeserved bad reputations.
Before I even watched, I read "Airplanes with BAD Reputations" and immediately thought C-310 and Moooo-2 then the Traumahawk. C-310 likes to depart when single-engine, Moooo-2 has issues with spoilerons during stalls I believe, and the Traumahawk has an affinity for screwing itself into the ground. The Cessna singles are cake with spins - if it is only the first 1 to 3 turns, you can just release the controls and they generally recover without any control inputs. The most "you must make it stop" spinner I flew was the T-37 - that jet spins *fast* and will *not* come out of a spin without aggressive and correct inputs in a very specific sequence - if you aren't out by 10K, "handgrips raise" (eject). As far as the Moo2, I think the last great airplane Mitsubishi made was the A6M Zero.
As a CFiI I spent a bunch of time in the PA 38. It became a much better trainer when the stall strips were added to the front of the wings. We called it the Hatchett.
We used T-Cats (yankees) for training in Hawaii. Most of my students soloed in T-Cats. I thought it was a great plane to train in from the standpoint yo u had to fly it. Great visibility and abrupt stalls is what I remember best. My experience with spins in a 150 are not like you described. Once in a spin the roll rate just seemed to accelerate.
I instructed in 152's (also in Hawaii, with Air Service). I learned in 150's, and as I recall from my student days, they could have a very sharp stall and could drop a wing if you entered uncoordinated or the ailerons weren't kept neutral. The 152 on the other hand seemed to have limited elevator authority-it really wouldn't stall power off, but a bit of power seemed to increase the elevator authority enough to demonstrate a real stall. My experience though was that just relaxing the elevator in the 152 was enough to recover from a spin. However they would develop a pretty impressive, and scary, roll rate in spins.
how high up were you when you finally recovered. Did you apply pro-spin technique? then go to std. spin recovery to get out of it. and how many feet did you drop ?
@@dabneyoffermein595 Started at 4000 recovered by 1500. Yes back into spin entry inputs then recovery and popped out of the spin. Nearly caught me out that time. I did that after reading about a T67 Slingsby accident, where they bailed out.
I started normal spin entry, then recovery but went into very steep down rapid spin. POH says it will do this, but, i felt it was taking way to long to recover, so applied spin entry imputs once more, then recovery, it instantly recovered. To me very nose down meant there was no leverage on rudder to stop spin. Pulling elevator back flattened spin, the rudder could bite.
My dad flew one for several years and even let 12-year old me take the controls a few times. No problems (of course I only did straight and level flight - couldn't see over the instrument panel.) Maybe the trick was that Dad wasn't a doctor and had paid attention when he got rated in the aircraft.
@@jimarcher5255 Yes, that was a term used in the 1950’s through to the 1970’s. Not the same car nowadays? My friend had a Caddy back in 1975. It was like riding on your living room couch. Smooth, couldn’t feel a bump. What a suspension.
I built a small scale Radio Controlled Piper Tomahawk many years ago. It looked pretty nice and had a 40 glow engine for power.. On its second flight it went into a spin and well... you can guess what happened!
If you were a pilot you would know that: Every aircraft while in a spin always requires opposite rudder, neutral ailerons power to idle . I own a 1979 PA-38-112 at 65% pwr I burn a little over 5gph. It’s a fantastic flying aircraft. VFR flying into weather is called IMC ..
@@merillalexbivens807 Sometimes RC models get built and end up with a different CG to the real airplane. This is especially common given the light weight and potency of the 2-stroke nitro RC engines, compared to the absolute anchors fitted to the front of real airplanes. Pretty easy to end up with a bit more aft CG than the real plane, and get an F-104 style stall behavior.
I like your style and the info is first-rate and interesting. I flew the Tomahawk and in spin training, it would have scalped me had it not been for my instructor. Thanks again!
@@aafjeyakubu5124 I completely lost it and my instructor had to step in. I slightly panicked and hit the throttle before terminating the spin. He calmly reaches over and retards it and says, "Tod, Why would you want to get to the ground and sooner than need be"? I had no answer.
I appreciate it, I love everything about aviation and I could talk about planes all day. I’m trying to make videos a little differently than what is already on youtube. Thanks for sharing your story in the Tomahawk!
@@FloridaFlying Thank you Florida! I'm liking the channel! Thanks and fly safely. I liked the fact that you mentioned in most cases it wasn't the plane's fault.
I did my initial CFI spin training in a Traumahawk. I actually enjoyed the airplane. It also has very soft and springy landing gear that is a nice ego booster, you get some nice landings.
![The Giant Airliner With Cabins In Its Wings | Junkers G38 [Aircraft Overview #19]](/img/n.gif)
Little correction: The M350 is the only single engine, piston, pressurized airplane *in production*.
What airplane do you think belongs on this list?
Thank you for watching!
Doesn’t the Pitts have a problem with being very stable/ hard to recover from an inverted spin?
The Cessna Cardinal got a bad rap when it was introduced, but, after several design changes, it is a great airframe with a dedicated following.
Anything with a human in control.
What about the P-210 , I'm not sure if it's still in production.
@@johnreed8872 The last 210s were made in 1986.
Funny story about the Bonanza: (Yes I have many hours in various versions). After my G/A career as a CFII, I spent the rest at a major airline. One day, we heard Houston Approach ask an RJ on the frequency to increase their rate of descent. The RJ pilot replied, *"We're coming down faster than a Bonanza full of doctors."* We cracked up laughing.
Aw maaaaate, that is humour at its blackest!! Love it!! 😂😂😂😂😂👍
I asked one of my instructors once about the Bonanza and his response was; "who buys Bonanza's? Answer, Doctors and lawyers. What do doctors and lawyers have in common? Answer, they both suffer from IKE syndrome; IKE; I Know Everything...
I know someone who had just gotten his pilot's license and complex certification who bought a glassair on the advice of another friend who owned a V-tail bonanza.
You can lookup the accident report on the faa website.
"Get the glassair three, it performs like a P51 mustang! "
@@PhilLesh69 loop
I am 70 years old and finally I’m going to live a dream of getting my pilots license starting in 2021. The vaccine will be here and will be able to do things like that. I’m going to get my license if it takes me the rest of my life
Go for it! I wish you the best of luck
@@FloridaFlying I’ll keep you informed. I live here in southwestern Ohio just above Cincinnati at the airport that I’m going to take my lessons is HAO
You won’t regret it! Hope you share with us when you get it. Good luck to you :)
Great stuff, I got my licence when I was 67 - Don't let your dreams die folks!
@@Radionut Sir you might want to try Red Stewart Airfield (40I) in Waynesville, Ohio. Not far from Butler. Just North of Lebanon south east of Dayton. They specialize in tail draggers and are cheap. Several different instructors. Family owned and operated airfield. Good people. Champs, Cubs, Cessnas.
