What's so bad about the Traumahawk?
- Thread starter mhcasey
- Start date
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
I did my initial training in a Tomahawk all the way up through first solo. Before solo my instructor took me up and we did spin training. This was before they started falling apart during spins.
Read this: http://www.ozaeros.flyer.co.uk/tomahawk/tomahawk.htm
Typhoonpilot
Read this: http://www.ozaeros.flyer.co.uk/tomahawk/tomahawk.htm
Typhoonpilot
typhoonpilot
Well-Known Member
Here's more:
Report FT 118 indicates that stall certification flights were performed on one airplane, N38PA, which was built at Piper's Vero Beach, Florida, facility. (A second airplane, N381PT, was used during the last week of the certification flight test program for lighting and vibration tests; however, no stall tests were performed using this airplane.) During the program, stalls were tested on 13 flights, and no unsatisfactory stall characteristics were reported.
After certification was granted, Piper moved production of the PA-38-112 to the company's Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, facility, where more than 2,400 PA-38-112 airplanes were built between 1978 and 1982, when production ceased. The Safety Board has learned of reports of significant differences in the stall characteristics between the certification-tested airplane and the production airplanes.
According to testimony from a Piper engineer,(5) shortly after delivery of production airplanes began, owners and operators of the airplane complained that the lateral directional characteristics at the stall were abrupt and unpredictable, and that the airplane exhibited a rapid roll as the stall occurred. In 1979, in an attempt to improve the airplane's stall characteristics, Piper modified the wing design of the PA-38-112 by adding two additional stall strips.(6) An airworthiness directive (AD 83-14-08) mandated that all existing airplanes be retrofitted with the additional stall strips.
However, the additional stall strips may not have solved the problems with the stall characteristics. According to an August 1982, Aviation Safety article, "Test pilots and flight instructors have found that both the two-strip and four-strip Tomahawks have a tendency to drop a wing (as much as 90 degrees) in an intended straight-ahead stall if prompt and positive recovery controls are not used."
In an April 1995 letter to the Safety Board, a former test pilot, employed by Piper at the Lock Haven facility from 1978 to 1984, stated that the production PA-38-112 aircraft that he flew were "totally unpredictable, one never knew in which direction they would roll-off, or to what degree, as the result of a stall." These sentiments were echoed by a second former test pilot, employed by Piper at the Lock Haven facility for a least six years beginning in 1979, in a January 1997 interview with a Safety Board investigator. He stated that "the airplanes were very unpredictable in a stall. Each airplane did not perform stalls the same from one flight to the other."
In January 1997, Safety Board staff interviewed a third former test pilot, employed by Piper from 1973 to 1978, who held the company title of chief pilot and served as the FAA Delegation Option Authority (DOA) and Designated Engineering Representative (DER). He stated that the production PA-38-112 airplanes built at the Lock Haven facility were "nothing like the article certified [by the FAA] as far as stall characteristics are concerned." He reported that Piper test pilots who performed post-production flight tests were "shocked at the stall characteristics observed." He claimed that the additional stall strips did not eliminate the stall/spin defects that he observed in the airplane.
The Safety Board attempted to determine if the FAA had ever evaluated the stall characteristics of production PA-38-112 airplanes, in either the two-strip or four-strip wing configuration. In a letter dated March 3, 1997, the FAA informed the Safety Board, "We requested that Piper search the DOA files for any indication that the FAA was involved in any such testing, and the search did not reveal any such tests. Piper conducted stall/spin tests at their Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, facility prior to the issuance of AD 83-14-08; however, only Piper DOA flight test pilots participated, the FAA was not involved in these tests."
The Safety Board is concerned that production PA-38-112s may have stall characteristics different from those documented on the single pre-production airplane used during the original certification program. Therefore, the Safety Board believes that the FAA should expand the upcoming certification flight test program to include a minimum of two test airplanes, and should document any changes necessary to bring these test airplanes into conformance with the type certificate.
Report FT 118 indicates that stall certification flights were performed on one airplane, N38PA, which was built at Piper's Vero Beach, Florida, facility. (A second airplane, N381PT, was used during the last week of the certification flight test program for lighting and vibration tests; however, no stall tests were performed using this airplane.) During the program, stalls were tested on 13 flights, and no unsatisfactory stall characteristics were reported.
After certification was granted, Piper moved production of the PA-38-112 to the company's Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, facility, where more than 2,400 PA-38-112 airplanes were built between 1978 and 1982, when production ceased. The Safety Board has learned of reports of significant differences in the stall characteristics between the certification-tested airplane and the production airplanes.
According to testimony from a Piper engineer,(5) shortly after delivery of production airplanes began, owners and operators of the airplane complained that the lateral directional characteristics at the stall were abrupt and unpredictable, and that the airplane exhibited a rapid roll as the stall occurred. In 1979, in an attempt to improve the airplane's stall characteristics, Piper modified the wing design of the PA-38-112 by adding two additional stall strips.(6) An airworthiness directive (AD 83-14-08) mandated that all existing airplanes be retrofitted with the additional stall strips.
