Opinions on the Piper PA-38 Tomahawk

[Typhoon1244]

Have any of you guys grabbed a Tomahawk wingtip and twisted the wing?

Uh, I haven't done that in any airplane...especially if I'm renting it!

I may be biased toward the trusty little 150 and 172, but I've sure never seen a Cessna tail shaking back-and-forth like a flag pole in a hurricane during a stall!

 

[Traumahawk]

Guess this might be a good place for me to put .02 in

Really glad to see not EVERYone is screaming Deathrap! Tommytrauma!

Bottom line, this is a very VERY simple airplane that does what it was designed to do based on input from (wouldn't u guess) thousands of flight instructors. It teaches the student what that little vertical trim tab lookin' thing on the back is for.

There are some really great attributes that have been mentioned here so far when it comes to owning one. Fun little cross-country machine. As far as the soft field performance, the 16'' tires are the best for this, all the Tomahawk II's are equipped with them.(1981-82) Another thing to remember, the plane does have some AD's, and on some of the older models 1978-1980 there were instances where they were complied with incorrectly by A&P's out in the field, however, these AD's were complied with as the Tomahawk II's were being built by Piper, so you can rest assured they were probably done as intended.
If you are truly operating out of a SOFT field, meaning soggy etc... make sure you have a good 2800 ft if there are obstacles at the end. On a hot day, make it 3000. Holding the yoke full back does nothing for you until 35 knots besides adding un-needed drag, same goes for the flaps prior to about 50. Holding the elevators full aft prior to 35 just leads to an almost certain over-rotation that really causes a significant performace loss in this plane. 112 horsepower, on a hot day, even when u level off in ground effect there are a few wide eyed seconds when the airspeed sits at about 55 before slowly creeping up to Vx as the branches approach. Don't heave the nose way into the air on the roll either.......Leave the ground ahead of the power curve, You'll surely find the ground one more time otherwise. On a hot day with obstacles you might want to even consider no flaps, seems to perform better this way.

Now, Spins are obviously the soft spot here.....and because of some bad mistakes, and it's 'action-required' spin procedure, the old wives tale has gotten so bad that noone would go up with me to spin the thing a couple years back so I talked to some people who had, read the book and went up and taught myself. I figured, theres 8 AD's on the tail alone, the first 6 should hold the thing on, and the last 2 are just for good luck I will admit, I'm young, unmarried and looking at 20 years of student loan payments

Spins are conventional. The student or, yes, even instructor who's spin recovery procedure is to let go, grab the bottom of his/her seat and scream until the plane stops lawndarting towards the ground is going to have a bit of a problem in this airplane, because it requires you to actually USE the spin recovery procedure that is almost identical to the 150/152 procedure. Ailerons nuetral, FULL(not just some)rudder opposite rotation and then, where in the 152 u can just relax back pressure, you swiftly push the stick forward and yes, in some, not all, but some instances wait until christmas(which still is usually no more than 2 turns) and bam, ure going straight down, unstalled and ready for another. Most first timers might even get into the negative G scenario when the stall is broken and that full down stick takes effect...be ready to release it once the spin has STOPPED, premature relaxing of the yoke can really delay recovery, again, it really makes the pilot use the procedure.

One thing to remember, stick with the procedure.
Myths that lead to NTSB investigations......

#1 Adding/subtracting power will blast air over the T-tail and therefore make it more effective in recovery. Wrong.
#2 The airplane steepening and tightening up when the anti-spin inputs are used means they aren't working so stop and try something different.....the complete opposite is true, this is a characteristic of the recovery.
#3 Two 180 pound guys, flight bags, 3/4 tanks and the seats back far enough to a comfortable position makes for an excellent CG location and any ensuing flat spin after 2 rotations should be met with utter suprise, and the smoking hole 15 seconds later is entirely due to this horrible, AD magnet deathtrap that had no business being built in the first place when we already have forgiving airplanes like 152's to teach pilots feet and book procedures aren't part of today's flying.

