I would like like comment on whether it is a good idea to use a Continental
powered C182 as a tow ship that would be mainly used to tow the Schweizer
2-33 at sea level airports. I content that the tow speed would not be
comfortable for a 2-33 and that overheating of the continental engine would
be a problem in the summer. I'd like to convince those who might make the
decision to only use our Cessna 172, 180hp Lycoming conversion. I have no
experience with a 182 as a tug.
Jim

"Jim Newton" > wrote:

>I would like like comment on whether it is a good idea to use a Continental
>powered C182 as a tow ship that would be mainly used to tow the Schweizer
>2-33 at sea level airports. I content that the tow speed would not be
>comfortable for a 2-33 and that overheating of the continental engine would
>be a problem in the summer. I'd like to convince those who might make the
>decision to only use our Cessna 172, 180hp Lycoming conversion. I have no
>experience with a 182 as a tug.
>Jim
>
You may try contacting Burt Compton at Marfa Gliders. I believe he
used a 182 as a tow plane when he operated in Florida.

Here is the contact info for Burt from the SSA web site:
Burt Compton www.flygliders.com

On 1/24/04 9:13 AM, in article
et, "Jim Newton"
> wrote:

> I would like like comment on whether it is a good idea to use a Continental
> powered C182 as a tow ship that would be mainly used to tow the Schweizer
> 2-33 at sea level airports. I content that the tow speed would not be
> comfortable for a 2-33 and that overheating of the continental engine would
> be a problem in the summer. I'd like to convince those who might make the
> decision to only use our Cessna 172, 180hp Lycoming conversion. I have no
> experience with a 182 as a tug.

When the alternative is an equivalent or better wing, 50 more HP, constant
speed prop, and a relatively few more pounds of empty weight, why even
consider the 172?

Google search returns zero hits on "Cessna 172 tow plane", a half dozen hits
on "Cessna 182 tow plane", and 7 pages of URLs on "Pawnee tow plane". Take
the hint.

You can tow with a lot of low power airplanes, but you can't tow safely some
of the heavier gliders off the average strip in the summer with a low power
tow plane. Those gliders which can be safely towed with less power will
still take a long time to get to release altitude. If you have a significant
volume of launches to do in order to catch the best of a summer's day
soaring, use a 182 or a Pawnee 235, even at sea level.

If you want the safest operation in glider-filled airspace, get a Pawnee or
other converted ag plane that allows you reasonably good visibility from the
cockpit. When you are climbing and/or turning in the same airspace with
gliders, few aircraft below you or outside your turn will present much of a
hazard. The ones which do present a hazard are the hardest to see in a high
wing airplane.


-------
Jack
-------

I've towed behind 182's for a few years flying 2-33's,
Blanik's, and 1-26's from an airfield in North Carolina.
The airfield is about 400' msl and has a 2,650' paved
runway. The 182's were the older straight tailed versions
and they were stripped of interiors to make room for
sky divers. Four jumpers plus the pilot could ride
in them. We could use them for towing if they weren't
busy taking a load of jumpers or towing a banner over
some football game.

I thought they were good airplanes for towing, but
when it got hot, say above 90 degrees F, they wouldn't
climb too fast sometimes with two in a 2-33 or Blanik.
But these airplanes usually had some pretty tired
engines. They were the 0-470 six cylinder Continentals.
The tow pilot enjoyed flying them and really liked
the manual flaps. The older 182's stood taller on
the mains than the 'newer' models with the swept tails.
That meant the wings were easy to stand under when
you were looking for a bit of shade.

Once in a while, the owner would have to hand prop
the big Continental when the engine was hot and the
weak starter motor couldn't get the job done. A couple
of us would push down on the empennage so the prop
was at a good angle for the 'hand job.' Nothing I
would do, but it can be done.

I think they had FAA form 337's for the mirrors attached
to the left wing strut.

For a towlplane with a tricycle landing gear, it isn't
too shabby.

Just my opinion,

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA


At 15:18 24 January 2004, Jim Newton wrote:
>I would like like comment on whether it is a good idea
>to use a Continental
>powered C182 as a tow ship that would be mainly used
>to tow the Schweizer
>2-33 at sea level airports. I content that the tow
>speed would not be
>comfortable for a 2-33 and that overheating of the
>continental engine would
>be a problem in the summer. I'd like to convince those
>who might make the
>decision to only use our Cessna 172, 180hp Lycoming
>conversion. I have no
>experience with a 182 as a tug.
>Jim
>
>
>

I believe they use a 182 at Estrella Sailport just South Of Phoenix. The
day I was there, they were using a Pawnee as tow plane as they were working
on the 182.

