Tomahawk

[tasa]

Just started flying Pa-38 Tomahawk. Your experience?

[microlight AV8R]

Just started flying Pa-38 Tomahawk. Your experience?

I started on them at Iposwich in the 80's ( before the Socialist Republic of Ipswich built houses on a very nice airfield) .... I enjoyed flying them, but that was easy to say when I wasn't in a posittion to make any comparison.

Since then I've heard them described as Terrorhawks & Traumahawks which I believe to be connected with their stalling characteristics. Don't see the prob myself as your instructor demonstrates the stall and you copy the appropriate recovery for the aircraft.

They've been around a good while and stood the test of time methinks.
I prefer low wing, so would choose to fly in one of them before a Cessna.

I will now stand back and await my punishment from the Cessna community.

[SkyHawk-N]

I prefer low wing, so would choose to fly in one of them before a Cessna.

I'm still trying to decide whether you were being serious or not :confused:

[microlight AV8R]

I'm still trying to decide whether you were being serious or not :confused:

Or whether you are :eek:

[tasa]

I agree with you microlight. So far I flew c150, c172 and utva-75 (serbian production low wing) and I prefer low wing too. Piper tomahawk is more demanding but also more fun to fly than cessna 150 or 172 in my opinion.

[Ni Thomas]

I prefer low wing, so would choose to fly in one of them before a Cessna.


Oh ! Please tell me you were serious! :ok:

[microlight AV8R]

Yeah, why not ?

A perfectly good little plane for a summer evening bimble about methinks.

I bet there are a few people who read this forum who'd give their eye teeth to be able to get aloft in anything serviceable.

I've chosen my route to flying enjoyment which happens to be low wing, each to his own eh?

[J.A.F.O.]

I'm with you Micro, out of the popular training types that I've flown (PA28, C150, C152, C172) my vote goes for the Tomahawk. It's been 20 years since I flew it but I loved it - stalled it and spun it and am still alive (though on my last medical I was offered written evidence in case that was challenged).

If there was one that was available near me - your part of the world, too, methinks - then I'd jump at the chance.

[Kaptain Kremen]

Both similar in my opinion, the only thing that wins it for the cessna for me is the better short field performance.
KK

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

As an instructor I far prefer the Tomahawk to the Cessna as a workplace. Lots of space and everything within reach, good visibility in the cockpit and not squashed up next to the student. Credit to the instructors who contributed towards its design.

Studes who have flown ours have rarely gone back to Cessnas.

As an aircraft owner, I can say that the Tomahawk is simple and reliable, and operating costs are very reasonable.

There has been a lot of rubbish talked about Tomahawks by people who have never flown them.

Fact and figures and other interesting stuff here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piperpa38tomahawkclub/

[cessna l plate]

Nope. Cessna man myself. I like that idea that Cessna had some years ago that the tail should stay attached to the aircraft in a spin, and that a trimmer should have a nice firm connection and poisitve influence, not be like trying to wind up a rubber band.

Tin Hat on.....

[J.A.F.O.]

All down to personal preference, I suppose.

I'm remembering the Tomahawk from 20 years ago when I had things like hair, a waistline and my whole life ahead of me.

I must sort out a trip some time soon; remind myself of what it was like.

I always found it a delight to fly, dogfighting over South Wales, hovering over the piano keys, stalling and spinning (and the tail remained attached - I'm 99% sure I'd have noticed it missing on the next walkround).

You might be right about the trim, though - I only discovered trim, carb heat and rudder pedals after I left the Tomahawk behind.

Perhaps it's rose tinted glasses; looking back on a time of freedom and, well I was going to say innocence, perhaps not, but a wonderful time nevertheless.

I liked the low wing, the visibility, the room, the handling and the forgiveness that the Tomahawk showed to the young and over confident me.

[Thumpango]

I completed my training in Inverness in a Tomahawk and fell in love with it!

Easy to land, great vis, light and responsive.

Lot of talk about stalling characteristics, but I think you would have to do something really wrong for it to bite back.

[Mercenary Pilot]

Yeah Tommies are good little trainer IMO, proper throttles, good Vis, low wings, fun handling just a shame it dosnt have a stick. You'll never willingly get me in a Cessna 152 or 172 again, Cant stand 'em!:yuk:

[gcolyer]

I would rather be in an Archer or Cherokee 6 (preferably the 6).

Back to the thread.

172's and 152's are great to learn in. Very forgiving. Tomahawk's require a little more work, especialy with trim. Vis is much better and i think it requires just that bit extra skill to fly it well.

You guys with lots of hours in a tomahawk, have you ever looked at the tail during a stall?? It actually shakes from side to side (maybe stalled that little bit to much :)). My first instructor got me to look at the tail during a demo, and that is the only reason i don't like tomahawks. Although i do prefer Pipers in general.

Tin hat ready...

