Opinions on the Piper PA-38 Tomahawk

[TwinTails]

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.

 

[Steve]

In reference to the size of the 152s cabin. I had a student that was 6'3" and weighed 180 pounds and he had a real problem in the 152. With the seat fully back his knees were blocking the movement of the controls. Is there noticeably more leg room in the tomahawk?

 

[Caveman]

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.

 

[chuychanga]

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.

 

[~~~^~~~]

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.

 

[Caveman]

Chuchanga,

I have about the same amount of time as you in the Tomahawk and I couldn't agree more. You said what I meant only better.

 

[chuychanga]

Thanks, we have more than just that in common.

2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines
0311
1993-1997

Semper Fi

 

[Caveman]

Semper fi Devildog! PM me. I'd be interested in finding out where you flight instruct in Tomahawks.

E8K

 

[jbDC9]

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.

 

[rfeathe1]

ARE THEY PA 28s OR PA38s??????