How many of those spin accidents began at 5000ft? Not too many. Can a 152 recover from a base to final spin at 500ft? Even Yeager would auger in there. How many of those spins resulted from illegal, many times low level aerobatics? Were the witnesses pilots? If you want the stats for this country, check the NTSB records and do a little reading, I'd be more worried about the gear collapsing if you don't know how to land in crosswinds with this plane.
Yea it has a nosewheel, but it does what it can on the part of a good trainer.
Make sure you check out www.pipertomahawk.com !!
Best Regards'
T-hawk

 

[metrodriver]

Oh yeah, that's what I forgot. You can land this plane straight with a 20 kts pure crosswind without going sideways like a cessna.
ATPcliff, you can't compare a warrior to a tomahawk. That's the same as comparing a 172 to a 152.
If someone wants to do some stalls / spins in a tomahawk, let me know (for people who have a private and have never done them in this plane before)

 

[chuychanga]

I can't refute every point in the report, but as far as the ailerons being ineffective at stopping rolloff during a stall... they're not supposed to stop the rolloff. That's what the rudder is for. If you are trying to turn the yoke during a stall in a conventional light plane, you are doing it wrong.

The Warrior is indeed much easier to fly than the Tomahawk, which is exactly why is it not as good of a trainer. That's like saying GPS is easier than pilotage and dead reckoning, so why did I waste my time with all that map-reading and calculations.

50 flat spins? Who exactly watched all thses flat spins occur? Or did they just find a Tomahawk in a big hole in the ground and decide it had to be a flat spin? It would be interesting to find out some background info on those 50 pilots' training. Had they ever been taught spin recovery? If so,was it in a plane which does not require the proper technique? If you've done a lot of spins in a 152 then you've probably gotten a little rusty on proper technique. Did these pilots simply assume they could let go and it would recover on its own?

It's true that there are less spin accidents in 152s. This is because you don't have to really recover from them, the plane does it for you. That doesn't make the Tomahawk a faulty airplane. The flaw is in the stall/spin training not the airplane design.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I dislike using this kind of argument because it depends on an emotional response, not a rational one. Nevertheless, I'd have to say that if I were teaching my sons how to fly, and I had a choice of doing their solos in an airplane that recovers easily from stalls/spins (150) or an airplane that doesn't recover naturally (Tomahawk), it becomes a no-brainer.

Basic trainers are supposed to be forgiving, not challenging.

 

[jetdriven]

actually there about 53 now. the latest flat spin crash was with an FAA examiner and a private applicant. When you find the left main gear broken forwards, the right main gear broken aft, and the fuel selector sticking a foot out of the quadrant then its pretty esy to tell it was a flat spin.

I actually enjoy flying the tomahawk over a 150 but it has a staggeringly high rate of stall/spin accidents.

in cruise flight you can whip the yoke aft and make the tail shake because the airflow will separate from that GA(W)-1 airfoil. not a very good characteristic.

 

[Traumahawk]

Why exactly would you "whip the yoke back" in cruise flight? We doin snap rolls now?

The spin crash with the FAA examiner happened quite a while ago, and why were they spinning the airplane? Why did it depart into a spin? I know of 2 FAA examiners where I live that are terrified of the plane......just because the person is a DPE doesn't mean they are completely proficient in every flight envelope of every aircraft they do checks in.
What was their power setting? CG? Fuel? Aileron position?
It's funny, to keep a 172 in a spin I've seen it taught with full power, full left rudder, full right aileron throughout the spin.
Enter a Spin in the Tommyhawk crosscontrolled and hold it there, nose bobs right up to about 30-35 degrees below the horizon and control inputs are worth nothing, for what it's worth its pretty much flat. Position the controls with the spin, no aeileron and maybe even deploy the flaps for a second or two and it comes back down, bottom line, and you aerobatic pilots out there can justify this, crosscontrol with full power is a recipe for flat spins with a LEGAL cg.....put it a little farther aft and then it's a no brainer. Again, during more than half of these spins the pilot was probably a test pilot as far as the A/C weight, CG and procedure used.