I believe their website is http://www.azsoaring.com


--
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Building RV-4
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die

"Jim Newton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I would like like comment on whether it is a good idea to use a
Continental
> powered C182 as a tow ship that would be mainly used to tow the Schweizer
> 2-33 at sea level airports. I content that the tow speed would not be
> comfortable for a 2-33 and that overheating of the continental engine
would
> be a problem in the summer. I'd like to convince those who might make the
> decision to only use our Cessna 172, 180hp Lycoming conversion. I have no
> experience with a 182 as a tug.
> Jim
>
>

I have flown tow with Pawnees, Old 182s and new 182s, pulling 2-33s, 1-26s,
and Blaniks. New 182s have a wing optimized for higher speed, and don't
climb as well at 2-33 tow speeds. We towed in 90+ F high humidity at a 267
ft MSL airport (Thomasville, GA, USA) with the straight tail 182, but had to
install dual oil coolers to keep the temps in line. It worked OK but the tow
speed was still too slow for the 182, but better than the new ones. The
Pawnee is still king in my opinion. All of them will work, and the 182s are
better than stayng on the ground. The 180 hp 172 may be better if it's "best
climb" speed is slow enough.

--
Hartley Falbaum
"Jim Newton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I would like like comment on whether it is a good idea to use a
Continental
> powered C182 as a tow ship that would be mainly used to tow the Schweizer
> 2-33 at sea level airports. I content that the tow speed would not be
> comfortable for a 2-33 and that overheating of the continental engine
would
> be a problem in the summer. I'd like to convince those who might make the
> decision to only use our Cessna 172, 180hp Lycoming conversion. I have no
> experience with a 182 as a tug.
> Jim
>
>

Kutztown in PA at around 500' uses 182s. Phone 610-683-5666. I've done some
towing for them but not a 2-33 or a 1-26 and not during the summer - so I can't
comment on cooling issues while towing the slow stuff in the heat. I'd talk to
Marty and Cindy at Caracole Soaring in California City, CA. If they don't now,
they did use a 182 and it gets HOT in the Mojave Desert.

Our club just sold a 1960 C-182 to go to a second Pawnee
in addition to our L-19. I also had a fair amount
of experience with a newer 182 towing 2-33s and 2-22s
for the CAP program at Hobbs a few years ago. Both
were uncomfortable down at the the tow speeds that
you want with the Schweitzers but both were better
in acceleration and climb than the 180 Lycoming conversion
172.

In my opinion, the primary reason to go to any of these
trike towplanes is the higher availaibility of tow
pilots for them compared to the high horsepower taildraggers.
But when it comes to clearing the tree tops on a hot
summer day, or fast tow turnaround, there is no substitute
for horsepower. The 182 is no bargain to maintain either.


Roy

Jim Newton > wrote:
>I would like like comment on whether it is a good idea to use a Continental
>powered C182 as a tow ship that would be mainly used to tow the Schweizer
>2-33 at sea level airports. I content that the tow speed would not be
>comfortable for a 2-33 and that overheating of the continental engine would
>be a problem in the summer. I'd like to convince those who might make the
>decision to only use our Cessna 172, 180hp Lycoming conversion. I have no
>experience with a 182 as a tug.
>Jim

We use a 150/150 (with bare aluminum) and a 150aerobat/180
for towing 2-33s and L-13s from a sea level airport,
and do OK, even in 100+ degree heat of the summer.

We do use the whole 3300 feet of runway, however, and are fortunate to
have few obtacles (ok maybe a 3 foot fence) and flat
terrain on the departure end.

I'd personally pick a 172 180hp with a correctly pitched climb prop
over any contant-speed prop for towing, really because of expense.
The bit of added inefficiency from a fixed pitch prop seems to
me a small sacrifice for the weight savings and maintenence
ease.

The other thing to really do is to keep the weight of the airplane
as low as possible. Less weight = more climb and is a cheap way
to do it.

I am NOT an A&P, but I did a lot of work to my own 172 under
supervision.

