"Traumatized"

[Tomahawk674]

I get teased a lot for flying the Tomahawk, but it's never given me a scare. Well, turns out that talking with a CFI the other day, he told me he got into a spin with a student while practicing stalls. The day was hot and the density altitude high, they were at 3800msl when one of their stalls got out of hand, wing dropped and it went into a spin, 3 rotations before they could get it back, which left them at 2500msl, which translates to about 1600agl. He told me he learned his lesson, and he will never do stalls that low again, although to me it doesn't seem that low of an altitude to do stalls, or is it?

 

[Ken Ibold]

Well, at the risk of opening a huge can of worms, this has been one of the criticisms of Tomahawks since the early days -- stall/spin handling can be unpredictable. The reasons have never been definitively determined, and some deny any problem exists. And then you run into incidents like this.

A similar incident happened to Bill Kelly (in the plane with his son, as I recall) after the airplane was certified. Remember Bill was Piper's chief engineering test pilot. It scared him so badly -- and the solution to the problem so elusive -- that he recommended to Piper they buy back all of the Tomahawks that had been sold up to that point and scrap them.

I personally subscribe to the theory that the post-certification design change that resulted in the number of wing ribs being cut can, under some unknown combinations of load, temperature and power, lead to oil-canning of the wing skins and subsequent unpredictable combinations of drag and lift.

 

[Tom-D]

I'm too lazy today to look it up, but I think there is an AD inspection due any time the Tomahawk is spun.

check it out before you fly it again.

 

[poadeleted20]

Ken and I are both familiar with John Lowery's writings on the subject, and I have never seen his hypotheses scientifically refuted. Based on those writings, I, too, think that it is unwise to intentionally spin a Tomahawk, and that one should do stalls with a lot more air below than in other planes of its class -- even more than the AA-1x series, which, while placarded against spins, is not known for surprising people by spinning without being abused.

 

[woodstock]

wow, I think I'd want to be at least 5-6K AGL before doing a stall period.

 

[Tim]

A friend of mine and his dad where killed in tomahawk.

 

[jesse]

I normally do stalls at 3,000 to 3,500 MSL which translates to 1695 to 2195 AGL.

I have never had a stall get out of hand or allow a wing to drop since once incident during my primary training...But I haven't flown as many aircraft as some of you.

I did get a lesson in the advantage of stalling at high altitudes twice though. Neither of which had absolutely anything to do with the risk of stalling/spinning into the ground.

Lesson 1
Beechcraft Sierra..Way the hell up there..6,000 feet or something I don't recall exactly. I did a poweroff stall and went to add power during recovery and the throttle failed. Turned for the airport and glided back for a safe landing on the runway. There really wasn't much altitude to spare though..Another half mile and it would have been ugly.

Lesson 2
Cessna 150..Stalling around maybe 1700AGL .. I don't remember.. Carb Ice formed and the engine quit. I was a little ****ed at myself for not being higher as I glided for a field. I kept messing with the primer, throttle, etc..and finally got it restarted as I setup on final for the field.

wow, I think I'd want to be at least 5-6K AGL before doing a stall period.

When I fly I try to get every dollar out of it that I can. It just takes too long to climb to 5-6,000 AGL. Perhaps some of you are willing to spend the extra dollar to get up there. But I'm not.

 

[Greebo]

It depends somewhat on the plane, of course, Jesse. Stall practice in a C172 is quite reasonable at 2-3k AGL because of the ease of recovery. (I wouln't advocate stall training that low just because training means learning which requires more room to maneuver.) If the tomahawk has somewhat unpredictable behaviors, then a much better margin of comfort is appropriate.

 

[NC Pilot]

When I fly I try to get every dollar out of it that I can. It just takes too long to climb to 5-6,000 AGL. Perhaps some of you are willing to spend the extra dollar to get up there. But I'm not.

I usually cruise around 7K to 10K. Temperatures more pleasant, winds a little more, which is sometimes an advantage, sometimes not and more options if something happens.

Time to climb is not a big issue. From 5K to 8K is what 6 minutes?

 

[tonycondon]

Time to climb is not a big issue. From 5K to 8K is what 6 minutes?

Yes in your 182RG

No in the 150s Jesse and I fly. Climbing to 5000 itself is often a chore this time of the year. Rates of 3-400 fpm are considered excellent during the day.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I get teased a lot for flying the Tomahawk, but it's never given me a scare. Well, turns out that talking with a CFI the other day, he told me he got into a spin with a student while practicing stalls. The day was hot and the density altitude high, they were at 3800msl when one of their stalls got out of hand, wing dropped and it went into a spin, 3 rotations before they could get it back, which left them at 2500msl, which translates to about 1600agl. He told me he learned his lesson, and he will never do stalls that low again, although to me it doesn't seem that low of an altitude to do stalls, or is it?

Just curious if anyone knows the figures on how many copies of the Traumahawk are out there and/or were manufactured and the accident rate in the stall/spin/crash category?

 

[jason]

AOPA has a stall/spin study (PDF) with some numbers. See page 4...

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

AOPA has a stall/spin study (PDF) with some numbers. See page 4...

Thanks.
The article's blue shaded insert on the right side of page 4 seems to sum up the situation accurately.

 

[tonycondon]

there was a link to an NTSB report on here or studentpilot recently with quite a bit of info from the designer of the tomahawk discussing the difference between his prototype and the production model. mostly that the production model does not have as stiff of a wing, so it can/will flex and drastically alter stall/spin characteristics. Also mentions they had to get pretty creative just to make the airplane certifiable for stalls.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Don't EVER look at the tail when you stall a Tomahawk ...

there was a link to an NTSB report on here or studentpilot recently with quite a bit of info from the designer of the tomahawk discussing the difference between his prototype and the production model. mostly that the production model does not have as stiff of a wing, so it can/will flex and drastically alter stall/spin characteristics. Also mentions they had to get pretty creative just to make the airplane certifiable for stalls.