You know, the piper seminole has very similar stall characteristics.....T Tail will shake.....I can't speak for T Tail arrows and Lance's.......not that we spin them, but.....no prblems with these planes.
The plane requires a specific action to be taken. Period. People are told time and time again what to do in multiengine airplanes, at all atitudes if an egine fails.....yet how many stall/spin accidents do we see with them? And that procedure is pretty straight forward. I would suggest most of these accidents in the T-hawk happened(if a/c was in legal limits)due to an unintentional spin, probably around 3000ft AGL and an adreneline fueled response that was just wrong or not held in long enough when the ground is getting closer and closer to the windscreen. A skiddish DPE/CFI/Student without much patience or focus during a much steeper, more pronounced (unintentional/suprise??)spin than they have ever seen just leads to problems. Know what to do when this happens, do it correctly and commit to it, nomatter how long it takes,you'll buy the farm if you try something different so this is the only card you play and it'll bail you out every time. I've spun this plane nearly empty and heavy, forward CG and AFT(legally) many many times, and even after 5-6 turns it just doesn't go flat, and the aircraft has always acted accordingly when the anti-spin inputs are put in, the right way. None of this having to lean on the dash to get it to recover nonsense.....
Think of the nature of the plane.......and then think of the mindset out there.....ahh, another little simple light Piper, sure we can fly that, doesn't look too different besides that T-Tail.....flight after flight..no problem.....then one day the thing flips over and spins, and that 152/172/cherokkee 140/skipper procedure just doesn't work.
Read the book. It has 2 whole pages devoted to JUST SPINS for people like this.
FLY SAFE
--T-hawk

 

[AA717driver]

I got about 20 hours in one before I beat feet to the Cherokee. What a difference. One of our T-hawks came from the factory with only one stall strip! The thing would still drop the wing without the strip occasionally.

I never looked back.(literally and figuratively!)TC

 

[jetdriven]

one more thing. I remember reading in the POH that you should do stall/spin training above 5000' AGL and that it could take up to 5 turns for recovery.
It doesnt even meet the certification requirements that the aircraft recover within 3 turns using normal techniques. I dont think adding power or flaps is normal or even approved.

 

[Traumahawk]

one more thing. I remember reading in the POH that you should do stall/spin training above 5000' AGL and that it could take up to 5 turns for recovery.
It doesnt even meet the certification requirements that the aircraft recover within 3 turns using normal techniques. I dont think adding power or flaps is normal or even approved.

First, go reread the POH, and then reread my post, both very carefully.
T-Hawk

 

[cezzna]

Everybody is missing the most obvious problem. If you are going to operate out of a grass strip you don't want a T-tail airplane. Your elevator or stabilator won't be effective until you build up speed. In a 152 you apply full power and can almost immediately lift the nosewheel off of the grass. The airflow from the prop goes fight over the elevator. Not the case in the T- hawk.

 

[Traumahawk]

This is only a problem if it's a SOFT field.....wet, soggy, icy...etc........otherwise, not a problem at all.
However, if you want more than about 6 inches of prop clearance anyways, go with the bigger tires.

--T-hawk

 

[1highflyguy]

well what we have here is definently a matter of taste.

Like said earlier, it really is like the Ford vs. Chevy debate. Which one is better, Tomahawk or the 152? It's up to the individual.

I've done about half of my commercial training in a Tomahawk, and got my private in a 152. I did like the visibility of the tomahawk over the 152, that's it. It's interior is 10 times cheaper than any 152 i've been in, the 152 flies smoother has roughly the same power and is much more nimble while taxiing.

I don't recall where i found the information, but i did see a graph showing the amount of stall/spin fatalities involving specific types of trainers. Tomahawk was by far the most, and the 172 was next, with 152 near the bottom.

