PA-38-112 Tomahawk - Tips?

T

talkingbob

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
117
Display Name
Display name:
JonC
Hello,

I have 102 hours total time logged in mainly Cessna 150/152/172 aircraft with some time in a Piper J4 and I did my PPL night training in a Warrior.
The club I am in has a Tomahawk and I was intending on doing my BFR/checkout in it. Having never flown a PA-38-112, what would someone with experience in that aircraft advise me on? Any quirks or tips I should know about?

Thanks!
 
Fun plane to fly compared to 150's.

Easy to fly. The T-tail lacks authority on take off until you get speed, due to being over the prop wash.

20 minutes with the instructor will have you comfortable,
 
They are good planes. You'll get addicted to the visibility. Don't let those who have never flown them tell you that they aren't good airplanes (Traumahawks).
 
JoseCuervo said:
Fun plane to fly compared to 150's.

Easy to fly. The T-tail lacks authority on take off until you get speed, due to being over the prop wash.
Click to expand...

I got checked out in a DA20 (T-tail) once, so I was prepared for the authority issue.
 
I hear it's like a long winged AA1.

Don't spin it.
 
"Piper surveyed flight instructors and found they wanted a more spinnable aircraft for training purposes. Equipped with the NASA GA(W)-1 Whitcomb airfoil the Tomahawk addresses this requirement by making specific pilot input necessary in recovering from spins."

 
James331 said:
I hear it's like a long winged AA1.



Don't spin it.
Click to expand...

Perfect example of what I was talking about - those who "have heard" but not flown Tomahawks. I got my PPL in them back in the day and have plenty of time in them.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Perfect example of what I was talking about - those who "have heard" but not flown Tomahawks. I got my PPL in them back in the day and have plenty of time in them.
Click to expand...


So give us your experience spinning them.
 
I don't recommend doing more than about 1/2 turn spin in them. They spin very nose low and can come out of the spin very easily in an almost vertical attitude making it accelerate very quickly as it comes out of the spin. It isn't the spin that is dangerous, it is the very nose low fast acceleration that is dangerous making it easy to go over Maneuvering speed or even Red line during the recovery. The over speed is what has caused pevious failures of the tail.

Other wise I prefer them over the 150/152.

Brian
 
Last edited:
They feel a little more nose low that a Cessna, and you'll feel a bit flat in a landing attitude. I've always been a Cessna guy, but I like them. Don't expect the flaps to have as much effect as Cessna barn doors
 
talkingbob said:
Hello,

I have 102 hours total time logged in mainly Cessna 150/152/172 aircraft with some time in a Piper J4 and I did my PPL night training in a Warrior.
The club I am in has a Tomahawk and I was intending on doing my BFR/checkout in it. Having never flown a PA-38-112, what would someone with experience in that aircraft advise me on? Any quirks or tips I should know about?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

They are simple straight forward planes, easy and tame to fly, you will have no difficulty. The thing the Tomahawk does that is a bit cheesy is that it wobbles around when you turn taxiing. It's like driving a car with wornout shocks and suspension bushings. First time I thought there was something wrong, but nope, everything was tight and good, it's just a result of what allows them to bounce back from a landing that happened to be 2' over the runway surface, and go full throttle and around for another try. With the Sparrowhawk 125hp conversion, they don't leave me with much to complain about.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
"Piper surveyed flight instructors and found they wanted a more spinnable aircraft for training purposes. Equipped with the NASA GA(W)-1 Whitcomb airfoil the Tomahawk addresses this requirement by making specific pilot input necessary in recovering from spins."
Click to expand...
Exactly. Recall the historic context leading up to the introduction of the Tomahawk. For the preceding fourteen years the only "trainer" at Piper Flite Centers was the Cherokee 140. That was a nice, safe, comfortable airplane, but it taught students nothing about spins and very little about stalls. In that sense the competition (C-150, BE19) were superior trainers. The Tomahawk was intended to have more of an "edge" to its handling envelope.
 
No experience flying but a buddy took me up for a short flight. I absolutely loved the visibility.
 
Flew them when they came out in the mid 70s. Flew them as part of my ppl trainIng. Great vis and comfort. Hated the stalling and spin characteristics.
 
Didn't the Tomahawk have a wing spar that was only good for 11k hours unless it was upgraded? I remember reading a warning somewhere about PA38s purchased from a flight school.
 
LandSickness said:
Didn't the Tomahawk have a wing spar that was only good for 11k hours unless it was upgraded? I remember reading a warning somewhere about PA38s purchased from a flight school.
Click to expand...

Most aircraft certified under today's regulations have a life limit on key components. Grummans do, Cirri do, and Tomahawks do. It is a fact of the modern certification process.
 
kyleb said:
Most aircraft certified under today's regulations have a life limit on key components. Grummans do, Cirri do, and Tomahawks do. It is a fact of the modern certification process.
Click to expand...
Yep. Single-engine Commanders, for example, have a wing service life of between 6,945 and 19,284 hours, depending on model.
 
LandSickness said:
Didn't the Tomahawk have a wing spar that was only good for 11k hours unless it was upgraded? I remember reading a warning somewhere about PA38s purchased from a flight school.
Click to expand...

I looked into that and the one I will be flying has only about 5.5K hours TT.
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
Yep. Single-engine Commanders, for example, have a wing service life of between 6,945 and 19,284 hours, depending on model.
Click to expand...

