Why are there no Tomahawks in Florida?

[magpie]

I am currently undertaking my PPL training in the UK in a Tomahawk. I am heading to the US of A at the end of November to cram in a quite a few hours training in (frustrations with weather and cancelled lessons etc......). However I can only find flight schools training with C152s for the most part. I will not complete my PPL whilst in America (and will subsequently complete in the UK on a Tomahawk)so am reluctant to change aircraft types. Are there any flight schools that use Tomahawks?

If not, would I be better upgrading to a Warrior?

[geiginni]

Is there a reason you're reluctant to fly a 152? You'll find it's what most places in the US use. The Traumahawks are pretty rare at schools here, mostly in the hands of private owners. I believe most folks are of the opinion that the 152's have more docile handling; plus the Tomahawks had their reputation tarnished with that glut of A.D.'s in the early 80's. The Warriors or Cherokees might be an option, but you might find yourself spending more $$$ than it's worth rather than just checking out on a 152.

[Fright Level]

Changing "type" is part of the learning process. They are both more similar than you think, and the Cessna offers a much better view of the ground below. Enjoy the "conversion", will take you all of 30 minutes.

Rod

[EGDR]

There are no ****ing tomahawks in ****ing Florida because no ****er in ****ing Florida ****ing wants to ****ing waste their ****ing money on such a piece of ****ing **** you ****ed up piece of ****ing **** .

[ 13 October 2001: Message edited by: EGDR for ****ing spelling]

[ 13 October 2001: Message edited by: EGDR ]

[Avicenna]

Hi Red Hot Amateur,

The only place I know of is Mazzei located at Fresno, CA ...

The bad news is: during winter time it is a bit foggy ... otherwise great location.

And it's FAA only ...

[Bullethead]

Maybe it is because they've all been sent to Afghanistan! :D :D :D

[GARDENER]

I saw one in Merrit Island however this was probably privately owned and was also a few years ago.

[Facts Not Fiction Pls]

Agree with all the above -

Tromahawks got a reputation of have the tail flipping in manuevers such as stalls -

My first lesson was in a Tomahawk and of course I had never heard of such things - now I wouldn't touch one!

[G-LOST]

What a lot of ill-informed tripe. As long as a Tomahawk is well maintained and has had all the AD's done, there is nothing remotely unsafe to be concerned about unless you mishandle the aircraft. I have hundreds of hours in both types, and sincerely believe that if you can fly a PA38 well, you will be a better pilot than someone who sticks to Mr Cessna's product. Someone I know has 15,000 hours instructing in the Traumahawk, and hasn't killed himself yet. Why are there so many opinionated 50 hour test-pilots on this forum?

[PA38]

I learned to fly in a Tomahawk hence PA38 and have very fond memories of the brill little aircraft.
It is more unforgiving than most trainers, but if you can master one and fly it well, then you can fly ANYTHING.
I now fly a Warrior and still like to get my bum in a PA38 whenever I can, just to tighten up on stalls ect. :D

[DB6]

I did hear, although I stand to be corrected, that the Tomahawk has a much shorter life on its mainspar than say a 152, so maybe they're just falling by the wayside as folks don't want to fork out for a major mod.

[G-LOST]

I think that's a correct assumption. The wings are a throw away item at, from memory, 11,000 hours no matter how good they seem to be. Sourcing new ones is a real problem. I bought a set of second hand wings a year or two ago after searching the world for months. Mister Piper will sell new ones, but that is not really an economic option.

[calypso]

"If you can fly a tomahawk you can fly anything"

Unlikely I think. Try flying any military jet, land a taildragger on a crosswind, anything aerobatic with more than 250 ponnies or a fully loaded airtractor... The truth is that in the states they tend to have better newer equipment and got rid of the tomahawk due to their tendency to spin characteristics and Ad's.

Most aircraft can be safely handled by a properly trained pilot but if I was doing my PPL I would stick to the cessna.

[Girt_bar]

Have to agree with PA38 and G-LOST on this one. I trained in the C152 and PA38 and found the PA38 to be a great teacher and a damn sight more comfortable that the 152.