I started flying the MU2 in 1989. I brought some "training material" home to study and set it on the night table. My wife freaked out when she read the title of the article on the top of the pile "MU2 - Widow Maker" . She explained that she didn't want to become a widow just yet. Anyway, I agree that it is a fantastic airplane provided the pilot receives proper training, which, at the time was provided by Flight Safety in Huston Texas. Great video!
You have to fly the short MU2 all the way to the ground.
I have given over 2000 hours of flight training in the PA-38 Piper Tomahawk. Over 2000 hours of dual given in Cessna 150/152s, and 4000+ hour in various other makes and models. The Piper Tomahawk was hands down, my preferred training airplane. When my students passed their checkrides I knew they could fly and deal with a bad situation they may find in other airplanes. I want to know that my students can recover from an uncoordinated stall. that they can actually stop a spin and exit safely, etc. The Cessnas, other Pipers, Beechcrafts, Grummans, Mooneys, and most other light singles are designed to be well mannered, stable airplanes. But they are all capable doing vary bad things. The Tomahawk prepared my students for those undesirable eventualities. Besides, it was a lot of fun to fly.
I was one of the 1st 100 people to get their Private Lic in the Tomahawk. I loved it. Bit noisy inside but overall a great flying plan. NO issues doing three turn spins and i learned the importance of down elevator etc
As a student pilot. Is the piper tomahawk is the best airplane for training. I have seven different other models of haircraft. And one thing about the piper tomahawk I told my flight instructor about Is we will not do stall spins in the Piper tomahawk. Instead we will rent a cessna 172 and do stall spins in that.
You’re the exceptional instructor !
@@mm-gg1rj The Tomahawk is one of the best spin trainers out there. I have had the Cessna 172 (and the 150/152) recover from a spin and enter a step spiral simply by removing your hands from the controls during the spin. I want to know that my students can actually recover from a spin. The Tomahawk requires proper control input to recover from a spin. If proper control input is not applied, it will continue spinning until it is applied. Therefore, if my students can recover from a spin in a Tomahawk, I know they can recover from one in any airplane that requires conventional spin recovery.
I learned in the 80s and in a Tomahawk. It was a great comfortable airplane when flown correctly. I learned at a Piper dealer and an instructor and a student had an accident doing spins. Both were ok. The airplane was recovering from the spin when it hit the ground in a swampy area. Both walked away and were OK. At that time the cause was determined to be improper recovery technique. The correct way to recover, I was told at that time, was to use full forward elevator. Partial would delay the recovery. I am surprised in the above video the narrator said "some elevator". Spins were continued to be taught with the proper control input for a safe recovery.
Have flown the Bonanza, Malibu, MU2 and the Max and can say the problem isn’t so much the airplane but more the wing nut in the left seat.
Agreed!
Glad I fly from the right seat
@@speedbird7976 A chumpy CFI dont belong on right seat of a Tomahawk. I taught CFI's on it. Some cried on the spins and wanted a cessna instead.
@@outwiththem right seat on the A320 not tomahawk
@@speedbird7976 Now that is a better job. Congrats..
Had my first solo in a Piper Tomahawk.
Same here!
I did all my flight training in a Tomahawk and thought all airplanes stalled that abruptly. Then I went to a 150, which just sort of "mushed" when it stalled. What an experience.
Traumahawk is more like it. Logged about 200 in that plane as a CFI, and only had two departure stalls turn into the beginning of a flat spin...that’s not too bad is it?
How about the fact that the seats were designed for oompa loompas.....
@@Gamble661 You must have a big ass area.
The PA30B (twin comanche) I owned for years had a bad rep because they were used for upgrade training to multiengine. When single engine Vmc was taught years ago it resulted in many stall/spin episodes. The maneuver used to be taught low (more density so more rudder until there was none) and by pulling power and feathering prop at once. I miss mine every day. Miller conversion with tip tanks, plan at 165kn and 16gph cruise. Wonderful aircraft.
+1, on Jim's comment. The Twin Comanche was a great plane at the right price for flight schools, that fell victim to the rather cavalier VMC training standards of the day. Now, we know better. Fly it high and fast, and know that if you lose one engine just after takeoff and below VMC, then you have a glider. So get fast and get high right after takeoff, to give you more options. My dad has had two Twin-C's, has flown easily 15K hrs in them and is dedicated to the PA-30 and PA-39. Hard to find that speed and low fuel flow, with the insurance of a second engine, in an airplane at that price point.
A superior pilot is one that uses their superior knowledge, to keep themselves out of situations that would require their superior skill.
I heard that a lot when I was working on my PPL.
An inferior pilot uses his superior judgment; to avoid using his inferior skills...
I guess you're talking about YOURSELF...
Good one!
S Lit, you've not heard that saying before? Been around for decades and is still true today.
As a very young child I rode in a Bonanza (late 50's early 60') flown by the father of a friend. He was a doctor (OB/GYN) but before medical school he had been a p-38 pilot in WW-II in Europe. It was an uneventful flight around northern Maryland. I loved it.
Hey! The tomahawk picture of Kilo Yankee towards the beginning of your video is the plane I’m actually learning to fly in right now. It’s owned by a small flight club in South Wales, uk. I flew in it just last week! Crazy
Good video man thanks
The picture at the start shows Tomahawk G-TOMS lying on its back. I flew that actual plane a few times back in the mid 1990s when it was owned by our local flight school in Guernsey UK. Yes, they had a vicious spin which required correct recovery - but that's the whole point behind spin training ! The plane is lying on its back because it was blown over in an overnight storm on the airfield and not due to a crash.
Not so. It ended its days on top of a mountain in Wales during bad weather. The pilot walked away from it, thankfully.
Why make it up? Read the accident report.
Flew my first solo in G-TOMS at Guernsey, waaaaay back. Training on the PA38 Tomahawk taught me proper stall recovery technique, never mind spin recovery. Subsequent CPL training was on the PA28, but my experience as an FI, working for flight schools with a variety of different training aircraft, convinced me that initial training on the Tomahawk produced a safer, more competent PPL than one who had experienced only the docile C150/152 or PA28. RIP G-TOMS and, come to think of it, also G-BIPS and G-BTEX, all remembered with affection.
Fun fact the Bonanzas fuel selector has a push then turn function on it because back in 1984 my uncle and his best friend who both had Bonanzas would often in turbulance bump the fuel selector to the “centre” position causing the engine to die. They both wrote letters every week for 2 months to Beachcraft advising them about the dangerous design flaw and thats why all Bonazas built after now have the push then turn fuel selector
When I was in college in the late '70s, I knew the guy who had the honor of being the first pilot to crash a Tomahawk. Nothing to do with spins though. He was ferrying the Tomahawk from the factory to an FBO in Salt Lake City. The flight was 2,000 nm or so, and it took him 10 days because he could only make small hops because of incredibly bad winter weather the whole way. Naturally, he was frustrated and had a bad case of get-home-itis. On that 10th day he was only 10 or so miles from the airport when weather closed in. Instead of back tracking to an alternate airport (Heber), he tried to make it all the way, but the lower and lower ceiling eventually forced him so low he hit an object and crashed. He spent a couple of weeks in a hospital.