I pulled out the old AN gyros, and replaced the old heavy
vac pump, and pulled out my huge, bulky, heavy avionics
and installation kits and harnesses, and rotted, heavy carpeting,
and I redid my seats and interior.

I also flew it a LOT with less than half tanks. Since
I leaned the same way all the time, my tachometer was
an extremely accurate way to measure fuel consumption (within
a half gallon per hour 100% of the time).

The lightest 172 would have NO avionics or instruments
except day VFR, completely stripped paint, no interior,
an electrical system removed, a lightweight starter installed,
and be started off a portable battery (good for only a few
starts), perhaps in the aft baggage compartment for weight
and balance. One would find the lightest "midget" pilot
and fill the tanks with the minimum fuel required. All
the seats except for the pilot would be removed.
And no wheel pants. I bet a 1970s 172 would have
an 1100 to 1200 pound empty weight, and probably
double or triple the climb of max gross, depending on the
density altitude...

Could you get a mechanic to sign this off? Well, some of
it you could. But this is just an example to show you
what adds weight. You get the idea, right? Less weight
is the equivalent of free horsepower, so if you'd be
willing to spend $12,000 for a bigger engine, can't you spend
a few thousand $s to make the plane weigh less?

For the power part, the Wolf remote oil coolers are really great for
cooling the oil, and I used an EGT/CHT, which is my first choice
for an "optional" instrument. Next, I found that a meaty prop,
of the right size and pitch, really makes a difference, and
is reasonably priced ($a few thousand, fixed pitch of course).
Some towpilots really like the iridium (?) spark plugs too,
especially for the bottom cylinders, for less fouling.

If you're buying a plane, I'd weigh it first. Twenty years of
"corrosion X" applications can weigh a lot. So can
one or two paint jobs. I suspect a low time, original
172 is pretty hard to find, but I got one, and at a steal because
the paint and interior were original (and trashed).
Of course a 180hp conversion would have been some extra $$$$s
and some weight, I suppose.

If I already had a 172 as a towplane, I'd take the extra
$$$s I was considering for a 182 and instead put it into a
super tune up. Timing just perfect, maybe a top overhaul,
check and pitch a beautiful prop, a second set of plugs
cleaned religiously, remote oil filter/cooler, EGT/CHT,
clean, new, perfectly contoured baffling, etc....
Yeah, and polish it with a diaper, that's the ticket :P

P.S. Our tugs both have wheel pants on them. Not quite
sure why...I guess I'll ask...

In article <CbRQb.113818$Rc4.847735@attbi_s54>,
"HL Falbaum" > wrote:

> I have flown tow with Pawnees, Old 182s and new 182s, pulling 2-33s, 1-26s,
> and Blaniks. New 182s have a wing optimized for higher speed, and don't
> climb as well at 2-33 tow speeds.

So presumably, for those of us in the rest of the world who train in
glass, the 182 would be just fine?

What speed do they like to climb at? I can't imagine a problem with
grobs if it's maybe 75 or 80 knots. We normally tow at 65 knots
(indicated in the glider) behind our Pawnees.

-- Bruce

Our club operates at 1350 ft AMSL on a grass strip in hot Australain weather
( www.ddsc.org.au ). It has a Pawnee and a Cessna 182 as tow planes and a
huge range of gliders from two seater to Nimbus 4DM.

I will take both tugs on most days in my Nimbus 2C, but with a soft strip
and water aboard, the Cessna is not marvelous.

The slow acceleration at the start means more chance to drop a wing. The
need to get the speeds higher before climb out means the height over the
fence is a lot lower.

Once in the air not too much difference to me, but vision in the high wing
Cessna must be a pain and a danger.

I have had a tow behind the Kingaroy Cessna 152 (I think) with an autoengine
and it was spectacular good. Not sure if this is aavilable in the US. In New
Zealand I had a tow by a Pawnee 235 with a four bladded prop which was quick
and quiet (residential areas)

My vote form +30 years and lots of tows is a crop duster type like the
Pawnee with lots of horsepower.

Robert Percy

It would probably be a good idea to contact Caracole Soaring in
California City, CA. They tow with a C-182 year round in the Mojave
Desert. I've never flown with them but so far I haven't heard any
complaints about their tow plane.

