Neil wrote:
I haven’t flown one for years but my memories of those days were of light handling, good gliding characteristics, and flimsy construction.
I can’t remember the last time I saw a Tomahawk being flown. I’ve never flown one myself so have no opinion, but a guy I know who once bought new ones for his FBO said he was discouraged when he noticed black tire marks on the bottom of the wing… Maybe he’s joking but if so he’s good at holding a straight face. What is true is that by the early 80s he’d disposed of them and gone back to C152s for the same job.
There is a Beech Skipper out on the ramp at my my base, and I’ve wondered if it shared the good characteristics of the visually similar (almost identical) Tomahawk, without the flimsy construction.
boscomantico wrote:
It never was very popular in Germany.
It is so extremely unpopular here that I can not remember ever seeing one close-up.
You can rent one here:
http://www.seabirds.de/piper-tomhawk-vercharterung/
And here:
http://www.flugschule-mainz.eu/flotte.html
You clearly stick around too much at the big airports…:-)
boscomantico wrote:
You can rent one here…
I have exactly zero desire to do so. It’s enough that I have to fly on the Pa28 with my students. Nobody needs more Piper in his life than that 
My previous flying school (disappeared long ago unfortunately) used C172 and C182 instead. I am missing those dearly, especially the 182.
I occasionally rent. I like the Pa38 and the Pa28 Warrior 161 and Archer1 181. I don’t mind the C150. I don’t enjoy the C172, which is all I could get in the US in 2010. Although the C172 is a very capable bad weather aircraft.
(Usually I fly a Jodel DR1050.)
what_next wrote:
Nobody needs more Piper in his life than that
I’d make certain exceptions to that:
:-)
alioth wrote:
I’d make certain exceptions to that:Cub/SuperCub
Pacer and TriPacer
Comanche and Twin Comanche
Apache:-)
I’ve flown the first three, Cubs, Pacers, and Commanches, and I understand your general sentiment (not entirely convinced about the Pacer), but have not flown the last mentioned.
Why oh why would anyone want to fly an Apache? All the disadvantages of a twin with none of the advantages. I once heard that in the event of an engine failure the purpose of the remaining engine is to carry you gracefully to the crash site ;)
I would add Mirage and Meridian, especially later ones with G1000. Not ideal, but pretty good traveling machines.
Neil wrote:
Why oh why would anyone want to fly an Apache?
I have only about 15 hours in one, but my impression was it was kind of a twin engined TriPacer. No real vices (except the lack of single engine performance – but being based at sea level I could still climb on one), it was perfectly pleasant flying, roomy and comfortable and as far as twins go not absurdly expensive to feed. Also I rather liked its vintage looks.
Agree with Alioth, the Apache is a sweet old bird, and at half tanks and two up will maintain around 4,000 feet SE. Pretty decent on grass, and other than the gear and flaps using hydraulics, quite easy to maintain. In terms of engine out mishaps would be interesting to compare its statistics to a Baron or 310. I think Neil your phrase is usually applied to all piston twins.
I am fond of the Piper brand, the aircraft are durable and have made good money for commercial operators. Handling may not be Chipmunk like, but they are honest, generally vice free. The Warrior also has an enviable safety record, both in training and personal use.
