Pawnee 235 vs Cessna Bird Dog vs Maule as towplanes

[kirk.stant]

I realize this has been hashed over in the past, but looking for a fresh discussion on the relative merits of these three towplanes.

Specifically, how does a stock Bird Dog compare to a 235 Pawnee, and how do various Maules do as towplanes.

Our club is considering various options for adding to our towplane fleet and any info/personal experiences/good stories would be appreciated.

Kirk
66

[Mike the Strike]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:35:59 AM UTC-7, kirk.stant wrote:
> I realize this has been hashed over in the past, but looking for a fresh discussion on the relative merits of these three towplanes.
>
>
>
> Specifically, how does a stock Bird Dog compare to a 235 Pawnee, and how do various Maules do as towplanes.
>
>
>
> Our club is considering various options for adding to our towplane fleet and any info/personal experiences/good stories would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

Don't exclude the Cessna 175 from consideration.

Mike

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:18:10 AM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
> Don't exclude the Cessna 175 from consideration. Mike

Only if is has at least the 180HP conversion with C/S prop. Or better yet, the 0-470 conversion (230 HP) with C/S Prop. The only real issue with the latter is the CG tends to be very far fowrard, and you can not use more than 2 of the 4 notches of flap for landing, or you will not have enough elevator power to slow down and the nose gear will be the first thing to contact the ground. Not a good way to land those things!

Have no data to help out relative to the others. My club operates a 182 and a 175 with the 0-470 conversion. Both are good at pulling gliders up even with the spoilers out.

[Bill D]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:35:59 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:
> I realize this has been hashed over in the past, but looking for a fresh discussion on the relative merits of these three towplanes.
>
>
>
> Specifically, how does a stock Bird Dog compare to a 235 Pawnee, and how do various Maules do as towplanes.
>
>
>
> Our club is considering various options for adding to our towplane fleet and any info/personal experiences/good stories would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

This is my best recollection from a long-ago experience towing with a Maule. The memory may be wrong and the airplane may have changed over the intervening years.

IIRC, the Maule seemed to tow with a pronounced nose-up attitude so jerks on the rope tended to cause it to rock alarmingly in pitch. It was a very unpleasant tow plane for both the tug pilot and glider pilot.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:35:59 AM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> I realize this has been hashed over in the past, but looking for a fresh discussion on the relative merits of these three towplanes.
>
>
>
> Specifically, how does a stock Bird Dog compare to a 235 Pawnee, and how do various Maules do as towplanes.
>
>
>
> Our club is considering various options for adding to our towplane fleet and any info/personal experiences/good stories would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

Birddog is expensive, charismatic, fun to fly and has some maintenance bugaboos that can get expensive (electric flaps fail regularly, ours has manual flaps and they've caused problems too!). It does tow well. The back seat isn't nearly as useful for towing checkouts as you might think -- sit in the back and you'll understand why!

Pawnee is generally a better work horse, easier to fly, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain.

Also consider Callair.

Evan Ludeman

[kirk.stant]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:36:40 AM UTC-5, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:18:10 AM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
>
> > Don't exclude the Cessna 175 from consideration. Mike
>
>
>
> Only if is has at least the 180HP conversion with C/S prop. Or better yet, the 0-470 conversion (230 HP) with C/S Prop. The only real issue with the latter is the CG tends to be very far fowrard, and you can not use more than 2 of the 4 notches of flap for landing, or you will not have enough elevator power to slow down and the nose gear will be the first thing to contact the ground. Not a good way to land those things!
>
>
>
> Have no data to help out relative to the others. My club operates a 182 and a 175 with the 0-470 conversion. Both are good at pulling gliders up even with the spoilers out.

Our field is all grass so we prefer taildraggers; in fact, all of the power planes on our field (2 club towplanes and 3 private planes) are taildraggers.

We're thinking of charging a landing fee for nosedraggers... ;^)

Kirk
66

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:41:29 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> We're thinking of charging a landing fee for nosedraggers... ;^) Kirk 66

As a friend of mine once said, "Tail-dragger pilot break ground and head into the wind. Nose-dragger pilot break wind and head into the ground!" Good enough to put on a tee shirt?

Steve

[son_of_flubber]

Not the rile the conservative feathers of the tow plane experts, but I wonder if anyone in the USA has a scenario where a combination tow plane motor-glider trainer like the Phoenix makes sense? http://www.phoenixairusa.com/Specifications.php

I believe it has a bigger engine option if you need the pull for towing.