Thanks to all who commented on this subject. This will help those who will
make the choice, I hope! I'll have to reevaluate my bias against the C182
but still a C172 4 cyl. Lycoming w/ fixed pitch prop vs. 6 cyl Cont. w/
control pitch prop. (and maybe the addition of oil coolers) seems like a
major factor. But we will be towing kids in a CAP glider to 3K agl which
will probably wind up being light duty.
Jim Newton

"Jim Newton" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I would like like comment on whether it is a good idea to use a
Continental
> powered C182 as a tow ship that would be mainly used to tow the Schweizer
> 2-33 at sea level airports. I content that the tow speed would not be
> comfortable for a 2-33 and that overheating of the continental engine
would
> be a problem in the summer. I'd like to convince those who might make the
> decision to only use our Cessna 172, 180hp Lycoming conversion. I have no
> experience with a 182 as a tug.
> Jim
>
>

Thank you for your kind words Alex. Come fly with us.

Jim:
We ran a 182 and Pawnee 235 side by side for four years.
When we only needed one tug, the Pawnee went away and the 182 stayed.

The 182 tows from a 2500 msl field and our summer temps of 95 - 100 F
and gives us ~500 fpm climb rates with a dual ASK 21, Blaniks, wet
glass, and tows at typically 60-65 knots. Wet glass whines for 70,
Blaniks like 55 - 60kts.

The 182 trains tow pilots, gives occasional tow pilot currency checks,
hauls friends to lunch occasionally when not towing. Great utility.
Ours is a C model, manual flaps, tall gear, swept tail, no rear
window, manual cowl flaps.

She was very tired when she came to us, and got a factory reman soon
thereafter, which ran 2100 hours on first go. One valve needed
relapping and no cylinder work after break in. Smart pilots,
incremental power reductions, closed cowl flap slipping descents, no
problems. Keep engine baffling in good shape, and one big oil cooler,
we've no problems. No leaning unless above 5500 msl on wave tows, and
get 15 gph burn. Sharp pilots, 3k local tows in about 15 minute
turnarounds.
We added a 3-bladed Hartzell a few years ago, no change in speed or
climb or fuel, but it is hugely quieter and got a couple inches more
clearance.

Things to avoid: High speed flap deployment, flat landings, hard
landings, rough field retrieves (little prop clearance).

Cessna delights: High wing ramp shade, cheaper insurance, faster XC
retrieves, faster returns from long wave tows, multiplace utility, no
fabric replacement.

In comparison to Pawnee costs, do you include thinking about recover?
You should. And the spar attach AD was a big ticket too.

Over all, we love our girl. She's worked a steady 14 years here.

Cindy B
Caracole Soaring
www.caracolesoaring.com


"Jim Newton" > wrote in message et>...
> Thanks to all who commented on this subject. This will help those who will
> make the choice, I hope! I'll have to reevaluate my bias against the C182
> but still a C172 4 cyl. Lycoming w/ fixed pitch prop vs. 6 cyl Cont. w/
> control pitch prop. (and maybe the addition of oil coolers) seems like a
> major factor. But we will be towing kids in a CAP glider to 3K agl which
> will probably wind up being light duty.
> Jim Newton
>
> "Jim Newton" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > I would like like comment on whether it is a good idea to use a
> Continental
> > powered C182 as a tow ship that would be mainly used to tow the Schweizer
> > 2-33 at sea level airports. I content that the tow speed would not be
> > comfortable for a 2-33 and that overheating of the continental engine
> would
> > be a problem in the summer. I'd like to convince those who might make the
> > decision to only use our Cessna 172, 180hp Lycoming conversion. I have no
> > experience with a 182 as a tug.
> > Jim
> >
> >

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 22:01:02 +1000, "robert" >
wrote:


>I have had a tow behind the Kingaroy Cessna 152 (I think) with an autoengine
>and it was spectacular good. Not sure if this is aavilable in the US.

That airplane is a C150 E of 1964 vintage (omnivision, straight
tail)with a Lycoming O-360 and a C172 nose leg. I've watched while it
towed a 15 m glider alongside a Pawnee 235 towing same and it beats
the Pawnee.

OTOH I know of one club who still have the heavy fiberglass hoppers in
their dedicated Pawnee towplanes. Ther is a word for these people.