However, the additional stall strips may not have solved the problems with the stall characteristics. According to an August 1982, Aviation Safety article, "Test pilots and flight instructors have found that both the two-strip and four-strip Tomahawks have a tendency to drop a wing (as much as 90 degrees) in an intended straight-ahead stall if prompt and positive recovery controls are not used."
In an April 1995 letter to the Safety Board, a former test pilot, employed by Piper at the Lock Haven facility from 1978 to 1984, stated that the production PA-38-112 aircraft that he flew were "totally unpredictable, one never knew in which direction they would roll-off, or to what degree, as the result of a stall." These sentiments were echoed by a second former test pilot, employed by Piper at the Lock Haven facility for a least six years beginning in 1979, in a January 1997 interview with a Safety Board investigator. He stated that "the airplanes were very unpredictable in a stall. Each airplane did not perform stalls the same from one flight to the other."
In January 1997, Safety Board staff interviewed a third former test pilot, employed by Piper from 1973 to 1978, who held the company title of chief pilot and served as the FAA Delegation Option Authority (DOA) and Designated Engineering Representative (DER). He stated that the production PA-38-112 airplanes built at the Lock Haven facility were "nothing like the article certified [by the FAA] as far as stall characteristics are concerned." He reported that Piper test pilots who performed post-production flight tests were "shocked at the stall characteristics observed." He claimed that the additional stall strips did not eliminate the stall/spin defects that he observed in the airplane.
The Safety Board attempted to determine if the FAA had ever evaluated the stall characteristics of production PA-38-112 airplanes, in either the two-strip or four-strip wing configuration. In a letter dated March 3, 1997, the FAA informed the Safety Board, "We requested that Piper search the DOA files for any indication that the FAA was involved in any such testing, and the search did not reveal any such tests. Piper conducted stall/spin tests at their Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, facility prior to the issuance of AD 83-14-08; however, only Piper DOA flight test pilots participated, the FAA was not involved in these tests."
The Safety Board is concerned that production PA-38-112s may have stall characteristics different from those documented on the single pre-production airplane used during the original certification program. Therefore, the Safety Board believes that the FAA should expand the upcoming certification flight test program to include a minimum of two test airplanes, and should document any changes necessary to bring these test airplanes into conformance with the type certificate.
mhcasey
Well-Known Member
Sounds pretty interesting. Are these crazy stall characteristics good for stall training though? It seems like the heightened challenge might prepare one for anything that could happen in a stall, or is it just plain dangerous?
The school I'm looking at charges 78/hr for the Tomahawk, which seems a little high. What do you guys think?
By the way, I did a search on the forums and there has been a good bit of discussion on this. Any fresh opinions are welcomed, though.
The school I'm looking at charges 78/hr for the Tomahawk, which seems a little high. What do you guys think?
By the way, I did a search on the forums and there has been a good bit of discussion on this. Any fresh opinions are welcomed, though.
FlySooner9
Well-Known Member
i've never flown the Hawk, but i have a few hours in the very similar BE77 Skipper. Sometimes i like it and sometimes i dont. If you had the choice i would deff say go with a 172 or Warrior. Just feel more like a plane to me. Skippers and Tomahawks are just so stinking small and slow.
SeanD
Well-Known Member
I have a few hours in the T-hawk. I enjoy flying it, nothing to worry about if your just doing level flight and basic turns. However when the time comes to practice stalls take the Warrior or something a little larger and more stable. That price isnt too bad. Its was $75 an hr at my last FBO school.
n57flyguy
Well-Known Member
its my current training aircraft:rawk:
I think the first problem they had was the engine faliure. Previously they had 125 Hp, which was underpowered. I hear the wing is different also. I get more for you guys when I go next Tuesday.
You guys are scaring me about stalls now!!!!
I think the first problem they had was the engine faliure. Previously they had 125 Hp, which was underpowered. I hear the wing is different also. I get more for you guys when I go next Tuesday.
You guys are scaring me about stalls now!!!!
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
This is opion only but I would do the training in the 172. I have flown a handful of piper and beech products but prefered the 172 to learn in and then teach in. The 172 has great handling and stall charateristics. It is an especially good platform for instrument training. Then the next step is the RG for the commercial.
bullmastiff
New Member
I flew a tomahoawk during my private. I cant remember anything out of the ordinary on stalls. However, I had hear the horror stories, so I was extremely vigilant when it came to keeping the ball centered on takeoff configuration stalls
DE727UPS said:
Or 2 of them for that. I'm still pissed that the guy who bought our FBO sold both of ours for 20k. Or maybe just more mad at myself for not buying them.
I think I'm at around 500hrs in the PA38s. They do exactly what they are supposed to do. In all those hours, and hundreds of stalls, never had one drop a wing unexpectedly. Sure, happens good in uncoordinated flight, but that is a great way to show students they do actually need a rudder.
Both ours sold to a guy up in Washington state, and he put them on a leaseback up there, and they are going strong still from the last I heard.
Start in a PA38, move to a PA28 if you want to carry more people, or do some instrument training.
Josh