Why does the PA-38 Tomahawk have a wing life of 11,000 hours?
I personally have always been quite happy to spin a Tomahawk, provided the W&B was always checked beforehand.
The only thing that used to bother me was the amount of movement/distortion of the vertical surface and T-tail during the recovery. The whole lot flapping about is a sight to behold.
I suppose fatigue is a real concern if the aircraft is spun regularly and also whether the amount of distortion could reduce the opposite yaw requirement too much to stabilise the aeroplane.
Any comments from an airframe specialist ? A & C ?
The only thing that used to bother me was the amount of movement/distortion of the vertical surface and T-tail during the recovery. The whole lot flapping about is a sight to behold.
I suppose fatigue is a real concern if the aircraft is spun regularly and also whether the amount of distortion could reduce the opposite yaw requirement too much to stabilise the aeroplane.
Any comments from an airframe specialist ? A & C ?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sleeve Wing
You are right on the money with what you say about the T-tail movement.
The Fin and its attachments both at the top and bottom are the subject of a number of AD,s. Some of these require the inspection and replacment parts.
I have not worked on the PA38 for some years but seem to recall a lot of worn bolt holes in the front and rear fin spars that required the fin spars to be changed along with all the bolts.
The wise operators also installed (optional) inspection panels in the rear of the aircraft to enable easy inspection of the frames supporting the fin.
The PA38 is an aircraft with issues at the back end but these issues are well known and can be safely managed with good engineeing practice.
The Fin and its attachments both at the top and bottom are the subject of a number of AD,s. Some of these require the inspection and replacment parts.
I have not worked on the PA38 for some years but seem to recall a lot of worn bolt holes in the front and rear fin spars that required the fin spars to be changed along with all the bolts.
The wise operators also installed (optional) inspection panels in the rear of the aircraft to enable easy inspection of the frames supporting the fin.
The PA38 is an aircraft with issues at the back end but these issues are well known and can be safely managed with good engineeing practice.
Thx, A and C.
Now I know why I always choose to take a "spanner" when I'm testing...........if he's up for it !!
Now I know why I always choose to take a "spanner" when I'm testing...........if he's up for it !!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Bexleyheath
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA38 Wing Spar, Info required
O.K. I know this is an old thread but I used to fly a PA38 and I liked it (even after watching the Fin/Tailplane shake about during stall practice !) I have seen one that may be for sale and I want to know what the bottom line is regarding the Wing Spar?
My research so far points to its liffed at 11000 hours, that there is a mod which will give you 7660 more hours. I also remember being told by an Engineer that the Wing Spar suffered from corrosion and had to be subjected to a Boroscope inspection.
So whats the bottom line ?
My research so far points to its liffed at 11000 hours, that there is a mod which will give you 7660 more hours. I also remember being told by an Engineer that the Wing Spar suffered from corrosion and had to be subjected to a Boroscope inspection.
So whats the bottom line ?
Last edited by cpl4hire; 9th Dec 2012 at 17:15. Reason: Typos
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Arizona
Age: 76
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tomahawk as trainer
I am a Flight Instructor, and worked at a school where we had both Tomahawks and Cessna 150's and 152's. All the instructors liked the Tomahawks better than the Cessnas, and regularly competed to use them as our trainers. None of us had any negative comments about the stalling characteristics of the Tomahawk, or any other flight issues. Until it came to spins. A couple of those, and we never did them again in the Tomahawks. On recovery, they would pitch inverted. Scared the you know what out of the students, and got the Instructors' pulse going up also.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pitch only moved because you weren't keeping the ailerons neutral.
You can take them from vertical to flat and back again by using the ailerons.
centralise and hold them there nothing funny happens.
You can take them from vertical to flat and back again by using the ailerons.
centralise and hold them there nothing funny happens.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Arizona
Age: 76
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spin recovery in Tomahawk
It wasn't a wing drop to inverted, but a straight forward pitch to inverted during spin recovery. Unfortunately, there are no more Tomahawks around here to experiment with. Not many planes at all, actually. Most are left to rot on the ramps. Pathetic sight.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personnel I think the Tommy is a lovely training aircraft
Did my spin/stall training in PA38s and then was glad to see the back of them.
Can't imagine having to endure cross-countries in one !
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its nothing to do with wing drop.
While your in the spin if you turn the controls one way it makes it go flat and then turn it the other it goes steep. But your still going down.
PA38's are like marmite some folk hate them and some love them. They do produce better pilots than C150/C152 trained.
While your in the spin if you turn the controls one way it makes it go flat and then turn it the other it goes steep. But your still going down.