I love that, where did those numbers come from? You think they won't make 7000 or 20,000 respectively?:dunno:
 
I flown about 30 different Tomahawks. Did 100's of spins. No problems.
 
Henning said:
I love that, where did those numbers come from? You think they won't make 7000 or 20,000 respectively?:dunno:
Click to expand...
Per the TCDS for the Commander 112/114 series. No idea how the exact numbers were derived.

Service Life – all categories
Model 112, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 6945 hours maximum.
Model 112B, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 8878 hours maximum.
Model 112TC, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 10908 hours maximum.
Model 112TCA, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 7947 hours maximum.
Model 114, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 19284 hours maximum.
Model 114A and 114B, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 14812 hours maximum.
Model 114TC, the service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 10349 hours maximum.
Click to expand...

For the Tomahawk:
The service life of the wing and associated structure has been established as 11,000 hours time-in-service (TIS).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I liked the little Traumahawk I flew years ago. Did spins in it regularly. As I recall it was pretty easy as long as you entered from a nice power off, sraight ahead stall and then used the proper recovery procedure. IIRC, we usually kept it to a max of 2 1/2 turns.
 
The first time around in my flight training in 1979 I was flying the Tomahawk. Solo'd N2421K in 8 hrs. We spun the heck out of that thing! I always thought it was a fun little airplane to fly. Would love to find one to fly again just for old time sake
 
To date, the Tomahawk is the only Piper I've flown (flew pax in a Cherokee once). It's a trainer and it's as docile as any trainer. Easy peasy.
 
When you are doing stalls is tommy, do not look out the back window, what you will see will scare the hell out of you.
 
Tom-D said:
When you are doing stalls is tommy, do not look out the back window, what you will see will scare the hell out of you.
Click to expand...

That's the only thing by buddy with one doesn't like. That T-tail shakes like a de-toxing heroin junkie when you get close to the stall. :D

I've ridden in his a few times...good vis, roomy cockpit, nice handling. Not much to hate about it.
 
Henning said:
The thing the Tomahawk does that is a bit cheesy is that it wobbles around when you turn taxiing. It's like driving a car with wornout shocks and suspension bushings.
Click to expand...

That was my observation of Mooneys.
 
I was in your shoes 3000 hours ago, had about 70 hours total in 152s and 172s only, found a flying club with Tomahawks, ended up buying one of them and that was 3000 hours and 2 engines ago! Very stable landing gear, in heavy wind shear and turbulence you can just fly them right over the runway and chop the power and set it down. I love mine and never felt the need to get a bigger ship.Honestly can't recall how the flaps on a 152 feel any more but full flaps on the Tomahawk feels like an elevator ride straight down to me, it will get you down very steep.
 
kyleb said:
Most aircraft certified under today's regulations have a life limit on key components. Grummans do, Cirri do, and Tomahawks do. It is a fact of the modern certification process.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. I only knew of the Commanders. I thought lifetime limits on single engine pistons were very rare.
 
rbridges said:
I didn't know that. I only knew of the Commanders. I thought lifetime limits on single engine pistons were very rare.
Click to expand...

They are because most of the airplanes out in the field were certified under the earlier reg's. Your Mooney is a 1950's design, Cherokees are from the '60's, C-172's are '50's or earlier, etc.

I'm too lazy to google the date of the changed certification stds, but it was in the late 60's or early 70's, iirc.
 
The vis is far superior to a 150/152 (or any high-wing Cessna). It's kinda comfy, compared to a 150/152/172, as well. Look for the stall strips on the leading edges (two per, if memory serves). I really don't have any memories of peculiar/unique characteristics, or remember the stall and spin being awful.

Heck, a 150 spins about 76 degrees nose down, as I recall, which, to my mind, is better than a flatter angle. I don't remember the Tomahawk being significantly different. I seem to remember it was almost land-o-matic, with a little bit of that "self-flaring" effect.

It handles about like most of the two place trainers, except the Grumman AA-1, which is a "unique" and fun airplane that is a little bit "peculiar". Capable of some aerobatics, or so I was told, but with a wretched safety record without some conversion training. Then I hear it levels out.
 
hankrausch said:
I was in your shoes 3000 hours ago, had about 70 hours total in 152s and 172s only, found a flying club with Tomahawks, ended up buying one of them and that was 3000 hours and 2 engines ago! Very stable landing gear, in heavy wind shear and turbulence you can just fly them right over the runway and chop the power and set it down. I love mine and never felt the need to get a bigger ship.Honestly can't recall how the flaps on a 152 feel any more but full flaps on the Tomahawk feels like an elevator ride straight down to me, it will get you down very steep.
Click to expand...


I think a lot of people missed that, but great to see someone bought a Tomahawk and discovered it was all the plane they needed!!! 3000 hours in the same plane is a milestone not often accomplished. :yes:
 
For what it's worth, there is a wing spar life extension STC available: http://www.sterlingaviationtech.com/products/wing-life-extension/

I don't think the OP's worried about that though, so back to his original question:

Pay attention to weight/balance (mostly weight). It's easy to go over gross with two full-size adults and full tanks.

I did my primary training in Tomahawks and agree they're fun planes to fly. The panel will feel familiar from your Warrior experience, except for the giant fuel selector knob right in the middle of the panel (which is handy).

Flaps don't have near the effect on flight characteristics as Warrior flaps do.

The stock engine has 112hp. There's a fairly common upgrade to 125hp ("Sparrowhawk"). I've flown both and the extra 13hp makes a noticeable difference.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top