Why does the PA-38 Tomahawk have a wing life of 11,000 hours?

[fireflybob]

I have flown and stalled the PA38 today and survived!

mad jock, A & C, flyingmac - agree with all your comments there!

Having returned to the fray of basic flying instruction (which I love) some of the BS and old wives tales one hears about the Tommie are fatuous to say the least.

Great little trainer!

[mad_jock]

well done Fire and I do hope you used the correct approach speed.

To note instructors I didn't try and retrain the guy who was on check. He was safe so I left him alone and it was only a debrief comment afterwards.

It was at his own request that we went and did circuits using full flap. Maybe being chilled about things being different even though they are stupid as long as they are safe. Actually encourages pilots to come in for more instruction.

[cavortingcheetah]

As I remember, from many years ago, when the PA38 was launched the aircraft was certified for spinning. Indeed, one of it's rationales was as a spinner trainer.
However, in the beginning the handbook called for a standard spin recovery as in releasing the back pressure on the control column. This rather half hearted action could lead to the spin tightening up or the aircraft entering an inverted spin. Several pilots in the US died as a result of PA 38s spinning in. The handbook was, I believe, subsequently changed to reflect control column fully forward.
In South Africa we took delivery of a couple of PA38s at FAGC and used to operate them at a pressure altitude of some 5,500ft in the summer with temperatures up at 30c. With a density altitude of around 8,500 ft (or whatever, no whizz wheel to hand) you simply couldn't climb to more than 7,500/ 8,000 ft.
We therefor used to demonstrate spinning to the student, through one turn only. If any student asked for more torture we'd do it again only this time ask the pupil to observe the tailplane at spin entry and rotation. No one ever came back for thirds.

[mad_jock]

They put rumble strips on the wing after the yank accidents.

And I have never needed to push the stick forward to get it to come out of a spin. Centralised the controls apply opposite rudder it will speed up initially then come out nicely.

If you do push forward even slightly when it comes out you get a spectacular bunt.

In the UK they had an incident which they put down to the student waving there arms round in the cockpit. So they made it you couldn't spin it unless it had a 4 point harness fitted. From my experience this is pretty much ignored if its even known about.

[cavortingcheetah]

http://www.snapflight.com/PA38-112_f...-112%20POH.pdf

Section 4-24 et seq refers to spins and recovery with a couple of caveats if you get it wrong.

That doesn't really help in answering the OP question unless you regard the PA38 as a throw away or Meccano machine?

[Piltdown Man]

The Tomahawk was Piper's idea of a Joke. And the punchline was giving it such a huge life. 50 hours would have been better. It's a nasty aircraft because it had such pathetically poor performance. But slow in a PA38 was quick for other aircraft. Thing would stall in the high forties giving rise to an approach speed in the high fifties, early sixties. Only it's redeeming features were its spinning, stalling slow flying characteristics. This is because you can demonstrate and practice them properly. But I think what used to really worry people was seeing the tail shake and wobble in the spin.

PM

[mad_jock]

That's quite a bit different to the UK POH.

I don't have access to a UK POH. 2001 rings a bell for the latest update which I presume was the 4 point harness thing.

They changed it a bit, they also had there own TP's redo the spin recovery.

I never needed forward controls and recovered in the 1-1.5 turns.

62knts is the official final approach speed though.

And pit that's what the instructors said they wanted when piper surveyed them before designing it. Its designed as a trainer and has no real other function. And as a trainer it fills the job well and teaches people to fly properly. Its not really the aircrafts fault if the people teaching in them can't fly properly and have there heads full of old wives tales.

[cavortingcheetah]

That's just about it. Piper canvassed thousands of instructors and then produced this paragon of a trainer precisely as requested. It had no other function apart from the entertainment factor when the wings fell off at 11,000 hours.

[A and C]

To be more blunt than Jock I find those who don't like the PA38 are those who have failed to see it as a tool to teach people to fly well, in that it is much better than a C152.

The PA38 shows up the students faults very well and makes any inability to teach from the instructor very obvious, may be that is why some people dislike the aircraft so much.

I would far rather have two PA38's than the C152's that I do have but the lack of parts and airframe life make that a non starter.

[Lone_Ranger]

But I think what used to really worry people was seeing the tail shake and wobble in the spin

How odd............ I've never turned my head to look behind when spinning.........I've obviously been wrongly taught

[rustyflyer]

I know this thread started out about wing life but the discussions about stalling prompted me to post.
As someone who trained in Tomahawks I found them OK but the lack of payload was a joke. Luckily Hawarden has a nice long runway!
I found stalling uneventful but never experienced a spin and can't remember if they were allowed.
I learned at Hawarden with CFS, one of who's instructors was was teaching for a different school at that airfield until August 2012 in Tommys when he & a student tragically lost their lives in one. This really rattled me as he was a career instructor with masses of hours. The Investigation Report was published a year later and the cause was put down to a spin which was not recovered, probably due to insufficient altitude.
I'm posting this as the bit that I find truly chilling is that a new revision to the POH was received by the school a month after the accident giving advice on safe altitudes for stall training which were substantially higher than those used by instructors at that, and I guess other, flying schools. This amendment was based on a US NTSB Safety Recommendation from 1997!
Here's a link to the report for anyone who wants some further reading:

Air Accidents Investigation: Piper PA-38-112 Tomahawk, G-BODP

Just thought this might be worth sharing or reminding people of....

