olddominion727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3656 times:
type-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4352 posts, RR: 20 Reply 2, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3450 times:
From reading the articles linked, one cannot draw any conclusions or speculation about what could have caused the crash.
It could be anything from A to Z. We'll have to wait for more information to materialize. All we know at the time is that the aircraft is a Piper Traumahawk.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 4, posted (9 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2957 times:
Quoting type-rated (Reply 2): All we know at the time is that the aircraft is a Piper Traumahawk.
A flying friend of mine told me that the production Tomahawk differed from the one that was certified in a very important detail; Piper was unhappy with the cost of building the plane and decided to save money by removing every other wing rib. This is the version that went into production; the one that was certified had twice as many wing ribs. This undoubtedly has changed its behavior in extreme situations, and could well be behind the Tomahawk's bad record of stall-spin accidents. I'm surprised that, if this is the case, that the FAA let them get away with it.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
type-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4352 posts, RR: 20 Reply 5, posted (9 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2713 times:
The problem with the Traumahawk (as a lot of people call it) is that it is a more realistic aircraft to fly say than the Cherokee series which a lot of flight instructors think is too docile for good flight training. In some circumstances you can't get a Cherokee to stall for take off and departure stalls., it just bobbles along at the edge of the stall until you reduce power a little bit. I think it's one of the safest aircraft out there. Even if you manhandle it all day long it won't bite. Personally, I have flown PA28-140's, 180's and 200R's all over the country. It makes a very nice first airplane for people. And yes, the 140 is a little underpowered and those two back seats don't help either. On hot days you really have to watch the density altitude and your total weight.
The Tomahawk doesn't do that. It has very sharp stall characteristics and the pilot must be ready to keep control of the aircraft when it stalls. Get a little sloppy on the rudders when practicing stalls and it'll try to spin on you. As a CFI I think it's a better trainer because when you train in it stepping up to and aircraft with more critical speeds is easier for the student. This is one reason Piper built it, people thought the Cherokee was too docile for training.
I think that if Piper took out some wing ribs when going from the prototype to the production models, I think the FAA would say something about that. I don't know if that is true.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
Flaps From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 1115 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (9 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2260 times:
You can't just remove ribs between certification and production. The aircraft would have to be recertified. Whatever number ofi ribs are in the production aircraft that is the number of ribs it was certified with. Piper may have changed its its initial design during testing but I assure u any such changes were tested and properly certified.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 9, posted (9 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1588 times:
Quoting Flaps (Reply 6): You can't just remove ribs between certification and production. The aircraft would have to be recertified. Whatever number ofi ribs are in the production aircraft that is the number of ribs it was certified with. Piper may have changed its its initial design during testing but I assure u any such changes were tested and properly certified.
I agree that that is what is supposed to happen. But I have also lived long enough to realize that rule books are paper, and are only as good as the people enforcing them. Do you honestly think that all of the rules are enforced properly all the time? (and I am specifically referring to certification rules.) If you believe that, have I got a deal for you on a bridge in Brooklyn.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 108 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 336 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