Mike Borgelt

You have had your towplane 14years ,she is a baby ,our club has had
our Pawnee 40 years.
"Caracole" > wrote in message
om...
> Thank you for your kind words Alex. Come fly with us.
>
> Jim:
> We ran a 182 and Pawnee 235 side by side for four years.
> When we only needed one tug, the Pawnee went away and the 182 stayed.
>
> The 182 tows from a 2500 msl field and our summer temps of 95 - 100 F
> and gives us ~500 fpm climb rates with a dual ASK 21, Blaniks, wet
> glass, and tows at typically 60-65 knots. Wet glass whines for 70,
> Blaniks like 55 - 60kts.
>
> The 182 trains tow pilots, gives occasional tow pilot currency checks,
> hauls friends to lunch occasionally when not towing. Great utility.
> Ours is a C model, manual flaps, tall gear, swept tail, no rear
> window, manual cowl flaps.
>
> She was very tired when she came to us, and got a factory reman soon
> thereafter, which ran 2100 hours on first go. One valve needed
> relapping and no cylinder work after break in. Smart pilots,
> incremental power reductions, closed cowl flap slipping descents, no
> problems. Keep engine baffling in good shape, and one big oil cooler,
> we've no problems. No leaning unless above 5500 msl on wave tows, and
> get 15 gph burn. Sharp pilots, 3k local tows in about 15 minute
> turnarounds.
> We added a 3-bladed Hartzell a few years ago, no change in speed or
> climb or fuel, but it is hugely quieter and got a couple inches more
> clearance.
>
> Things to avoid: High speed flap deployment, flat landings, hard
> landings, rough field retrieves (little prop clearance).
>
> Cessna delights: High wing ramp shade, cheaper insurance, faster XC
> retrieves, faster returns from long wave tows, multiplace utility, no
> fabric replacement.
>
> In comparison to Pawnee costs, do you include thinking about recover?
> You should. And the spar attach AD was a big ticket too.
>
> Over all, we love our girl. She's worked a steady 14 years here.
>
> Cindy B
> Caracole Soaring
> www.caracolesoaring.com
>
>
> "Jim Newton" > wrote in message
et>...
> > Thanks to all who commented on this subject. This will help those who
will
> > make the choice, I hope! I'll have to reevaluate my bias against the
C182
> > but still a C172 4 cyl. Lycoming w/ fixed pitch prop vs. 6 cyl Cont. w/
> > control pitch prop. (and maybe the addition of oil coolers) seems like
a
> > major factor. But we will be towing kids in a CAP glider to 3K agl
which
> > will probably wind up being light duty.
> > Jim Newton
> >
> > "Jim Newton" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > I would like like comment on whether it is a good idea to use a
> > Continental
> > > powered C182 as a tow ship that would be mainly used to tow the
Schweizer
> > > 2-33 at sea level airports. I content that the tow speed would not be
> > > comfortable for a 2-33 and that overheating of the continental engine
> > would
> > > be a problem in the summer. I'd like to convince those who might make
the
> > > decision to only use our Cessna 172, 180hp Lycoming conversion. I
have no
> > > experience with a 182 as a tug.
> > > Jim
> > >
> > >

>"Caracole" > wrote in message
om...
>> Thank you for your kind words Alex. Come fly with us.
>>
>> Cindy B

Cindy,

Do you fly your 182 with the wheel pants on or off?
Did you remove the back seat or leave it in?
If you did remove the rear seat, did you put
weights anywhere for CG?

I'm asking because they do have the seat and pants off for the
206 jump plane at Marina, and I'm wondering if this is common
for towplanes too...

Cindy climbs into the cockpit with her pants on. I think she takes them off
after that, though. It's hot as hell sometimes at Cal City so everyone does
it. Most of us fly buck naked usually but use a lot of sunscreen.


"Mark James Boyd" > wrote in message
news:4018216d$1@darkstar...
> >"Caracole" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> Thank you for your kind words Alex. Come fly with us.
> >>
> >> Cindy B
>
> Cindy,
>
> Do you fly your 182 with the wheel pants on or off?
> Did you remove the back seat or leave it in?
> If you did remove the rear seat, did you put
> weights anywhere for CG?
>
> I'm asking because they do have the seat and pants off for the
> 206 jump plane at Marina, and I'm wondering if this is common
> for towplanes too...
>
>

Ok, but what I wanna know Mr. Dzpencer, is do she put
her wheel pants on one leg at a time?


