Towplane performance

[Roy]

Our operation has started the hunt for a new towplane.
The main criteria is that from our 2200ft strip at sea level we need
to have a two seater (janus) "over the fence" at 300ft in still air.

What would you recommend?
Dont dwell on purchase cost but rather performance/running costs

We would consider
a) Used
b) New
c) Experimental/anything else.

Thanks for your thorts.

[Markus Feyerabend]

>Our operation has started the hunt for a new towplane.
>The main criteria is that from our 2200ft strip at sea level we need
>to have a two seater (janus) "over the fence" at 300ft in still air.
>
>What would you recommend?
>Dont dwell on purchase cost but rather performance/running costs
>
>We would consider
>a) Used
>b) New
>c) Experimental/anything else.
>
>Thanks for your thorts.

Roy,

You say that you´re looking for a new towplane! What type did you operate so
far?
A 2200ft strip at sea level and 300ft over the fence in still air with a
Janus in the tow sounds like a challlenge!
I was towed by many different towplanes, but there are very few which can do
that reliably!
One, which can do the job is a YAK-55 though....however, not the usual kind
of towplane!
Check this:

http://tinyurl.com/6jcdt

I tow with our clubs Husky and on our 1600ft strip (1950ft above msl) we are
talking more like 50ft "over the fence" (and much less in the summer) with a
DG-1000 in the tow.

Good luk,
Markus

[BTIZ]

We have a Pawnee 235HP, most common of tow planes.. there are also 260HP
versions.
Also a CalAir tow plane may work.

We operate from a 2833MSL airport, 3500ft long runway.. normally glider
starts from about 500ft, so that leaves 3000ft of runway to go.. on hot
summer days.. with a 2-33 or a Grob 103 in tow at MaxGW.. we can plan on
200ft at the departure end.

Looking for 300ft in the air at departure end, in a Janus (assume two seats
loaded) at max GW take off from a 2200ft long runway is very optimistic.

I'm not sure what the performance would be with the Wilga... but I'm
guessing not much better.

BT

"Markus Feyerabend" > wrote in message
...
>
>>Our operation has started the hunt for a new towplane.
>>The main criteria is that from our 2200ft strip at sea level we need
>>to have a two seater (janus) "over the fence" at 300ft in still air.
>>
>>What would you recommend?
>>Dont dwell on purchase cost but rather performance/running costs
>>
>>We would consider
>>a) Used
>>b) New
>>c) Experimental/anything else.
>>
>>Thanks for your thorts.
>
> Roy,
>
> You say that you´re looking for a new towplane! What type did you operate
> so
> far?
> A 2200ft strip at sea level and 300ft over the fence in still air with a
> Janus in the tow sounds like a challlenge!
> I was towed by many different towplanes, but there are very few which can
> do
> that reliably!
> One, which can do the job is a YAK-55 though....however, not the usual
> kind
> of towplane!
> Check this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6jcdt
>
> I tow with our clubs Husky and on our 1600ft strip (1950ft above msl) we
> are
> talking more like 50ft "over the fence" (and much less in the summer) with
> a
> DG-1000 in the tow.
>
> Good luk,
> Markus
>
>
>
>

[Bruce Hoult]

In article <SPI3e.2906$ZV5.894@fed1read05>,
"BTIZ" > wrote:

> Looking for 300ft in the air at departure end, in a Janus (assume two seats
> loaded) at max GW take off from a 2200ft long runway is very optimistic.

Our 260 HP Pawnees normally get around 600 fpm at 65 knots with a Janus
(or Grob Twin for that matter) with two people. That's a climb angle of
about 1:11. OK, so you can get a better angle with a slower speeed, but
not *that* much better.

300 ft AGL after 2200 ft is a climb angle of nearly 1:7. The actual
1:11 a Pawnee gives would give you 200 ft AGL after 2200 ft. And that's
assuming that you *start* with runway already with full flying speed.
In reaily you're going to need about half the runway just to get up to
climb speed. And then you're going to have to climb at about 2000 fpm.

Not going to happen.


> I'm not sure what the performance would be with the Wilga... but I'm
> guessing not much better.

When we tried a Wilga at our club we found that the tow turnaround was
shorter, but it was because the Wilga came down faster not because it
went up faster.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Chris Rollings]

I can't think of any regularly used towplane that will
achieve what you want. A 260 hp Pawnee will probaly
launch a Janus safely in anything but a significant
tail-wind component, but you won't usually get 300
feet over the fence, except on cool, windy days. Why
do you need the 300 foot margin?

At 22:30 02 April 2005, Roy wrote:
>Our operation has started the hunt for a new towplane.
>The main criteria is that from our 2200ft strip at
>sea level we need
>to have a two seater (janus) 'over the fence' at 300ft
>in still air.
>
>What would you recommend?
>Dont dwell on purchase cost but rather performance/running
>costs
>
>We would consider
>a) Used
>b) New
>c) Experimental/anything else.
>
>Thanks for your thorts.
>

[Stefan]

Chris Rollings wrote:

> I can't think of any regularly used towplane that will
> achieve what you want.