I wonder how it compares to the traditional big iron choices if you fairly consider all of the variables. Would it make sense if a club used it as a backup tow plane and otherwise used it for training (including XC training!). You might get some income from renting it by the hour. It might make sense for a private hobby-commercial glider port in a remote area with few customers and an owner with other reasons for owning a commuter plane.

[Dan Marotta]

I've towed with all three plus the Ag Wagon, CallAir, 180 Super Cub, and
180 Citabria.

I think the Ag Wagon is the best of what I've used and it uses by far
the most gas, but of the three requested, I'd choose the Pawnee. It's
simple to fly, tows well, and it's very basic so maintenance won't be as
much. The CallAir is extremely heavy on the controls and will wear you
out, but it is also the easiest to land tail dragger I've ever flown
(except for the Stearman). The Maule was no fun at all as a tow plane.
The Bird Dog was a lot of fun but maintenance will be higher.

Dan Marotta

On 8/21/2014 5:02 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Not the rile the conservative feathers of the tow plane experts, but I wonder if anyone in the USA has a scenario where a combination tow plane motor-glider trainer like the Phoenix makes sense? http://www.phoenixairusa.com/Specifications.php
>
> I believe it has a bigger engine option if you need the pull for towing.
>
> I wonder how it compares to the traditional big iron choices if you fairly consider all of the variables. Would it make sense if a club used it as a backup tow plane and otherwise used it for training (including XC training!). You might get some income from renting it by the hour. It might make sense for a private hobby-commercial glider port in a remote area with few customers and an owner with other reasons for owning a commuter plane.

[Bill D]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:02:41 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
> Not the rile the conservative feathers of the tow plane experts, but I wonder if anyone in the USA has a scenario where a combination tow plane motor-glider trainer like the Phoenix makes sense? http://www.phoenixairusa.com/Specifications.php

This makes a lot of sense. The far better aerodynamics and lower weight of a touring motor glider airframe makes up for about half the HP of a Pawnee.

> I believe it has a bigger engine option if you need the pull for towing.

Interestingly, a group of pilots visiting the 15m/Open Nationals at Montague told a story they were testing a higher HP version of the ROTAX - they said as much as 140HP. That would make the Phoenix a dandy tug.

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:35:59 AM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
> I realize this has been hashed over in the past, but looking for a fresh discussion on the relative merits of these three towplanes.
>
>
>
> Specifically, how does a stock Bird Dog compare to a 235 Pawnee, and how do various Maules do as towplanes.
>
>
>
> Our club is considering various options for adding to our towplane fleet and any info/personal experiences/good stories would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

I've towed with all 3. The Maule has a very high deck angle and restricts visibility leaving the pilot wondering what's out there in front where you can't see. Not a comfortable feeling.

The PA25-235 is certainly the cheapest to purchase and is benign to fly. Wing tanks, as opposed to a center tank, reduce pilot fatigue. The weight in the wings reduce the affects of roll in turbulence. I guess this is not an issue unless you are flying all day long.

The L-19 is by far the most enjoyable to fly and it's light handling allow all day towing with minimal fatigue. It flies beautifully at slow air-speeds and still has a good roll rate, unlike the PA-25. It also sips the least amount of fuel. It does tend to be expensive to maintain. Limiting the flap speed is advised. The flaps do allow for the steeper approaches and a much slower approach speed than the PA-25.

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, August 22, 2014 7:48:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:

> I've towed with all 3. The Maule has a very high deck angle and restricts visibility leaving the pilot wondering what's out there in front where you can't see. Not a comfortable feeling.
>
>
>
> The PA25-235 is certainly the cheapest to purchase and is benign to fly. Wing tanks, as opposed to a center tank, reduce pilot fatigue. The weight in the wings reduce the affects of roll in turbulence. I guess this is not an issue unless you are flying all day long.
>
>
>
> The L-19 is by far the most enjoyable to fly and it's light handling allow all day towing with minimal fatigue. It flies beautifully at slow air-speeds and still has a good roll rate, unlike the PA-25. It also sips the least amount of fuel. It does tend to be expensive to maintain. Limiting the flap speed is advised. The flaps do allow for the steeper approaches and a much slower approach speed than the PA-25.

Great info from all, thanks!

I've seen several comments on maintenance costs. What makes the Bird Dog more expensive? Does that cost include the long-term expense of maintaining and replacing the Pawnee fabric? We also tend to do most maintenance in-house.

