Personally, I'm partial to the Diamond DA20 (5.3 gal/h) and Diamond DA40 (5.1 gal/h). The DA20 is also very easy and forgiving to fly.

The gas-powered versions of the DA40 burn closer to 10 gph, with a Lycoming IO-360 engine. I don't know what the fuel burn of the diesels are, but I'd be surprised if it was that low.

The DA20 (in which I have a couple of hours) has a Continental IO-240, which will burn about 6.5 gph. A very nice airplane indeed, also certified for intentional spins (which is why I flew one), and much moer modern than the Tomahawk.

1970s Ercoupe! :D

Not a bad guess. They were produced from 1978 to 1982. Unlike the Ercoupe, though, you could definitely get one into a stall and spin. THey were designed for the fullr ange of flight training needs, including spin training.

I'd like to put a 'Coupe tail on a Tomahawk... :D

I know the Tomahawk and the Beachcraft Skipper scared many student pilots away from learning to fly because of their nasty stall characteristics. Dad was asked by the local flight school to test fly both of them for evaluation for the flight school. At the time Dad had around eight thousand hours in light aircraft mostly bush flying.

Both Dad and Dave Rom their senior flight instructor said they were a no go as a trainer because of the whip stall they had with two up. Dad said their stall was very sharp with little warning solo and got worse with two up.

Now I understand they did some changes to improve the stall characteristics... but they never changed the airfoil that was the cause of the problem. They used an airfoil intended for a airliner on a light aircraft not a good mix. I looked at the polars of the airfoil and at the low Reynolds numbers that that wing was operating at on the Skipper and Tomahawk it was a disaster in the making for a flight training aircraft. The major issue is boundary layer separation post stall.

Interesting. I'd always understood the Skipper and Tomahawk to fly significantly differently, with the Skipper pretty docile even in the stall, while the Tomahawk was intended to be a trainer - including teaching pilots what happened in a stall, including what happens when you mishandle them. But I'd never heard their stall characteristics were particularly nasty.

The Tomahawk POH does warn against entering a very deep stall because the turbulent airflow off the wings could blank the elevator, possibly leading to an irrecoverable situation, but you really have to mishandle the airplane pretty badly to get it that deep. These days, CFIs are taught to teach students to recognize an imminent stall and avoid the full stall entry, and the CFI ticket requires a logbook entry that the candidate has deminstrated spin entry and recovery. My primary CFI in the late 80s insisted on a spin demonstration before he'd sign me off to solo; we did that in a 172 loaded in the Utility category.

I'll have to get my paws on one in RL someday...

I know the ones Dave and Dad were flying were early in the production. As I understand they added stall strakes to help improve the stall. I'll take a 150 or Piper Colt...

I know the ones Dave and Dad were flying were early in the production. As I understand they added stall strakes to help improve the stall. I'll take a 150 or Piper Colt...