Aww that sucked!
Good to hear he lived. Was going into the story believing the worst.
Don't confuse design issues with operational limits.
Yessss
A bad reputation is a bad reputation, whatever the reason.
As a 12,000 hour ATP, I also have 2,000 hours dual given in mostly C-150.
Your analysis is very good given the limited time allotted.
I was, to my knowledge, the only flight instructor at Van Nuys (a Mecca for flight instruction at the time) to demo and teach spin recovery as it would likely be encountered turning base to final with 20 degrees of flaps. A lethal situation but one that can be handled with prompt identification and corrective action.
I was also the only instructor I knew of that REQUIRED a successful touchdown to a complete stop with simulated engine failure.
We did these in an area that had about 4 suitable places you could choose from. I never did understand the FAAs allowance of a demonstration down to 500 feet with power then given back to the student. It only begins to get interesting at 500 feet.
Regardless I was always swamped with students who wanted the in depth training that I would provide.
I fly RC planes and had three crashes after what I thought was a radio related problem. Later I learned I had entered spins after turning sharply at low airspeeds stalling one wing. At the fourth spin (that I did on purpose at high altitude) I applied what I learned (01:18) , the model reacted exactly as expected (01:25) and then recovered. Good video!
So- you’re saying you’re not a pilot....mmmKay.
What rc model were you flying? (I also fly rc)
@@tomwatson3580 so what space shuttle did you fly oh master aviator?
@@stevewhite3424 LOL! You’re not a licensed pilot, are you? Otherwise you might already know that a “space shuttle pilot” is not the ultimate level of airmanship... go back to your Star Trek reruns, noob.
@@tomwatson3580 I fly both. RC planes WAY harder fly then sitting in one as you have no physical feedback as to what is happening. Spin Recovery technique is important for any aircraft one is flying manned or RC. I went from RC to full size in Piper Tomahawk 1978. My instructor said I was the first student he had who knew how to properly recover from a spin from the get go.
Loved this episode, especially when you mentioned the forked tail doctor killer. I own a 1949 A35 V-tail Bonanza.
I trained in a C-152 (1995) but in the middle of my training I went on a business trip and I *really* wanted to fly. So I found a local FBO and linked up with their CFI. All they had available was a PA-38 Tomahawk. I knew nothing about it. The CFI told me about its reputation and what had been done to fix it, etc. I didn’t see it as a big deal and we went flying. I don’t recall spinning it, but we did stalls & steep turns and the usual private pilot air work. The plane was a pleasure to fly. But when I got back to my home ‘drome, my salty old instructor saw the entry in my logbook and said “ahhh I see you logged a couple hours in the Tomachicken and survived.” And that name has stuck in my brain ever since.
I instructed at a school that had a large fleet of Tomahawks, have many hours instructing in them, and will say it is NOT a good airplane for primary flight training. The wing was modified between approval and production, making it less stiff. This allowed warping, resulting in every airplane having different stall characteristics. One would roll right several knots above stall speed. Another sounded like a group of gorillas beating on the tail as hard and as fast as they could. When I looked back, the entire tail was twisting back and forth.
I had the opportunity to speak to a well-know author of training manuals, someone considered an experts on spins, and who also happened to be a former Piper test pilot. I asked him about spins in the plane, he said it came out after he left Piper, but he took one up one time to do spins, and would never do it again - it's unpredictability was unnerving.
No, if I have to fly with people who's goal each day is to find new, and inventive ways to kill me, I will stick with a 172, then I only have to worry about outsmarting the person, not the person and the plane.
Yes that's exactly what the experts have ways said. The statement that one "just needs a little training to handle it" doesn't make any sense, it is a trainer...
The Bonanza did not kill Buddy Holly, a inexperienced pilot unfamiliar with the instruments flying into weather killed Buddy Holly and the others.
@@davidbrayshaw3529 If tanks are full, you actually start on the left tank and burn maybe 1/4 tank or so off, then burn your aux tank. The ps5c will return fuel to the left tank at a rate close to a gallon an hour. But you're right, burn the aux first, and the tanks are slightly forwards of CG so you will land with a more aft CG than you took off with if you left with full tanks.
@@davidbrayshaw3529 I know the early ones pretty well, but I sure as heck do not know everything. I own and operate D-1708 a 48 A35.
Huh, I thought carb icing was the culprit
@@pauldzim Carb icing on takeoff is really not much of a thing (not unheard of, but carb icing is far more common in humid weather at low power settings, like on approach). TDTMD was due to an unqualified pilot becoming disoriented in IMC immediately after takeoff.
@@pauldzim According to the NTSB analysis of the accident that I read, the airplane had an attitude indicator with an older display that the young pilot was likely not used to, and he became disoriented after entering the clouds.
I got my experienced CFI sick doing spins in the tomahawk, great little airplane in its day as long as the tail stayed on.
I learned in a Traumahawk, too. As long as you kept her above stall speed, she was a pretty decent ride although hot due to no shade from above. HOWEVER, the stall was evil and the airframe fragile. Stalling meant rolling right over and then into an incredibly fast, nearly flat spin unless you had lightning reflexes to stop the spin before it quite got started, which is what stall training in the Traumahawk focused on developing. Even if you stayed rightside up, you'd still lose a ton of altitude. If you let the thing spin (and 3-turn spins were a license requirement back then), you had to be quick getting out or the airframe would bend or break. And that could also happen from the forces needed for recovery. The one good thing I have to say about this is that I sure learned to keep my speed up long before the whole "stall speed + 30%" became a thing.
So in summary, I don't think the Traumahawk is a "good plane with a bad rep". She's a bad airplane with a deserved bad rep. Sure, it's possible to survive flying her---I'm still alive, after all. But she has no margin for error at all at low speeds. If something goes wrong low and slow, you're going to be a smoking hole. Flying the Traumahawk is like putting a landmine in your hallway. As long as you don't step on it, you can walk past it every day. But it just takes 1 moment of inattention or 1 misstep to END you. Good airplanes aren't like this.
@@TheBullethead What ever you do, don't turn around and look at the tail during a departure stall! It will scare the sheet out of you. I did one afternoon, and immediately switched to a 152. The tail shakes and twists back and forth so much, you would swear it was going to come off. No joke, it scared me straight to a 152/150 which is a solid plane that can't be beat. It spins fine and predictable every time!!!
@@scotabot7826 I had huge fight with a chief instructor about the Tomahawk. This pile of aluminum junk was one of the early factory demos
and he demanded the Tonkahawk be used for spin curriculum. He took me out and wrung it out I wished I had my parachute rig on. The shaking tail, the dents at the aileron hinges the truly scary spin and recovery.
The Chief was an ex USAF
T38 instructor so the Hawk was docile to him.
The first stall from oh 8,000 ft agl we dropped a wing and rolled inverted.