PA38's are like marmite some folk hate them and some love them. They do produce better pilots than C150/C152 trained.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Burrow, N53:48:02 W1:48:57, The Tin Tent - EGBS, EGBO
Posts: 2,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They do produce better pilots than C150/C152 trained.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The examiners are just as bad as instructors with the marmite tendency's.
Some refuse to examine in Tommys and if they do they make the student add ridiculous addition to the approach speed so much so the student is completely out of the grove because they are flying 10-15 above the book speed.
Some refuse to examine in Tommys and if they do they make the student add ridiculous addition to the approach speed so much so the student is completely out of the grove because they are flying 10-15 above the book speed.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nope last one I encountered was 5 years ago. Wanted the approach flown at 80knts because of "known and well documented dangerous stall and spin characteristics" this is with a dirty stall of 50knts from memory or it could even be less.
Even briefed the PFL had to be flown at that speed as well.
Instructors using 70 or 75 knts arn't uncommon either and then wonder why the student struggles to go solo.
I had one to sort out that had been told to fly at 75knts when I was full time all I did was get him to fly at 65knts approach speed which is still a smidge fast and sent him solo 3 circuits later. The poor lad had been getting raped in the flare every time before that. Right speed the aircraft just sat down as the power came off.
The student just said "it just stopped flying when it was meant to and we didn't float down the runway"
"No****sherlock 10knts to get rid of in ground effect takes a bit of runway to get rid of it".
I demo'd a 55knt approach landing and stopped on the piano keys and he was just gob smacked.
Even briefed the PFL had to be flown at that speed as well.
Instructors using 70 or 75 knts arn't uncommon either and then wonder why the student struggles to go solo.
I had one to sort out that had been told to fly at 75knts when I was full time all I did was get him to fly at 65knts approach speed which is still a smidge fast and sent him solo 3 circuits later. The poor lad had been getting raped in the flare every time before that. Right speed the aircraft just sat down as the power came off.
The student just said "it just stopped flying when it was meant to and we didn't float down the runway"
"No****sherlock 10knts to get rid of in ground effect takes a bit of runway to get rid of it".
I demo'd a 55knt approach landing and stopped on the piano keys and he was just gob smacked.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jock
It is sad to say that I have experiences that reflect yours but the most extreme was the owner of PA38 who had asked me to do the C of A air test and wanted to come along as observer.
He was ok until we got to the stall checks, this he was very unhappy with but we did them, the turning of the page to the spin recovery bit sent him into some sort of total panic when he demanded that we don't do the spin because we would likely be killed, at this point I decided to not continue the test as it had become pointless, as I reduced towards the approach speed he broke into some sort of histrionic rant as I reduced the speed past 80 KTS saying I was about to kill us, eventually I managed to gear the guy to agree to 70kts approach speed.
The debrief was interesting with the guy accusing me of all sorts of things and asked to see my licence because he wanted to report me to the CAA, when I produced an ATPL he calmed down enough to be shown the flight manual and see the numbers. I have doubt if he had ever looked at the flight manual.
Eventually he did agree to me flying the rest of the air test solo and I am told he sold the aircraft without flying it again.
I did wonder who had instructed him when he was getting his PPL.
He was ok until we got to the stall checks, this he was very unhappy with but we did them, the turning of the page to the spin recovery bit sent him into some sort of total panic when he demanded that we don't do the spin because we would likely be killed, at this point I decided to not continue the test as it had become pointless, as I reduced towards the approach speed he broke into some sort of histrionic rant as I reduced the speed past 80 KTS saying I was about to kill us, eventually I managed to gear the guy to agree to 70kts approach speed.
The debrief was interesting with the guy accusing me of all sorts of things and asked to see my licence because he wanted to report me to the CAA, when I produced an ATPL he calmed down enough to be shown the flight manual and see the numbers. I have doubt if he had ever looked at the flight manual.
Eventually he did agree to me flying the rest of the air test solo and I am told he sold the aircraft without flying it again.
I did wonder who had instructed him when he was getting his PPL.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not just one school out there, there are a few.
And there were more than one or two examiners that are at it as well.
The 80-85 knts thing though does seem to be a bit of a favourite.
The picture doesn't even look even remotely right at that speed and the power is way way up but of course they have the carb heat on as well for landing. As there is some rubbish about that as well even though they have just flown the approach at just under cruise rpm.
As a FI they weren't going to listen to me. I just didn't use them again and warned the students not to go near them and we would sort it out when the more sensible examiners were available.
