Air-to-Air Piper Tomahawk

Lowflynjack

Lowflynjack

En-Route
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
4,066
Display Name
Display name:
Jack Fleetwood
After a week of cloudy skies and rain, we got an opening and got in the air! Always fun to fly after a storm passes through!

53509850108_65bb541109_b.jpg

53510003459_566d8e6118_b.jpg

53510002654_e62030e10f_c.jpg

53510108700_3deff45afe_c.jpg

53509999234_49bb2d70cf_b.jpg

53509845163_de18eff2bb_b.jpg

53510106810_e2d12b7b69_b.jpg
 
Pugs said:
The ole Tomahawk was much maligned but it was a good plane to learn on and not bad looking. Nice pics.
Click to expand...
Yep. The owner of this one actually has it on leaseback at a local flight school! Thank you.
 
ahh... the Classic Traumahawk.. flew nice, about the same as the Beech Skipper, but built better than the Skipper.
 
Great pics. I learned to fly in one so happy memories. There are not so many around now
 
Last edited:
That is a beautiful little ship! Great pics too. Thank you for posting this.
 
These are some awesome photos... thank you for sharing, glad to see you're enjoying a PA38...

BillTIZ said:
ahh... the Classic Traumahawk.. flew nice, about the same as the Beech Skipper, but built better than the Skipper.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you on this one Bill.. Having owned a Tommy and flown both airplanes I will say the Skipper is a better-built plane.. slower than a Tommy, but it has that solid Beechcraft feel, and none of the recurring AD's

FormerHangie said:
Yes. It committed that most unforgivable sin, not flying like a Cessna 172.
Click to expand...

:). You'll learn quickly how to recognize a stall..
 
I learned to fly in one of these (three, actually: N2447K, N2317D, and N2474F). Back in 1980, they allowed spins in them, so I got to learn spin recovery (I learned spin avoidance later). I liked that airplane - in fact, I think I imprinted on it like a baby duck. In 2001 I bought a Diamond DA40, same low wing, T-tail, "bubble cabin.
 
Great pictures! My dad has a Tomahawk that I go fly every once in a while for fun. Always makes my 182 feel big, heavy and fast when I get back in it.
 
Tomahawk! Such a sweet little plane, underappreciated
 
Never flown a tomahawk but I’ve always liked the plane. Nice photos and thanks for sharing
 
Great pics, and they bring back memories. I did all of my primary training in PA38s.
 
Built better than a Skipper? The wing design was modified from the original engineering drawings on the line and so it deformed in a spin, due to the rib spacing. From an article at the time: "The manufacturing part had to do with changes that Piper had made, not to the design but to the structure, reducing the number of main ribs and lightening the spar. These changes were apparently done only after the FAA had flown the spin series that resulted, investigators found, in the wing being quite flexible, so much so that it stalled in unpredictable ways. Others went so far as to say that each Tomahawk flew quite differently from the next one and differently from the one before that."

Piper even had an ad with a cutaway of the structure. Those of us who were around when the spin issues were in the news remember the fuss. The solution is not to spin it.
 
Have owned a Tomahawk for 30 years, put about 3600 on it so far. Honestly have no idea what anyone is talking about concerning stalls, wing deformation, etc. Maybe I’m not a good enough pilot to notice but it flies just fine for me. I think the plane’s biggest problem is the internet
 
skyking3286 said:
Built better than a Skipper? The wing design was modified from the original engineering drawings on the line and so it deformed in a spin, due to the rib spacing. From an article at the time: "The manufacturing part had to do with changes that Piper had made, not to the design but to the structure, reducing the number of main ribs and lightening the spar. These changes were apparently done only after the FAA had flown the spin series that resulted, investigators found, in the wing being quite flexible, so much so that it stalled in unpredictable ways. Others went so far as to say that each Tomahawk flew quite differently from the next one and differently from the one before that."