Chief got mad at me for recovery and not letting it go into what I saw as a potential flat spin. I've had time in Comanches, Grumman TR 2's Pitts S-2 etc. Nothing like the like this. Give me a docile C150/2 Champ or Taylorcraft any day
Oh the next day there was
a service billiton on wing spar and the T hawk was grounded..
@@scotabot7826 The tail did come off for a few poor sods. My stupid instructor (a C152 90-day wonder) permanently bent it on me 1 time, showing me the "fun" way to do spins. IOW, he started with high-speed snap-rolls, throttled back, and let the nose fall so it became a spin. So we went around 6 or so times I guess. Anyway, it took both me and him with all 4 feet on the right rudder to recover and then half an hour of all our strength to get home alive. it took us about 5 minutes for our legs to be willing to climb us out of the thing and AFAIK the plane never flew again.
I only ever stalled a Traumahawk once after that, on my check ride, to show off my HIGHLY developed lighting reflexes stopping the spin before it started. I flat out refused to spin the thing and still passed.
It's a saner world these days, where the focus is on AVOIDING stalls and spins, rather than accepting them as inevitable and focusing on recovering from them. Hell, most planes these days are prohibited from intentionally spinning at all. And a stall/spin turning base to final is pretty much guaranteed fatal even if you know how to recover from a spin, so what was the point of spin training back in the day?
Seriously, most GA planes (the Traumahawk excepted) then and now won't spin unless you deliberately force them to., and the spin stops when you stop forcing. So how likely are you to get into an unintentional spin without flying into a tornado? So why bother with it? I'm glad to see a bit of sense somehow leaked into flight training ;)
@@scotabot7826 In 1984 I turned around because my instructor directed me to look. Chilled me to the core. That T tail was furiously wobbling. I've never done a spin since. Otherwise, the plane was awesome.
The Tomahawk was my favorite of all of the trainers that I flew, low cost and a unbeatable view even looking down wasn't bad because of the narrow wing cord... wish I had one.
It just needed a little more power! I remember it needing considerable pressure on the right pedal during slow flight much unlike the Cessna 150 or the Luscombe 8.
I flight instructed in them. Didn’t care for it at all. We did indeed call them the “Traumahawk”. They were also prone to tail strikes.
I flew a rental Tomahawk on a couple of occasions. Very loud in the cockpit. Low powered. My checkout instructor decided to enter a spin for his entertainment. Did not care for this airplane.
Learned to fly in the Tomahawk.. I heard the stories also. I never had a problem with it. I was a little concerned after a hard rain one night i was going to do a hour worth with the instructor, he went to the back of the tail gabs it, pulling it down and all this water flows out the tail...My WTF radar went off! Could have had a cg problem lol
Either way it was interesting.
@@danmckeever7740 The takeoff tail strike generally only happenes to a pilot once. But that first one is quite a surprise. Hint: In a Tomahawk, when doing a soft field takeoff, don't hold full up elevator until you lift the nosewheel. The tail will be stalled until you hit a magic airspeed, then will unstall and slam the rear tie-down into the runway much faster than the unprepared pilot can react.
I flew the AA-1 yankee when it first came to the FBO Sunny South at FLL. It was sporty and fun.😎
When I trained for my UK PPL in 1993 I opted to undergo spin training in the Piper Tomahawk (not a mandatory requirement), and went on to fly quite a number of hours solo on this aircraft. Most of my other hours were in PA28 airframes. Tomahawk was basic, but cheap to hire for building hours and offered great visibility compared with the PA28.
I did the bulk of my training in the Tomahawk in 1984. My CFI was a big advocate of avoiding stall/spins in T-hawks. At that time a T-hawk somewhere allegedly lost its tail in a spin. An AD was put out and strengthening bars were installed on all the T-hawks in our fleet.
I actually like the squirrelly little aircraft overall. I didn't care for how cramped it was with 2 full grown men. Also didn't like that door latch in the ceiling during moderate turbulence as my head kept bashing it.
It taught you how to fly as in keeping on top of it every second. On a hot day with gusting crosswinds it would make me work all the way to 3 wheels on the runway. My CFI grew up in northern Minnesota with tall trees so he was big on slips and short field landings. Great plane to learn slips.
One day I had a trip to do to party Island with family. Had Tomahawk. I had half tanks and well within CG and weight. I had 4 on board. How is that possible? Well had wife 1 yr old and pregnant wife. I was a CFII at fbo. Much more visibility and room than Cessna 152.
I'd heard of the "Doctor Killer", which is terribly sad, but I hadn't thought about Lawyers owing one. That would be a public service!
Right?
That’s kind of harsh. It’s Only 98% of the lawyers that give the rest a bad name.
Unless you wanted to sue the pilot for killing someone you love....
The comment that the Piper m350 is the only pressurized single engine prop plane on the market is INCORRECT .The Pilatus PC12 is also pressurized and single engine.
Was a flight instructor for 16 years. There is no airplane that's a widomaker just people that think if they have enough money they can fly airplanes their not qualified too fly
Lost my dad in a Bonanza accident in72, exactly the way you described. I’m now a high time ATP and I love them.
Great video!
So sorry to hear that Terry. Good luck with your career. I'm sure your Dad is very proud of you. John.
Two of the ATC nemesis’s: doctors in Bonanzas & lawyers in Mooney's. The Mooney was equipped with what we called the “Mooney spike.”
Yep, and that spike comes loose quite often…..
This is extremely interesting. I actually have several hundred hours logged in the Tomahawk as an instructor, as well as a a few dozen hours in the Grumman AA-1B (also as an instructor), the first two aircraft mentioned. Maybe I should count myself lucky to have survived, however, I found the Tomahawk in particular a joy to fly and an easy airplane to learn. Granted, I never required spin training as part of my PPL course.
The Tomahawk flew faster and had more cockpit room than the 150/152 (also better visibility). It did require a slightly higher landing speed, but, due to its propensity to float less, could easily be landed on a dime with proper throttle control. Actually, because of these characteristics, it turned out to be a great transition airplane from single to multi-engine flying.
The AA-1B, however, was a different story. The airplane could not be spun, otherwise it had a terrifying tendency to enter into an unrecoverable flat-spin. The nose wheel was castering, which is difficult enough to teach to a new student and certainly was not safe in the hands of an amateur. Additionally, the fuel gauges were actually sight gauges full of fuel in the cockpit itself, not ideal in the case of a crash landing. You also tried to forget the fact that the wings were actually glued on, rather than bolted or secured by a more traditional means. Regardless, it was still cool that the cockpit canopy could be slid back in flight for a true "open cockpit" experience.
All in all, I'll take the Tomahawk any day over the Cessna 150/152. However, as a beginning aircraft, I would highly recommend staying away from the Grumman until more experience is obtained.