[A and C]

And the PA-38 spins the way aircraft should and recovers the way an aircraft should when the correct recovery action is taken unlike the C152 that recovers its self if you let go of the stick.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Speaking as both an instructor and student on both aircraft I firmly prefer the Tomahawk. There was a notable thread on this topic about a year ago. When the SEARCH function is back I will go find it.

WWW

[Naples Air Center, Inc.]

red hot amateur ,

I believe there are two reasons why Tomahawks are hard to find for rent, especially in Florida.

1) Tomahawks were made from 1978 to 1982.
1978 821 Aircraft
1979 1179 Aircraft
1980 189 Aircraft
1981 173 Aircraft
1982 122 Aircraft
Total 2484 Aircraft

C-150/152's were made from 1959 to 1986

I will not list all the years and 10's of thousands produced. Just look at 1978, Cessna produced 2698 C-152's in that year alone. 1978 completely eclipses the entire Tomahawk run in a single year.

2) The Tomahawk is like an oven in the cockpit during summers in the tropics. It is just not fun flying in an aircraft with a cabin temperature above 110F in Florida.

Those are just my thoughts,

Capt. Richard J. Gentil, Pres.
Naples Air Center, Inc.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Whilst in the EU the figures are different, as are the temps, as are the prices, as are the merits.

WWW

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

And just because the US mass manufactured it more DOES NOT meen it was best...

The PA38 *is* a better basic trainer than the C152. For shoulder width considerations if NOTHING else.


Cheers, WWW

[F900B]

I know its not in florida, but there is a flightschool in Oklahoma that has 3 tomahawks for flight training. the school is in Bethany,OK. hope that helps

[Naples Air Center, Inc.]

Wee Weasley Welshman,

In response to "And just because the US mass manufactured it more DOES NOT meen it was best..."

I was not debating the merits of either aircraft. I was just commenting that Cessna produced:

21,404 C-150
734 C-150 Aerobat
6,629 C-152
314 C-152 Aerobat

totaling 29,081 aircraft vs 2,484 Tomahawks. That is a ratio of greater than 20 to 1. Therefore it makes sence that you will see many more schools with C-150/152's vs. Tomahawks.

Personally, I learned to fly in the PA-28-161 and it is my prefered aircraft for teaching PPL's. I have always been a low wing man. (Please, I do not want to debate the merits of diffrent aircraft.)

Happy Flying,

Capt Richard J. Gentil, Pres.
Naples Air Center, Inc.

[Facts Not Fiction Pls]

I think it is very much dependant on what you learned on -

I learned on the C-152 and found it great. No complaints whatsoever. Stable, easy to handle and not always easy to land during those first few lessons as with any aeroplane!!!! Now, however I would always recommend this aircraft for a primary trainer having spent 100's of hours teaching in it!

Then there are those that learned on the Tomahawk - however for the relatively few made compared to the Cessna counterpart (had no idea about those numbers!!!) I have heard a great deal more negatives for the PA38 than I do 152's.

Red Hot Amateur -

If it helps, I have taught many to transfer to 152 from the Tomahawk and it barely takes a couple of hours to transfer from one to the another. Pilot experience is always increased by flying different types therefore you should never become stuck on one type in my opinion. However, there are good times and bad times to transfer so I would speak to your Instructor. :)

[Captain Chaos 747]

The reason people say the Tomahawk is a dangerous aircraft with a bad reputation is because they are scared of stalling and spinning, and we all know that the Tomahawk does spin and stall correctly requiring the pilot to carry out the correct recovery actions unlike the C152 recovery action of just letting go of the controls.

If you want to learn the correct recovery fly the tomahawk its a eye opener and great fun, I have spun them many times and have no fear at all.

Total tail breaks of the PA38 in this country, a BIG "0" :D :D

[Unwell_Raptor]

"I was not debating the merits of either aircraft. I was just commenting that Cessna produced:

21,404 C-150
734 C-150 Aerobat
6,629 C-152
314 C-152 Aerobat

totaling 29,081 aircraft vs 2,484 Tomahawks. That is a ratio of greater than 20 to 1."

er....could you just run the math by me one more time sir?