Piper even had an ad with a cutaway of the structure. Those of us who were around when the spin issues were in the news remember the fuss. The solution is not to spin it.
Click to expand...
Not to go down that rabbit hole, but the wing structure comment was made by one guy - a test pilot, not an engineer, that has taken on the same importance as Moses' stone tablets. The spin "problems" with the Tomahawk are because the airplane doesn't spin like a Cessna. You actually have to make the correct inputs to stop the spin. When I was a Tomahawk owner, I read every single fatal accident report on Tomahawks from 1978 forward (until about 2000). Exactly one of the fatal stall/spin accidents was someone spinning in from altitude, and that was a student pilot who (presumably) wasn't up to speed on spin recovery. The rest were things like departure stalls, base to final stalls, low altitude maneuvering, etc. The airplane stalls and spins like it was designed to. Good or bad, it isn't as forgiving as a 152.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that 95%+ of the negativity against Tomahawks comes from people who’ve never flown one. With the exception of comfort flying the summer sun, I think the Tomahawk is better than a 150 in every way.
 
I read them all too, one was around my instructor’s flight school. One instructor had to have both of them lean all the way forward to recover in another. It was more than the fact it spun like a plane should, it was that a standard recovery didn’t always meet TC standards. Hence, Sweden’s action and the NTSB A-97-41 through -45 document. The wing change is documented in Aviation Consumer if I remember right after all these years. However in the better late than never mode, in 1998 the FAA responded to the NTSB report stating that they had reviewed the latest production drawings of the Tomahawk wings and compared them to those of the certification test wings which had been approved during the certification process. The FAA concluded that everything was accounted for and that the wing design of the certification model and production models was a match. The issue of the wing twisting a bit in a spin is open for some, leading some like the test pilots to report that the plane they fly spins more aggressively than others. The Kansas spin issue was documented by three Piper test pilots. The NASA flight test footage is on the internet and worth a watch. The stall strips made the stall break in a more predictable fashion (AD 83-14-08). No problem then. My comments refer to these pre-modified production planes. … Great photos BTW.
 
Last edited:
skyking3286 said:
I read them all too, one was around my instructor’s flight school. One instructor had to have both of them lean all the way forward to recover in another.
Click to expand...
Think about this. The instructor could have just as easily said "the only way to break the spin was to whistle "I'm a Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech"". There is no way to verify the causality of an anecdote like that. Regarding the wing structure...Aviation Consumer repeated exactly the same quote from the same pilot that I referenced above. It has achieved legendary status, but is one comment by one guy. Is it likely that a test pilot knows that internal wing changes impacted the flexibility of a wing which impacted the stall behavior/spin recovery? There are a whole lot of unverified assumptions leading up to that conclusion.
 
Iflydogs said:
Have owned a Tomahawk for 30 years, put about 3600 on it so far. Honestly have no idea what anyone is talking about concerning stalls, wing deformation, etc. Maybe I’m not a good enough pilot to notice but it flies just fine for me. I think the plane’s biggest problem is the internet
Click to expand...
So you bought it after AD 83-14-08 was issued to put a bandaid on the stall characteristics?
 
kyleb said:
Not to go down that rabbit hole, but the wing structure comment was made by one guy - a test pilot, not an engineer, that has taken on the same importance as Moses' stone tablets. The spin "problems" with the Tomahawk are because the airplane doesn't spin like a Cessna.
Click to expand...
Nope, if you're going to try to correct somebody, you should fact-check yourself first.

"Both original design engineers said the PA-38 prototype had been built with a rigid wing structure. One of the design engineers said this type structure is necessary when using the GAW-1 airfoil."

"The original design engineers were asked why the design had been changed. Both said it was their opinion that the airplane's structure had been simplified for manufacturing purposes after it left their design shop. The design engineer said that removing wing ribs and changing the spar design would make the wing less rigid, i.e., "soften" the wing. According to this engineer, the wing's softened structure would not enhance the wing's stall and spin characteristics. He said the softened wing structure could change the airfoil shape, making the wing a new and unknown commodity in stalls and spins. He said he had inspected a PA-38 wing and found it to be very soft, and able to be torsionally twisted without substantial effort."

