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.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Opinions on the Piper PA-38 Tomahawk
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
- Watchers 13
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
MetroSheriff
Hittin' the road...
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 854
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
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Posts
- 330
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!
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
Independent
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2002
- Posts
- 712
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.
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.
bigD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2002
- Posts
- 2,020
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).
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).
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,
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
No jobs anymore in here??
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2002
- Posts
- 492
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
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
Last edited:
TwinTails
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2001
- Posts
- 96
metrodriver,
Bad vis. in a 152? Take a look at where your turning before you make the move. It's not hard to do, especially when your going 90 kts.
Who want's large fuel capacity in an airplane of this size? I know personally I'd be ready for a break after 3.5 in any small plane.
The only people you here complane about the size of a 150 or 152 are fat. I've spent thousands of hours in em' and unless I had a fat guy or gal sitting next to me we were just fine.
I say the less fuel selectors the better right?
I'd much prefer an airplane that loses 200 ft. in a full stall to one that loses 500 and drops the nose 45 degrees. Thats not even an arguable issue.
A real spin? Are you kidding me? You can't, I repeat, you cannot keep a traumahawk in a real spin. It just won't do it. It will always start to spiral. Or "tighten up" as you put it. I have spun many an airplane from all different altitudes. I can put two turns on a Citabria or Super Cub from 1500'. Or 15 to 20 from 10,000. That is a spin. Fully stalled, no airspeed gian no spiral. Those airplanes along with the 152 and many others spin properly, and they respond to your commands and stop spinning when you tell em to. Not something you get with the extra turns and tail stalling of a Tomahawk.
I suppose the next thing your going to tell me is you would rather fly a Stepchild or a Swearing-at-em than a nice respectable airplane like a Beechcraft.
Bad vis. in a 152? Take a look at where your turning before you make the move. It's not hard to do, especially when your going 90 kts.
Who want's large fuel capacity in an airplane of this size? I know personally I'd be ready for a break after 3.5 in any small plane.
The only people you here complane about the size of a 150 or 152 are fat. I've spent thousands of hours in em' and unless I had a fat guy or gal sitting next to me we were just fine.
I say the less fuel selectors the better right?
I'd much prefer an airplane that loses 200 ft. in a full stall to one that loses 500 and drops the nose 45 degrees. Thats not even an arguable issue.
A real spin? Are you kidding me? You can't, I repeat, you cannot keep a traumahawk in a real spin. It just won't do it. It will always start to spiral. Or "tighten up" as you put it. I have spun many an airplane from all different altitudes. I can put two turns on a Citabria or Super Cub from 1500'. Or 15 to 20 from 10,000. That is a spin. Fully stalled, no airspeed gian no spiral. Those airplanes along with the 152 and many others spin properly, and they respond to your commands and stop spinning when you tell em to. Not something you get with the extra turns and tail stalling of a Tomahawk.
I suppose the next thing your going to tell me is you would rather fly a Stepchild or a Swearing-at-em than a nice respectable airplane like a Beechcraft.
Caveman
Grandpa
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 1,580
I agree with metrodriver. I've got a little time in Tomahawks and I learned to fly in 150/152's. In my book the Tomahawk is a much better PILOTs airplane. It has more room, carries more gas, you can see better, it's faster, and the wings are where they are supposed to be. We flew a Tomahawk out of Minden, NV (Elev 4700) at max gross weight over the Sierra's to California in May! On our way past Lake Tahoe the tower told us the density altitude below us at the airport was over 8000'. We were at 12500. Try that in a 152.
From this CFI's perspective the PA-38 is a better training platform if for no other reason than you have to learn correct rudder input to fly it, unlike the 152 which can be flown with both feet flat on the floor most of the time.