[Ivan Ivanovich]

I too have spent hundreds of hours intructing on Tomahawks; a wonderful aeroplane in many respects. However it isn't found in the US these days because of early design problems with respect to spin recovery. US litigation fever following several fatal crashes caused this particular aircraft to cease production after a relatively short run - 3 years in fact.

It is more fidgety than a 150/PA28 which makes it a little more bothersome in certain situations, but it offers much improved visibility and greatly increased cabin space over the 150. Try it, you won't find any real difficulty in swapping types. Besides, don't learn to fly only ONE type, appreciate that all aeroplanes obey the same rules. It's good experience to learn the handling characteristics of different aircraft.

As for Naples Air Centre's comment with respect to cabin ventilation, I found the panel mounted fresh air vents far superior to the PA28 and just as good as the C150.

[Naples Air Center, Inc.]

Unwell_Raptor,

You got me. I meant 10 to 1.

Ivan Ivanovich,

The amount of plexy in the cabin heats up the cabin more than the C-152 in a strong Sun.

Tomahawk
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/WSoliday/tom-1.jpg

C-152
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/WSoliday/c152.gif

There is another note about the C-152 and the PA-38. The C-152 has 14 AD's with 3 of them being Recurring AD's and the PA-38 has 21 AD's with 8 of them being Recurring AD's.

Happy Tomahawking,

Capt Richard J. Gentil, Pres
Naples Air Center, Inc.

[Dockjock]

Ahh, as above why not just switch to the C152. It will take you all of .5

Or the Katana- popular in Canada, not sure how popular in Florida. Looks pretty close to a Tomahawk to me!
http://www.diamondair.com/Graphics/K100.jpg

[RVR800]

The PA38 is a white knuckle ride in the spin
the C152 is a pussy

[A and C]

Looking back ten years i can remember going to florida to box up three PA38,s to bring back to the UK ,the guy i was working for did a lot more so much so that the hangar at wycombe looked like a tomahawk factory.

The fact is that i think that europe has had a large number of the fleet ,the guy from naples air center thinks that the PA38 is not good in a hot enviroment so it would seem logical that the birds would migrate to a cooler enviroment ,i just wonder if you would find more PA 38,s in the northern USA.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

A & C - was that working for T.B. by any chance?

If so then I have flown your little projects.

WWW

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I am rather pleased to have found pprune to while away my time off.

Cessna 150 / 152 versus the Tomahawk is no contest. The Tomahawk is a better trainer.

I sometimes wonder about anyone who uses Capt. before his/ her name in a public forum...Hmmmm is that supposed to fool the newbies that the title Captain means something?

:rolleyes:

............................................

The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :D

[Naples Air Center, Inc.]

Cat Driver,

You would not happen to be Chuck Ellsworth?

I love the old PBY's.

Take Care,

Capt. Richard J. Gentil, Pres.
Naples Air Center, Inc.

[slim_slag]

This tomahawk/traumahawk thing has been going on for some time now. There is a significant body of opinion that says the PA38 did not pass the FAA certification requirements for spin recovery.

Don't believe me? For starters, go to www.google.com (http://www.google.com) and search for 'tomahawk ntsb stall'. Keep entering key words until you get bored senseless.

You wil find there is a lot of worrying stuff out there, some from respectable sources.

I've never flown a PA38 in the US because I've never found anywhere which rents one. Why is this? Why is there no similar discussion about the stall/spin characteristics of other popular trainers? I've never heard anybody say the warrior or C152 has weird snap characteristics in the stall.

Sure, the PA38 may be a wonderful trainer like some here claim, maybe because it isn't docile like some others. The Piper Super Cub is also a bit frisky in the power on stall (compared to a warrior or C152) but nobody ever says it is hard to recover from an unintentional spin. Its a shame people don't learn to fly in the super cub, but then it's not easy so you need more hours. That brings economics into the picture - not easy when flying schools are promoting PPL packages for a certain cost.

If you want to learn how to fly in a 'real' plane, fly something like the Super Cub. That is a superb plane, you may never want to fly anything else.

If you want to learn how to fly a 'pussy' plane then learn how to fly in a warrior/C152.

I wonder why anybody would want to learn how to fly in the PA38 when it has such a bad reputation, even if its unwarranted. When you are a primary student, you spend half your time convincing yourself that you are not going to suffer airframe failure, engine failure, spin because you add rudder, or die because you hit something which appears from nowhere. Who needs this distraction when you are still confused about silly things like how the hell do wings provide lift.

