Why does the PA-38 Tomahawk have a wing life of 11,000 hours?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great little aeroplanes
I have worked on PA38 aircraft for many decades. The newest one I can recall working on had 400 hrs TT.
I have worked alongside LAME and IA types that have also maintained them since new. These guys generally have a CPL as well as the engineering qualifications. The type is well liked and very popular. They were subject to a range a SB in the early days and this was at a time when GA was booming.
Yes we all threw the banter about, the ratchet hatchet and traumahawk etc but it was all just bar talk and joking.
I think of the clubs that had fleets of PA38 aircraft and how those training hours paid all the overheads effortlessly. The Tomahawks paid the hangarage, wages, and all other overheads with ease. The hourly rate not only paid the operating costs, maintenance, office staff etc but also allowed many organisations to operate a range of less 'profitable' aircraft on the line as well.
It was equally obvious from within the hangar to see which aircraft were profitable for the clubs. Inspecting and maintaining the PA38 was a breeze in comparison to the similar 'C' brand machines.
The Tomahawks are brilliant little machines. It is interesting to see the backgrounds of the guys commenting. In my experience the knockers were the ones that knew least about them.
I am pleased to see so many positive comments here.
I have worked alongside LAME and IA types that have also maintained them since new. These guys generally have a CPL as well as the engineering qualifications. The type is well liked and very popular. They were subject to a range a SB in the early days and this was at a time when GA was booming.
Yes we all threw the banter about, the ratchet hatchet and traumahawk etc but it was all just bar talk and joking.
I think of the clubs that had fleets of PA38 aircraft and how those training hours paid all the overheads effortlessly. The Tomahawks paid the hangarage, wages, and all other overheads with ease. The hourly rate not only paid the operating costs, maintenance, office staff etc but also allowed many organisations to operate a range of less 'profitable' aircraft on the line as well.
It was equally obvious from within the hangar to see which aircraft were profitable for the clubs. Inspecting and maintaining the PA38 was a breeze in comparison to the similar 'C' brand machines.
The Tomahawks are brilliant little machines. It is interesting to see the backgrounds of the guys commenting. In my experience the knockers were the ones that knew least about them.
I am pleased to see so many positive comments here.
I did a few hours in a PA38 in Jersey in the 80s. I thoroughly enjoyed it, much more so than the 152 I flew a couple of years later.
Prior to flying it, I had plenty of spinning experience in various types, mainly Chipmunks and Blaniks, but I have to say, I found the PA38's spin-entry characteristics impressive to say the least. I can see why a low-houred student might have been frightened by the rapidity of the entry.
Having said that, the recovery was always benign and by the book.
Prior to flying it, I had plenty of spinning experience in various types, mainly Chipmunks and Blaniks, but I have to say, I found the PA38's spin-entry characteristics impressive to say the least. I can see why a low-houred student might have been frightened by the rapidity of the entry.
Having said that, the recovery was always benign and by the book.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was taken flying in a PA38 some years ago, where the owner spun it and told me to look at the tail, which wobbled and shook like a loosely made blancmange. Genuinely scary...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: What????
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a Tomahawk flyer and love it. I have stalled it and found it not much different to most other types I have flown but I have never approached a spin. I would be interested to see any videos of the "tailshake" if they exist. There is one on You tube but to be honest that could just as easily by the camera shaking. Does anyone have any links to a clear video of this "phenomenon"?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: london
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gengis, I understand the concept of elasticity perfectly well; I just don't particularly care to see it in action as I spiral towards the ground.
I did my first five hours training in a Tomahawk and I very definately fall into the camp that considers the PA38 to be a meritless piece of sh1t. A chacun son gout, as the French say.
I did my first five hours training in a Tomahawk and I very definately fall into the camp that considers the PA38 to be a meritless piece of sh1t. A chacun son gout, as the French say.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wsmempsom
You opinion of the PA38 says more about you than it does about the aircraft type.
The aircraft was built to train pilots and so was not the most pleasant to fly but it made sure that the tyro pilot was well equipped with the skills required to fly most other GA types with little or no extra training.
In short for the mission it was built the PA38 is a superb aircraft.
The aircraft was built to train pilots and so was not the most pleasant to fly but it made sure that the tyro pilot was well equipped with the skills required to fly most other GA types with little or no extra training.
In short for the mission it was built the PA38 is a superb aircraft.
Está servira para distraerle.
