Opinions on the Piper PA-38 Tomahawk

[DC9stick]

PA-38, the PA-28 is the Cherokee series

 

[Steve]

Anyone happen to know if the PA-38 has a 14 or 24 volt electrical system?

 

[bigD]

Steve - to answer your question about legroom, yes, there's plenty. I'm 6'1", and if I slide the seat all the way back, I can't even reach the rudder pedals. So I don't think 6'3" will be a problem at all.

 

[Immelman]

I learned to fly in the Traumahawk and have maybe 80-100 hrs total in it.

It was the first aircraft I logged any time in, so I'm probably a bit biased when I say I had absolutely no problems with it, and prefer it over a C150/152 for the aforementioned reasons (its much more roomy, has better visibility, and "feels" better to fly than the rather muted and mundane 150/152). I never did spin it, but spent plenty of time doing deep stalls (power on/off), practicing keeping the wings up with the rudders - stalls are conventional and anyone with some tailwheel experience shouldn't have a problem keeping it out of a spin (proper use of rudder...).

This might be just me, but I think the -38 is a tad faster than its cessna counterpart, TAS in cruise about 105kt. I also thought it performed a bit better in terms of climbing @ max gross weight - I nursed it up to 11,500' (I learned to fly in the mountains) at max weight on warm days several times. I recall the C150/152 being a bit more anemic.

To those who say they're built junky.. maybe I was just flying a nice one. After my PPL was done (this while I was in college), I started helping out at the flight school part time in exchange for flight time, and helped out on several 100-hr and an annual insp.... there were never any issues with construction quality or things getting wore out, despite its daily use as a trainer (except for the obvious things such as tires and whatnot). The interior and some of the plastic trim, and wingtips were replaced when the airplane was 20 yrs old, and they did need it... but the parts that count held up quite well.

 

[chuychanga]

The Tomahawk has a 12 volt battery and 14 volt alternator.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

52 of my first 54 dual hours were in Traumahawk 2535T. It served it's purpose (I was trying to save $). I didn't know much about spins, but asked my instructor about doing some. The basic was, "R U ****ing crazy?!"

When I was forced to switch to the Warrior (Auburn U. sold their only Tomahawk), I thought I was in heaven. The Warrier flew like dream, and I wondered why I was wasting my time in the THawk.

Good luck!

Cliff
GRB

 

[dmspilot00]

Here are some excerpts of that report:

1. 
   [*]

   The original design engineers were asked why the design (of the Tomahawk wing) had been changed. Both said it was their opinion that the airplane's structure had been simplified for manufacturing purposes after it left their design shop.

   The design engineer said that removing wing ribs and changing the spar design would make the wing less rigid, i.e., "soften" the wing.

   He said the softened wing structure could change the airfoil shape, making the wing a new and unknown commodity in stalls and spins.

   He said he had inspected a PA-38 wing and found it to be very soft, and able to be torsionally twisted without substantial effort.

   [*]

   Before sending the airplane to the production design shop, the remaining design engineer stated the airplane had problems with "A very strong rolloff, I think, to the left."

   The designer was asked if the type ailerons the Piper PA-38 was certified with would be effective in stopping the wing's rolloff at the time the stall occurs. He said, "I doubt it. They're marginal ailerons."

   [*]

   FAA Service Difficulty Reports related to the wing were examined for the period between 1986 and April, 1995. Fifteen reports showed loose rivets in the wing, bent aft spar attach fitting, and undertorqued wing spar attachment plate bolts.

   [*]

   A production engineer at the manufacturing facility stated, "The production Tomahawks I eventually became airborne in, only as part of my job, were, to a plane totally unpredictable...the wings flexed noticeably... ."

   One of the original desginers of the airplane stated, "The aerodynamic performance of a GAW-1 wing is very sensitive to airfoil shape. If the shape became distorted, the performance would rapidly deteriorate...the use of a flexible surface...opens a Pandora's box regarding its performance. The effects...encountered by an aeroelastically soft GAW-1 wing in stalls and spins would be impossible to resolve in a conventional flight test program."

   [/list=1]

 

[jetdriven]

the tomahawk used for certification testing had a conventional tail and a stiffer wing with a box spar. The production machine was missing the wing root fillet, an 11 rib wing instead of a 13 rib wing, and it had a very soft U-shaped wing spar.

interesting enough the tomahawk with the conventional tail ended up in some unrecoverable flat spins in which they had to use the spin chute.

have any of you guys grabbed a tomahawk wingtip and twisted the wing?? You can make diagonal wrinkles in the wing skin.

it is faster and goes farther than a 152, but you have to watch the loading, with full fuel on a dual nav tomahawk it will only caqrry about 275 lbs in the cabin.

There have been 51 FLAT SPIN ACCIDENTS with tomahawks. Out of 2100 built there are only about 1100 on the FAA registry. how many 152 flat spin accidents have you read about?? I have about 250 hours in them as a renter and a CFI and I have been upside down more than I care to admit during regular stall testing.

 

[millhouse21]

I currently instruct in T-hawks and was a little suspicious of them when I started due to their bad rep and my history of flying C-152s. However, now that I've flown them for about 250 hrs, I'd take one over a 152 any day. Especially for instructing. As has been said already, they require proper technique in a stall and/or spin. Why is this bad in a trainer? I have spun them a few times and found them to spin and recover by the book. They also have great vis and are roomier than the 152. One thing nobody mentioned is that they are REALLY easy to land and very forgiving on the students in this area. However, they are not the greatest on Soft Field Takeoffs because of that T-tail; the nose comes up late and very suddenly which sometimes results in a tail strike without proper technique. Overall, I think the bad rep is undeserved and that the T-hawk is a good airplane.

 

[jetdriven]

then explain why there have been 51 flat spin accidents out of a pool of 2000 or so airplanes (only then since 1978) and the C150-152 has had far fewer accidents of that nature with several thousand more airframes produced??