Life is a lot easier for a primary student without the worry (however false) that you will enter an unrecoverable spin when you perform slow flight! I'd look for something different. Super Cub is my choice of trainer for the masses, and hour building too. Given the alternatives, a Tomahawk is not something I'd advise a student or low time PPL to touch.

[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: slim_slag ]

[Pup Pilot]

As someone who learned to fly using a Tomahawk as his mount, I can thoroughly recommend them.

If you are looking for a Tomahawk in Florida then I may know of a place.

Back in July 1999 I was over at Euroflight, Kissimmee Airport (near Walt Disney World) building hours in a PA28-161.

During the second week when I had got back from a trip somewhere the CFI (I forget his name now) came into the Crew Room and asked if anyone had time on a PA38 and if so how much. Like a fool I said yes and about 150 hours on type. He then asked if I could go up to New Smyrna Beach to pick up a Tomahawk with himself the next day, to which I agreed.

We had a lift up to New Smyrna Beach with two others on a C172 - I then knew the meaning of calculating your take-off distance - four up on a C172 (the fuel tanks weren't full) and we used most of the runway at Kissimmee.

We collected the two tomahawks and I was expecting the CFI to give me a quick checkout - but no he said okay off you go, if you'd like you can go somewhere before returning to Kissimmee.

After a weeks flying in the HOT Florida sunshine in a PA28, the PA38 was a different beast - the wings were rocking all the way back to Kissimmee (3pm).

Also that day the wind decided to pick up - with gusts up to 30kts (ish) about thirty degrees of the runway... and that was my first landing in a Tomahawk for about three months!

Checked one of the instructors out on the PA38 - his first landing was a greaser, argh!!! (The CFI and the Instructor said it was a lot better having someone on board who can fly the aircraft).

So Euroflight (now Orlando Flight Training - Cabair) may have two Tomahawks that you could hire - they are also CAA approved.

Just got back from California last week... been flying a PA28R-200 (Arrow 3) and I saw only 1 Tomahawk during my two weeks out there... it looked as if it was privately owned as well.

I'm off to see if the nosewheel steering has been fixed on the groups Beagle Pup now... (I've missed flying the Pup - its been four weeks now!).

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi Richard:

Yes I am, and now everyone here will know who wrote that snotty reference to using the term Captain.

Sometimes it just may be better not to make such comments, but oh hell I did and you smoked me out so I guess I had it coming for the comment.

As to the PBY yes they are a great old airplanes, it is almost unbeliavable that I can find so much flying just by having a background of having flown that airplane. I am heading over to Duxford at the end of the month to ferry the ex Greenpeace Cat to Lee on Solent. Also there is a Cat warbird restoration that I brought up to London from Johannesburg that I will be ferrying to the Eastern U.S.A. for the new owner when the weather over the North Atlantic gets flyable in the spring. ( The PBY does not have de icing.)

Anyhow you got me ,, and I deserved it.

By the way I do prefer the Tomahawk but then we all have our preferences.

Take care.

............................................

:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :D

[Chuck Ellsworth]

slim-slag:

You are correct it would make for better pilots if they learned on a Super Cub.

However you are wrong about it taking longer due to it being harder to fly. There is no difference in the learning time frame between tail wheel and nose wheel airplanes.

............................................

:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :D

[Naples Air Center, Inc.]

Cat Driver,

I was not trying to smoke you out. With the :rolleyes: at the end of the sentence, I figured you were just giving me a little ribbing.

I am glad it is you because I have a PBY question for you. When I was learning to fly back in the mid 80's there was a 4 engine PBY on the field. The inboard engines were a pair of Wrights (Round Engines) and the outboard were modern (looking like either lycoming or continental) but I could not get close enough to see what they were. The interior of the PBY was in a corporate layout.

I was wondering you know the history of the aircraft and what has happened to it?

Sincerely,

Richard

[Naples Air Center, Inc.]

slim_slag,

For years my competition, Ambassador Airways, had a pair of Tomahawks for rent. I do not know if they still have them.

