Piper Tomahawk -- Worth Dying In?

Rich Stowell

unread,

Jun 4, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/4/97

to

SPECIAL SAFETY REPORT
Piper Tomahawk PA38-112 -- Worth Dying In?
compiled by Rich Stowell, June 4, 1997

See http://www.west.net/~rstowell/tomahawk.html
for the latest on this controversial topic.

Do it before you fly a Tomahawk again.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ Rich Stowell's ~~~~
~~~ Aviation Learning Center ~~~
~~ e-mail: rsto...@west.net ~~
~ http://www.west.net/~rstowell ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SI...@goodnet.com

unread,

Jun 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/5/97

to

In Calispell Montana, I saw the most appropriate use of a Tomahawk yet.
The FBO flew all C-150's and put their only Tomahawk out in the weeds in
front of the airport and used it as a bill board! The Tomahawk is a prime
example of what happens when a marketing department tries to be
engineers!!

In article <339653...@west.net>,

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

Peter Ashwood-Smith

unread,

Jun 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/6/97

to

>In Calispell Montana, I saw the most appropriate use of a Tomahawk yet.
>The FBO flew all C-150's and put their only Tomahawk out in the weeds in
>front of the airport and used it as a bill board! The Tomahawk is a prime
>example of what happens when a marketing department tries to be
>engineers!!

Folks can critisize those little "Spam Can 150's" all you like but
I'll bet they will be flying for another 20 years, long after all the
fiberglass planes are history.

So what is the scoop with the Tomahawk? Tail comes off or something?

Oh, wasn't there a Grob that fell apart a while back during a spin
or something down in Florida.

Cheers,

SI...@goodnet.com

unread,

Jun 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/6/97

to

After having owned a C-152 for 11 years, I'd have to agree with that
statement. The Tomahawk though, was really just part of an experiment
gone bad that Piper conducted during the the 70's to see if they could
sell more airplanes by putting T-Tails on them. The problem with that is
that it is very difficult to put together a strong enough structure back
there without adding a whole bunch of weight in the tail. Other T-tail
airplanes such as the Lance and Arrow had problems as well and many have
been converted back to a conventional tail. The Tomahawks that I flew
(back when they were Brand New) were pretty scary in a stall or spin
because the horizontal shook terribly in the buffet of the stall. The
Skipper is a heavier (stronger) built airplane, but paid the price in
performance. The C-152 outperformed both the Tomahawk and the Skipper
which is probably why it also outsold both of them. The best trainers to
come out of Piper is still the Cub/Super Cub airplanes. Personally, I
wouldn't spin any of the T-Tailed trainers!

In article <5n7ubl$3...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca>,

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------

Diablo Cat

unread,

Jun 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/6/97

to

On 6 Jun 1997 02:57:57 GMT, pet...@bnr.ca (Peter Ashwood-Smith) wrote:

> Folks can critisize those little "Spam Can 150's" all you like but
>I'll bet they will be flying for another 20 years, long after all the
>fiberglass planes are history.

There are currently flying fiberglass airplanes which are well over 20
years old now. Just like there are fiberglass cars over 20 years
old. Looking at the evidence, age of the matrix seems to be less of a
factor than orginally thought.

A lot of people don't like the traumahawk, something about the spin
characteristics. Not because it's fiberglass.

brian
--
Brian. D. Moffet, speaking for myself.
But you should know that :-)

00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu

unread,

Jun 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM6/8/97

to

In article <3398355...@news.ricochet.net>, bri...@ricochet.net (Diablo Cat) writes:
> On 6 Jun 1997 02:57:57 GMT, pet...@bnr.ca (Peter Ashwood-Smith) wrote:
>
>> Folks can critisize those little "Spam Can 150's" all you like but
>>I'll bet they will be flying for another 20 years, long after all the
>>fiberglass planes are history.
>
>
> There are currently flying fiberglass airplanes which are well over 20
> years old now. Just like there are fiberglass cars over 20 years
> old. Looking at the evidence, age of the matrix seems to be less of a
> factor than orginally thought.
>
> A lot of people don't like the traumahawk, something about the spin
> characteristics. Not because it's fiberglass.
>

Aviation Safety did a couple of articles on it. It seems that the
original drawings called for 13 ribs in the wing, but the production
version had just four -- if memory serves me correctly. Their report
was that the skins were not stiff enough and that the airfoil changed
unpredictably under stress and that it was a particular problem during
stall/spin with often fatal results.

These are not my assertions, but my memory of the AS article
assertions.
--

Nyal Z. Williams
00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu

ral...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 17, 2014, 7:39:12 AM3/17/14

to

On Sunday, June 8, 1997 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, 00nzwi...@bsuvc.bsu.edu wrote:
> In article <3398355...@news.ricochet.net>, bri...@ricochet.net (Diablo Cat) writes:
> > On 6 Jun 1997 02:57:57 GMT, pet...@bnr.ca (Peter Ashwood-Smith) wrote:
> >
> >> Folks can critisize those little "Spam Can 150's" all you like but
> >>I'll bet they will be flying for another 20 years, long after all the
> >>fiberglass planes are history.

> > A lot of people don't like the traumahawk, something about the spin
> > characteristics. Not because it's fiberglass.
> >
> Aviation Safety did a couple of articles on it. It seems that the
> original drawings called for 13 ribs in the wing, but the production
> version had just four -- if memory serves me correctly.

Where do these rumors come from!! The Tomahawk is an all metal airplane, not fiberglass. The number of ribs in the wings has been consistent from day one. The plane is fully certified for spins under FAR Part 23, which is much tougher certification than the C150/C152's CAR Part 3 certification. According to the AOPA Air Safety Foundation, there has NEVER been an in-flight structural failer in a Tomahawk in the airplane's history.

The Tomahawk has a large cabin which is much more comfortable than anything Cessna has ever built. (There's nothing wrong with the Cessna trainers, but for us guys over 6' tall they are not comfy!) The Tomahawk out performs the C152 in cruise, though it does take a bit more runway during takeoff and landing due largely to the T-Tail. The wing washout in early examples was not set right, which caused abrupt stalling, but that was fixed 30 years ago with stall strips and later production changes. Other than those first few 1978 planes, they stall gently and predictably, and recover from spins conventionally.

Anyone who's actually flown a Tomahawk loves the plane. I've owned mine for 10 years now, and it's been stable and reliable and cheap to operate. You can tell how reliable they are by trying to buy one with low hours! They're all well flown with many thousands of hours on the clock. Piper stopped making these planes in the mid 1980s because the market disappeared - the same reason Cessna stopped making their piston planes at the time - not because of any problem with the airplane itself.