Had the PA38 been flown solely by armed forces as an ab initio trainer then I doubt much trouble would have arisen with the machine. Tomahawk design instability was a little more electrifying than had been the case in civilian trainers, especially in a wing drop situation. Air Force training and instructors are designed to cope with snappier machines than the lazy old leisure flyer and all that was missing in the early days of the PA38 was a more carefully thought out flight profile manual and some experienced acrobatic instructors to train others in the aircraft.
Although it's not a good idea to pick up a dropping wing on a PA28 or a C150 with aileron, it can usually be done quite safely and effectively. That action though, of jerking the control column in a lateral direction through full deflection, is often the student's first reaction to deep stall wing drop. Try that little trick in a PA38 and you can flick into a spin over easy. You couldn't emphasis that sort of recovery in a POH some thirty five years ago, probably any more than now. You'd scare the punters.
I certainly didn't enjoy flying the machine in the hot and high African veldt but the aircraft certainly did what it was designed to do and students did benefit from it and enjoyed the 'luxury' of their CCs in the C172s or PA180s we used.
Although it's not a good idea to pick up a dropping wing on a PA28 or a C150 with aileron, it can usually be done quite safely and effectively. That action though, of jerking the control column in a lateral direction through full deflection, is often the student's first reaction to deep stall wing drop. Try that little trick in a PA38 and you can flick into a spin over easy. You couldn't emphasis that sort of recovery in a POH some thirty five years ago, probably any more than now. You'd scare the punters.
I certainly didn't enjoy flying the machine in the hot and high African veldt but the aircraft certainly did what it was designed to do and students did benefit from it and enjoyed the 'luxury' of their CCs in the C172s or PA180s we used.
The PA-38 and the C 152 were introduced at the same time but look at how many schools still use the C 152 vs the PA-38 ?
For every PA-38 still being used commercially I bet there are 25 C152's.
The market has spoken......
For every PA-38 still being used commercially I bet there are 25 C152's.
The market has spoken......
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 12th Dec 2013 at 08:58.
Está servira para distraerle.
The corollary to that true comment is that the market doesn't train people to be pilots any more. It trains them to get right hand seat jobs in commercial jets with 200 hours. You don't need to be able to fly (by the seat of your pants) to be primarily a systems operator. This is just as it should be in twenty first century aviation until there arises a situation which calls for basic flying skills and decision making. Then one suspects, there is sometimes a rather large accident.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Pistons
The market has spoken but not about the flying qualitys of the PA38..... It is all about the spar life and parts availability that I talked about much earlier on this thread.
If the PA38 had the same spar life & parts support as the C152 I would be operating the PA38 not the C152.
If the PA38 had the same spar life & parts support as the C152 I would be operating the PA38 not the C152.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: York
Age: 53
Posts: 797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The corollary to that true comment is that the market doesn't train people to be pilots any more. It trains them to get right hand seat jobs in commercial jets with 200 hours"
Which is fundamentally wrong. They have the privileges to work commercially in GA. Therefore they should have the skills.
Which is fundamentally wrong. They have the privileges to work commercially in GA. Therefore they should have the skills.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The number of brand C or P still in service today is largely the result of the marketing policy of each manufacturer. At the time they were built C had 1000+ dealers and probably 800 Cessna Pilot Centers and if you make each of them take 1 aircraft a year then that is 1500+ sold. That is what they did in the mid 60s to kick start the Learn to Fly program and over the years that led to pilots moving up to 172, 182 and then Citations.
Pilots, students and engineers may prefer the Piper but now it is a question of parts availability in the area of operation. I've enjoyed flying both.
Pilots, students and engineers may prefer the Piper but now it is a question of parts availability in the area of operation. I've enjoyed flying both.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper Parts
Following the post above and some of my comments I should make it clear that the problem with Piper parts is ONLY with the PA38, other Piper aircraft have a parts avalblity no better or worse than Cessna and a lot better than some other aircraft manufactures.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a Beech Skipper for a while and it too had time-limited wings, I think 12k hours if my memory's not too far off. It was a contemporary and competitor to the Tomahawk. I'm glad my current plane, a Beech Sundowner 180, doesn't have such a limit as it has 10.5k hours on the airframe 
I come from an era and country that mandated spin training and have never been afraid to spin an aircraft if it was certified to allow intentional spinning. But that Skipper was quite violent as well compared to a Cessna or even compared to my Sundowner (I have a rare aerobatic model with the spin kit), and I only spun it once. I can say however that I've spun all the aircraft I've ever owned (C150, PA28-140, Beech C23 and Beech 77, currently own the C23, others long sold).
