Are Piper Tomahawks dangerous in general?

kyleb said:
Crass would have been "all". I thought "most" was pretty accurate. But if you want to spend your existance picking the fly-poop from the pepper, knock yourself out.
Click to expand...
now you used the word "most".....which ones are not underpowered? F-4, F-15E, F-111, F-35....?:yikes::goofy:
 
I new a guy who crashed in a Tomahawk and almost died. He was on his first solo, hyperventilated from the excitement, passed out and did a descending turn into the ground from pattern altitude, opps. The aircraft rolled up into a ball of aluminum. EMS had to cut him out. He broke nearly every bone in his body, but lived. True story

See, Tomahawks are dangerous.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
now you used the word "most".....which ones are not underpowered? F-4, F-15E, F-111, F-35....?:yikes::goofy:
Click to expand...

Having flown both the F-111 and the F-4, I can say with assurance that neither was ever considered a "2-seat trainer", and unless the design changed since I worked on the program, neither is the F-35. Now if you want to talk about the T-37/38/45, those would be 2-seat trainers.
 
I flew one in 1977/78 during my primary training. It was nice to fly; but part of the pts in Canada was incipient spins. i personally did not like its spin characteristics.
 
Last edited:
Just remember the ADs on the VS are from spins and their recovery. and why we have repetitive inspections of that area.

If you ever have the chance, go spin a PA-38, but watch the tail during the spin and recovery, you'll never do it again unless you have a death wish.

It's impressive how much shake rattle and roll happens back there.
 
Tom-D said:
Just remember the ADs on the VS are from spins and their recovery. and why we have repetitive inspections of that area.
Click to expand...

They are from the tail buffeting at high AOA. Funny enough, the worst outcome has been the the start of a crack.

F-15A (and I think some F/A 18) vertical stabs had similar issues due to buffeting at high AOA.
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
It's funny because it's true.
Click to expand...

Of course, that's good experience. Folks who learn in 172 with just the instructor or solo, get a hard lesson when they decide to load it up with three of their buddies right after they get their license.

Our flying club used to do a "full gross" 172 stage check as part of the syllabus. I've been along on a few of those as ballast. The scary one was when the student tried to demonstrate a departure stall just after takeoff. That is when I heard what I refer to as the "CFI death scream." This is a noise he makes only when he is fighting the controls trying to avoid imminent death.

I think the words were something like "If you drop this thing on its tail we're all going to die."
 
Hmm, I slightly disagree w/ C172. I've never noticed much difference in handling on a C172 between solo and 4-on w/full tanks. Definitely don't see any hard lessons there.
 
Great little plane, I instructed in some of the very first ones when they were new . Spin recovery is as with any plane just a little interesting if you look at the tail in the spin.
 
kyleb said:
F-15A (and I think some F/A 18) vertical stabs had similar issues due to buffeting at high AOA.
Click to expand...
f18_46.jpg


You'd crack too if you got hit by a tornado every flight :D

Nauga,
and his LEX fence
 
There are a lot of folks out there that have other than positive things to say about them… These are usually the ones that have never flown them..

I have over 300 hours in these planes and I believe a dozen or so spins.. And these were in some of the first planes to come out of Lock Haven before all the hype...

What some have said here regarding this plane… if you have any sloppy habits… they’ll be exposed real quick. And it can be a good IFR trainer/platform if the rigging is right and true.

Yes the wing has an 11,000 hour service limit, as does the Beech Skipper and a few others. This does not have to do with the plane itself… It’s something the FAA came up with for all planes certified after I believe 1975 or something… I had asked as to how this is a not a problem with the 152 and was told the wing was the same as the 150… Don’t hold my hand to the fire on this... With that, there is a kit to extend the wing life to 18,500 hours…

You can get a great deal on them nowadays… just make sure AD 82-27-08 has been looked after. Some folks have rescued these from the flight schools and have put a lot of love into them..
 
mtuomi said:
Hmm, I slightly disagree w/ C172. I've never noticed much difference in handling on a C172 between solo and 4-on w/full tanks. Definitely don't see any hard lessons there.
Click to expand...

Umm, you were lucky. A lot of students learn this the hard way especially at higher density altitudes. And given how sloppy most students are with trim, butting 350 pounds more in the back seat will cause a substantial change.
 
Ventucky Red said:
You can get a great deal on them nowadays… just make sure AD 82-27-08 has been looked after. Some folks have rescued these from the flight schools and have put a lot of love into them..
Click to expand...

I've always thought that the Tommy would make an ideal short distance commuter plane. As an IFR platform, would you recommend an auto pilot for day to day flying?
 