Note that we are looking at one of the rebuilt Bird Dogs from Air Repair (http://www.airrepairinc.com/L-19.html), not an older one. Good Pawnees, on the other hand, are getting harder to find - unless you rebuild yourself or outsource - and now the costs go up fast.

Kirk
66

[Bruce Hoult[_2_]]

On 2014-08-22 14:10:42 +0000, kirk.stant said:

> Note that we are looking at one of the rebuilt Bird Dogs from Air
> Repair (http://www.airrepairinc.com/L-19.html), not an older one. Good
> Pawnees, on the other hand, are getting harder to find - unless you
> rebuild yourself or outsource - and now the costs go up fast.

Looks like a beautiful plane. $165,000 may even be a pretty good price
for what appears to be effectively a brand new aircraft.

Interesting that the useful load is listed as only 800 lbs vs 1500 lb
for the Pawnee.

Of course something on the end of a rope wth its own wings puts
different strains on the aircraft than something internal, but I've
always thought that one reason the Pawnee works well is a dry glass two
seater or a fully ballasted single seater is a similar weight to the ag
loads it was designed to haul.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Friday, August 22, 2014 8:10:42 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Friday, August 22, 2014 7:48:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
>
>
> > I've towed with all 3. The Maule has a very high deck angle and restricts visibility leaving the pilot wondering what's out there in front where you can't see. Not a comfortable feeling.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The PA25-235 is certainly the cheapest to purchase and is benign to fly. Wing tanks, as opposed to a center tank, reduce pilot fatigue. The weight in the wings reduce the affects of roll in turbulence. I guess this is not an issue unless you are flying all day long.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The L-19 is by far the most enjoyable to fly and it's light handling allow all day towing with minimal fatigue. It flies beautifully at slow air-speeds and still has a good roll rate, unlike the PA-25. It also sips the least amount of fuel. It does tend to be expensive to maintain. Limiting the flap speed is advised. The flaps do allow for the steeper approaches and a much slower approach speed than the PA-25.
>
>
>
> Great info from all, thanks!
>
>
>
> I've seen several comments on maintenance costs. What makes the Bird Dog more expensive? Does that cost include the long-term expense of maintaining and replacing the Pawnee fabric? We also tend to do most maintenance in-house.
>
>
>
> Note that we are looking at one of the rebuilt Bird Dogs from Air Repair (http://www.airrepairinc.com/L-19.html), not an older one. Good Pawnees, on the other hand, are getting harder to find - unless you rebuild yourself or outsource - and now the costs go up fast.
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

At your elevation and that kind of money, how about a new towplane?

http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/NewAircraft/Scout/ScoutPricing.html

http://aviataircraft.com/hspecs.html

Frank Whiteley

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, August 22, 2014 5:26:08 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:

> At your elevation and that kind of money, how about a new towplane?>

We already have a pretty nice 180 Super Cub - But on a hot day with no wind and a full G-103, takeoffs take patience...

So the Scout or Husky probably wouldn't change that equation unless they had the bigger engines, which drives the cost much higher.

And they are fabric covered - so no benefit there.

So a rebuilt Pawnee is probably a better choice there. Just my opinion, while I have been towed behind Scouts and Huskies (OK but not spectacular), I've never towed in one.

Kirk
66

[Dan Marotta]

How about a 182 with a hook fitted?

Anyone can fly it, it's covered in aluminum, and during the week,
members can take it on trips.

Dan Marotta

On 8/23/2014 8:33 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Friday, August 22, 2014 5:26:08 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
>> At your elevation and that kind of money, how about a new towplane?>
> We already have a pretty nice 180 Super Cub - But on a hot day with no wind and a full G-103, takeoffs take patience...
>
> So the Scout or Husky probably wouldn't change that equation unless they had the bigger engines, which drives the cost much higher.
>
> And they are fabric covered - so no benefit there.
>
> So a rebuilt Pawnee is probably a better choice there. Just my opinion, while I have been towed behind Scouts and Huskies (OK but not spectacular), I've never towed in one.
>
> Kirk
> 66

[[email protected]]

I tow with a C-182 for CAP and for a private party. Out of Minden, where density altitude can get to 8,000 or more. In fact just yesterday I towed that private party into wave. Twice.

I find the C-182 in these conditions to have less power than I would really like. I far prefer the Pawnee, with the biggest engine you can find.

The Bird dog is a nice looking plane, and it does have two seats, but the tail likes to be ahead of the nose.

