Tomahawk Useful Load

R

RiverHigh

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 16, 2013
Messages
15
Display Name
Display name:
RiverHigh
I plan on getting checked out in a Piper Tomahawk in the near future - but as I don't have access to the exact specifications right now, I figure I would just check in on some general figures for now.

Can anyone who has ever flown a Tomahawk attest to it's useful load? It's my understanding that with full fuel, you're looking at around 340 pounds for myself, a passenger, and any light luggage.

But I'm 170 pounds, and if I'm carrying a passenger who's 210 pounds doesn't that cause problems? It seems to me that this plane is severely inhibitive in terms of weight.
 
The useful load is in the range you specified (typically 350) lbs so with that weight of people you're not taking full fuel. I flew these things in an instructional situation at APA (6000' field elevation). Leaving the tanks less than full is what you need to do (both for gross weight and just performance on high DA) operations.

That being said, and there are lots of detractors on the thing (some for valid and some for invalid reasons), I liked flying the thing. Since these were trainers they do tend to be on the ragged out side. They are life limited and given the age and the frequency of use these tends to get, you need to be careful there.
 
There is a guy in a group of mine that recently sold his 172 and got a tomahawk, he loves it
 
LJS1993 said:
Wait haven't they been given the nickname "Traumahawks"?
Click to expand...

So they say :p

Honestly though, I'm sure if you fly conservatively they aren't much more unsafe than any other GA aircraft.

Thanks flyingron for that info. I just forsee a situation where I want to carry another, heavier passenger only to see that the tanks are completely full. It would almost seem tempting just to fly that extra 40 or so pounds over gross (not that I would).
 
LJS1993 said:
Wait haven't they been given the nickname "Traumahawks"?
Click to expand...

As far as I can find, Tomahawks were given the nickname because Piper had the wings altered in order to make it easier to spin. It was a training decision that went a long way in damaging the reputation of this charming little plane.

I actually had some interest in one. You'll find the tomahawk has one of the more generous cabin widths of it's class. I gave up on them when I read that the wings are only "rated", for lack of a better term, for 11,000 hours. The Beechcraft Skipper is essentially the same plane without the modified wing so I'm more interested in pursuing the purchase of one of those.
 
Last edited:
Mine had a useful load of 508 lbs. With full fuel (32 gallons, iirc) that limited the payload to 320 lbs or so. At 6-7 GPH, there was no need to top the tanks most of the time.
 
Yep, your 152 has 10 gallons less fuel and we still didn't top them regularly in Colorado.
The general statement is if you can fill the seats and the fuel tanks at the same time, the tanks are too small.

The tommy flies fine. It's a little bit more squirrly in gusty conditions, but it lands like a dream compared to the 150/152.
 
Useful load: 490 lbs
minus Max fuel 32 USG (usable 30) :192 lbs
Burn: 4.5 GPH (6500 feet, 2250 RPM, 80 kts indicated, properly leaned).
Wing life limit: 11 000 hours(110 years at 100 hr flown per year) or 4.5 engines/2400 hr TBO.
Cabin width: 42 inches
 
Just figured I would follow up on this thread.

I finally got checked out in the Tomahawk today. Honestly, I wasn't hugely impressed with the aircraft. It was okay, but I don't see it being too useful for me. The instructor was saying at my weight, I probably couldn't carry a passenger greater than 190 pounds. Not to mention the slow speed doesn't make it too effective for cross countries.

Did a power off and on stall at 2,500. It seemed to stall pretty much like any other aircraft, but you could hear the elevator buffeting loudly when doing the power off stall. I expected this to happen, so it was more cool than anything else.

Landings were good, but the thing that irked me most was the takeoffs, especially the first one I did.

During the first takeoff, when the plane got to 57 knots, I gently pulled back. However, it at first felt like the elevator wasn't effective, and then suddenly it seemed as though I was over-rotating. I reacted by pushing down a bit, but then it seemed I was at a dangerous nose-down attitude. Pulled back a little more to hear the stall horn peep, then stabilized the climb.