BTW, what's all the fuss about spins in any airplane? I hear that 757's don't spin very well but nobody goes around bashing them. Why? Because by all accounts it's a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** fine airplane and it was never meant to spend all day doing spins. Ditto with the Tomahawk and the 152 and the Bonanza, etc, etc. I've personally done intentional spins in PA-38's at least a hundred times in about 12 different Tomahawks and managed to live to tell about it.
The only AD of consequence is the life limitation on the wings and it's 11000 hours not 10000.
The 152 is a decent airplane but some guys like Fords and some like Chevys. Personally I like the Tomahawk a lot better than the 152. I do get irritated when somebody with little or no time in the airplane starts to knock it. Put in a hundred hours or so and then come and tell me what you think. If you still don't like it then you'll have some anecdotal evidence as to why you don't like it instead of something you read or heard from somebody else. In other words, if you haven't flown it your opinion isn't worth squat. Every pilot I know of with some time in Tomahawks agrees that they are great little airplanes. The same is true of 152's.
From this CFI's perspective the PA-38 is a better training platform if for no other reason than you have to learn correct rudder input to fly it, unlike the 152 which can be flown with both feet flat on the floor most of the time.
BTW, what's all the fuss about spins in any airplane? I hear that 757's don't spin very well but nobody goes around bashing them. Why? Because by all accounts it's a **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** fine airplane and it was never meant to spend all day doing spins. Ditto with the Tomahawk and the 152 and the Bonanza, etc, etc. I've personally done intentional spins in PA-38's at least a hundred times in about 12 different Tomahawks and managed to live to tell about it.
The only AD of consequence is the life limitation on the wings and it's 11000 hours not 10000.
The 152 is a decent airplane but some guys like Fords and some like Chevys. Personally I like the Tomahawk a lot better than the 152. I do get irritated when somebody with little or no time in the airplane starts to knock it. Put in a hundred hours or so and then come and tell me what you think. If you still don't like it then you'll have some anecdotal evidence as to why you don't like it instead of something you read or heard from somebody else. In other words, if you haven't flown it your opinion isn't worth squat. Every pilot I know of with some time in Tomahawks agrees that they are great little airplanes. The same is true of 152's.
Last edited:
chuychanga
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Posts
- 140
I have over 700 hours of Tomahawk time, including countless stalls and lots of spins.
When Piper decided to build a trainer to compete with Cessna, they asked a lot of experienced flight instructors and examiners what they would like in a trainer. For the most part, they said they would like a roomier cockpit, good visibility, cost efficiency, and flight characteristics that would make a student fly it properly and not hide mistakes. They built the Tomahawk to have all those qualities.
Most of the complaints about Tomahawks are based on stall/spin situations. If you learned to fly in a 150 or 152 you know you can recover from a spin by simply closing your eyes, letting go of the controls and crossing your arms and legs. If you are stalling a 150 you can also raise a wing with the ailerons during a stall without worrying too much about ending up in a spin.
The Tomahawk requires the proper technique for both stalls and spins. If you are in a stall you must keep the wings level with the rudder, just like all your flight manuals say you do. When a wing drops during a stall in a Tomahawk and a student tries to use the yoke, it stalls that side even more and the airplane goes into an incipient spin until you correct with the rudder. I see it everyday. Then I get into our school's 172 and I watch Commercial students correct that same situation with improper technique, using the yoke. They can get away with it and when I correct them I suspect they don't really take it to heart because they have not seen the consequences.
I have spun the Tomahawk on many occasions for both student pilots and CFI candidates. The most I've done is a 5 turn spin. If you just let go of the the yoke, it stays in the spin. Why shouldn't it? You must use the standard spin recovery technique just like all your flight manuals say. With proper technique, I have never had a problem recovering from a spin.
I think the Tomahawk is a fantastic trainer and I think it produces a better pilot than a 150/152. I am not completely biased, because I went through most of my Private training in a 150, then had to move and came to a school that uses Tomahawks. I remeber finding out that it was harder to fly and for the first time I really did need those foot pedals on the floor.
