Opinions on the Piper PA-38 Tomahawk

[Steve]

A friend of mine in considering buying a Piper PA-38 tomahawk and has sent me on a fact finding mission. Are there any major recurring AD's on the airplane besides the 10K hour wing one? He has been looking for a C-152 but has only found high prices junk with high time engines and tons of DH. How does the Tomahawk perform on grass strips? He plans to have it based at a well kept grass field. Any info you fellas can provide would be greatly appreciated.

 

[MetroSheriff]

From what I remember in my 3 or 4 hours about 15 years ago, I would rather fly a kite than a Tomohawk. Certainly not an airplane I would actually pay hard earned money for. I am sure there are differing opinions, however. Take mine with the appropriate grain of salt.

 

[Floyd94]

Tomohawk=Traumahawk. I wouldn't advise practicing spins in that thing.

 

[Kaman]

Hello,
It's been a lot of years, but I did my PVT checkride in the Tomahawk. I didn't have any real complaints about the way that it flew. The only unique charcteristic that I can recall is that they tended to "fishtail" in turbulence. Visibility and roominess was superior to the Cessna 152, which I also flew during my training. I know that a lot of people have some misgivings about spinning the Tomahawk, but it's spin characteristics are conventional as is the entry/recovery procedures. I think that the thing that freaks us out is the tendency for the tail to "shake, rattle and roll".

Regards,

ex-Navy Rotorhead

 

[FearlessFreep]

There has been a handful of AD's issued on the tail surfaces, specifically the vertical fin attach points if I remember correctly. Depending on method of compliance would determine if repeated inspections would be necessary. The engine for the most part is the same Lycoming 235 that is used in the C-152 and is considered to be pretty bulletproof. There are a handful of mods that were available that would boost the power. I think they were referred to as the Sparrowhawk mods. I don't know too much about the Grumman American 2 seater (AA1A, TR-2, Lynx, etc.) but I would say that the Traumahawk is probably better than those if for nothing other than the Grummans carry nearly no fuel. I am sure that some will disagree with me on this point.

The Traumahawk can be had for a pretty cheap price as they have never been that popular. The later models 79' and on I believe are the more desireable years.

If your friend is going to operate from a grass field he will probably require the "big wheels" mod.

They don't perform that great but it is after all a two seat trainer. I did find them to cruise a bit faster than the trusty C-152 and they are a bit more roomy inside.

I did have one time where I picked one up at a local airport and had someone in a C-172 drop me off and we then flew back together. At full throttle the little Traumahawk was running away from the C-172 and he could not keep up with me. That was pretty funny.

I know that they were popular down in New Zealand for a time as we purchased and number and shipped them down there. That was a number of years ago.

I did have the experience of picking up a PA-38 in Pennsylvania and bringing it out California in the middle of July, fully loaded with two people and bags and fuel. It was not that bad but if you are planning any operation out of high/hot areas that is definitely not the plane if you are going to fly fully loaded. I ended up having to thermal my way out of a number of airports that we stopped at along the way. This is not the thing to do if you are not all that experienced with the aircraft and in retrospect was really pushing the aircraft to it's limits.

You might want to do a search on the web and see if there are any clubs that deal with the Tomahawk. I know a few years back AOPA did an article on the aircraft. You might want to check with them to see if an reprint is available.

Take Care, Good Luck & Fly Safe!

 

[dmspilot00]

The problems with the Piper Tomahawk (aka Traumahawk or Tombahawk) are not psychological. There are serious design flaw and quality control problems with the airplane.

There is an NTSB report of a spin accident that occurred with a 100-hour private pilot and CFI on board conducting a BFR. The brief report can be found at http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001206X00857&key=1 . It states the Piper Tomahawk's "STALL/SPIN ACCIDENT RATE IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN COMPARABLE TRAINER-TYPE AIRPLANES. " And it cites as a factor of the accident "THE AIRPLANE'S LATERAL-DIRECTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AT OR NEAR THE STALL SPEED."