Well, as a veteran thirty-six year enroute air traffic controller I can assure you that the Doctor Killer moniker for the BE-35 was well deserved. I had found that the doctors & lawyers flying these aircraft were rude snd arrogant. They flew into weather we’ve warned them about then they are begging for vectors out, panicky and confused while they’re in the weather and a few had over controlled their aircraft and crashed. Retired (ZAB/ZDV)
I am sure that you’re familiar with the Mooney Spike..?
@Galileo7of9 so... Are you a doctor with a v-tail, or a lawyer with a v-tail?
@Galileo7of9 the lawyers have forked tails... I don't know about the doctors.
I got most of my basic training in a Tomahawk. Great visibility. It was interesting to watch the “T” tail vibrate severely during stalls. I always wondered what kind of plane it would have been with a convention tail installed. Still, a fun little plane to fly.
I always thought it would make a great airplane if it had retractable gear. I did all of my primary training in the PA38 and my initial spin training. I actually kinda miss it.
I appreciated the vibration as a further indication of a stall, but what bothered me a bit was the rattling noise. Gah!
It was pretty scary to see how much the tail moved side to side. When I went for my check ride the examiner had never flown in one but had heard about the stall characteristics. He said "I will tell you when to recover for the stall demonstration". At the first nibble of stall he screamed "recover" and said "I don't want to be in one of these things when the tail comes off". Great memories!
A friend of mine instructed on them. His school was one of the first in North America to use them. One day he was demonstrating an incipient spin to his student. He started at 5500 AGL. The thing snapped into a full spin and he finally recovered at about 800 AGL. The back window was smashed by the fire extinguisher that came out of its holder and the tail was bent to the point of requiring replacement from the aft cabin bulkhead rearward.
I took my spin training for my CFI in a Tomahawk and found it a really nice trainer. Sure many high wing aircraft have gentler stall characteristic to the point you have to actually force them to spin. The Tomahawk made you aware of real situations. This plane was great, can't say the same for the instructors.
The worst spin recovery plane I ever flew was the De Havilland Chipmunk. It would wrap up into a tight spin and even with full opposite rudder and full forward stick it would take several long seconds for the rotation to stop. When it finally did stop, the plane was in a dive which was beyond vertical. Very, very scary!
I did mine in the 150, Flight Safety School, Fl.
In the late '80s, I did a lot of spin training in the Tomahawk mainly because it was fun. I remember one of the Tomahawks that I flew had a nasty habit of going almost completely inverted after entering the spin. I had to look above my head to see the ground. After two spins, the aircraft settled into a nose-down spin. That aircraft did require opposite rudder and neutral controls to start recovery.
I love the Beechcraft Bonanza V35. Would love to own a V35B. Best airplane I have ever flown cross-country. These are high performance aircraft. Quick on their feet. Very responsive. Training. Training. Training. You have to stay ahead of her. No weekend pilots. You fly often. Not part time. Best airplane I have ever flown.
I own and fly a P35, and it’s an awesome airplane. It’s super slippery and a blast to fly, just takes some concentration and proper ADM
@@zippoc04 If you've got the means, you should step up to a P38.
@@vernonsmithee792 Haha, my mission doesn’t quite necessitate a historical twin fighter bomber.
Trained and did my check ride in a Tomahawk. What a great little airplane to learn in. Last solo cross country at night lost an engine during the second leg. I put it in a snowy field 18 miles west of Iowa City. They came the next morning fixed it, pulled it onto a gravel road, and flew it back to home base. Got my ticket two weeks later.
Got my SEL in a Tomahawk - loved that little plane.
I learned to fly in a '73 C150 and although it's very docile and forgiving - even at stall - the placard specifically says that you shouldn't use it for spin *training* unless it's modified for it.
That said, It will happily recover with a boot of rudder. You're just not supposed to get it there in the first place.
I actually know a couple of people with bonanzas. They’re all extremely good pilots though and ironically one is a doctor now. All of them have had the majority of their life’s filled with aviation which has shaped their ability to fly. Love those guys, amazing people who have helped me so much after over the years.
Wolf, I owned a Beech C33 Debonair for ten years. I absolutely loved and trusted that plane and even though I sold it 20 years ago, I miss it to this day!
Most PA38 Tomahawk pilots were very low time and often a pain in the rear for air traffic controllers to work (sequence) so I use to put them in the computer as a PAIN vs. PA38. As for being Doctor Killers, it wasn't just the V Tail bonanza, the Mooney shared that distinction too.
I’m perty sure the TBM series and Pilatus are pressurized single as well..
Yeah, I don’t know what that was all about. Definitely not the only pressurized single engine plane.
Flew the PA 38 as a private pilot...man!!! That thing could spin and was a late to recover ...and was a HAND FULL. The IFR ,Commercial, jet, was a breeze after flying the tomahawk. After 20,000 hours I still see the odd one , it still makes me grin and grimace at the same rime. Flying the 777 is much easier hands and feet, than the Tomahawk- Chop. Found memories overall.
Well, my pops had no spin or stall recovery problems with his marvelous 2,200 horsepower Grumman F6F Hellcat, no problems at all with his 6 Browning .50 caliber machine guns that functioned beautifully to shred 9 Japanese planes, and no issues with landings or take -offs from aircraft carriers.
Well Gee now good for him how fascinating what else is there to know about this wonderful person who obviously won the war for us
What was his name?
Your remark had me do a little detective work. There were two USN pilots named Harris with 9 kills. One was in VF-17 (Jolly Rogers) and flew Corsairs, so I don't think that's your dad. However there is a Leroy Eugene Harris, credited with 9.25 kills, who flew F6Fs in VF-2, a squadron that operated both off the USS Hornet and USS Enterprise. If that's your dad, you should have mentioned the Silver Star that he received for diving unarmed (ammo exhausted) through a 3 plane formation to disrupt their harassment of his second section leader. Quite the hero.
Thomas S. Harris. He had a lot of help winning the war. There were many like him. After the was he was a test pilot for North American Aviation, and then McDonald Douglas here in St Louis.
Jealous are you?
Flew a Grumman AA-1B for some 10-20 hours while training for my Commercial cert. Thing was a joy to fly, and you could keep the nose up on landing to some ludicrously low speeds on landing. Never really bothered with the flaps with how much runway we had, since they were so slow and ineffective though. But sporty, cool, and fantastic for rudder usage (especially with the free nosewheel) it's a great little plane.
I taught in a _Traumahawk_ . Spins were ... a-hem ... fun.
flew them for years. only had any spin issues when students didnt follow the brief. one delayed recovery but then m0st aeroplanes have . their off days.
One day while I was on the ramp at KRRL, a guy came in in an A36...next to the vent in the pilot's window was a little sticker: MD inside the international NOT symbol. Got a good laugh out of that.
My initial flight training was in a Tomahawk, and that's what I soloed in. Loved it.
Learned to fly in the tomahawk, never had a problem. Loved the visablity it provided, as well as the economy.
Me as well ! Loved it !
I too earned my license in a Tomahawk, but admittedly, I never could recover from a full stall while in training with an instructor. Unlike something like a Piper Warrior which simply dropped a nose, the Tomahawk dropped a wing and quickly lost altitude. It was a true "fly by the numbers" airplane, especially when in the landing pattern as there was no forgiving from this aircraft if you pushed the limits.
