C-172 as tow plane?

[Tom K (ES)]

Under discussion at the club is selling the Cub and using a C-172 as a tow plane. Does anyone have experience with this? Good, bad, ugly?

Thanks,

[Tom K (ES)]

Search before type... a lot of info already out there.

[Tony[_5_]]

Stock works OK at low density altitudes with light gliders. 180hp do better with a little hotter and heavier but you'll probably be wishing for more with a draggy two seater. Nice thing is anyone can fly them.

[150flivver]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:21:35 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> Stock works OK at low density altitudes with light gliders. 180hp do better with a little hotter and heavier but you'll probably be wishing for more with a draggy two seater. Nice thing is anyone can fly them.

I've towed with 180hp 172 and a 180hp A150L. I much prefer the A150L. I wouldn't even consider a 172 with less than 180hp as the 180hp one I towed with was barely adequate.

[WB]

Owned a share of a C-175 (same airframe as 172), with 180 hp engine, droop tips, stol kit. It is a mediocre tug.

Was in a club that had a C-172, with 150 hp, climb prop. Not a good towplane.

When you hash out all the factors, it always comes down to three good choices for tugs:

Pawnee,
Pawnee,
Pawnee.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 7:08:12 PM UTC-5, WB wrote:
> Owned a share of a C-175 (same airframe as 172), with 180 hp engine, droop tips, stol kit. It is a mediocre tug.
>
>
>
> Was in a club that had a C-172, with 150 hp, climb prop. Not a good towplane.
>
>
>
> When you hash out all the factors, it always comes down to three good choices for tugs:
>
>
>
> Pawnee,
>
> Pawnee,
>
> Pawnee.

a "good" towplane is one defined by me as one that will a)climb sufficiently given atmospheric conditions and glider attached and b)has an available towpilot

my friends who between them own a stock 172, apis, and russia, sure enjoy their stock 172 as they tow at low DA's with light gliders and if it wasn't for that 172 they would have to drive at least an hour or possibly more to the next closest towplane. now THAT's a "good" towplane, one at the closest airport to where you live instead of the club field 1.5 hrs away.

My other friend with a Salto, 1/2 a std. Cirrus, and a 180hp 172 has checked out his boss (they work at the airport) to tow. Nice to be able to get a tow over the lunch hour and take the afternoon off :) thats another very "Good" towplane.

What's a bad towplane? one that won't safely climb with a given glider/weather combination OR one that isn't where you are or one that is sitting because no one is qualified to fly it. Pawnee requires a tailwheel endorsement and probably has higher insurance requriements. Cessna pilots are a dime a dozen. I can't count how many soaring days I missed in my old club because no tailwheel qualified pilots were available to fly our Super Cub, while the FBO was full of pilots and had 4 C-172's parked out front. Oh how I wished one of those had a towhook!!!

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 8:08:12 PM UTC-4, WB wrote:
> Owned a share of a C-175 (same airframe as 172), with 180 hp engine, droop tips, stol kit. It is a mediocre tug.
>
>
>
> Was in a club that had a C-172, with 150 hp, climb prop. Not a good towplane.
>
>
>
> When you hash out all the factors, it always comes down to three good choices for tugs:
>
>
>
> Pawnee,
>
> Pawnee,
>
> Pawnee.

Add the Cessna AgWagon to the list. It is a Pawnee on steroids and has 300+HP - if you can't get air-born behind it, it wasn't meant to fly! ;-)

[Bill D]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 9:08:55 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Saturday, April 20, 2013 8:08:12 PM UTC-4, WB wrote:
>
> > Owned a share of a C-175 (same airframe as 172), with 180 hp engine, droop tips, stol kit. It is a mediocre tug.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Was in a club that had a C-172, with 150 hp, climb prop. Not a good towplane.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > When you hash out all the factors, it always comes down to three good choices for tugs:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Pawnee,
>
> >
>
> > Pawnee,
>
> >
>
> > Pawnee.
>
>
>
> Add the Cessna AgWagon to the list. It is a Pawnee on steroids and has 300+HP - if you can't get air-born behind it, it wasn't meant to fly! ;-)

Add the Pawnee PA-36 "New Brave" 400HP. Tows like a rocket but can consume a significant fraction of an airport's AVGAS supply in a weekend. http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=400

[Eric Munk]

Add the Zlin Turbo Cmelak. Scariest tow I ever had with constant 8 m/s
climb rate. Went up like a rocket.

