Tomahawk spin testing - NASA

That elevator only recovery was not something I’d want to experience.
 
Great video, isn't it? I came across it a few years ago when a student bought a Tomahawk for his private training.
 
The whole point of the tommy was to allow it to spin for training.

I read a report on one flight the test engineers got in the plane wearing parachutes. When they returned to the ground after the test flight, they found they couldn't open the door as the latch had sprung (luckly didn't need to exit in flight). They had tools passed in through the "clear prop" window so they could disassemble the latching mechanism.
 
Put in many right seat hours in the "Trauma hawk" and, yes, it does spin.
 
Yup, I spun the crap outa the T-hawk I flew in 1979!
 
flyingron said:
The whole point of the tommy was to allow it to spin for training.

I read a report on one flight the test engineers got in the plane wearing parachutes. When they returned to the ground after the test flight, they found they couldn't open the door as the latch had sprung (luckly didn't need to exit in flight). They had tools passed in through the "clear prop" window so they could disassemble the latching mechanism.
Click to expand...


The "clear prop" window. :lol:

Well, I guess it makes about as much sense as "storm window."
 
I never used to let in a storm, but I use it all the time to yell "clear prop."
 
Nice video,all the naysayers ,should watch,before they condemn the airplane,out of rumors.
 
Salty said:
That elevator only recovery was not something I’d want to experience.
Click to expand...

Yeah that one wound up a bit didn’t it? Thought that was cool. Wasn’t exactly Pitts or Extra speeds but elevator only certainly sped up the rotation rate.
 
No Tomahawks, or even any real airplanes here, but one of my favorite videos:

 
Love to see a GA plane spinning with a narrative that sounds straight outta mission control.

No doubt a steely-eyed missile man behind the yoke. :)
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
Love to see a GA plane spinning with a narrative that sounds straight outta mission control.

No doubt a steely-eyed missile man behind the yoke. :)
Click to expand...

Didn’t really sound all that odd to me. Just describing what he was doing for the tape instead of having to write it all down in real time.

Flight test is busy in the cockpit unless the computers are logging everything for ya, and in the early 1970s that probably wasn’t the case here.
 
My first instructor used to call them "Traumahawks" because of their spin tendencies. Never flown one myself.
 
Flew about 20 Tomahawks. Good trainer. Did lots of spin training.
 
flyingron said:
The whole point of the tommy was to allow it to spin for training.
Click to expand...
Yep. The PA-38 was Piper's first purpose-built trainer in many years.

Since 1964 the primary trainer in the Piper flight school network was the Cherokee 140 -- a nice airplane, but really just a stop-gap modification of a sedate, four-seat family airplane. In the early '60s Piper had designed and flight tested a nifty little low-wing two seater with composite structure, the PA-29 Papoose. But its plastic laminate airframe did not hold up well, especially in direct sunlight, and the project was abandoned in 1963. Thus the Cherokee airframe was quickly pressed into service as Piper's front-line primary trainer (replacing the high-wing, tube-and-fabric Colt) until the PA-38 appeared in late 1977.

The Cherokee 140 was a safe, comfortable trainer, but was criticized as being "too easy" on students -- it was super-forgiving on landing, and a student could go through the whole syllabus without ever experiencing a "real" stall, let alone a spin. So when Piper designed a new trainer to compete with the established Cessna 150/152, they solicited a "wish list" from thousands of CFIs. The responses they got indicated that instructors (possibly frustrated with the Cherokee) wanted a primary trainer to have a little bit more of an "edge", to be able to demonstrate a full stall, maybe even a sharp but predictable one, and to demonstrate a spin if desired. The result was the Tomahawk.
 
PaulS said:
I learned in Beech Skippers, pretty similar airplanes except the Skipper is about 10 knots slower.
Click to expand...

Bizarre that the Skipper was markedly slower than the Tomahawk. Same general planform, same engine.
 
kyleb said:
Bizarre that the Skipper was markedly slower than the Tomahawk. Same general planform, same engine.
Click to expand...
It is curious. Piper quoted cruising speed of 108 KTAS for the Tomahawk at 75% power. Beech quoted 105 KTAS for the Skipper, but at 80% power! I'd have to guess that there are some nasty areas of interference drag on the Skipper's airframe, or maybe there's more cooling drag in the cowl. Or both.

Weights are just about equal. Skipper's gross weight is ten pounds more than the Tomahawk; advertised empty weight was eight pounds less. They both use the Lycoming O-235-L2C; the wings have the same NASA GA(W)-1 airfoil. Tomahawk does have a higher-aspect-ratio wing -- 34 foot span and 124.7 sq.ft. area, to the Skipper's span of only 30 feet but slightly more wing area, 129.8 sq.ft.
 
denverpilot said:
Didn’t really sound all that odd to me. Just describing what he was doing for the tape instead of having to write it all down in real time.
Click to expand...

I agree, not odd, but delivered in that concise engineer-ese delivery you'd hear at Houston during the Apollo missions. Kinda cool, actually.

I remember seeing some other Tomahawk videos showing how much the horiz. stab shakes during a stall.
 
My first plane was a '79 Tomahawk, that I bought in 1992. It was a fantastic first plane, and I spun the crap out of it. If I could get by with just a two-seater (I currently need three seats), I'd buy another one in a heartbeat...decent performance, very roomy, large back area for storage, great visibility, and 2400 TBO engine that was time-proven to usually make that 2400 and then some...
 
Pilot is the man. Thanks for the video upload
 
Pilawt said:
...The Cherokee 140 was a safe, comfortable trainer, but was criticized as being "too easy" on students -- it was super-forgiving on landing, and a student could go through the whole syllabus without ever experiencing a "real" stall, let alone a spin. ...
Click to expand...

I don't know where you're getting your information from Jeff but the Cherokee is one of the most difficult airframes to master. Those who do are among the most elite, skillful and best looking pilots in the world. Those who do not sadly, are no longer with us.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I don't know where you're getting your information from Jeff but the Cherokee is one of the most difficult airframes to master. Those who do are among the most elite, skillful and best looking pilots in the world. Those who do not sadly, are no longer with us.
Click to expand...
This man speaks the truth!

I got my PPL in a PA28. I was a real badass.

Then I flew my first taildragger and felt like the worst pilot ever.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top