My only criticism on the spring-operated pitch trim was that didn't add
any
redundancy to the control system. OTOH, I have never heard of a
Tomahawk
losing its elevator control linkage; so the added redundancy may have
never
been needed.

The wider cockpit, improved visibility, and crosswind ability were
certainly
a great improvement over the C152--and the more direct and precise
ground
handling was very nice as well.


I did my primary training in a PA38 also, back in '94-'95. Odd
coincidence was 6 months or so after I finished, I started reading
about all the stall/spin accidents in the Tomahawk and the empennage
folding up in a few. Yikes. The 3 T-hawks at my flight school had the
inboard & outboard stall strips so the stall performance was fairly
benign.

The two at the school where I flew also had the inner and outer strips.

Those two were nearly new at the time, which was about 1981 or 1982. I
have heard since that the rivets in the tail area require inspection--and
replacement of those that work loose. That would not necessarily prevent me
from owning one, but it would certainly jprevent me from even considering a
lease back arrangement.

I can personally attest to the strength of the landing gear on that
plane though G I had my share of "3-wire" landings...


I had the same problem--initially. Interestingly, the solution (which might
be shared by a lot of low wing aircraft) was to arrive fast and enter the
flare at 80 Kts, instead of 70 Kts, a couple of times. That used about 500
to 600 additional feet of runway, but also allowed the landing process to
occur in "slow motion" for more detailed observation. The 3000 foot runway
allowed ample room for that, especially to a full stop; and only a couple of
the higher speed approaches were needed. After that, normal (and even short
feild) approaches resulted in good landings nearly every time.

Peter