[kirk.stant]

Used to tow in a C-172, 150hp, both regular and climb prop. This was in Georgia and North Carolina, hot humid days. Everything from Open Cirrus, Blanik, 1-26, 2-33, Libelle. No heavy 2-seat glass.

The regular 172 was OK for single seat. Not spectacular but not scary and you quickly learned to find a thermal and use it until the glider pilot got the hint and released.

Towing a loaded 2-33 on a hot afternoon was marginal to dangerous.

Modified with a climb prop made towing the two-seaters a little more comfortable. Still had to optimize the climb with judicious thermalling, but it wasn't scary anymore.

Now the problem was that you hit redline RPM at about 95 knots, so going crosscountry in the climb-prop equipped 172 became a bit of a chore!

But if it's all you have available, it's better than nothing.

Kirk
66

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:08:55 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> Add the Cessna AgWagon to the list. It is a Pawnee on steroids and has 300+HP - if you can't get air-born behind it, it wasn't meant to fly! ;-)

Actually, at the local FBO which had 2 Pawnees (235s) and one Agwagon (I think one of the early models), the Agwagon was far-and-away the least favorite. It's greatest attribute seemed to be converting fuel to noise swinging the big prop. It also seemed to want to fly faster and climb at a shallower angle than the Pawnees. Plus, it was significantly worse on fuel. As a result, it only flew on a couple of days a year when there was a ton of demand or the Pawnees were inop.

And no, it's not relevant to the question about a 1-72 :-)

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:00:50 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:08:55 PM UTC-4, wrote: > > Add the Cessna AgWagon to the list. It is a Pawnee on steroids and has 300+HP - if you can't get air-born behind it, it wasn't meant to fly! ;-) Actually, at the local FBO which had 2 Pawnees (235s) and one Agwagon (I think one of the early models), the Agwagon was far-and-away the least favorite. It's greatest attribute seemed to be converting fuel to noise swinging the big prop. It also seemed to want to fly faster and climb at a shallower angle than the Pawnees. Plus, it was significantly worse on fuel. As a result, it only flew on a couple of days a year when there was a ton of demand or the Pawnees were inop. And no, it's not relevant to the question about a 1-72 :-)

Yea at least for "slow" gliders the Pawnee is better in my limited experience behind both. At Region 10 in 2011 the Pawnees happily pulled me at 65 mph while it was obvious from my end that the AgWagon was really struggling that slow. The Pawnees got me to altitude faster on less horsepower.

[Steve]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:05:53 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:00:50 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:08:55 PM UTC-4, wrote: > > Add the Cessna AgWagon to the list. It is a Pawnee on steroids and has 300+HP - if you can't get air-born behind it, it wasn't meant to fly! ;-) Actually, at the local FBO which had 2 Pawnees (235s) and one Agwagon (I think one of the early models), the Agwagon was far-and-away the least favorite. It's greatest attribute seemed to be converting fuel to noise swinging the big prop. It also seemed to want to fly faster and climb at a shallower angle than the Pawnees. Plus, it was significantly worse on fuel. As a result, it only flew on a couple of days a year when there was a ton of demand or the Pawnees were inop. And no, it's not relevant to the question about a 1-72 :-)
>
>
>
> Yea at least for "slow" gliders the Pawnee is better in my limited experience behind both. At Region 10 in 2011 the Pawnees happily pulled me at 65 mph while it was obvious from my end that the AgWagon was really struggling that slow. The Pawnees got me to altitude faster on less horsepower.

I would also consider an L-19 Birddog. Found at the right price, it's a great tow plane. possible downside is the insurance might be a bit higher based on a higher value, but having the extra seat allows tow check outs etc. Excellent aircraft.

[rlovinggood]

Tom
I've been towed many times with a 180 h.p. 172 and it does fine. We are towing from a 5,000' paved runway (elevation of 200 msl) and I'm flying without water in an LS1-d. The towplane also is used to tow the club's G-103. The Cessna has a STOL kit which, I think, includes drooped wing tips, a modified leading edge, stall strips, and a climb prop. All interior bits and pieces remain in the airplane.

I can't say how it would do pulling a 15m or 18m glider filled with water.

As others have said, the good thing about a 172 is that most any pilot can fly it and that is why the club as a nose-dragger rather than a Pawnee or other conventional-gear tug.