You could show them all the accident reports which had a to fast approach as a major cause and they would still insist on 30knts above stall speed.
And there were more than one or two examiners that are at it as well.
The 80-85 knts thing though does seem to be a bit of a favourite.
The picture doesn't even look even remotely right at that speed and the power is way way up but of course they have the carb heat on as well for landing. As there is some rubbish about that as well even though they have just flown the approach at just under cruise rpm.
As a FI they weren't going to listen to me. I just didn't use them again and warned the students not to go near them and we would sort it out when the more sensible examiners were available.
You could show them all the accident reports which had a to fast approach as a major cause and they would still insist on 30knts above stall speed.
You could show them all the accident reports which had a to fast approach as a major cause and they would still insist on 30knts above stall speed.
I blame their instructors. Am I being unfair?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyingmac
Regretfully I have to agree with you about the quality of instruction, I was very lucky in that apart from a few exceptions my instructors were all ex WW2 & ex airline pilots who we're doing the job for the love of flying, I at the time was doing an aeronautical engineering apprenticeship so I got quite a rounded aviation education.
Roll on ten years and I was instructing most of the guys instructing with me only wanted an airline job to be fair most did the ( unwanted) instruction job quite well when it came to the flying but the teaching of technical subjects including aerodynamics was not good ( as pointed out in a CAA report of the time) some of the guys were just useless and actually managed to teach the student very little as I found out when I occasionally had to fly with their students.
My view of the current PPL instruction state is that EASA trying to turn it all into a professional pilot system had had a detrimental effect on quality as it has edged out the keen part timers who fly at weekends who keep high standards because they are flying for the love of flight and it has populated the training system with budding airline pilots who will be off to follow the magenta line at the drop of a hat, not all of these guys are bad but the biggest failure is the quality control system that seems to be unable to weed out the bad instructors.
Of course the situation is not helped by the latest PPL exams from EASA..... Asking a PPL student to calculate the time of sunrise in Calcutta on June 12 by using the air almanac tables shows just how far out of touch with reality the Numpty who set the question is........... With oversight like that no wonder instructor quality is so variable.
Roll on ten years and I was instructing most of the guys instructing with me only wanted an airline job to be fair most did the ( unwanted) instruction job quite well when it came to the flying but the teaching of technical subjects including aerodynamics was not good ( as pointed out in a CAA report of the time) some of the guys were just useless and actually managed to teach the student very little as I found out when I occasionally had to fly with their students.
My view of the current PPL instruction state is that EASA trying to turn it all into a professional pilot system had had a detrimental effect on quality as it has edged out the keen part timers who fly at weekends who keep high standards because they are flying for the love of flight and it has populated the training system with budding airline pilots who will be off to follow the magenta line at the drop of a hat, not all of these guys are bad but the biggest failure is the quality control system that seems to be unable to weed out the bad instructors.
Of course the situation is not helped by the latest PPL exams from EASA..... Asking a PPL student to calculate the time of sunrise in Calcutta on June 12 by using the air almanac tables shows just how far out of touch with reality the Numpty who set the question is........... With oversight like that no wonder instructor quality is so variable.
Last edited by A and C; 1st Dec 2013 at 15:52.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I just don't get this partial flap thing either.
Asked one pilot after being checked out in the C172 why he didn't use full flap.
Because there was a xwind.
Turned out he had been taught. Use partial flap when.
Strong winds which was apparently above 10knts.
Any xwind.
Any gusting.
Any turbulence reported.
Any windshear reported.
Any CU in the area.
So it turned out that the only time they could use full flap was when it was less than 10knts straight down the strip and cavok. So they had never used it since their PPL test 3 years before.
Give them their due though after they went for their flight with thier family while all the women went shopping they came out and did an hour of circuits in the tommy with 20knts on the nose and 10knts xwind with full flap. And concluded there instructor was full of
and the tommy wasn't such a bad plane after all and it was actually quite fun.
Asked one pilot after being checked out in the C172 why he didn't use full flap.
Because there was a xwind.
Turned out he had been taught. Use partial flap when.
Strong winds which was apparently above 10knts.
Any xwind.
Any gusting.
Any turbulence reported.
Any windshear reported.
Any CU in the area.
So it turned out that the only time they could use full flap was when it was less than 10knts straight down the strip and cavok. So they had never used it since their PPL test 3 years before.
Give them their due though after they went for their flight with thier family while all the women went shopping they came out and did an hour of circuits in the tommy with 20knts on the nose and 10knts xwind with full flap. And concluded there instructor was full of
and the tommy wasn't such a bad plane after all and it was actually quite fun.