[plucka]

I think the tomahawk is very good at what it was designed to do. Like all good trainers it is relatively easy to fly, but hard to fly well. I agree with gcolyer, do not look at the tailplane during a stall if you ever want to get back in a tomahawk again. I haven't flown a tricycle aircraft for over 6 years but I certainly have fond memories of the tomahawk. That said the fact that the earth is round is the only help you get on the take off roll.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Have any of you looked at the tail in any other aircraft at the stall? (shouldn't you be recovering from the stall?) Or during run ups? Or at shut-down?
They all do it! There is a good reason for it, too.

[Jamongris]

I did my first 70 odd hours in a selection of 5 Tomahawks and would get in one again tomorrow without hesitation.
I have no Cessna experience yet, so can't join this debate. Everything else said about the Tomahawk I agree with in general, but would add that each one seems to fly differently.
I flew one that just would not trim, another that always stalled to the left, one that would not cruise at 90 knots... But I do believe they are good trainers and after the PA38 other planes have seemed straightforward and easy to learn. :ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

I flew one that just would not trim, another that always stalled to the left, one that would not cruise at 90 knots...

Not the youngest of fleets, so I guess that years of hard work leads to a few differences from the "book" performance.

Have experienced the same with PA28s too.

[LowNSlow]

I think the appelation "Traumahawk" came from the succession of AD's (Airworthiness Directives) that were issued in the early days of the Tomahawk which caused their then owners financial trauma.

Regarding the stylists positioning of the tail on top of the fin, there was a mod to place it on the fuselage a la C150 / 152.

[plucka]

I disagree C.F.I. other aircraft tails do not flutter as bad as the tomahawk or for that matter any 'T' tail aircraft with a low wing, as the tailplane is in the dirty air from the mainplane at the high angle of attack. In your 152/172 etc... the tailplane is below the dirty air and therefore does not flutter so much. I am sure looking foward whilst stalling is a good idea though, and looking at the tail should be done on the ground.

[wsmempson]

I seem to remember that the main spar is lifed (can't rmember the figure) but once you reach the limit, the A/C is basically scrap.

I did my 1st lesson in a pa38 and enjoyed it - but one of the instructors pointed out that a full fuel load, myself and the CFI would not be able to leave terra firma. I continued my training on pa28's and love them to bits; spam-cans maybe, but about as much fun as i've had with my clothes on.

[gcolyer]

As mentioned when i looked at the tail during a stall i was not the pilot. I was a student at the time and my instructor asked me to look at the tail during a stall. It is actualy queit shocking.

I have also heard of the main spar life span. This leave 4 options of explanation of why so many are left in service:

1) There must have been a hell of a lot of Tomahawks made
2) There is no life span on the spar
3) Owner/operators ignor the life span
4) It must be a hideous amount of hours that will take forever to clock up.

[IO540]

I haven't read the whole thread but I really hated the PA38. Ghastly plane, always leaks into the cockpit, always leaks into the fuel tanks when it's raining (not good!), stinks inside like a public telephone box, unstable enough to require constant concentration, crappy pitch trim mechanism that uses a crude spring pushing against the yoke and you have to whack it with a fist every so often to make it settle down, incredibly hot on sunny days (which adds to the odours in the cockpit)... Lethal (for a normal plane) stall behaviour which beats any fairground ride in the value for money.

Instructors love them because they are real planes which sort out the real pilots with hairy chests (sorry gurls but you will never be real pilots because of this shortcoming) from the sheep. Like so much in aviation training.

;)

Waste of time learning in them because, in general, there is little chance of renting one afterwards (I mean, would you want to take a lady up in some heap of s**t like that?) and what is the point in flying for 50-60hrs and then having to do a load more converting to something more usable?

[foxmoth]

Certainly not my favourite trainer, good cockpit layout with loads of room plus a good stall and spin, but, the control harmonisation is terrible with sensitive elevator and awful ailerons. I also dislike the high tail as this removes a lot of the secondary effects that a student should be looking at and gives less practice trimming - great in a touring machine, but not in a trainer. Mind you I am not really a fan of the Cessna or Pa28 either, give me a Robin or Beagle Pup anyday, even better I would go for a Chippie.:E

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

The spar life is 11 000 hours but there is an STC to extend this to a minimum of 18650 hours, more if the extension is done sooner than 11 000

[Cat.S]