Ray

[[email protected]]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:31:11 AM UTC-4, Steve wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:05:53 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
>
> > On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:00:50 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:08:55 PM UTC-4, wrote: > > Add the Cessna AgWagon to the list. It is a Pawnee on steroids and has 300+HP - if you can't get air-born behind it, it wasn't meant to fly! ;-) Actually, at the local FBO which had 2 Pawnees (235s) and one Agwagon (I think one of the early models), the Agwagon was far-and-away the least favorite. It's greatest attribute seemed to be converting fuel to noise swinging the big prop. It also seemed to want to fly faster and climb at a shallower angle than the Pawnees. Plus, it was significantly worse on fuel. As a result, it only flew on a couple of days a year when there was a ton of demand or the Pawnees were inop. And no, it's not relevant to the question about a 1-72 :-)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Yea at least for "slow" gliders the Pawnee is better in my limited experience behind both. At Region 10 in 2011 the Pawnees happily pulled me at 65 mph while it was obvious from my end that the AgWagon was really struggling that slow. The Pawnees got me to altitude faster on less horsepower.
>
>
>
> I would also consider an L-19 Birddog. Found at the right price, it's a great tow plane. possible downside is the insurance might be a bit higher based on a higher value, but having the extra seat allows tow check outs etc. Excellent aircraft.

When I first learned to fly Lo, Many years ago the operation had an L-19. Even in a K21 dual from 800ft MSL takeoff the climb rate was at least 800fpm. Later
I moved to a club with Pawnees, where we were lucky to get 600fpm in the K21s.
I asked why we didn't have an L-19, and was told that its narrow gear makes it
trickier to handle on the ground. The first operation had to be very picky
about who would tow as a result.

Matt

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

Why the hell does anyone *want* to get towed by the pilot that can't handle a Pawnee? Sorry... I'm just not seeing this as a big impediment. It's about as stable, easy going and docile as any airplane I've flown. Yes, you have to know how to fly TW. So what? The pilot that cares so little for airmanship that he won't get a TW endorsement concerns me a little as tow pilot.


T8

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:23:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:

> I asked why we didn't have an L-19, and was told that its narrow gear makes it
>
> trickier to handle on the ground. The first operation had to be very picky
>
> about who would tow as a result.

L-19 loves to bounce, is a bit squirrely on pavement and the transition between enough directional control to "oh, ****!" with a gust from behind is pretty thin. It's also a blast to fly, so maybe the other tow pilot just liked to fly :-).

T8

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:24:43 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> Why the hell does anyone *want* to get towed by the pilot that can't handle a Pawnee? Sorry... I'm just not seeing this as a big impediment. It's about as stable, easy going and docile as any airplane I've flown. Yes, you have to know how to fly TW. So what? The pilot that cares so little for airmanship that he won't get a TW endorsement concerns me a little as tow pilot.. T8

maybe they get their airmanship challenge from towing gliders and flying gliders. maybe they would like to get a tailwheel endorsement but they can't afford to buy a taildragger and no tailwheel airplanes within reasonable driving distance are insured for tailwheel training.

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:42:03 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:24:43 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > Why the hell does anyone *want* to get towed by the pilot that can't handle a Pawnee? Sorry... I'm just not seeing this as a big impediment. It's about as stable, easy going and docile as any airplane I've flown. Yes, you have to know how to fly TW. So what? The pilot that cares so little for airmanship that he won't get a TW endorsement concerns me a little as tow pilot. T8
>
>
>
> maybe they get their airmanship challenge from towing gliders and flying gliders. maybe they would like to get a tailwheel endorsement but they can't afford to buy a taildragger and no tailwheel airplanes within reasonable driving distance are insured for tailwheel training.

Yup - what Tony said. In the US at least, it's not about "real men (or women)" who fly taildraggers. It's just that in many locations, it's not that easy to find enough tailwheel qualified people that meet the demands of the insurance policy, the FBO's requirements, etc. In our club, we used Super Cubs or Scouts just so we had the second seat available so our one or two tailwheel qualified CFIs could do the transition training and signoffs, but not all locations have the luxury of having a two-place towplane...