"One of the original desginers of the airplane stated, "The aerodynamic performance of a GAW-1 wing is very sensitive to airfoil shape. If the shape
became distorted, the performance would rapidly deteriorate... ." He continued, "... the use of a flexible surface representation of the profile sensitive GAW-1 design opens a Pandora's box regarding its performance. The effects of a wide range of steady and unsteady aerodynamic
flows encountered by an aeroelastically soft GAW-1 wing in stalls and spins would be impossible to resolve in a conventional flight test program."

"Fifteen reports showed loose rivets in the wing, bent aft spar attach fitting, and undertorqued wing spar attachment plate bolts. Before sending the airplane to the production design shop, the remaining design engineer stated the airplane had problems with "A very strong rolloff, I think, to the left." He said he designed a wing root glove that was very effective "...in terms of cooling off the stall characteristics." He also revealed the airflow next to the wing root, aft fuselage, and tailcone was not adhering as it should. He said the purpose of the cuff was to improve the airflow along the aft fuselage and give the airplane better stall characteristics. The company production design shop engineers removed the cuffs from the airplane after they had received it from the design shop."

NTSB report CHI94FA097
 
About my half of my training was in the Piper tomahawk. I liked it a lot. Certainly a lot more room than that C150 I was in before. I spun it a few times. If I recall correctly, don’t recall any trauma.

I do know for a fact, because I watched it happen. A guy on his first flight hyperventilating and passed out and did a slow descending turn into terrain from pattern altitude. He survived. The plane did just what it was supposed to do. It rolled up in a aluminum foil ball around the roll cage. Absorbing the energy of the impact. So impacting from pattern altitude to ground level and he survived. Can’t do that in 172.
I really don’t know why all the hate on the plane. I understand the design was a product of inputs from certified flight instructor‘s asking for a plane that was less predictable than the 150 or the Cherokee. And was spin capable. Every plane has its compromises, pluses and minuses.
 
I love that first image Jack from behind and above the plane ... and I'm not even a traumahawk fan;):)
 
Ventucky Red said:
These are some awesome photos... thank you for sharing, glad to see you're enjoying a PA38...



I have to disagree with you on this one Bill.. Having owned a Tommy and flown both airplanes I will say the Skipper is a better-built plane.. slower than a Tommy, but it has that solid Beechcraft feel, and none of the recurring AD's



:). You'll learn quickly how to recognize a stall..
Click to expand...
I’m glad you chimed in. I almost replied earlier, but I haven’t flown tomahawks, and have only flown one skipper.
The skipper climbed poorly, compared to its peers.
But it was solid, roomy, felt tight and precise on the controls. Seemed very well built.
 
skyking3286 said:
Built better than a Skipper? The wing design was modified from the original engineering drawings on the line and so it deformed in a spin, due to the rib spacing. From an article at the time: "The manufacturing part had to do with changes that Piper had made, not to the design but to the structure, reducing the number of main ribs and lightening the spar. These changes were apparently done only after the FAA had flown the spin series that resulted, investigators found, in the wing being quite flexible, so much so that it stalled in unpredictable ways. Others went so far as to say that each Tomahawk flew quite differently from the next one and differently from the one before that."

Piper even had an ad with a cutaway of the structure. Those of us who were around when the spin issues were in the news remember the fuss. The solution is not to spin it.
Click to expand...

You know the drill... to spin you have to stall... a Tomahawk will give you plenty of warning before that happens.

ateamer said:
I suspect that 95%+ of the negativity against Tomahawks comes from people who’ve never flown one. With the exception of comfort flying the summer sun, I think the Tomahawk is better than a 150 in every way.
Click to expand...

