Airplanes with BAD Reputations 

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.

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

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 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.

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..

You have to fly the short MU2 all the way to the ground.

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.

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.

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

Aww that sucked!

Good to hear he lived. Was going into the story believing the worst.

Yessss

A bad reputation is a bad reputation, whatever the reason.

I’m glad you like them! I enjoy making these videos

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...

So sorry to hear that Terry. Good luck with your career. I'm sure your Dad is very proud of you. John.

+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.

@@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.

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.

@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.

Yep, and that spike comes loose quite often…..

I did my first solo...and learned to spin (and recover properly) in G-TOMS. Sorry to see it’s unfortunate demise..

Well done, Leia for making it clear the cause of the G-TOMS crash. What I really object to, is that by randomly taking a photo of our aircraft from internet, the inference to the viewers will be that the plane crashed because it was a Tomahawk. Note to FloridaFlying: Take your own pictures next time! 🤬

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

I have heard this too. And I'm not a pilot!

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.

if my friend is 350 lb. pilot and I'm 220+ lbs. are we asking for trouble?

@@dabneyoffermein595 what do you think?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

What about the piper aerostar, they say you had to fly it like a light jet, or it would murder you, or you it.