BTW I don't know if anyone's looked at aircraft values in Canada lately but they've sunk something awful. My Sundowner is now only worth about half what I paid for it 10 years ago. So much for all the jokes about "flying my retirement fund". Granted my engine is high-time (1750 hrs on a 2000 hr TBO), but it's basically worth no more now than a C150. I had been thinking of trading back down to a 2-seater now that the kids are grown but I think I'll hang onto it a while longer. Sorry for the rant/thread drift.
I come from an era and country that mandated spin training and have never been afraid to spin an aircraft if it was certified to allow intentional spinning. But that Skipper was quite violent as well compared to a Cessna or even compared to my Sundowner (I have a rare aerobatic model with the spin kit), and I only spun it once. I can say however that I've spun all the aircraft I've ever owned (C150, PA28-140, Beech C23 and Beech 77, currently own the C23, others long sold).
BTW I don't know if anyone's looked at aircraft values in Canada lately but they've sunk something awful. My Sundowner is now only worth about half what I paid for it 10 years ago. So much for all the jokes about "flying my retirement fund". Granted my engine is high-time (1750 hrs on a 2000 hr TBO), but it's basically worth no more now than a C150. I had been thinking of trading back down to a 2-seater now that the kids are grown but I think I'll hang onto it a while longer. Sorry for the rant/thread drift.
Gengis, I understand the concept of elasticity perfectly well; I just don't particularly care to see it in action as I spiral towards the ground.
I did my first five hours training in a Tomahawk and I very definately fall into the camp that considers the PA38 to be a meritless piece of sh1t. A chacun son gout, as the French say.
I did my first five hours training in a Tomahawk and I very definately fall into the camp that considers the PA38 to be a meritless piece of sh1t. A chacun son gout, as the French say.
G
Agree Genghis,
Next time this chap is flying any sort of aircraft he should look out to his left or right and monitor the flex in the wings. How un-comfortable is he with elasticity now?
My father is a retired chief eng in the merchant navy and has some fantastic footage of being down in the bowels of the hull whilst looking down a long corridor. As the hull distorts in response to the motion of the ship upon the waves the view down the corridor becomes visible and obscured. Quite remarkable, and much better than the alternative of the hull snapping into pieces and spilling the black stuff. The same applies to wings or any load bearing part of an airframe, provided of course that the behaviour is elastic and within design limits.
Next time this chap is flying any sort of aircraft he should look out to his left or right and monitor the flex in the wings. How un-comfortable is he with elasticity now?
My father is a retired chief eng in the merchant navy and has some fantastic footage of being down in the bowels of the hull whilst looking down a long corridor. As the hull distorts in response to the motion of the ship upon the waves the view down the corridor becomes visible and obscured. Quite remarkable, and much better than the alternative of the hull snapping into pieces and spilling the black stuff. The same applies to wings or any load bearing part of an airframe, provided of course that the behaviour is elastic and within design limits.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Video of spin testing in the PA38 from 1979 here;
And a video of spin training in the PA38 from a school in the USA here;
Back in the 90's I was an instructor at a flying school in Sydney Australia that operated 2 C152s and 4 PA38s. By far the PA38's were the most popular, with larger or taller students and instructors appreciating the wider cabin of the PA38.
Most students would use the PA38 for their first few NAV's to save money, before moving onto the PA28 or C172. Hardly any students used the C152 for NAV's as they found it lacked the space for them to use a folder or kneeboard.
For me after spending 4 years flying the PA38 and the C152 I preferred the PA38, not only because of the extra space inside, but I found it produced a better pilot as it wasn't as docile as the C152.
And a video of spin training in the PA38 from a school in the USA here;
Back in the 90's I was an instructor at a flying school in Sydney Australia that operated 2 C152s and 4 PA38s. By far the PA38's were the most popular, with larger or taller students and instructors appreciating the wider cabin of the PA38.
Most students would use the PA38 for their first few NAV's to save money, before moving onto the PA28 or C172. Hardly any students used the C152 for NAV's as they found it lacked the space for them to use a folder or kneeboard.
For me after spending 4 years flying the PA38 and the C152 I preferred the PA38, not only because of the extra space inside, but I found it produced a better pilot as it wasn't as docile as the C152.