Cousine's wife who took flying lessons used to criticize me for owning one... I asked her how many hours she had in one.. You know how this ended...


dmspilot said:
"Fifteen reports showed loose rivets in the wing, bent aft spar attach fitting, and undertorqued wing spar attachment plate bolts. Before sending the airplane to the production design shop, the remaining design engineer stated the airplane had problems with "A very strong rolloff, I think, to the left." He said he designed a wing root glove that was very effective "...in terms of cooling off the stall characteristics." He also revealed the airflow next to the wing root, aft fuselage, and tailcone was not adhering as it should. He said the purpose of the cuff was to improve the airflow along the aft fuselage and give the airplane better stall characteristics. The company production design shop engineers removed the cuffs from the airplane after they had received it from the design shop."
Click to expand...

Where I got my primary in Pennsylvania, we had some of the first Tomahawks... True, just about every week there was a new service bulletin, need to check this, need to check that, fix this, fix that.... Mine was a 1981 that "had" many of "these issues" worked out...but still I dreaded the call from the shop when it was in for an annual

The FAA retested the spin on the PA38 and it was done locally here - Santa Paula.. Here is the plane they did it in... Once I find the article I'll post it here


ca7f04eaff17a51fdba2bdc8564d0294ac7f9724
 
dmspilot said:
Nope, if you're going to try to correct somebody, you should fact-check yourself first.

"Both original design engineers said the PA-38 prototype had been built with a rigid wing structure. One of the design engineers said this type structure is necessary when using the GAW-1 airfoil."

"The original design engineers were asked why the design had been changed. Both said it was their opinion that the airplane's structure had been simplified for manufacturing purposes after it left their design shop. The design engineer said that removing wing ribs and changing the spar design would make the wing less rigid, i.e., "soften" the wing. According to this engineer, the wing's softened structure would not enhance the wing's stall and spin characteristics. He said the softened wing structure could change the airfoil shape, making the wing a new and unknown commodity in stalls and spins. He said he had inspected a PA-38 wing and found it to be very soft, and able to be torsionally twisted without substantial effort."

"One of the original desginers of the airplane stated, "The aerodynamic performance of a GAW-1 wing is very sensitive to airfoil shape. If the shape
became distorted, the performance would rapidly deteriorate... ." He continued, "... the use of a flexible surface representation of the profile sensitive GAW-1 design opens a Pandora's box regarding its performance. The effects of a wide range of steady and unsteady aerodynamic
flows encountered by an aeroelastically soft GAW-1 wing in stalls and spins would be impossible to resolve in a conventional flight test program."

"Fifteen reports showed loose rivets in the wing, bent aft spar attach fitting, and undertorqued wing spar attachment plate bolts. Before sending the airplane to the production design shop, the remaining design engineer stated the airplane had problems with "A very strong rolloff, I think, to the left." He said he designed a wing root glove that was very effective "...in terms of cooling off the stall characteristics." He also revealed the airflow next to the wing root, aft fuselage, and tailcone was not adhering as it should. He said the purpose of the cuff was to improve the airflow along the aft fuselage and give the airplane better stall characteristics. The company production design shop engineers removed the cuffs from the airplane after they had received it from the design shop."

NTSB report CHI94FA097
Click to expand...
My belief is the only "problem" with the Tomahawk's stall and spin behavior is it doesn't behave like a 152. I earned my license in a 152 and soon thereafter bought a Tomahawk. I recognize the differences. The Tomahawk stalls at a higher airspeed and tends to drop a wing. Not a big deal - don't stall it unintentionally or at low altitude, it can bite. Similar to many higher performance aircraft. I really liked the Tomahawk and never understood the gnashing of teeth it causes. It is a great little airplane and if my son becomes interested in learning to fly, I'll be tempted to buy one to give him that opportunity.

From a flight qualities perspective, the NASA spin tests demonstrated repeatable spin and recovery behavior.

As to the "rigid wing, soft wing, I think, I thought, it might, it could" opinions quoted, there isn't any supporting data. It is all conjecture... possibly informed conjecture, possibly your typical engineer (like me) who designs things perfectly in the first place and knows that any modifications to the design ruin it. ;-) Including the opinion of an engineer who manually twisted a wing and opined that it was "soft" seems odd. While the guy might have been exactly right, it is hard for me to accept such a sweeping proclamation as fact without any objective data.