[[email protected]]

One downside about the Pawnee, as I found out from expensive personal experience. Years of aerial application of chemicals that attract moisture can play havoc with the integrity of the tubes in the fuselage/tail. Have your IA poke them with an ice pick before you buy.

[Skypilot]

I realize this has been hashed over in the past, but looking for a fresh discussion on the relative merits of these three towplanes.

Specifically, how does a stock Bird Dog compare to a 235 Pawnee, and how do various Maules do as towplanes.

Our club is considering various options for adding to our towplane fleet and any info/personal experiences/good stories would be appreciated.

Kirk
66

Pawnee with a GM V8 :)
More pull than a 16 year old
Cheap, reliable and simple

[SCVihlen]

Here's my 2 cents. I've owned a Birddog for 5 years with the purpose of occasional towing (myself and friends) I've also been the chief tow pilot of our local glider club which owns tow Pawnee 235s. They are both great tow planes and both have their own specific benefits.

I have not seen any exceptional costs associated with the Birddog, with the exception of overhauling the electric flap motor. As they get older, the electrical "up" stop can overrun the stop and when the flap reaches the physical limit, the internal pin will shear. To prevent this, the cautious operator should raise the flaps in 2-3 second actuations. Avoid running the flaps up in one movement.

Other than the flap motor, I have had no maintenance issues what so ever. The O-470 is a very common engine know for it's long life and durability. Accessibility to the engine is exceptional and very easy. In addition to being all metal, the military contract with Cessna included all internal skin was to be coated in zinc chromate. So the aircraft should be very resistant to corrosion. If your club is doing the maintenance in house, I would say it is very affordable.

I've always heard people say the Birddog is very expensive. This may or may not be true. Mine was in very good shape when I bought it with a mid-time engine and I paid $65000. Air Repair is a great facility and offer excellent support. The Birddogs they assemble are new out of the box. So these are brand new airplanes when delivered. They also resell previously owned ones that had been assembled new by them. So the price for these are naturally quite higher in price. I would say the average price on trade a plane or Barnstormers, etc. will be in the 60-85000 price range. More expensive than a Pawnee, but not that much. The insurance costs may be a bit higher based on the higher aircraft value, but Costello can give you a cost comparison. I can say a recent "non-towing" quote was around 1500/year.

The birddog also wears many other hats. I've trained many new tow pilots in my Dawg. It's a fantastic photo platform and you can open all four side windows for a better view and cooling. I think most clubs now have their Pawnees fly in the heat of the summer with the windows closed for fuel burn? Not necessary with the L-19. My fuel burn is about 8 gallons/hour and I really appreciate the cooling with the windows open.

So, ya can't go wrong with either. Both have great qualities, but I love my Birddog!

[[email protected]]

At one time my club operated three L-19's (actually two Ectors and an ex-RCAF L-19 to be precise). We sold one Ector to the Canadian Air Cadets a few years back as membership dropped. As we have no hangar the all metal structure is pretty much a necessity. We've never had very much trouble with airframe components wearing out or breaking in normal use. Most of the expense has been related to the engines. The O-470 family in general is pretty common but the O-470-11 as installed in the Bird Dog isn't. Continental doesn't support it anymore as far as I know and we've found quite a few shops won't even consider doing an overhaul on one. I notice Air Repair quotes about $23K if the exchange cylinders, crank and crankcases are useable which is in line with what we've paid in the past. If it has the original fuel system you're looking at $2-3K to overhaul the pressure carb. A while back we converted our L-19 to a standard carb. The Ectors already had them. We've experienced considerable downtime now and then trying to locate replacement engine accessories (sump and oil cooler spring to mind). Although there's not an official recommended TBO we've found that at 1500-1600 hours the engines are pretty much done.

The only airframe issues I can think of that have come up due to normal operating wear in the last 15 years were some cracked main gear axles, a tailwheel breaking off and some recent flap motor trouble on the one with electric flaps. We operate from a grass strip which has been fairly lumpy at times so the axle and tailwheel problems may have been a result of our particular circumstances not a weakness in the design.

There's no STC for a Tost hook as far as I know but we installed them as a minor modification.

The O-540 STC sounds intriguing for towing. The extra power, easier and cheaper parts availability and possibility of longer times between overhauls may make it worth the expense if it's currently available.

Quite some time back we ran the numbers on estimated cost of the L-19 versus a Pawnee and found in our case that the expected lower running cost of the Pawnee would be offset by the eventual need to replace the fabric. As the L-19 also has dual controls and all the towpilots found the Bird Dog more pleasant to fly we stayed with the Cessnas.