If someone really wants to fly a Tomahawk in the U.S. I suggest Mazzei Flying Service (http://www.flymfs.com/) in Fresno, California.

Happy Flying,

Capt. Richard J. Gentil, Pres.
Naples Air Center, Inc.

[slim_slag]

Cat

However you are wrong about it taking longer due to it being harder to fly

You are correct of course. It's when you get the beast on the ground that the fun starts :)

But joking aside, don't you think it's going to take a few extra hours before you solo the student? The places I know who use the Super Cub as a primary trainer tell me that's where the difference is.

Then there is the extra time it takes to get anywhere when you are chugging along at 95mph.

Of course, in the good old days when everybody learned to fly in a cub, they were soloing people in half the time it takes now on your average spam-can :)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

:rolleyes: Hi: Capt. Richard :rolleyes:

Yes the airplane you are talking about was called the Bird Innovater it had two Lyc.io-540's outboard of the P&W engines. It is one of the few PBY 's that I never got the chance to fly although I would like to have.

It is now just S. of Portland Or. being converted back to a normal PBY. In fact I just had an e-mail from them a few days ago and they tell me they are progressing nicely, I will be training them when they get it flying. I used to fly the Super Cat that opens the movie Always about waterbombers.

Speaking of movies I just did the flying for a Miramax Movie called Below ( about a submarine in ww2 )it was filmed in England and will be released at the end of the year. If you like PBY's you will love the shots of the PBY in Below, the movie opens with the flying scenes.

There is a Super Cat at kississmee sp? and he also owns a Super DC3, another real neat airplane that I do training on. The guys name is Charlie Clements and the Cat is for Sale.
If you wish to look at it I have it for sale on my web site.... www.pbyflighttraining.com (http://www.pbyflighttraining.com)


:rolleyes: Now you buy that and have your picture taken with it and you will really impress the girls. :rolleyes:

............................................

The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

slim-slag:

Now what you really should do is make every new pilot start with a cub until solo then you can let them fly the idiot proof trainers for the rest of the course.
............................................

:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :D

[speedrabbit333]

Budget Buys

Day-Tripper

Piper Tomahawk: Not your typical trainer

BY JULIE K. BOATMAN (From AOPA Pilot, July 2001.)

A lot of pilots met their first Tomahawk during primary training. But it looks more like a time machine than a run-of-the-mill trainer, with its double doors and bubble view. And this
is one time machine that almost anyone can afford — for less than the price of a convertible, a pilot can expand precious weekends by spending more time at a destination and less
time getting there.

When the original Piper Aircraft Corporation first conceived a new trainer in the mid-1970s, the company polled CFIs to determine what traits this airplane should have. The
Tomahawk delivers what these special customers ordered: an airplane that provides honest response to pilot inputs, a comfortable cabin with great visibility, and big-airplane-style
handling. Cockpit layout is geared for safety, with the fuel selector front and center on the console.

Flight instructors we spoke to feel strongly that the Tomahawk does what Piper intended. "It's the best primary trainer ever built," says Jim Tafta of Richmond Flight Center in West
Kingston, Rhode Island. "The student is well trained, and they can't get away with some of the things they can in other trainers." The feedback is overwhelmingly positive, with one
caveat: This airplane, though a trainer, still demands proper training of its pilots from a qualified instructor. Those with the training have flown the Tomahawk for thousands of hours
without incident.

Flight characteristics

Pilots need special training because of the way the airplane was designed to stall and spin. The wing design, the same basic section as the one on the less common Beech Skipper,
was a cutting-edge airfoil — the NASA-generated GA (W)-1 — in the late 1970s. On the Tomahawk airframe, the wing produces aggressive stall characteristics suitable for
teaching primary students about stall recognition and recovery. However, that design led to a higher incidence of stall/spin accidents, perhaps because the airplane cannot simply fly
itself out of a spin like other trainers — it wasn't meant to, so that students would learn proper control inputs. This is one airplane where it pays to know the territory.