Ventucky Red said:
Yes the wing has an 11,000 hour service limit, as does the Beech Skipper and a few others. This does not have to do with the plane itself… It’s something the FAA came up with for all planes certified after I believe 1975 or something… I had asked as to how this is a not a problem with the 152 and was told the wing was the same as the 150…
Click to expand...

Aircraft certified under the newer CAR23 have wing life limits. The low-wing Commander singles, for example, have wing life limits of 6,945 hours to over 19,000 hours, depending on model.

The C-152 not only has the same wing as the C-150, it is certified under the C-150's type certificate, and thus is governed by the old rules.
 
DMD3. said:
For someone who has no spin-recovery experience (and doesn't want any without a qualified CFI in the right seat :eek:), would a Traumahawk be dangerous be dangerous as far as regular straight-and-level flight is concerned?

Some people say that once in a spin, they won't recover. I know this to be false because I've seen them recovered in videos on youtube. Others say that while they can be recovered, you have to execute the full spin-recovery procedure; powering to idle and ailerons to neutral won't cut it like it will in many other aircraft.
Click to expand...

No... Tomahawks are ok.
 
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...PA-advocates-for-owners-of-aging-aircraft-(2)

Most GA aircraft flying today were certified under the old CAR 3 standards, which did not set a life-limit for aircraft components. Newer aircraft (such as the Commander 112 and 114 and the offerings from Cirrus and Lancair) are certified under FAR Part 23, which requires the manufacturer to establish a life-limit - in flight hours - for critical structures such as wing spars. For example, the pressurized P58 Baron (unlike its siblings in the Beechcraft line) is Part 23 certified and has a 10,000-hour wing spar limit. Cirrus aircraft have a 12,000-hour limit on the wing. The Commander single-engine models range from 6,945 to 19,284 hours maximum life on the wing.

So does that mean that 10,000 hours would be a ballpark figure for the life of CAR 3 aircraft? Not necessarily. For Part 23-certificated aircraft, the life-limit is what the manufacturer has chosen to prove to the FAA - the structure actually has a much greater safety margin built in. So 10,000 hours might be very conservative.
Click to expand...
 
Dav8or said:
I've always thought that the Tommy would make an ideal short distance commuter plane. As an IFR platform, would you recommend an auto pilot for day to day flying?
Click to expand...

I have seen some owners put a lot into these planes, duel Garmin 430s etc.... but have never seen an auto pilot...

That said, wouldn't be something I would do... I would rather beef up the HP on the 0-235 to 125 HP and give her a little more umph to keep ATC happy.
 
Ventucky Red said:
I have seen some owners put a lot into these planes, duel Garmin 430s etc.... but have never seen an auto pilot...

That said, wouldn't be something I would do... I would rather beef up the HP on the 0-235 to 125 HP and give her a little more umph to keep ATC happy.
Click to expand...

The Sparrowhawk conversion is nice, very small improvement on speed, but a nice affect on rate of climb and T/O performance.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
I'd say that 85% of the part 23 certified aircraft out there do not have any life limited airframe parts.
Pretty much everything certified from 1968 and on are all part 23. The entire Grumman AA1, AA5 etc for example.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the AA1 has a life limit on the spar.
 
bnt83 said:
I'd say that 85% of the part 23 certified aircraft out there do not have any life limited airframe parts.
Pretty much everything certified from 1968 and on are all part 23. The entire Grumman AA1, AA5, entire Cessna 177, 177B and 177RG are all part 23 certified.
Click to expand...
The AA-1's have no limited life components.

The AA-5x's have seven -- the center wing spar, the two outer wing spars, and the four wing shoulder bolts. The spars are 12,000 and 12,500 hours, which isn't much of a problem given the fleet is mostly running around 4000 hours. The shoulder bolts are 7250 hours, and cost about $150 for the complete set of four, plus a couple of hours for the work, and many of them were changed out early as part of an AD about 15 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
The AA-1's have no limited life components.

The AA-5x's have seven -- the center wing spar, the two outer wing spars, and the four wing shoulder bolts. The spars are 12,000 and 12,500 hours, which isn't much of a problem given the fleet is mostly running around 4000 hours. The shoulder bolts are 7250 hours, and cost about $150 for the complete set of four, plus a couple of hours for the work, and many of them were changed out early as part of an AD about 15 years ago.
Click to expand...

Question out of curiosity, where is the spar serial numbers located, and are the time life records required to be kept in the Aircraft history records? Can they be tracked as the AFTT, went they have never been changed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top