Reading the full narrative is an absolute must: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001206X00857&ntsbno=CHI94FA097&akey=1 . It explains how the PA-38 had significant design changes that were never approved. Apparently Piper wanted all of it's planes to be T-tail, so, after being certified with a conventional tail, they just decided to slap a T-tail on the Tomahawk; and they did not seem to bother retesting it (or recertifying it for that matter--it never was!) But that is just the beginning. The PA-38 used a special NASA airfoil which is very sensitive to shape. After certification, Piper reduced the structural support of the wing by approximately half, in order to reduce manufacturing expenses. As a result, the wing became much softer and flexible. The shape of the wing was known to distort close to stall speed causing severely unpredictable stall characteristics. For more information, see the "Additional Information" section of the NTSB full narrative.

 

[cl-65link]

Tomahawk=DEATHTRAP. I have about 6 hours in them and that is 6 too many in my book.

 

[bigD]

I have some time in Tomahawks. They don't seem to be a particularly well built plane, but since I've never owned one, I couldn't give you actual mx cost figures.

As far as their reputation, for every person calling them a deathtrap, there's someone else that spins them regularly and sees no problem with them.

To me, it's like a 152 with better visability and a roomier cabin. It stalls more aggressively than the 152, but it's nothing terrible. I've never spun one, but people that do tell me it's the same thing - recover using the CORRECT procedures, and it's fine. It won't just recover on its own if you let go of the controls ala 152's.

Maybe also look at the Beech Skipper? Of course you pay Beech prices on parts, but there you have the advantages of the Tomahawk without all the negatives (and negative perceptions).

 

[markhow]

Hi,

I flew as a student and later instructed in the Tomahawk for more time than I care to mention. Overall it was an average performer on all types of runways I happened to use. (Paved, Grass, Dirt)
The stall and spin charecteristics were actually better than the Cessna 152 if you wanted to compare the two. I spun them many times and have lived to tell the tale so I would have to say that the tail tends to stay on.

The one problem I did have was when a bolt on the right main gear sheared and the landing gear ripped off. This was caused by the school I worked for not complying with an AD on the saddle bolts on the main gear.

Hope this helps,

 

[metrodriver]

I do have about 150 hrs in them and used them from PVT through CFI. I will take one over a c152 in a heartbeat. Why: excellent visibility, there is never a wing blocking your vision during turns. It has a large fuelcapacity giving a nice x-c range, comfy seats, it has fuelselectors, which means you get trained using them from day one (not necessarely in cessna's) and it's roomy, legroom wise and cabinwidth. When adding power for a go-around or stall recovery the plane does not have that nasty pitch up moment that low tail / high wing planes have. The t-tail is out of the slip stream, so no tail down force (not so good for soft field ops, although the elevators become active at very low speeds). You can full stall this plane and keep the nose pointed straight by using rudders, just watch the vsi peg at 2000fpm+ down. So do it up high. The spins: it spins like a real spin is supposed to be, nothing like a c152 that you have to force into a spin and it comes out by itself. The piper will fall over the wing that stalls (be it by use of aileron or insufficient rudder) and will point the nose straight down, losing 2000+fpm. One full turn and recovery takes about 1500 to 2000 feet (you are stalled, no lift and as such have the properties of a brick), that's why there is a one turn limitation on spins. Each additional turn will ad additional altitude loss (it tightens up). All my spins in this airplane were started at 5000' AGL. The plane gives plenty of early stall warning, it has an electric vane activating a stall warning horn (not the suction device from Cessna), and the plane will start to shake when approaching a stall. One warning: don't do rolls or so, it places higher foces on a T-tail airplane than a low tail plane, but this is for every t-tail plane (that's why there are no t-tail aerobatic planes).

You will have a lot more fun in this plane than a c152, and it's a plane that's faster and will fly a lot longer and farther before needing gas. Go fly both and compare them.

Don't pay attention to the name traumahawk. I have lost friends in cessna accidents, usually the turn to final because the runway is blocked for a while by the wing, and when you see the runway and that you're overshooting it is for many people reason to crank in aileron and haul back on the stick resulting in a spin. In de Tomahawk you see the runway constantly, allowing for much earlier and gentler corrections. Oh yeah, I got 1600 hrs of teaching, so I hope I know what I'm talking about