At the end of the day, the FAA re-evaluated the Tomahawk and found that it checked the appropriate boxes. That's the most objective information we have, and I'll just have to live with their findings. Especially since they agree with my personal experience as the owner/pilot of one.
 
kyleb said:
My belief is the only "problem" with the Tomahawk's stall and spin behavior is it doesn't behave like a 152. I earned my license in a 152 and soon thereafter bought a Tomahawk. I recognize the differences. The Tomahawk stalls at a higher airspeed and tends to drop a wing. Not a big deal - don't stall it unintentionally or at low altitude, it can bite. Similar to many higher performance aircraft. I really liked the Tomahawk and never understood the gnashing of teeth it causes. It is a great little airplane and if my son becomes interested in learning to fly, I'll be tempted to buy one to give him that opportunity.

From a flight qualities perspective, the NASA spin tests demonstrated repeatable spin and recovery behavior.

As to the "rigid wing, soft wing, I think, I thought, it might, it could" opinions quoted, there isn't any supporting data. It is all conjecture... possibly informed conjecture, possibly your typical engineer (like me) who designs things perfectly in the first place and knows that any modifications to the design ruin it. ;-) Including the opinion of an engineer who manually twisted a wing and opined that it was "soft" seems odd. While the guy might have been exactly right, it is hard for me to accept such a sweeping proclamation as fact without any objective data.

At the end of the day, the FAA re-evaluated the Tomahawk and found that it checked the appropriate boxes. That's the most objective information we have, and I'll just have to live with their findings. Especially since they agree with my personal experience as the owner/pilot of one.
Click to expand...

Let's review. You posted incorrect info, I corrected you. But an NTSB report is "conjecture" and your verifiably false comment is not :rolleyes:
 
dmspilot said:
Let's review. You posted incorrect info, I corrected you. But an NTSB report is "conjecture" and your verifiably false comment is not :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
He made his comments, you made yours. Why does it matter? Just have to win don’t you.
 
I would like to endorse this little plane. It holds 32 gallons, 30 usable.. At 6 gph I fly 350m + legs with a huge safety margin. Mine is stripped pretty light and I have 350 pounds payload with full tanks, enough for my wife and I. The back can only hold 100 pounds but it is huge, carry a large dog carrier in PnP runs and all kind of junk and tools for my rental properties. It is honestly doggy on the climb when fully loaded in the summer and no good for the Rockies. But for the east coast it is pretty great. And it looks 10x cooler than any other two seater on the ramp except for the Diamond. I get lots of compliments on it.
 
I started in early 1980. I flew Tomahawk 2477B & 23913. No headset back then.
 
Morgan3820 said:
He made his comments, you made yours. Why does it matter? Just have to win don’t you.
Click to expand...
Not trying to win anything, just don't like false info being paraded as fact.

There are a lot of myths and urban legends about this plane, though to be fair, more of them historically have been in the anti-Tomahawk camp. For example, it was once widely believed that the PA38 was certified with a conventional tail, after which it was converted to a T-tail design. This actually isn't true. It was changed to a T-tail much earlier in the development process.
 
Piper listened to marketing rather than aerodynamics with that T-tail. Yes, prototype was made in August of 1973 with a O200 and conventional tail. I have never seen a photo of the mule in print.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
Not trying to win anything, just don't like false info being paraded as fact.

There are a lot of myths and urban legends about this plane, though to be fair, more of them historically have been in the anti-Tomahawk camp. For example, it was once widely believed that the PA38 was certified with a conventional tail, after which it was converted to a T-tail design. This actually isn't true. It was changed to a T-tail much earlier in the development process.
Click to expand...
It was built with that tail. I knew a guy who was in charge of procurement for Piper at the time. What I was told was that the plane was fine with the conventional tail, but the boss at the time told them it had to have a T-tail for marketing. Apparently they barely survived the first flight and doubled the aluminum thickness on the tail cone for the next flight. I did my entire private in the Tomahawk and loved them. It will always be a good plane in my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top