‘Bad Rap’ recap

Note that the tag for the story was “Just For Fun,” which is exactly what this was meant to be. We asked for feedback, and we got it.

Herb Harney was not amused. He asked, “And how many hours do you have in the Skymaster?” The answer, Herb? Enough to know I’m not a fan.

He continued, “It is appalling that an aviation magazine would shoot its own foot by publishing garbage like this. All airplanes have ‘bad raps’ that could be listed negatively but why? The audience you live by are pilots of all these airplanes. If you can’t write something positive then…” On this point he’s absolutely correct. My Cessna 172XP doesn’t turn fuel into speed as efficiently as I think it should. Oh, positive? It’s easy to fly and it’s pretty.

George Powell agreed with Harney. “Seriously, when did AOPA Pilot trade serious aviation journalism for snarky sarcasm? Ian Twombly’s article literally drips with disdain for owners of aircraft he considers deserving of a ‘bad rap.’ Name-calling (Traumahawk) and insults convey nothing but his contempt for what he doesn’t like. His comment that a centerline thrust rating merely conveys that ‘we will all know you still use training wheels’ is just stupid.” In my defense, I’m not creative enough to have coined “Traumahawk.” That came about decades ago.

Jim Van Laark was also disappointed in our lack of seriousness. “What I am objecting to is your tone in an article that pretends to offer good advice to readers. Your position writing for AOPA gives you a special opportunity, and with that comes a special responsibility. You owe your readers clear, objective, honest appraisals, not snarky wisecracks. The latter is the reason I gave up Aviation Consumer 20 years ago. For a while I just filtered their hubris, but eventually I came to doubt the accuracy of their assessments. That should be a serious concern for a publication that claims to advise its readers with the truth.”

There’s no question flying can be serious business sometimes, but we were increasingly getting the sense that Skymaster fans have heard the criticisms before and are sick of having their airplanes derided. Ron Lillie, the president and CEO of Western Skymasters, said, “If you read a bit deeper into the accident files you will see in almost every case the pilots of crashes were not properly rated or trained in the 337 aircraft. Over the past 10 years I have had three customers crash their 337s they purchased from me. In each case the pilot flying the aircraft was not qualified to fly the plane. Skymasters, because they are so cheap to buy, attract pilots who should not be flying them. Most are very low time and are not willing to spend the money to go to a certified Skymaster training course. Often they cannot qualify for insurance. Nowadays if a buyer does not have insurance in hand, we will not sell him a 337.” This is not a ringing endorsement.

We didn’t hear much from owners of the Lark/Aero Commander or Cessna 175 but did hear from a few Tomahawk fans. Well, one fan. Paul Gauvreau said, “Your ‘spin’ on the Tomahawk is off base. The ease of spinning is a design feature that was requested by flight instructors who were asked what would make the ideal trainer. The problem seems to have been instructors who could not stop a spin by following the standard procedures. After they stopped deliberate spins the safety record improved dramatically, and the Tomahawk is one of the safest small aircraft out there. I don’t expect you to expunge the record, but some more accurate reporting would help.” Point made, Paul, and excellent pun.

Many wrote in to share their memories of the Tomahawk, mostly involving spins. George Gould thought we didn’t go far enough, however. “You neglected to mention the Tomahawk wing is life-limited to 11,000 hours and then the little bird is a static display. Can’t expunge that.” Included was a photo of him in front of his Cessna. Here’s to owners passionately defending their airplanes!

[email protected]