Bad rap

Piper Tomahawk

Nickname: Traumahawk

Rap sheet: Stalls and spins, and not in a good way
Current status: Better, but redemption is elusive

When Piper launched the Tomahawk in the mid-1970s, it seemed like the perfect answer to Cessna’s dominance of the training market. The airplane had fantastic visibility, a comfortable cabin, and creative features. It was in many ways the ideal successor to the Cherokee 140 it was meant to replace at the company’s affiliated flight centers. But then people started dying.

It turns out the airplane, which had been beefed up in the tail, was lightened elsewhere, including in the wing. That resulted in unusual stall characteristics, and an alarming ease to spin. An NTSB analysis found the airplane sustained up to five times as many loss of control accidents as the Cessna 150/152. Stall strips fixed the problem, but the damage was done. Schools didn’t want it anymore.

Randy Richmond runs the Tomahawk admiration Facebook group (yes, there is one), and he says the airplane is exactly what Piper hoped it would be. He finds it to be a great trainer. “It’s a very cleverly designed airplane, including seats that go up as you go forward. Why don’t they all? And it demonstrates aerodynamic principles so well, and has such great visibility, that arguably it is the best trainer ever made. The Piper hype about it being ‘the culmination of everything we’ve learned about flight training’ is really, in this case, true,” he says. Perhaps it’s time to expunge the bad record.

Cessna 175

Nickname: Skylark

Rap sheet: A geared engine on a 172. ‘Nuff said.
Current status: At least they’re cheap

Cessna has always been the master at filling market gaps, and the 175, introduced in 1958, was intended to slot between the 172 and 182. In terms of performance and price, Cessna nailed it. But that performance came courtesy of a Continental GO-300 engine, which had the unfortunate habit of eating itself. Skylark lovers claim that happens only when the engine is operated incorrectly, but who wants to spend so much energy managing a weird powerplant on one of aviation’s most basic airframes? Even Continental doesn’t believe in the engine’s longevity. The time between overhauls is only 1,200 hours.

If that’s not bad enough, some versions had 52-gallon tanks, of which only 42 was available in all phases of flight. The type certificate said, “The Models 175A and 175B fuel system does not comply with CAR 3.433 and 3.434 for horsepower greater than 167 at the best angle of climb which is the most critical attitude.” Um, no thanks.

Today we have the Cardinal and the 172XP to slot between the 172 and 182, and both are superior choices in almost every way. That and the age of the Skylark fleet are two reasons you’ll find them for much cheaper than other 172s. And rightly so.

Aero Commander 100

Nickname: Darter, Lark

Rap sheet: Vanilla is more exciting
Current status: Are there any left?

To beat the competition, you have to be faster, better, or cheaper. When Volaircraft designed and certified what it called the 1050 in the early 1960s, the company took direct aim at the 172. They missed.

It’s not that the airplane that would become the Aero Commander 100 or Lark Commander was a bad airplane. It sports a popular Lycoming O-360 and a cool reverse swept tail design, and it looks sorta cute and proud on its little landing gear. Even though it was cheaper at the time than a 172, there wasn’t a compelling reason to choose it over the mighty Skyhawk. Even the name—Lark—is uninspired. In that way the airplane and its nondescript, common brown bird namesake are kindred spirits.

Rockwell purchased the type certificate from Volaircraft and offered the airplane as an entrant to its bigger, cooler, much more capable twin. That would be like Ferrari buying the rights to the Ford Taurus to get people to buy supercars.

That said, owners generally like them, if for no other reason than they’re rare and quirky. Parts are said to be available, mostly from third-party sources. Probably because the Lark isn’t exactly on brand for type certificate holder Aviat Aircraft (technically Dynac Aerospace Corporation). Pull out that factoid at your next airplane trivia night.

Cessna 337

Nickname: Push Me, Pull You

Rap sheet: Twin prices without the cool factor
Current status: Double the trouble

If you’re going to go through the expense of maintaining two engines and buying double the fuel, you no doubt want something for your money. The Cessna 337 does not look cool, fly particularly well, or offer good single-engine capabilities. And the worst slight of all is that if you take your checkride in one you’ll end up with a limitation on your pilot certificate (“centerline thrust only”), and we will all know you still use training wheels.

If you’re so inclined, and you have an unlimited bank account, you can add turbocharging and pressurization to the madness. Then you’ll have a pretty respectable traveling machine. But with complexity comes more maintenance headaches. As Aviation Consumer pointed out in its review, unlike a normal twin that has the luxury of sticking systems in the nose and in the wings, everything for the 337 must fit in the fuselage, making these aircraft a bit of a nightmare to maintain.

And while it’s true there are no asymmetric thrust issues when an engine fails, the anemic climb on one engine is just as problematic. Aviation Consumer said that a review of the type’s 100 most recent accidents found six where someone lost an engine on takeoff and still crashed.

In the case of the Skymaster, different isn’t necessarily better. [email protected]