What good does it do to teach a student how to recover from a spin, only to let them find out they can just let go of the controls? That same student will later get into a Tomahawk and claim that it won't recover from a spin. Or they will claim they did a gentle stall and it went right into a spin. That's a load of crap. I have all my pre-solo students stall the Tomahawk at 6000' with full back pressure and just hold it in the stall all the way down to 3000', never moving the yoke from its neutral, full aft position. Lightly dancing on the rudders to keep the wings level, the thing never gets near a spin. If they can do it properly anybody can.
Also, according to our A&P, the wings are not an AD. It is a life-limited part. It was designed to be replaced at 11,000 hours from day one. An AD is for a problem that arises after the plane rolls out of the factory. The Tomahawk also has a life-limited elevator trim spring. I don't remember how long it lasts, but you can find the numbers for both on the Type Certificate Data Sheet. The ADs won't mention either.
As for performance on grass strips, I think it would be okay. Obviously a taildragger would be better, but the Tomahawk would do just as well as any tricycle gear plane. Like the previous poser said, the Tomamhawk came with two different size wheels depending on the year. Make sure you get the big wheels.
When Piper decided to build a trainer to compete with Cessna, they asked a lot of experienced flight instructors and examiners what they would like in a trainer. For the most part, they said they would like a roomier cockpit, good visibility, cost efficiency, and flight characteristics that would make a student fly it properly and not hide mistakes. They built the Tomahawk to have all those qualities.
Most of the complaints about Tomahawks are based on stall/spin situations. If you learned to fly in a 150 or 152 you know you can recover from a spin by simply closing your eyes, letting go of the controls and crossing your arms and legs. If you are stalling a 150 you can also raise a wing with the ailerons during a stall without worrying too much about ending up in a spin.
The Tomahawk requires the proper technique for both stalls and spins. If you are in a stall you must keep the wings level with the rudder, just like all your flight manuals say you do. When a wing drops during a stall in a Tomahawk and a student tries to use the yoke, it stalls that side even more and the airplane goes into an incipient spin until you correct with the rudder. I see it everyday. Then I get into our school's 172 and I watch Commercial students correct that same situation with improper technique, using the yoke. They can get away with it and when I correct them I suspect they don't really take it to heart because they have not seen the consequences.
I have spun the Tomahawk on many occasions for both student pilots and CFI candidates. The most I've done is a 5 turn spin. If you just let go of the the yoke, it stays in the spin. Why shouldn't it? You must use the standard spin recovery technique just like all your flight manuals say. With proper technique, I have never had a problem recovering from a spin.
I think the Tomahawk is a fantastic trainer and I think it produces a better pilot than a 150/152. I am not completely biased, because I went through most of my Private training in a 150, then had to move and came to a school that uses Tomahawks. I remeber finding out that it was harder to fly and for the first time I really did need those foot pedals on the floor.
What good does it do to teach a student how to recover from a spin, only to let them find out they can just let go of the controls? That same student will later get into a Tomahawk and claim that it won't recover from a spin. Or they will claim they did a gentle stall and it went right into a spin. That's a load of crap. I have all my pre-solo students stall the Tomahawk at 6000' with full back pressure and just hold it in the stall all the way down to 3000', never moving the yoke from its neutral, full aft position. Lightly dancing on the rudders to keep the wings level, the thing never gets near a spin. If they can do it properly anybody can.
Also, according to our A&P, the wings are not an AD. It is a life-limited part. It was designed to be replaced at 11,000 hours from day one. An AD is for a problem that arises after the plane rolls out of the factory. The Tomahawk also has a life-limited elevator trim spring. I don't remember how long it lasts, but you can find the numbers for both on the Type Certificate Data Sheet. The ADs won't mention either.
As for performance on grass strips, I think it would be okay. Obviously a taildragger would be better, but the Tomahawk would do just as well as any tricycle gear plane. Like the previous poser said, the Tomamhawk came with two different size wheels depending on the year. Make sure you get the big wheels.