The AA1 "yankee" was a wonderful trainer.
Only problem I ever saw were Cessna plilots getting in them and not knowing about switching tanks, expecting them to glide at 45mph, or expecting them to climb in hot weather. It was a great trainer because it taught you to actually fly a plane.
Ha! All my PPL, commercial & instrument training was done in Cessnas. It took me _many hours_ to get used to paying attention to and switching the fuel tanks in the Pipers & Beeches I flew after school.
At the age of 17 I logged couple hundred hours in a V tail Bonanza I loved it. I had an instructor who flew for Continental Airlines who put me under the hood and we practiced unusual attitudes every time he got an airplane with me. That was 48 years ago. Time flies when you're having fun!!!!
The one thing I wholeheartedly agree with, is the noise level of an MU-2 ! When I was working at an FBO, while building flight time, I had the distinct pleasure to deal with MU-2's daily. They have a distinct sound and will deafen line personnel without really good hearing protectors. Great video !
What is the reason this aircraft is a louder twin than any other twin engine?
@@leohorishny9561 The MU-2 had Garrett engines, as opposed to PT-6 engines found on more common turboprop aircraft. Those Garrett’s earned the “MU-2 Salute” (hands over ears). But, this was only the case on the ground and were supposedly actually quieter in flight. That, along with the top wing configuration probably contributed. Still, the MU-2 was considered THE safest aircraft, large or small, during ice conditions. That’s why some corporations chose them to carry executives. Shoney’s Restaurant Corp. used them exclusively at one time in the early 80’s
Meh. I learned to fly in a Tomahawk 32 years ago. Great little plane with excellent visibility and performance. It requires you actually fly it...not be lazy with flying coordinated or spin recovery technique.
if my friend is 350 lb. pilot and I'm 220+ lbs. are we asking for trouble?
@@dabneyoffermein595 what do you think?
My dad flew the flight school with AA-1 Yankee. He told that the good thing was, that now every other airplaine is really easy to fly.
Great presentation and personally I think the MU2 is a beautiful aircraft to fly. 👍🇦🇺
The V-tail Bonanza (Doctor killer) was the plane that I got my first ride in. It was owned by my high school best friends dad. I will never ever forget the feeling of my first flight...
I own a Grumman AA-5 Tiger. They are awesome little airplanes that will blow past a Cessna or a Piper using the same Lycoming engine.
I really liked digging into the history of the Yankee and Tiger, I learned a lot. The Yankee sorta looks like an RV6, which is understandable since it was meant to be a homebuilt. And it’s tubular spar and bonded wing is pretty interesting...
@@FloridaFlying - I really love my Tiger. She has been totally restored. New paint, plexiglass, interior, engine, and prop. She’s actually at the avionics shop right now getting all new Garmin avionics suite and new panel. “Toni” is like a brand new airplane now. I’ve also installed a few other goodies such as electric aileron trim and a Power Flo exhaust system (good for about 10% power increase). I imagine that I will own and fly her until I’m no longer physically able to do so.
@@USNVA11 . I am envious of you. I took a hard look at the Tiger 30 years ago when they could be had for $25000 plus. I ended up buying an Experimental biplane...Starduster Too with a 205 hp Lycombing , out of a helicopter. It was always a treat to fly.
@@jamesharber7820 - I looked up the Starduster. That is a really sweet looking biplane ! I can only imagine what a blast it is to fly one. Great performance numbers too, even if you power it with the baseline O-360. Hope you’re still enjoying it !
@@USNVA11 .Thank you for the reply. I retired and sold it for a few reasons in 1995: My IA/AP died so I lost my inexpensive hanger rent at his sod field airport (C-40) and that coupled with no longer having a good income, owning/operating a nice aircraft was no longer in the cards. I have no complaints because I owned a few airplanes and flew them for about 15 years. One last thing. A big reason I did not purchase one of those beautiful and FAST Tigers was that the horizontal tail would not fit in that airport’s T Hangers and I did not want the hassle of a community hanger.
I used a AA-1 as a primary trainer for several years. It’s a great trainer because it demands precise speed control, and once a student learns this by getting slow on approach a time or two they tighten up they’re flying. A person learning in an AA-1 never has a problem transitioning to a heavier or more complex aircraft. Like all of the aircraft described the flight envelope is smaller and less forgiving than some other aircraft. As long as your a well trained and disciplined pilot all are safe aircraft.
Even my DAD nicknamed his Beechcraft Bonanza his "DOCTOR KILLER"
I have heard this too. And I'm not a pilot!
39 yrs pilot, CFI-II-ME and ATP, airlines. The Tomahawk was the first plane I owned in partnership after I got my Pvt in a C-150. I flew the heck out of it late 80's early 90's. I was aware of the history. I used it to build hours, practice for instrument and commercial ratings (while renting other planes like C172 and Piper Arrow to take the check ride). I commuted 60 mi to work round trip, all building hours. I loved the plane. Took some vacations from WA state down coast to San Fransico area. Lots of fun affordable flying. When doing deep stalls I looked back at the T-Tail once. It was shaking like crazy. 😮. I stopped doing deep stalls.
I owned a 82 Piper Tomahawk II for several years, it was a honest airplane, never had any problems with its flying characteristics, I think Piper could have done a better job on; its wiring could be neater, place a ground lead on the gages, the airframe is not a good ground, replaced the fuel selector value it had a plastic core that failed, the ventilation system should be like other Pipers, the trim chain may fall off the sprockets if the trim wheel is moved to its forward/aft limits, there is an aileron universal joint beneath the left seat it had play in it was nosy, sounded like it would fail, had an A&P tighten up the pins was better, I think the overall quality of fit and finish could be better. I learned to fly in the PA-28-140, rented the 150, 151, 180, 181, the piper control wheel can be stiff if not lubricated properly. The Carb Heat/Alt Air Lever has always been a poor thing, it should be a Push/Pull Knob.
Good video!. Great new year for you. Greetings from South of Argentina!
First time I flew a Tomahawk was a check out flight being given by a new flight instructor. I was already an experienced flight instructor but had never flown the Tomahawk. The instructor was scared silly of entering a spin with the Tomahawk and became extremely vocal after requesting i perform a departure stall. While maintaining, and deepening the stall, I explained to him the plane would only enter a spin if improper control inputs were made. I maintained a power on controlled stall with a descent rate close to 250'/minute to demonstrate that fact. After a 600' loss of altitude in a nose high, level attitude I recovered from the stall and asked about the next maneuver. That stall was enough to demonstrate to the instructor that I could fly the plane better than him. We went back to the airport for a sign off. The plane was and is not dangerous, but those flying them sure can be.
