Talk:Piper PA-38 Tomahawk

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Piper PA-38 Tomahawk. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Piper PA-38 Tomahawk at the Reference desk.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Aviation: Aircraft This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

I've just reverted for the second time the implied claim that the NACA—dissolved in 1958—was conducting airfoil research in the early 1970s. I've also added a reference—to a NASA source on the matter—and so I hope this will end the NACA business. But, just for later reference, in case this comes back again, two other sources:
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1977/PV1977_312.pdf
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1976/PV1976_217.pdf
SkipperPilot 15:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently see these newer airfoils referred to by a NACA number. I think the confusion comes from the fact that NACA originated the numbering system for many airfoils. However, I agree that the Tomahawk airfoil does not fit in with the older NACA numbering system and is also a NASA developed airfoil.

I have heard this epithet applied to the PA-38 by three different owners as well as a number of former PA-38 renter pilots. It seems to be a point of pride. Ahunt 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Terrorhawk" is also not uncommon! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.45.246 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At one time we had a whole list of these names in the article, but the rest were removed as unsourced. If you can provide a reliable reference we can include this. - Ahunt (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [1], you were absolutely right, I assumed some 2nd hand info I had gotten was right and didn't check source. It IS rated for spins, I'll be darned. - Chairboy 03:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a while since I set foot in a Tomahawk, but if memory serves, they were placarded "Intentional spins prohibited". I recall reading somewhere a few years ago that the production model PA-38 was modified from the original design, removing one or two ribs from each wing. Aside from reduced construction cost, the result was a more flexible wing that had a tendency to twist, making spin recovery difficult, or in some situations even impossible. I got my primary training in the Tomahawk, and the the instructor either didn't know about it, or chose not to tell me. When I took my check ride, the examiner was terrified of performing full stalls, and deemed it sufficient that I could recognize and recover from an imminent stall. I presume this was because he knew a botched stall recovery can easily lead to a spin. Anyone out there know more about the Tomahawk's design history? --Quicksilver^{T @} 01:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FAA never revoked the PA-38's approval for intentional spins. However the aircraft modifications really did happen. Dstroma (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I trained on an early Tomahawk (one of the first in Australia) and not only full stalls, but spin recovery was practised. Compared to the Cessna 152 I started on, it stalled quite abruptly and could easily be made to enter a full spin. Manual recovery was rapid though, at least on the model I was flying. I only read about student/instructor unrecoverable spin fatalities years later, so not sure if the early examples had the modified, lighter wing. Sid the Obscure (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tomahawks are approved for intentional spins, this certification has never been removed.

Piper did NOT remove ribs to cut costs.

and if you cant recover from a tomahawk spin.. odds are you cant recover from a spin in any aircraft.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.232.48 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 May 2006

The previous anonymous comment is completely wrong. Piper did remove wing ribs and made other substantial modifications to the PA-38 after FAA certification. It is well documented, such as in this NTSB report[2]. I have just added the info to the article. Dstroma (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good going - the info and associated refs look good! The Type certificate says:

"FLAPS UP SPINS ARE APPROVED FOR UTILITY CATEGORY OPERATION. FOR SPIN RECOVERY, USE FULL RUDDER AGAINST THE SPIN FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY BY FORWARD WHEEL."

and

"FLAPS EXTENDED SPINS PROHIBITED"

- Ahunt (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall there was a also placard in the cockpit somewhere about this, but my memory is over 30 years old now. I recall I spun a Tomahawk only on one flight, with my instructor. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]