The Tomahawk controls have a heavier feel, as they were designed to mimic those of a much larger airplane. In addition, the T-tail delivers reduced elevator control response at
low airspeeds — and this is actually reflected in the accident reports to a larger degree than stall/spin issues. During the takeoff roll, the elevator becomes effective at around 35
KIAS. If the pilot has been impatient and is holding greater back-pressure in an attempt to raise the nose before this point, the airplane will overrotate. The same effect reverses on
landing, "especially when a headwind shears off," according to Adam Harris, director of maintenance at East Coast Aero Club at Hanscom Field in Bedford, Massachusetts, who
has owned four Tomahawks over the years. These are simply attributes of an airplane that doesn't fit the standard mold, Harris points out. "We rent them to people with 10 hours
and they always come back."

In fact, if you're looking for an airplane to provide a steppingstone to a larger aircraft, the Tomahawk makes a sound choice. You face an easier transition in the long run because of
these big-airplane characteristics.

Cross-country flier

The Tomahawk is roomier than you might think, and taller pilots feel more comfortable in this airplane than in, say, a Cessna 152. Ventilation is also better than average, with
automobile-style vents blowing cool air at altitude on summer days. The cabin is wider by several inches than other two-seat airplanes, so you needn't be intimate with your
passengers.

The airplane's greatest utility is as a day-tripper. Paul Diette of Mansfield, Massachusetts, bought his 1982 Tomahawk II for trips around New England with his wife — trips that
take less than three hours and only require light bags. The airplane has proven perfect for the mission: Places like Martha's Vineyard and Bar Harbor, Maine, are reachable in half
the driving time.

Usable fuel is 30 gallons, and during cruise Diette figures he burns between six and seven gallons per hour. He typically flight plans a true airspeed of 105 knots. Endurance is about
3.5 hours with an hour reserve — with full fuel you can carry roughly 325 additional pounds of pilot, passenger, and baggage, based on the empty weight of a reasonably equipped
Tomahawk (around 1,165 pounds). It goes over gross quickly (it is a two-seat aircraft, after all), but because of the size of the cargo area, light-but-bulky items, such as an
Adirondack chair that Diette flew home after a successful shopping trip, can be handled.

Model history

Just fewer than 2,500 Tomahawks were produced in model years 1978 to 1980, with the most units produced from 1978 to 1979. Aftermarket kits for the rear wing spar, vertical
fin attach plate, and rudder hinge were developed to address several airworthiness directives (ADs) that were issued soon after these models hit the ramp. In 1981 and 1982, the
Tomahawk and Tomahawk II were made with many of the ADs taken care of at the factory. These later models are preferable, as the installation of AD kits in the field was
accomplished with varying degrees of accuracy. Aircraft with these field ADs may exhibit divergent flight characteristics from the standard Tomahawk because of what are
considered vague installation instructions from Piper, according to several A&Ps we spoke to. Of course, as the gods of economics would deviously demand, fewer of the later
models were produced as steeply rising interest rates and a soft economy helped send new aircraft sales to the basement in the early 1980s. Annual production runs during 1980 to
1982 were less than 200 aircraft a year — not even one-quarter the yearly production of Tomahawks in 1978 and 1979. It's no surprise that prices steadily increase with model
year, from $16,000 for a 1978 model to $18,500 for a 1982.

Original Tomahawks rolled off the line with basic VFR instrumentation. The so-called "Special Training Package No. 1" gave the airplane gyros, external and internal lighting, dual
brakes, one (then) King nav/com and transponder, an ELT, and a heated pitot tube — for a total price of $19,730. Strangely enough, the same airplane (with a radio upgrade or
two along the course of 20 years in service) costs about the same, not adjusting for inflation, as it did in 1979. The price has rebounded somewhat over the past decade; Harris
purchased his first Tomahawk for less than $10,000 in 1989, while Diette purchased his 1982 model with year-old paint and a fresh engine with a .25-horsepower upgrade for
$22,000 in 1999. More on that in a bit.

That wing

One thing forýprospective buyers to keep in mind: The Tomahawk wing has a lifetime fatigue limit of 11,000 hours. Some long-in-the-tooth airframes have nearly that many hours
after years on school flight lines. Currently, a set of used wings from an otherwise toasted Tomahawk is the one recourse. There is talk of pursuing a life extension of the wing. Paul
Sterling, owner of Sterling Aviation in Kent, Washington, is working with the FAA to modify the wing spar and lower the stress levels of critical components in the wing, hopefully
adding 5,000 hours to the wing's life. He expects a kit to be ready in roughly a year, and he hopes to keep the cost below $3,000. "The Tomahawk is kind of an orphan," says
Sterling. "We call ourselves friends of the Tomahawk — it's a labor of love."