It kind of rattled me a bit, and shook my confidence in flying the aircraft with a passenger. The next two takeoffs were better. Instead of forcing it off the ground at 57 knots, I instead let it pick up more speed to lift off on its own more naturally. Still, the climbout seemed more unnerving than I've been used to. But this may have been more due to the crosswind.

Most of my flying has been in the Skyhawk and Warrior. I've never flown a two seat aircraft (excluding an intro flight in a Robinson, Sailplane and Cub), so maybe I just wasn't used it. Not sure if it was because of the T-tail, or if the C-152 is similar to this. It just seemed more squirrely than I expected. Taxi also felt a bit more oversensitive to me.
 
Last edited:
The tail being above the prop wash makes it a bit less effective on takeoff.


But, an honest plane to fly, a bit more "sporty" than a c-150. Cheap too.
 
RiverHigh said:
During the first takeoff, when the plane got to 57 knots, I gently pulled back. However, it at first felt like the elevator wasn't effective, and then suddenly it seemed as though I was over-rotating.
Click to expand...

JoseCuervo said:
The tail being above the prop wash makes it a bit less effective on takeoff.
Click to expand...
Yes but, as on the T-tail Arrow, when the nose finally comes up while it's still rolling, the elevators descend into the propwash and suddenly become very effective.
 
Question, why did you think it would be more or less useful to you than any other 100-115hp 2 seat trainer? It was not designed to be a cross country machine, it has a fat wing and low horsepower, neither of those factors is conducive to a cross country machine. This is the Piper equivalent to the Cessna 152 and Beech Skipper.

The only plane in this category that would fit your needs is the Diamond DA-20C with a 450lb full fuel payload (useful load 600 and 24gallons usable fuel). It also has better speed than the others. It also has an extra 10hp with the IO-240 engine.
 
Henning said:
Question, why did you think it would be more or less useful to you than any other 100-115hp 2 seat trainer? It was not designed to be a cross country machine, it has a fat wing and low horsepower, neither of those factors is conducive to a cross country machine. This is the Piper equivalent to the Cessna 152 and Beech Skipper.

The only plane in this category that would fit your needs is the Diamond DA-20C with a 450lb full fuel payload (useful load 600 and 24gallons usable fuel). It also has better speed than the others. It also has an extra 10hp with the IO-240 engine.
Click to expand...

It's simply the only plane available for rent. So I figured I may as well get checked out in it and ask the instructor any specific questions pertaining to that exact aircraft. There used to be a Warrior which I found to be quite a great airplane, but that has since been given away to people at another airport.
 
RiverHigh said:
It's simply the only plane available for rent. So I figured I may as well get checked out in it and ask the instructor any specific questions pertaining to that exact aircraft. There used to be a Warrior which I found to be quite a great airplane, but that has since been given away to people at another airport.
Click to expand...

Time to buy a plane then, good thing they're now cheaper than ever. If you don't need IFR capability then the DA-20 may suit you quite well.
 
Henning said:
Time to buy a plane then, good thing they're now cheaper than ever. If you don't need IFR capability then the DA-20 may suit you quite well.
Click to expand...

Haha yes, I would like to buy a plane. Unfortunately it's not a practical objective at the moment.

But if I were to purchase an aircraft, I think I'd rather have the capability to carry a second passenger. With that said, the DA-20 looks very cool and I would love to try flying one sometime soon.
 
RiverHigh said:
Haha yes, I would like to buy a plane. Unfortunately it's not a practical objective at the moment.

But if I were to purchase an aircraft, I think I'd rather have the capability to carry a second passenger. With that said, the DA-20 looks very cool and I would love to try flying one sometime soon.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as I bring up in other threads, one of the biggest things holding back GA is usefulness. Lack of adequate rentals in many markets contributes to that greatly. Perhaps you could put up a notice at your local FBO asking for a partnership, either equity or non equity.
 
Henning said:
The only plane in this category that would fit your needs is the Diamond DA-20C with a 450lb full fuel payload (useful load 600 and 24gallons usable fuel). It also has better speed than the others. It also has an extra 10hp with the IO-240 engine.
Click to expand...

Or maybe the Liberty XL-2, then you can fly in IMC. Then of course you can choose to open the experimental can of worms...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top