Russ Ware

RIP John & Karl

[fireflybob]

My father instructed on (amongst others) the Miles Magister during WW2.

Post war he continued instructing and was still examining when he was 81 years.

When the Tommie came on line and there was the odd spinning incident/accident he commented that it was like the Magister all over again and that it had a "reputation" for spinning which was quite undeserved so long as you knew the correct recovery etc.

In the days when I taught spinning on a/c like the Chippie I also made sure the student understood the "conservation of angular momentum" amongst other things wrt spin recovery.

When I was a (civilian employed) military flying instructor part of the course was "high rotational" spinning - with the "student" mishandling a recovery and the instructor taking over control to recover. Also part of the brief was action in the event of intercom failure.

That said I have a healthy respect for spinning any aircraft. Make sure you are within the weight and centre of gravity limits and that you have read and understood the recovery procedure as specified in the POH/FM. Also track down a competent instructor who knows what he/she is doing!

Sadly as the "oldies " retire these skills are being lost and are therefore not passed on and hence the old wives tales abound.

[mixture]

I find those who don't like the PA38 are those who have failed to see it as a tool to teach people to fly well

I see it as a tool to teach people about stalls and spins.

For the rest of your flight training, there's no need to subject to yourself to the discomfort and slow speeds, particularly when you start doing navex and cross-countries !

I dislike it for the correct reasons.

[Mickey Kaye]

There still a few of us around who knew you old man.

looking back I was perhaps a little foolish. Coming out of a spin downwind was perhaps something that I would not recommend in a Tomahawk these days. But back then it was my standard join.

And cfi Harris never found out either. Which gives a little added satisfaction - he had my arse for pretty well everything else.

Great times and I don't care what anyone says I think its a great training aircraft.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Originally Posted by mixture

I see it as a tool to teach people about stalls and spins.

For the rest of your flight training, there's no need to subject to yourself to the discomfort and slow speeds, particularly when you start doing navex and cross-countries !

I dislike it for the correct reasons.

So how many types would you use in a PPL course? I've generally felt that allowing a student to get to know one type throughout was best.


I like the PA38 - it has excellent ergonomics and good visibility out, bites a bit at the stall, flies like it's slightly out of forward CG thus requiring good trimming and attitude control. I've flown it for various reasons over my career, and would be very happy to be asked to instruct on it.

I can't see why being slow is a bad thing for nav - it both gives a bit more thinking time, and makes it more susceptible to drift, forcing good navigational practice. 85 knots or so is a good enough speed to learn at for the purpose.

On net I think it is a bit better training aeroplane than the C152 - it teaches fuel management better than the 152, creates more respect for the stall, and requires a bit more attention to handling and trimming.

Both can be spun - but I decline to deliberately spin anything I can't jump out of.

G

[mad_jock]

I can't really answer your post without being disrespectful of the dead.

I suspect he had never spun one before as you can normally recover in 1000ft. The spinning up when applying full rudder before slowing down was usually the fall over point for Cessna instructors. They usually released the rudder when it started to speed up rotating.

So it was more than likely nothing to do with the aircraft behaving strangely.

And there are other things you can get with students. If they are big lads they can lock on the controls. If you not strong yourself and quick about it you can get into trouble in any aircraft type. Standing on one pedal as if its the brake on a car with the force of an elephant on cocaine happens occasionally. And you would be surprised what adrenalin does to even the small ones as well.

I can't see how you can say its uncomfortable compared to the other two seat trainers. Its roomy you don't have play the closing door game. You can reach the fuel valve. The seat goes right back. Good visibility from both seats. 90knts is a very good speed to be teach nav at. Decent ventilation at leg and face level. Heater works a treat even in -10 degs at MSL in Scotland.

[A and C]

Facts ?

The PA38 uses the same engine as the Cessna 152 flys at more or less the same speed in the cruise burns the same amount of fuel and is easy to climb into. It is more comfortable to fly in with much better visibility than the Cessna 152.

So why don't people like it ?

It's because they know what they know and don't want to be confused with the facts.

It is a very good trainer that is economically handicapped by the spar life... That is fact not flying club folklore or prejudice and delivered from the owner of two Cessna 152's who would be operating two PA38's if the finances were equal.

[cavortingcheetah]

The training merits of the PA38 notwithstanding, I can assure you that, on a cross country, down here around 23S and in summertime, there's no comparison in the comfort stakes between a Cessna and the aforementioned aircraft. Ridiculous as it may sound, but highly apposite under the circumstances, bubble domes in this part of the world combined with long time exposure to a high altitude sun may, or might not, be an inflammatory agent in malignant melanoma of the neck and face.
One further small point. Down here in summertime, we started flying at 06.00 and often finished at 18.00. Six hours in the circuit in a PA38 followed by a Navex is a tad more wearing than the same in just about anything else. No doubt the same sort of complaint would apply in Arizona in the equivalent season?

[mad_jock]

That might be fair point. In Scotland when it rarely got into those sorts of temps its way more comfy than a Cessna equiv type.

[cavortingcheetah]

Of course, that was in the good old days when barnstorming still existed and I numbered, among my pupils, industrialists, surgeons and a bishop whose pre flight checks left more in the hands of his god than I was prepared to leave in the hands of mine.