Other mods

Sterling has other STCed mods available, including a nose-gear scissor link to greatly reduce shimmy — a problem in a training airplane with no shimmy damper. Air Mods
Northwest offers the 125-hp upgrade to the Lycoming O-235 engine mentioned earlier. This mod increases the compression ratio and induces a timing change such that the engine
can run at 2,800 rpm continuously rather than the 2,600 rpm limit on the regular O-235. The mod also allows the pilot to adjust the pitch on the prop for cruise or climb operations.
If you plan on flying the airplane from airports above 4,000 feet msl, this mod might be on your short list. Madras wing tips add stability and decrease stall speed, but only by a
couple of knots — you either like the looks or not, so really it's a matter of preference. The owner of the STC, Madras Air Service, left the business recently, so it's uncertain
whether these tips will continue to be available. A McCauley propeller can also be swapped out for the stock Sensenich to reduce vibration, according to Diette.

Clubs

When researching a used aircraft, type clubs host a wealth of information. Two .ood sources are the Piper Owner Society and www.pipertomahawk.com, (http://www.pipertomahawk.com,) a Web site maintained
by Bob Floodeen. As with any aircraft purchase, experience is key. "Make sure the shop [which performs the prepurchase inspection] is very familiar with Tomahawks," warns
Tafta. With aftermarket AD kits and high airframe times, discrepancies can easily crop up. But even the nicest Tomahawks out there remain true bargains — and are dearly loved
by their owners. Just ask Diette about N91383: "It is truly amazing that you can explore America using your own airplane and your own flying skills."

[speedrabbit333]

February 1997
Safety Pilot

Tomahawk Safety Review

By Bruce Landsberg

All aircraft have reputations. For some they take years to evolve, while for others the reputations develop quickly. From the beginning the Piper PA-38 Tomahawk attracted
attention. When it was introduced in 1977, it looked different from any other two-place trainer; and it flew differently.

It didn't take long for the airplane to get a reputation. The handling characteristics stemmed from a relatively new airfoil known as the GAW-1, which is quite efficient but in certain
configurations has rather abrupt stall and spin qualities. Additionally, the PA-38 was one of the first light airplanes to sport a T-tail. Both of these items cause the Tomahawk to fly a
little differently than other light trainers. The PA-38 is the eleventh in a continuing series of safety reviews that the AOPA Air Safety Foundation has undertaken in order to evaluate
the safety records of particular aircraft.

The area of greatest interest to ASF was the aircraft's safety record. The PA-38 has been involved in a significantly higher number of stall/spin accidents than comparable aircraft --
the Cessna 150/152, the Beech Skipper, and the Grumman AA-1 trainer. The latter two are not present in great numbers in the fleet, but the Cessnas have had a virtual lock on the
two-place trainer market for decades.

The Tomahawk has a reputation for being "aggressive" in a stall and for spinning readily if yaw is introduced at the right time. It also has a tendency to drop a wing in the stall -- and
if the pilot mishandles the rudder, elevator, or ailerons, a spin may rapidly develop. None of this is news. When the PA-38 was introduced, it was clear that this aircraft required a
different approach from that applied to the relatively docile Cessnas. Pilots who fail to understand that the PA-38 handles much differently in the stall and spin regime may be
surprised by the aircraft's response.

The adage "Be careful what you ask for, because you just might get it" probably applies here. According to Piper, in the course of designing the Tomahawk, the company surveyed
10,000 flight instructors. Forty percent of the respondents asked for a more readily spinnable aircraft than the Cessna150/152. By design, the PA-38 does exactly that.

Looking at the stall/spin scenarios in some detail, we found that the vast majority of them occurred at low altitude where, by our estimate, it would have been difficult -- if not
impossible -- to recover from an incipient spin, regardless of aircraft type. A common misperception is that of a student and instructor deliberately spinning the Tomahawk at a safe
altitude and then becoming locked into an unrecoverable situation. Fortunately, this type of accident is an exception.