I'll take a 152 any day of the week over a PA-38. I'd also take a 2000 C-172R over a 1978 172N.

 

[dmspilot00]

More like Chevy/GM/Ford vs. Daewoo/Kia

The fact of the matter is that every person who flies a Tomahawk is a test pilot. The version of the aircraft that was rolled off the assembly line was never tested nor certified. The prototype aircraft design engineers themselves had some serious issues with the production airplane. These are professionals who knew what they were talking about.

Key phrases for repetition's sake:

- "the PA-38 prototype had been built with a rigid wing structure...necessary when using (its) airfoil."
- the redesigned and "softened wing structure could (make) the wing a new and unknown commodity"
- "...able to be torsionally twisted without substantial effort."
- "...a plane totally unpredictable"
- "...the wings flexed noticeably"
- "...opens a Pandora's box regarding its performance"

Again, these are the words of the people who designed the prototype: the airplane the PA38 was certified as; the airplane it was supposed to be, taking into account all of the CFI input, surveys, etc.

Now, here is some additional information I have found:

...the limited stall/spin testing of the Tomahawk that Piper reported performing in 1977 was done in a pre-production aircraft, which may have exhibited significantly different stall characteristics than exist on production airplanes.

(Significantly different = different wing structure)!

The NTSB asked for the wings-level and stall warning tests after learning about the results of a 1979 Swedish National Aeronautics Board investigation of the Tomahawk's stall/spin characteristics.

After performing more than 60 stalls with two production Tomahawks...the Swedes concluded that the airplane did not meet FAA certification requirements for wings-level stall characteristics, or the FAA requirement for a stall warning.

FAA certification regulations require that a wings-level stall be characterized by a downward pitching motion. The Swedish tests, however, found that Tomahawk stalls were characterized by a roll disturbance, but no pitch change.

A third former Piper test pilot...told investigators that production Tomahawks "were nothing like the article certified (by the FAA) as far as stall characteristics are concerned."

Source for above quotes: http://www.landings.com/_landings/ganflyer/jul25-1997/New-Tomahawk-Tests.html

Here is a past discussion on the Tomahawk to which avbug replied: http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1150&highlight=tomahawk

The tomahawk is not rigid under a load. It is also as a result, not consistant. One may spin the airplane three hundred times with full consistancy, or six hundred for that matter. But somewhere in there, perhaps on the 601st, it becomes uncontrollable; it won't recover. It buffets and oil cans, and the empennage flexes, giving a slightly different aerdynamic effect; it becomes a different airplane.

To be fair he did mention that the T-hawk can be a good airplane if flown within limitations, but with the airframe's history I can say that I will never fly one.

 

[metrodriver]

Dms pilot, you write lot of stuff about the tomahawk, you've never flown one. Go to some airport someday and get a couple of hours with an instructor.
Some people are talking about the tail shaking. Have you ever looked back at a cessna tail? Shakes also. It's like the wings on a big jet bending. If it doesn't move, it will break. On any t-tail plane the forces are higher on the vertical stab and the rear fuselage. That's why you don't do rolls in a t-tail plane. There is a higher stall / spin accident ratio. Did anyone check the midair accident ratio of the cessna's? I bet they are quite a lot higher than the t-hawk's.
If you as an instructor are teaching in a t-hawk, before you solo the student you do the stall routine where you let the student keep the plane steady by using rudders only. Very good exercise that won't work in a 152 because those things drop the nose. Next you let them do a stall and let it fall over a wing just slightly and have them recover with rudders only. Let them keep the ailerons neutral (put your knees under the yoke if they don't listen) and push it forward the moment the turn stops. Yes this is the beginning of a spin, just tell them that after the flight.

Pretty much every student will freak out by the word spin, regardless of aircraft type. Even with someone who needs or wants spin training start out this way and slowly build up to a full spin. Too many people get scared the first time they see the aircraft roll over and pointing the nose straight down with the ground gyrating in the windshield