A Pilatus PC6 will do this just nicely. Ok, agreed, not exactly a
"regularly used towplane".

Stefan

[M B]

It sounds like you don't want a plane, you want an
engine.

How about a
G-164 Super Ag Cat C with a 600hp turbine? Looks like
they are $50,000 US maybe?

The aggies love 'em, so they can't be TOO pricey for
maint.
Fuel cost is maybe a bit higher, but you specified
PERFORMANCE, right? Gotta pay SOMETHING for that...


A nice experimental sticker and a towhook/looksie by

whatever govt. agency and bzzzz...you're off!

Good luck...I hope the propwash doesn't blow the wings
off...
maybe use a longer towrope? :P

At 07:30 03 April 2005, Chris Rollings wrote:
>I can't think of any regularly used towplane that will
>achieve what you want. A 260 hp Pawnee will probaly
>launch a Janus safely in anything but a significant
>tail-wind component, but you won't usually get 300
>feet over the fence, except on cool, windy days. Why
>do you need the 300 foot margin?
>
>At 22:30 02 April 2005, Roy wrote:
>>Our operation has started the hunt for a new towplane.
>>The main criteria is that from our 2200ft strip at
>>sea level we need
>>to have a two seater (janus) 'over the fence' at 300ft
>>in still air.
>>
>>What would you recommend?
>>Dont dwell on purchase cost but rather performance/running
>>costs
>>
>>We would consider
>>a) Used
>>b) New
>>c) Experimental/anything else.
>>
>>Thanks for your thorts.
>>
>
>
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Stefan > wrote:

> Chris Rollings wrote:
>
> > I can't think of any regularly used towplane that will
> > achieve what you want.
>
> A Pilatus PC6 will do this just nicely. Ok, agreed, not exactly a
> "regularly used towplane".

Don't forget the NZ turbine cropduster offshoot being sold for
skydiving, the PAC 750XL:

http://www.utilityaircraft.com/

Brake release to 12,000 ft takes 12 minutes with a 2 tonne load. The
plane without the skydivers (but with fuel & pilot) weighs 1400 kg, so
it can presumably climb at over 2000 fpm lightly loaded.

Ground roll at MTOW is 1244 ft, so presumably considerably less at
light weights.


Biggest problem: best rate of climb is at 95 knots, best angle is at 85
knots.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Stewart Kissel]

It certainly looks like it could do the job....however
not sure which club wants to own the first $500k+ towplane
:)



At 14:00 03 April 2005, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>In article ,
> Stefan wrote:
>
>> Chris Rollings wrote:
>>
>> > I can't think of any regularly used towplane that
>>>will
>> > achieve what you want.
>>
>> A Pilatus PC6 will do this just nicely. Ok, agreed,
>>not exactly a
>> 'regularly used towplane'.
>
>Don't forget the NZ turbine cropduster offshoot being
>sold for
>skydiving, the PAC 750XL:
>
>http://www.utilityaircraft.com/
>
>Brake release to 12,000 ft takes 12 minutes with a
>2 tonne load. The
>plane without the skydivers (but with fuel & pilot)
>weighs 1400 kg, so
>it can presumably climb at over 2000 fpm lightly loaded.
>
>Ground roll at MTOW is 1244 ft, so presumably considerably
>less at
>light weights.
>
>
>Biggest problem: best rate of climb is at 95 knots,
>best angle is at 85
>knots.
>
>--
>Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
>Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
>

[Pete Reinhart]

I learned behind a 180 hp Super Cub and remember seeing loaded glider and
tow plane off the ground in 3-500 feet depending on wind. plenty fast climb
too.
we were operating out of the middle of a 3000 ' strip so demos coul depart
and arrive at the same place either direction. I understand that there was
an STC for 200 hp on the sme airframe and the extra 20 hp ought to really do
the job on the Janus. Only problem is that Supr Cubs bring a premium these
days.
Cheers!

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> It certainly looks like it could do the job....however
> not sure which club wants to own the first $500k+ towplane
> :)
>
>
>
> At 14:00 03 April 2005, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> >In article ,
> > Stefan wrote:
> >
> >> Chris Rollings wrote:
> >>
> >> > I can't think of any regularly used towplane that
> >>>will
> >> > achieve what you want.
> >>
> >> A Pilatus PC6 will do this just nicely. Ok, agreed,
> >>not exactly a
> >> 'regularly used towplane'.
> >
> >Don't forget the NZ turbine cropduster offshoot being
> >sold for
> >skydiving, the PAC 750XL:
> >
> >http://www.utilityaircraft.com/
> >
> >Brake release to 12,000 ft takes 12 minutes with a
> >2 tonne load. The
> >plane without the skydivers (but with fuel & pilot)
> >weighs 1400 kg, so
> >it can presumably climb at over 2000 fpm lightly loaded.
> >
> >Ground roll at MTOW is 1244 ft, so presumably considerably
> >less at
> >light weights.
> >
> >
> >Biggest problem: best rate of climb is at 95 knots,
> >best angle is at 85
> >knots.
> >
> >--
> >Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
> >Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
> >
>
>
>

[BTIZ]

>> Looking for 300ft in the air at departure end, in a Janus (assume two
>> seats
>> loaded) at max GW take off from a 2200ft long runway is very optimistic.
>
> Our 260 HP Pawnees normally get around 600 fpm at 65 knots with a Janus
> (or Grob Twin for that matter) with two people. That's a climb angle of
> about 1:11. OK, so you can get a better angle with a slower speeed, but
> not *that* much better.

