Opinions on the Piper PA-38 Tomahawk

[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

 

[dmspilot00]

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.

I won't.

And, no, I don't "write lot of stuff about the tomahawk." I am not the one writing it, I am quoting what was written by others. I am not giving you my opinions or feelings about the plane, so flying it would not make a single bit of difference, would it? The facts do not change whether I have flown it or not.

I guess I am the only one who thinks that what the design engineers had to say is important.

As for your comment about the wings flexing. The wing was weakened significantly for absolutely no other reason than to simplify the manufacturing process. The certified protype was much more rigid because it HAD to be in order to be a safe airplane. (If you had read anything at all that I said you would have known that and would not have made such an absurd comment, that a weakened wing is better because it will last longer--when the designers have said otherwise, and there is an 11,000 hour life limit AD on them!)

I realize I have no extpertise myself nor have I flown one--I'm just a low time pilot. This is why I have relied on the expertise of others and have not offered any "opinions" of my own, but the facts according to reliable sources.

 

[metrodriver]

At the time the plane was build probably nobody thought there would ever be a trainer reaching that kind of hours. The same with airliners. Douglas never dreamt about a 120.000hr DC9 or a 55 year old DC3. A lot of aircraft have structural mods done after a certain time interval. Metroliner, twin commander both wing spar mods (reinforcements). B747 section 41 reinforcements, C141 new wings, B52 new wings. A lot of general aviation airplanes have inspection, reinforcement or replacement procedures for certain parts because there were flaws in their original design, either on purpose (didn't expect a plane to live that long) or by accident (it was calculated to be strong enough but it still isn't good enough).

 

[Typhoon1244]

I spoke to a CFI whose opinions about airplanes I trust. He has around 15,000 hours in everything from Tomahawks and 150's all the way up to MD-81's and L-1011's. After flying an equal amount of time in the Tomahawk and the 150/152, he came to this conclusion: the Tomahawk is a piece of s__t, as far as basic trainers go. Much too sensetive...just touch the yoke, and it'll flip over on you.

A fine airplane for someone who's been around, but totally unsuited to its original purpose.

It sounds to me that even the people on this board who are fans of the Tomahawk can agree with that: good airplane, bad trainer.

 

[bigD]

Much too sensetive...just touch the yoke, and it'll flip over on you.

The Tomahawk is light - lighter than the 152, but I don't think it's excessive. Personally, I'd rather work harder during training and discover other planes to be easier to fly than the other way around.

I don't know what to think about the wing and stall/spin accidents of the Tomahawk, but I also don't need 15,000 hours to know that there's nothing about the handling of the Tomahawk that makes it a particularly poor trainer. I rent Duchesses at a school that utilizes a half dozen or so Tomahawks as primary trainers, and the students I talk to seem happy enough.

 

[dmspilot00]

At the time the plane was build probably nobody thought there would ever be a trainer reaching that kind of hours.

The design engineers back in 1970s knew at that time that the wing on the Tomahawk had to be rigid and strong because of the type of airfoil it used. This is why the original prototype had a much stronger wing. They said that a strong wing on this airplane was critical, and weakening the wing would make the airplane very unsafe and unpredictable. But today all of the produced Tomahawks have the weak wing which the designers said would be unsafe, and they said so at the time it was built.

The argument that no one thought the PA-38 would reach 11,000 doesn't hold water because that is totally not the issue here.