I haven't read the whole thread but I really hated the PA38. Ghastly plane, always leaks into the cockpit, always leaks into the fuel tanks when it's raining (not good!), stinks inside like a public telephone box, unstable enough to require constant concentration, crappy pitch trim mechanism that uses a crude spring pushing against the yoke and you have to whack it with a fist every so often to make it settle down, incredibly hot on sunny days (which adds to the odours in the cockpit)... Lethal (for a normal plane) stall behaviour which beats any fairground ride in the value for money.
Instructors love them because they are real planes which sort out the real pilots with hairy chests (sorry gurls but you will never be real pilots because of this shortcoming) from the sheep. Like so much in aviation training.
;)
Waste of time learning in them because, in general, there is little chance of renting one afterwards (I mean, would you want to take a lady up in some heap of s**t like that?) and what is the point in flying for 50-60hrs and then having to do a load more converting to something more usable?
I learned to fly on seven different PA38s and they all had their little idiosyncracies. Only one of the seven leaked and all had benign stalls, providing they weren't near or over MAUW, in which case they were evil. Never had any water in the fuel and all the aircraft were parked outside. The trim control was only rubbery on two of the seven, but all seven needed constant trimming. I suspect that maintainance plays a very big part in how nice these aircaft are.
I don't even fit in a Cessna 152 and actually have more room in the 38 than I do in a Warrior. A PA28 feels like flying a bus after a Tomahawk, although it's nice to be able to take two passengers up.

[IO540]

"providing they weren't near or over MAUW, in which case they were evil."

The thing is that a PA38 will be at or over MTOW, unless you fly alone, or perhaps with a size-8 girlfriend :O

I don't think the PA38 trim can be fixed; it's a very poor design. A decent pitch trim is really really essential otherwise your workload goes through the roof. Am old heap of a C152 was a revelation when I changed over to it.

[Cool_Hand]

I have about 50 hours in a 150/152 and about 50 in a tomahawk.

If anything I prefer the tomahawk, I loved the lookout, the roomier cockpit and it felt like more fun to fly (I also greased more landings in a tomahawk, but that is probably due more to the last 50 hours were tomahawk rather than the first 50). The downsides as have been pointed out, the trim was horrible to move could move it and after a while would hear a twang type noise in one of them!! The carb heat always used to leave some of my knuckle skin on the instrument panel (always stiff). I didn't like that I couldn't inspect the tailplane properly on a pre flight.
Stuff tends to move around on an aircraft all the time, wing flutter, fuselage torsion, the moving tailplane didn't really trouble me when I saw it as I had read all about the issues involved and was confident of the corrective action in the design.

With the cessna, I never liked having to climb up the engine cowl to inspect my fuel tank contents, especially when the handy little step had been removed, I found the windows on the cessnas I flew tended to pop open upon application of full throttle, the handling just seemed very bland it never felt as much fun even in the aerobat, and I don't like sitting shoulder to shoulder with my passenger, not forgetting occasionally clouting my head on the pitot tube.

But if offered a flight in either one right now I wouldn't turn it down.

[Pilot RatBoy]

I have about 16 hours in a Tomahawk, and 10 in a Warrior. I would say that the 38 was more fun to fly, partly due to the stall. If you're a good enough pilot though, you will only ever enter a stall willingly and with enough height clearance. The 38 I was flying had a birdstrike to the starboard wing LE, left about a 3 inch square dent and 1 inch deep. The plane still flew as per usual and we were able to conduct a normal flapless approach and landing. That lead me to believe the Tomahawk was more sturdy than I gave her credit for. In conclusion, a wonderful plane!

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Putting the tailplane on top of the fin makes no sense other than to the marketing department who, back in the '70s, probably though it looked cool. It means you need a beefier fin to take the loads, which adds to the weight - at the extremity of the aeroplane, which is just where you don't want it. Hence PA38s have a short fuselage (to limit the effect of all that weight at the back) and are therefor directionaly challenged in all but the calmest air - they wag their tails.

Also, the elevator is above the prop thrust line so back stick won't raise the nosewheel off the ground at low speeds (very bad news at rough fields). Then, at a realtively hign airspeed, the elevator starts to work in pure slipstream effect, the tail comes down, the elevator enters propsteam effect, and it over-rotates for the pilot input.

Having said that, I like the aeroplane. Once in the air, it handles quite well (tail wagging apart, but then my beloved Chipmunk is not totally immune from that). Far better ailerons than the C152 (but the 152 has those lovely flaps!), and more room in the cabin.

If it had a conventional tail, it'd be a great little aeroplane. The engineers won, despite the influence of the marketing guys. ;)

SSD

[rogcal]

Got one. Love it to bits.
Treat it like I treat my Disco. Stays out in all weathers and still starts on the button every time.
Could do with a makeover but then don't we all wish for that and we're still the same underneath all the glitz, so why bother.
Engine 3000. Airframe 10600. Hopefully going to be the first on the UK register to have the wing life extension mod fitted later this year.
Owned and flown most other types i.e. spamcans, vintage, homebuilts and feel more at ease and at one with this T'Hawk than any other type I have flown.
Why do I keep on throwing money at an old piece of junk?
Bit like having a wife I suppose. Trustworthy, dependable and always ready to put up with whatever mistreatment, you chuck at them.
As for wobbly tails, leaks, crap trim system and stinking like a toilet (sorry, telephone box).
Learn to adapt and by some air freshener!;)