Why are there no Tomahawks in Florida?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
............................................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
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.
............................................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Bali ~ I wish
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 foręprospective 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, 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."
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 foręprospective 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, 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."
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Bali ~ I wish
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: He's on the limb to nowhere
Posts: 1,981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: 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.
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?
[ 22 October 2001: Message edited by: slim_slag ]