~~~^~~~
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Posts
- 6,137
A lot depends on what you are using the airplane for. Both the 152 and Tomahawk are good, inexpensive, airplanes. We have owned both types for simple, fun, local flying and a couple trips to Florida. Neither airplane has broke the bank as far as maintenance goes and our largest espense (and frustration) has been avionics (having nothing to do with the basic airframes).
As a personal airplane, I prefer the Tomahawk. The cabin layout, along with the couple of inches of width, make it much less claustrophobic. The interior materials hold up slightly better than the C152 and the airplane feels more "substantial." The flight qualities of the Tomahawk are more similar to larger aircraft with T-Tails than the C152's. The Tomahawk is a newer design and the state of the art did improve over the years.
If I were going to do flight training, lots of airwork and solo students - then the C152 would be my preference. Really, for training, an airplane with a bit better climb rate and summer performance with two people would be preferable.
But for a fun, cheap, airplane for building a little time, or just having fun, a Tomahawk is a good bet.
With either airplane be careful with loading. Performance of either of these airplanes is marginal when it gets hot.
As a personal airplane, I prefer the Tomahawk. The cabin layout, along with the couple of inches of width, make it much less claustrophobic. The interior materials hold up slightly better than the C152 and the airplane feels more "substantial." The flight qualities of the Tomahawk are more similar to larger aircraft with T-Tails than the C152's. The Tomahawk is a newer design and the state of the art did improve over the years.
If I were going to do flight training, lots of airwork and solo students - then the C152 would be my preference. Really, for training, an airplane with a bit better climb rate and summer performance with two people would be preferable.
But for a fun, cheap, airplane for building a little time, or just having fun, a Tomahawk is a good bet.
With either airplane be careful with loading. Performance of either of these airplanes is marginal when it gets hot.
chuychanga
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2002
- Posts
- 140
Here's my 2 cents on the Tomahawk.
I have around 120 or so hours in 'em, and ya know what? I like the Tommyhawk! Rather fly it than a C-152 any day. I've done stalls and spins and lived through it; I like the roomier cabin and good visibilty. Two drawbacks I've noted; the previously mentioned tendency to wiggle and yaw a bit through the bumps, and the elevator trim. The trim feels weird when you use it, when you roll in nose up trim it feels fine, but roll nose down and you're pushing against the springs elev. trim springs. No trim tabs back there, just the spring system... I never did get to see one torn apart for an annual so I could look back there and see how the trim system actually worked.
Wing life limit. Now there's hope for high time machines, here's a dude that sells a reinforcing kit to add 7,650 hours to the life limit, sells for $3,000.
http://sterlingaviationtech.com/item1.htm
The FBO where I rented them near Cleveland have probably bought a few of these kits, they had 5 ships all right around the 10,000 hour mark and the owner was wondering what to do with 'em after the wings timed out... problem solved I guess.
I have around 120 or so hours in 'em, and ya know what? I like the Tommyhawk! Rather fly it than a C-152 any day. I've done stalls and spins and lived through it; I like the roomier cabin and good visibilty. Two drawbacks I've noted; the previously mentioned tendency to wiggle and yaw a bit through the bumps, and the elevator trim. The trim feels weird when you use it, when you roll in nose up trim it feels fine, but roll nose down and you're pushing against the springs elev. trim springs. No trim tabs back there, just the spring system... I never did get to see one torn apart for an annual so I could look back there and see how the trim system actually worked.
Wing life limit. Now there's hope for high time machines, here's a dude that sells a reinforcing kit to add 7,650 hours to the life limit, sells for $3,000.
http://sterlingaviationtech.com/item1.htm
The FBO where I rented them near Cleveland have probably bought a few of these kits, they had 5 ships all right around the 10,000 hour mark and the owner was wondering what to do with 'em after the wings timed out... problem solved I guess.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