[Tony[_5_]]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:35:39 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:42:03 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote: > On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:24:43 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote: > > > Why the hell does anyone *want* to get towed by the pilot that can't handle a Pawnee? Sorry.... I'm just not seeing this as a big impediment. It's about as stable, easy going and docile as any airplane I've flown. Yes, you have to know how to fly TW. So what? The pilot that cares so little for airmanship that he won't get a TW endorsement concerns me a little as tow pilot. T8 > > > > maybe they get their airmanship challenge from towing gliders and flying gliders. maybe they would like to get a tailwheel endorsement but they can't afford to buy a taildragger and no tailwheel airplanes within reasonable driving distance are insured for tailwheel training. Yup - what Tony said. In the US at least, it's not about "real men (or women)" who fly taildraggers. It's just that in many locations, it's not that easy to find enough tailwheel qualified people that meet the demands of the insurance policy, the FBO's requirements, etc. In our club, we used Super Cubs or Scouts just so we had the second seat available so our one or two tailwheel qualified CFIs could do the transition training and signoffs, but not all locations have the luxury of having a two-place towplane...

and in my old club, under the SSA group policy, it was strictly forbidden for us to provide tailwheel training. we could not provide tailwheel endorsments, only towpilot checkouts. they had to come to us already tailwheel endorsed.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 1:35:39 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:42:03 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
>
> > On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:24:43 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Why the hell does anyone *want* to get towed by the pilot that can't handle a Pawnee? Sorry... I'm just not seeing this as a big impediment. It's about as stable, easy going and docile as any airplane I've flown. Yes, you have to know how to fly TW. So what? The pilot that cares so little for airmanship that he won't get a TW endorsement concerns me a little as tow pilot. T8
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > maybe they get their airmanship challenge from towing gliders and flying gliders. maybe they would like to get a tailwheel endorsement but they can't afford to buy a taildragger and no tailwheel airplanes within reasonable driving distance are insured for tailwheel training.
>
>
>
> Yup - what Tony said. In the US at least, it's not about "real men (or women)" who fly taildraggers. It's just that in many locations, it's not that easy to find enough tailwheel qualified people that meet the demands of the insurance policy, the FBO's requirements, etc. In our club, we used Super Cubs or Scouts just so we had the second seat available so our one or two tailwheel qualified CFIs could do the transition training and signoffs, but not all locations have the luxury of having a two-place towplane...

The difference between Tailwheel and training wheel tow pilot insurance requirements is a TW endorsement and a little TW time. It's a very modest requirement. They are going to want 200 hours SEL time for any high performance tow plane, that's usually the main issue. Wasn't always this way, but Costello revisited this a couple years ago and the requirements went down (a lot) for some of this stuff.

T8

[Peter von Tresckow]

Evan Ludeman > wrote:
> On Monday, April 22, 2013 1:35:39 PM UTC-4, Papa3 wrote:
>> On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:42:03 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:24:43 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Why the hell does anyone *want* to get towed by the pilot that can't
>>>> handle a Pawnee? Sorry... I'm just not seeing this as a big
>>>> impediment. It's about as stable, easy going and docile as any
>>>> airplane I've flown. Yes, you have to know how to fly TW. So what? The
>>>> pilot that cares so little for airmanship that he won't get a TW
>>>> endorsement concerns me a little as tow pilot. T8
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> maybe they get their airmanship challenge from towing gliders and
>>> flying gliders. maybe they would like to get a tailwheel endorsement
>>> but they can't afford to buy a taildragger and no tailwheel airplanes
>>> within reasonable driving distance are insured for tailwheel training.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yup - what Tony said. In the US at least, it's not about "real men (or
>> women)" who fly taildraggers. It's just that in many locations, it's
>> not that easy to find enough tailwheel qualified people that meet the
>> demands of the insurance policy, the FBO's requirements, etc. In our
>> club, we used Super Cubs or Scouts just so we had the second seat
>> available so our one or two tailwheel qualified CFIs could do the
>> transition training and signoffs, but not all locations have the luxury
>> of having a two-place towplane...
>
> The difference between Tailwheel and training wheel tow pilot insurance
> requirements is a TW endorsement and a little TW time. It's a very
> modest requirement. They are going to want 200 hours SEL time for any
> high performance tow plane, that's usually the main issue. Wasn't always
> this way, but Costello revisited this a couple years ago and the
> requirements went down (a lot) for some of this stuff.
>
> T8

I've towed behind a 172 at Sky Soaring. For my Ka-6 it was nice. This
particular one was an early straight tail no rear window model with a 180
horse constant speed prop. The light weight and big motor made it a decent
tug.

Pete