At 21:36 28 January 2004, John Shelton wrote:
>Cindy climbs into the cockpit with her pants on. I
>think she takes them off
>after that, though. It's hot as hell sometimes at Cal
>City so everyone does
>it. Most of us fly buck naked usually but use a lot
>of sunscreen.
>
>
>'Mark James Boyd' wrote in message
>news:4018216d$1@darkstar...
>> >'Caracole' wrote in message
>> om...
>> >> Thank you for your kind words Alex. Come fly with
>>>>us.
>> >>
>> >> Cindy B
>>
>> Cindy,
>>
>> Do you fly your 182 with the wheel pants on or off?
>> Did you remove the back seat or leave it in?
>> If you did remove the rear seat, did you put
>> weights anywhere for CG?
>>
>> I'm asking because they do have the seat and pants
>>off for the
>> 206 jump plane at Marina, and I'm wondering if this
>>is common
>> for towplanes too...
>>
>>
>
>
>

Actually all those Brickners stand on the bed, hold them out and jump into
them both feet at once. Even her mom does. I think it comes from having a
cold floor when they were kids.


"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> Ok, but what I wanna know Mr. Dzpencer, is do she put
> her wheel pants on one leg at a time?
>
>
> At 21:36 28 January 2004, John Shelton wrote:
> >Cindy climbs into the cockpit with her pants on. I
> >think she takes them off
> >after that, though. It's hot as hell sometimes at Cal
> >City so everyone does
> >it. Most of us fly buck naked usually but use a lot
> >of sunscreen.
> >
> >
> >'Mark James Boyd' wrote in message
> >news:4018216d$1@darkstar...
> >> >'Caracole' wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> >> Thank you for your kind words Alex. Come fly with
> >>>>us.
> >> >>
> >> >> Cindy B
> >>
> >> Cindy,
> >>
> >> Do you fly your 182 with the wheel pants on or off?
> >> Did you remove the back seat or leave it in?
> >> If you did remove the rear seat, did you put
> >> weights anywhere for CG?
> >>
> >> I'm asking because they do have the seat and pants
> >>off for the
> >> 206 jump plane at Marina, and I'm wondering if this
> >>is common
> >> for towplanes too...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

"goneill" > wrote...
> You have had your towplane 14years ,she is a baby ,our club has had
> our Pawnee 40 years.

Kansas Soaring Association has operated a C-182 since Early 1962. The
same one. Well, most of it is the same. OK, some of it is still the
same. Kansas being the land of tornados, etc. Long story, but all
documented!

We have the world's oldest C-182. Don't let anyone tell you they have
it, because they don't. We do. Ours came down the line as a C-180
and got made into the prototype by Cessna by adding the nose gear. We
got it at the end of 1961 and it has been serving us very well ever
since. And, yes, it has a Standard AW, not Experimental or restricted
or anything else like that.

Like Cindy said, insurance is cheaper, you get ramp shade, and can do
checkouts and other things with it. One thing that Cindy did not
mention is the oil quantity. Just because the dipstick has markings
up to 12 quarts doesn't mean you should fill it that full. If you do,
you should be the one that gets to wash those two quarts of oil off of
the belly. Keep it between 9 and 10. If you have more than that,
with the very nose high attitude on climb, you put it all at the back
of the case where the rods for the back cylinders can splash it up and
make it burn and blow overboard. Runs hotter with 12 than with 10.
But don't go under 8. Starts to run real hot.

Baffles are the key to cooling. Especially on ours. We don't have
cowl flaps. Gradual power reductions. Also recommend not running
exclusively car gas if you have that STC.

We have used ours for performance measuring tows on some spring and
fall mornings. 20 minutes to take a Mosquito from ground (1500 feet)
to 10K AGL. 23 minutes to take a 604 on the same trip. Round trips
during the summer with glass ships going to 2K AGL are typically .1
tach hours. Typically run about 1.5 gallons per tow. Some days more,
some days less. Depends on the tow pilot and how much above requested
height the glider pilots are going.

We have no interior, and two seats in ours. Second seat is good for
checkouts and a strapped in water jug for the towpilot. And wheel
pants? Why would you want them on a towplane? We don't get "Style"
points here in Kansas. Once the glider is off, you accelerate some to
get drag so you can come down. And wheel pants would reduce the
amount of drag you can get. Oh, yeah. Flaps up for descent, as they
have an 80 MPH limit.

We love our 182. We use it only for towing. Keeps the insurance
cheaper still.

Steve Leonard
KSA Towplane Manager
(Among my other duties!)