Wimps dont like the Tommy. They want "Gentle Airplanes". Cowards.
great explanation of this very gentle airplane. sounds like a normal trainer that can go into advanced spins and just requires opposite rudder, level ailerons, & nose down inputs ..... Gentle yoke down, ease it back up, get that foot back off of that right rudder. Spinning left harrowing, Spinning right not as roller-coaster-ish. If you have a weak stomach , prepare to up-chuck all over the panel in projectile vomit fashion....which can destroy electrical components if you're not careful. Just teasing on that last part.
Interesting video, nicely done, well narrated!
I learned to fly in a traumahawk. 😎. The only problem we ever really had was when the T-tail hit the prop wash when you flared for landing. The tail skid on the air plane was half ground off.
I used to work at an fbo, I personslly met a family who had recently transitioned from a C182 to a brand new bonanza. Later in the week I found out, that same entire family passed from a tragic accident in that bonanza. It was extremely shocking to me since I had just had a conversation with them days earlier. The pilot (dad) flew into IMC of which he was not certified to do, and it did not end well. May they rest in peace :(
How tragic, a few hours of hood work prior to getting your private pilot rating is no help.
Bad stall/spin characteristics are one thing. Flying into IMC without IFR rating is entirely another.
I did my PPL training in a Tomahawk, plus about another 100 hours after that for recreational flying, until the place I flew got rid of them with high time on the Hobbs.. Near the end my instructor said spins were not required, but offered to teach me the recovery if I wanted. I said I would rather learn that with him in the right seat, than no one there. We did a few, and it recovered as it should have. A couple of interesting notes: The FAA ordered stall strips be put on the leading edge of any PA-38s (Tomahawks) used for training. They (the FAA) still didn't like the lackadaisical way the Tomahawk entered the stall, so they ordered a second set of stall strips on the leading edge. And...for the equivalent of a private license in Canada, spin training and recovery is taught, and tested as part of the check ride.
I flew most of my training in the Tomahawk. I iced it once at night in a snow storm, did spins, landed at maximum crosswind component, flew it with a door that partially unlatched, flew 60 bank sustained turns, did instrument training, and took my check ride in one. It always treated me well.
Wichita here. Love the Starship shirt! ...and yes, the Bonanza (I had a feeling it would be #1 on the list) has a reputation around here, especially since we made it. 😵
The most over used nickname in aviation, “Widowmaker”
One a day in Tampa bay!!
I thought that award went to "doctor killer"
In Germany we call the Starfighter "Witwenmacher" or "Erdnagel" (earthnail). Actually there was also a big scandal and it had - at least in the German version - a bunch of technical issues. If you type Witwenmacher in the German Wikipedia you get a list of things which it could mean. The Starfighter is the only aircraft within this list.
The First Time I Remember The Term Being Used Was In Reference To The Martin B-26 Marauder & If I'm Not Mistaken, It Had One Of The Best Safety Records Of The War.
The B-26 was the first plane to be called the Widowmaker.
And it did go on to have a better safety record after modifications which added a larger wing, and better pilot training.
The German F-104 was called the widowmaker, but it was more the pilots than the plane. The Spanish Air Force never lost one. They even did takeoff, roll, land in the same stretch of runway.
I have stalled and spun a Grumman AA-1 a number of times during my flight training. I never thought that there was anything special about it. I loved it's sensitive controls.
Pilots doing the initial and basic training in a Tomahawk turned out to be better pilots than pilots trained in C-152/172 or PA-28. I did hundreds of hours of instruction in the PA-38 and the plane was perfect for this. Me, I did my initial training in PA-28 so I turned out not to be not such a good pilot. Hopefully I improved over the years. Now, how about the Ted Smith’s Aerostar or the Piper built PA-60 Aerostar. I’m still in love with that plane and got about 1000+ hours in that. This is one candidate for a bad boy with a questionable rap?
I trained in the PA 38. Have to say your right.
I've always wanted to fly an Aerostar. Such a beautiful machine.
I was told by a commercial pilot who used to fly MU-2's that it's a real nice flying airplane but it's just different enough from other planes (it uses spoilers instead of ailerons to turn) that you have to keep "in type" and not spend as much time with other planes while you're working one.
I used to own a Tomahawk. It would spin really well. You learned to fly properly in it.
I have a Cessna 180 ... you have to be on the ball with 180/185's. I'd put the Robinson R22 and R44 in there as well for carb icing and mast bumping respectively, combined with a need to enter Autorotation within 1/2 second of engine out, you have to be ready to put that stick down asap.
I always heard the
Cessna 210 was the doctor killer. And several tried landing with gear stowed.
I don't think anyone has ever said that...
In Pennsylvania we call the Cessna 210 the Widowmaker, Suddendeath, or Cpt. Flashback. I think we have all lost some family member to this plane.
I had a friend who was part owner of a beautiful 1950s Bonanza V-tail. It had recently been restored with new upholstery and shiny paint job, plus had all the modern avionics. Looked like it was brand new. He took us for a ride from one end of SF Bay to the other and back, let me handle it for a few minutes. Gorgeous airplane. I never felt unsafe in it, but then again, he was an experienced pilot who knew his business.
The Bonanza in and of itself is not dangerous but pilots who don’t stay current and know of its quirks are to blame. Planes are inanimate objects. In my mind some of the mentioned planes don’t belong on this “list”
Very true
Great video! Nicely edited, I’m new to your channel.
Tomahawk, great plane for training. Love it.
The guy standing on the Bonanza at 6:38 looks like Mercury Seven Astronaut Gordo Cooper. Also it was a Bonanza that crashed killing guitarist Randy Rhoads of the Blizzard Of Oz band.
I owned a tomahawk. I'll take a tomahawk over a cessna 150/152 any day. More room, wider cabin, faster cruise, and it was just a better airplane. People who have ever called one a traumahawk without ever having flown one need to stay out of them. They can keep flying their sardine cans. Excellent value for the money because all of the panty waists are afraid of them, so they're cheap. They should be selling for +5k more than the cessna's in my opinion, but they're usually cheaper. With the ADs in place, they're a solid plane. I was always trying to get somewhere so hanging around stall speed was never a thing. Then I got into tailwheels and the rest is history. No more training wheels for me.
me to. the only problem I had with it was that plastic overhead lock (broken twice by students).
Definitely more comfortable than a 150. Lots more legroom too. There was a story that they changed the wing by getting rid of one of the ribs between the time it was certified and went into production resulting in oil-canning on the skin that exacerbated the spin. Don't know if that's true or not but I really think the story that the instructors all got together and said they wanted a plane that would spin easier is BS. I don't think the Beech Skipper, which has the same airfoil, had the same spin issues.
@@spaceranger3728 The Skipper did not, you are correct. I think the rib theory is plausible.
Got into some wicked flat spins in the Tomahawk, after you stop rotation it would take very positive and fast full forward elevator to break stall.
Full forward huh? That’s pretty crazy. I must say, it looks like it spins beautifully.
@@FloridaFlying I remember simply relaxing the elevator and ailerons with an assertive push of rudder opposite the spin.