There were a few instances in which the aircraft may have been mishandled, and we believe that the solution is in understanding the Tomahawk's characteristics clearly and
providing ample altitude. The Tomahawk typically may take longer to recover from a developed spin than would a Cessna. The basic spin recovery method of opposite rudder,
nosedown elevator, and neutral ailerons is recommended, but there was a revision to the pilot's operating handbook that is important to note. According to the POH, "The
immediate effect of applying normal recovery controls may be an appreciable steepening of the nosedown attitude and an increase in the rate of spin rotation. This characteristic
indicates that the aircraft is recovering from the spin, and it is essential to maintain full antispin rudder and to continue to move the control wheel forward and maintain it fully forward
until the spin stops."

Because there are no flight data recorders on light aircraft, we can only speculate on what happened in fatal PA-38 spin accidents. One theory is that as antispin controls are
applied, if the aircraft responds as described above, pilots not familiar with this characteristic could panic and start experimenting with alternative control inputs; this would delay or
stop the spin recovery. We suspect that if they are aware of this trait, most pilots will have the patience and motivation to maintain the tested control inputs until recovery begins.

Some Tomahawk critics contend that the aircraft should not be stalled or spun. After looking at hundreds of accidents involving both the PA-38 and comparable aircraft, we note
that some caveats are in order. No aircraft should be stalled or spun at low altitude, but we would extend the margins a bit in a PA-38. Before going solo, pilots should check out
with an instructor who has considerable spin experience in the PA-38 and should have spins demonstrated to them, if circumstances permit, in strict accordance with the POH. In
conducting our review, we spoke to several Tomahawk instructors and a large flight school that had years of PA-38 experience. They had conducted literally thousands of
successful spin entries and recoveries. The key point is that pilots must not expect this aircraft to behave similarly to other trainers. It has its own personality and procedures to
follow; ignore them at your risk.

At the time the Tomahawk was built, Piper was quite enamored of T-tails, and the Tomahawk is so endowed. On takeoffs and landings the elevator will not be as effective as that
on an aircraft with a conventional tail because it is above the propeller's slipstream. Pilots who have learned to fly T-tailed aircraft understand this characteristic and learn to
anticipate its effects. However, some pilots have not maintained those skills or were improperly trained, and as a result, 61 percent of the Tomahawk accidents occurred during
takeoff and landing.

While it is easy to focus on the negative, the PA-38 has many positive traits. Compared to the Cessnas it has far superior cockpit visibility, which should help to reduce the midair
collision potential. It also appears to have a superior safety record in night training.

Fuel exhaustion and starvation continue as a perennial problem in general aviation flying. Happily, Tomahawks are not involved in many of these mishaps. Fuel mismanagement
accounted for 7 percent of PA-38 accidents, compared to nearly 14 percent with Cessnas. The Cessna actually has a simpler fuel system, with no tanks to switch -- it's either On
or Off -- and no electric fuel pump, since the high-wing design allows gravity feed. The Tomahawk, by contrast, requires tank switching and must have an electric pump.

Because there has been some controversy surrounding the Tomahawk, it's important to establish ASF's impartiality. Although The New Piper Aircraft's president, Chuck Suma,
does serve on our board of visitors, the foundation has received no grants from Piper and was not influenced in the outcome of this report. The report was reviewed by several
independent sources for accuracy prior to publishing. ASF financial support is deliberately diversified to maintain independence.

Aircraft have different reputations because they are different; when we choose to fly them, we must be familiar with their traits. Pilots and CFIs flying the Piper Tomahawk should
consider obtaining a copy of the safety review -- available for $22.95 from Sporty's Pilot Shop by calling 800/LIFTOFF and ordering Item #M743A.

[slim_slag]

Cat

Now what you really should do is make every new pilot start with a cub until solo then you can let them fly the idiot proof trainers for the rest of the course.

I wouldn't even consider letting any student of mine who managed to solo in a cub, continue in a spam can.

Not the 'right stuff' at all! More importantly, how would I be able to get away with sleeping on that long, boring, accompanied cross country when I had to sit in the same row as the fellow? :D

[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: slim_slag ]