Guest ozzie Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 I remember my first takeoff in one. after the quick acceleration of the thrusters i kept asking the instructor if this was normal at least 3 times during the take off run (limp) during a touch and go i accidently left the carb heat on and barely made it over he trees at camden. instructor did not pick up on it until i assumed that this was causing the poor climb and i went for the knob.
Guest drizzt1978 Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 There's a very nice 150 for sale up this way. About a 10 inside and out with all the mods and ads up to date. He was asking 32k last time I spoke with him. Last time I saw him take off, I didn't think the 5000' strip was going to be long enough though!!. Maybe he needs a 912s in it. Hmm I suppose that's another question, I do like the way the jab I'm training in takes off and lands with out much stress!!! (much being theoperative word) Perhaps flying characteristics are the next thing to consider!! I also like the waqy the jab glides along with no power?
shags_j Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 TBH I would buy a tomohawk before a c150. Seem to be a lot friendlier on take off and landing. and I assume they will fit in the new MTOW. Saying that though I'll be saving my pennies for a cirrus srs...
facthunter Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 C-150.to buy? I personally wouldn't, but that is me NOW. A good condition one would be ideal for certain work. Anyone contremplating getting one should have it thoroughly inspected by a competant person. That applies to ALL aeroplanes, or regret at your own cost, and in your own time. If you are contemplating fitting a 140 HP motor forget it as I have flown one. Prop clearance is a problem, and you need bigger tanks. They are a bit squeezy and don't get off the ground very quickly, otherwise thet are a tough and reliable aeroplane. Nev.
Guest mike_perth Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Shags - I agree I prefer the layout of the Tomahawk to the 150 and apparantly the reason the limit went from 750kg to 760 was to accomodate the Tomahawk - I'm doing my ppl in a Tomahawk right now and I really have a soft spot for them - went and sat in and taxi'd a warrior the other day and I must say it was nice to get back in the Tomahawk - even if they are sometimes called the Traumahawk!
Guest drizzt1978 Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Or Tommarock !! No it is TrumaHawk??? And Here is why.. Courtesy of Wikipedia.. "The Piper Tomahawk has a one-third lower accident rate per flying hour than the comparable Cessna 150/152 series of two-place benchmark trainers. However, the Tomahawk has a higher rate of fatal spin accidents per flying hour. The NTSB estimated that the Tomahawk's stall/spin accident rate was three to five times that of the Cessna 150/152." Not to mention they twist when you stall them... Also!!! Read This Artcle in the link supplied. The controversial and unpredictable stall/spin characteristics of the Piper Tomahawk are finally going to be fully tested by the FAA - 20 years after the agency certified the airplane. http://www.landings.com/_landings/ganflyer/jul25-1997/New-Tomahawk-Tests.html
Guest Cloudsuck Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 While I'm not into Cessnas as such, I think that a good old 150 / 152 would be a good cheap reliable commute. There is an instructor on our field who has a very tidy Cessna 150 Texas Taildragger with a new 150hp Lycon. It looks and sounds really neat. If you just want to fly and don't need the sporty feel, a Cessna would be fine. But for me..... one day I'll have a RV-6 with numbers on the side.
Spriteah Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 I don't have the money and have not consider the legalities of it but I have the want to have a 150 Aero and squeeze and Jab 6 into it... I figure that would be a fun machine. Correct prop to avoid VNE and woosh.... ST off not landing..... Jim
Skyhog Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Careful! Them fightin' words you're using there!Find me a single engine Private NVFR fatality in Australia in recent times that doesn't involve bad weather, pilot incapacitation or downright stupidity and we'll talk turkey. Yeah,good call Brent.I do know of a Mooney in NVFR that suffered vacuum pump failure and all on board were killed.I can't say which category this falls into but it could have been the downright stupidity section.If more attention was payed,it may have been prevented.
Guest mike_perth Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Ive got a camera I use to record my flying lessons and soon I am about to do incipient spins in the Traumahawk and I am seriously considering turning it around to film the tail in a stall because seriously the tail wobble really isnt that bad - my instructor reckons not as bad as a Diamond or Jab but this is coming from a guy who hates plastic planes so maybe a touch bias Ive seen it during a stall with pretty sever wing drop and the tail woblle is noticable but id think no more than what any vertical surface back there in the distubed airflow from the stalled wing would do I still like em anyway - Ill never forget my first solo in the Tomahawk!
Guest keeffe Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Yeah least with the Jab you know you will have a fresh engine every 200 hours :P
Guest ozzie Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 I know they are pretty rare in this country but has anyone any experience with a Beechcraft Skipper?? They seem similar in design to the hatchet
Guest brentc Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Yeah,good call Brent.I do know of a Mooney in NVFR that suffered vacuum pump failure and all on board were killed.I can't say which category this falls into but it could have been the downright stupidity section.If more attention was payed,it may have been prevented. If I'm not mistaken I think I discounted that one in any of my rationalising because a vacuum failure does not usually constitute loss of control as NVFR is still VFR and if they were clear of cloud which is a requirement they would still be VFR. Add to that that with appropriate training for the NVFR rating they should still have been able to fly on a limited panel. You get what I mean - even if this crash didn't happen, a vacuum failure 'shouldn't' end in a fatality.
motzartmerv Posted March 3, 2009 Posted March 3, 2009 Yea, there's a handfull of skippa's at camden now.. cheers
Guest drizzt1978 Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 Yea, there's a handfull of skippa's at camden now..cheers Do you think the stall speed it to high for RA AUS?
Guest ozzie Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 Maybe , but i'm sure that they can come under the "tomorrow the world" proposal they are working on.
Guest pedrok Posted March 4, 2009 Posted March 4, 2009 The skippers woud be VH-LFS and LFT, Liverpool Flying School's (moved from Hoxton) Stall speed: 49 kt clean, 47 kt with full flaps I did my GFPT training in them. Heaps of room inside with the bubble cockpit, comfy and very forgiving. I did a TIF in a C152 and then a skipper, after getting into the skipper there was no way I was going back to the cramped 152. I really liked them - good training aircraft - but I dont think enough to cruise around the country in
Mazda Posted March 6, 2009 Posted March 6, 2009 I wouldn't have a problem with a C150 or C152, especially an aerobat. Or a Tomahawk perhaps, but I think rather have an aerobat. Of course the best of all of similar weight GA two seat trainers would have to be the Victa Airtourer! Way ahead of its time with a centre stick, canopy, fixed seats, fun and easy to fly, and aerobatic. The stall speed might be a bit high though.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now