If you didn't hit the control stop, you wouldn't break the spin. You learn not to be lazy with the Tomahawk.
My first trip in a tomahawk was two trips in one .........my first and my last . Give me a good old cessna anytime lol.
I own an AA1B...total sweetheart of a plane. It has to be flown inside its design envelope and you will be fine. Don't overload it; keep it in C of G limits, and learn how to manage energy as it does not like to go slow on final. I've flown T-hawks over the years and again, a total joy to fly; spun the h*ll out of them and recoveries were effortless. Both airplanes have undeserved bad reputations.
The tomahawk was my favorite plane to fly.
Like he said, “Sometimes good airplanes can earn bad reputations”
I love the tomahawk, I got my private in tomahawks and they really teach you to be an aviator. Not just a pilot.
Absolutely!
Spot on an aircraft you have to fly properly, not a lazy persons aircraft.
For future reference, you might also include Cessna 177. Until modifications were made to the tail and higher horsepower, they were tough on landings.
Before I even watched, I read "Airplanes with BAD Reputations" and immediately thought C-310 and Moooo-2 then the Traumahawk. C-310 likes to depart when single-engine, Moooo-2 has issues with spoilerons during stalls I believe, and the Traumahawk has an affinity for screwing itself into the ground. The Cessna singles are cake with spins - if it is only the first 1 to 3 turns, you can just release the controls and they generally recover without any control inputs. The most "you must make it stop" spinner I flew was the T-37 - that jet spins *fast* and will *not* come out of a spin without aggressive and correct inputs in a very specific sequence - if you aren't out by 10K, "handgrips raise" (eject). As far as the Moo2, I think the last great airplane Mitsubishi made was the A6M Zero.
What about the piper aerostar, they say you had to fly it like a light jet, or it would murder you, or you it.
As a CFiI I spent a bunch of time in the PA 38. It became a much better trainer when the stall strips were added to the front of the wings. We called it the Hatchett.
LOL😆
We used T-Cats (yankees) for training in Hawaii. Most of my students soloed in T-Cats. I thought it was a great plane to train in from the standpoint yo u had to fly it. Great visibility and abrupt stalls is what I remember best. My experience with spins in a 150 are not like you described. Once in a spin the roll rate just seemed to accelerate.
I instructed in 152's (also in Hawaii, with Air Service). I learned in 150's, and as I recall from my student days, they could have a very sharp stall and could drop a wing if you entered uncoordinated or the ailerons weren't kept neutral. The 152 on the other hand seemed to have limited elevator authority-it really wouldn't stall power off, but a bit of power seemed to increase the elevator authority enough to demonstrate a real stall. My experience though was that just relaxing the elevator in the 152 was enough to recover from a spin. However they would develop a pretty impressive, and scary, roll rate in spins.
@@islander4986 Interesting, I also learned to fly in Hawaii in 150's.
The original AA-1 had a 'hot wing'. That was changed on the -1A and subsequent models. Their bigger sister, the AA-5 series, are great as well.
Hot wing? I've flown a grumman lynx and I have never heard of this expression before.
I spun Tomahawk many times, no problem.
Till one day, it was very reluctant to recover.
Not spun once since.
how high up were you when you finally recovered. Did you apply pro-spin technique? then go to std. spin recovery to get out of it. and how many feet did you drop ?
@@dabneyoffermein595 Started at 4000 recovered by 1500. Yes back into spin entry inputs then recovery and popped out of the spin. Nearly caught me out that time. I did that after reading about a T67 Slingsby accident, where they bailed out.
I started normal spin entry, then recovery but went into very steep down rapid spin. POH says it will do this, but, i felt it was taking way to long to recover, so applied spin entry imputs once more, then recovery, it instantly recovered. To me very nose down meant there was no leverage on rudder to stop spin. Pulling elevator back flattened spin, the rudder could bite.
@@flybobbie1449 Did you have a parachute on? i heard it's highly recommended in these
@@dabneyoffermein595 No, don't know anyone that would, other than perhaps test pilot. You wouldn't get out for starts.
Great video; thanks for posting.
The Bonanza was also called “The Cadillac of single engine airplanes”.
A good pilot can fly her with little problem.
Key word. Good.
My dad flew one for several years and even let 12-year old me take the controls a few times. No problems (of course I only did straight and level flight - couldn't see over the instrument panel.) Maybe the trick was that Dad wasn't a doctor and had paid attention when he got rated in the aircraft.
Calling a Bonanza a Cadillac now would be the ultimate insult. Yes I own a Cadillac and stand by my statement.
@@jimarcher5255
Yes, that was a term used in the 1950’s through to the 1970’s. Not the same car nowadays? My friend had a Caddy back in 1975. It was like riding on your living room couch. Smooth, couldn’t feel a bump. What a suspension.
Excellent knowledge! I'm not a pilot and flying scares the crap out of me, but find aircraft fascinating and beautiful! Thanks for these great videos.
Love my Grumman aa1b wouldn't trade it for any single engine out there.
Very well done video! Thank you.
I built a small scale Radio Controlled Piper Tomahawk many years ago. It looked pretty nice and had a 40 glow engine for power.. On its second flight it went into a spin and well... you can guess what happened!
If you were a pilot you would know that: Every aircraft while in a spin always requires opposite rudder, neutral ailerons power to idle . I own a 1979 PA-38-112 at 65% pwr I burn a little over 5gph. It’s a fantastic flying aircraft. VFR flying into weather is called IMC ..
@@merillalexbivens807 Sometimes RC models get built and end up with a different CG to the real airplane. This is especially common given the light weight and potency of the 2-stroke nitro RC engines, compared to the absolute anchors fitted to the front of real airplanes. Pretty easy to end up with a bit more aft CG than the real plane, and get an F-104 style stall behavior.
I like your style and the info is first-rate and interesting. I flew the Tomahawk and in spin training, it would have scalped me had it not been for my instructor. Thanks again!
I was surprised by the firm control inputs required to make my first spin recovery in that plane.
@@aafjeyakubu5124 I completely lost it and my instructor had to step in. I slightly panicked and hit the throttle before terminating the spin. He calmly reaches over and retards it and says, "Tod, Why would you want to get to the ground and sooner than need be"? I had no answer.
I appreciate it, I love everything about aviation and I could talk about planes all day. I’m trying to make videos a little differently than what is already on youtube. Thanks for sharing your story in the Tomahawk!
@@FloridaFlying Thank you Florida! I'm liking the channel! Thanks and fly safely. I liked the fact that you mentioned in most cases it wasn't the plane's fault.
I did my initial CFI spin training in a Traumahawk. I actually enjoyed the airplane. It also has very soft and springy landing gear that is a nice ego booster, you get some nice landings.
I always enjoy your videos. Thanks very much for putting them out here for us.
I’m glad you like them! I enjoy making these videos
Don’t forget “Toma-coffin”.
Traumahawk
Don’t know how I got here but I really enjoyed it. Not a boring moment