Warrior vs Tomahawk
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Surrey
Age: 43
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Smithy, how is NU doing? I did a fair chunk of my PPL in it before converting onto the Warrior. Hope everyone at EFC is good too!
This is a very hard question to answer and to be honest there isn't one correct answer. I think it all depends on your own situation and what you want to do in the future. If you are planning on just getting a PPL and flying friends around then the Warrior will generally be a much better tourer and if you are only going to be flying this then it makes sense to do all your training on it. If you are planning on expanding your horizons and flying different types etc then the tomahawk is a better steed for the reasons given above (more responsive and actually needs you to fly it instead of the Warrior which is extremely forgiving)
However, when it all comes down to it they are all aircraft and they generally all fly in the same way! I fly a 737 now and it flies exactly the same way a Warrior or Tomahawk does! (just a little higher and faster lol)
This is a very hard question to answer and to be honest there isn't one correct answer. I think it all depends on your own situation and what you want to do in the future. If you are planning on just getting a PPL and flying friends around then the Warrior will generally be a much better tourer and if you are only going to be flying this then it makes sense to do all your training on it. If you are planning on expanding your horizons and flying different types etc then the tomahawk is a better steed for the reasons given above (more responsive and actually needs you to fly it instead of the Warrior which is extremely forgiving)
However, when it all comes down to it they are all aircraft and they generally all fly in the same way! I fly a 737 now and it flies exactly the same way a Warrior or Tomahawk does! (just a little higher and faster lol)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scouse_Phil,
To be perfectly honest, you're talking chalk and cheese.
I would suggest you take a lesson in both and come back if you still can't tell the difference.
The PA38 is great for SSAT, and maybe basic exercises .... but unless you're one for pain, there's no way I'd recommend doing navex in a PA38 ....
I wasn't being rude when I suggested trying them both ... you don't need long to be able to distinguish some of the handling characteristics present in the PA28 that you won't find in the PA38.
But each to their own preferences .... don't get me started on the whole high vs low wing debate that some people have hinted at here ...
Have fun ... and happy flying !
To be perfectly honest, you're talking chalk and cheese.
I would suggest you take a lesson in both and come back if you still can't tell the difference.
The PA38 is great for SSAT, and maybe basic exercises .... but unless you're one for pain, there's no way I'd recommend doing navex in a PA38 ....
I wasn't being rude when I suggested trying them both ... you don't need long to be able to distinguish some of the handling characteristics present in the PA28 that you won't find in the PA38.
But each to their own preferences .... don't get me started on the whole high vs low wing debate that some people have hinted at here ...
Have fun ... and happy flying !
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NSW Australia
Age: 59
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tomahawk v Warrior
I trained RPL in a Tomahawk and found it was a good plane for the basics. Very good for dramatic stalls and wing drops, the odd incipient spin made life interesting, but very good for your training as you could handle them if it happened in real life.
The Warrior is a good plane for navs as they are good and stable so you can concentrate on your navigation/radio CLEAROFF checks etc i/o fighting with turbulence. Also more power and room for long navs. Once trimmed out they can be like riding in an armchair.
I did my PPL navs in a Warrior and found it a stable aircraft. I did a 3 hr nav in a Cessna 152 and found it was hard work because of turbulence and being a bit "fidgety".
I now fly an Archer II and this is a great plane for long flights as it stable and cruises about 110kts, can carry 4ppl and full fuel + a toothbrush each. The Cessna 182's cant do this. For mustering the Cesnas are okay but I have found the Archer is still pretty good.
Hope this helps
The Warrior is a good plane for navs as they are good and stable so you can concentrate on your navigation/radio CLEAROFF checks etc i/o fighting with turbulence. Also more power and room for long navs. Once trimmed out they can be like riding in an armchair.
I did my PPL navs in a Warrior and found it a stable aircraft. I did a 3 hr nav in a Cessna 152 and found it was hard work because of turbulence and being a bit "fidgety".
I now fly an Archer II and this is a great plane for long flights as it stable and cruises about 110kts, can carry 4ppl and full fuel + a toothbrush each. The Cessna 182's cant do this. For mustering the Cesnas are okay but I have found the Archer is still pretty good.
Hope this helps
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I now fly an Archer II and this is a great plane for long flights as it stable and cruises about 110kts, can carry 4ppl and full fuel + a toothbrush each. The Cessna 182's cant do this.
I think a few 182 drivers on here might take you to task on this assertion..............
Cusco
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southport
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone for your replies.
My plan is to get myself a Frozen ATPL so its looking like a Tommy for the numerous reasons mentioned.
One less thing to think about now...only 999,999,999 left!
My plan is to get myself a Frozen ATPL so its looking like a Tommy for the numerous reasons mentioned.
One less thing to think about now...only 999,999,999 left!
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think a few 182 drivers on here might take you to task on this assertion..............
I was thinking the same Cusco.
With a few hundred hours on the Archer, I appreciate it as a fine low powered tourer, but the 182 has far better performance, more comparable in many ways to the Dakota (PA28)
I was thinking the same Cusco.
With a few hundred hours on the Archer, I appreciate it as a fine low powered tourer, but the 182 has far better performance, more comparable in many ways to the Dakota (PA28)