Great explanations..
Our 235HP Pawnee will average about 400-500fpm with a two up 2-33 or Grob
103.
And we break ground with about 1500ft runway remaining... so.. about 200ft
at departure end.
We are lifting off at about 55KIAS and towing at 60 for a 1-26 and 65 for
the Grob.

BT

[1JH]

Roy wrote:
> Our operation has started the hunt for a new towplane.
> The main criteria is that from our 2200ft strip at sea level we need
> to have a two seater (janus) "over the fence" at 300ft in still air.
>
> What would you recommend?
> Dont dwell on purchase cost but rather performance/running costs
>
> We would consider
> a) Used
> b) New
> c) Experimental/anything else.
>
> Thanks for your thorts.

If performance is your only criteria, the following should be
considered. A 450 Steerman, a 650 Steerman or a 400 or turbine Piper
Brave. These are all crop dusters so you have to be careful what you
buy. The wings time out on the Brave and require major repair at that
time. The performance is directly proportional to the cost of operation
in just about the following order turbine Brave, 650, 450 and 400
Brave. The 650 Steerman with full power at sea level will make you
think you are on a winch. There are a lot of Braves available at
reasonable cost but see previous.

[M B]

I agree that for really good performance and ok cost,
a nice big turbine is a neat deal. A lot of cropdusters
have gone from the radials to the turbines for performance/cost
reasons.

At 15:31 04 April 2005, 1jh wrote:
>Roy wrote:
>> Our operation has started the hunt for a new towplane.
>> The main criteria is that from our 2200ft strip at
>>sea level we need
>> to have a two seater (janus) 'over the fence' at 300ft
>>in still air.
>>
>> What would you recommend?
>> Dont dwell on purchase cost but rather performance/running
>>costs
>>
>> We would consider
>> a) Used
>> b) New
>> c) Experimental/anything else.
>>
>> Thanks for your thorts.
>
>If performance is your only criteria, the following
>should be
>considered. A 450 Steerman, a 650 Steerman or a 400
>or turbine Piper
>Brave. These are all crop dusters so you have to be
>careful what you
>buy. The wings time out on the Brave and require major
>repair at that
>time. The performance is directly proportional to the
>cost of operation
>in just about the following order turbine Brave, 650,
>450 and 400
>Brave. The 650 Steerman with full power at sea level
>will make you
>think you are on a winch. There are a lot of Braves
>available at
>reasonable cost but see previous.
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Bill Daniels]

"Roy" > wrote in message
om...
> Many thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far.
>
> Non of the suggestions were for other than standard (old) aircraft
> products.
>
> It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor (160-200hp) would
> be great to do the job.
>
> Anyone else considered this approach?
> We are not a commercial operation and dont have to pay our pilots.
> There is no insurance problem so this solution has some appeal. ie
> new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.

"Experimental - Amateur Built" aircraft will always have a "No glider
towing" paragraph in their operation limitations letter. However, Sport
Light Aircraft under the new regs seem to have a loophole that allows glider
towing for profit.

Actually the key design parameter isn't the engine it's the propeller and
after that, the wing. If you start with a prop optimized for max thrust at
towing speed and then a wing optimized for that speed, the HP requirements
go way down. This assumes that the prop RPM can be reduced by belts or
gearing.

Maybe somebody should cook up an SLA design optimized for towing. This
would be a very efficient and very quiet airplane.

Bill Daniels

[Roy]

Many thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far.

Non of the suggestions were for other than standard (old) aircraft
products.

It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor (160-200hp) would
be great to do the job.

Anyone else considered this approach?
We are not a commercial operation and dont have to pay our pilots.
There is no insurance problem so this solution has some appeal. ie
new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.

[Marc Ramsey]

Roy wrote:
> It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor (160-200hp) would
> be great to do the job.
>
> Anyone else considered this approach?
> We are not a commercial operation and dont have to pay our pilots.
> There is no insurance problem so this solution has some appeal. ie
> new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.

If you are in the US, towing gliders with experimental aircraft is
prohibited by the FAA. I can't remember the exact place where it is
spelled out (it's probably in an AC), I'm sure someone else will know...

[Udo Rumpf]

"Roy" > wrote in message
om...
> Many thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far.
>
> Non of the suggestions were for other than standard (old) aircraft
> products.
>
> It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor (160-200hp) would
> be great to do the job.
>
> Anyone else considered this approach?
> We are not a commercial operation and dont have to pay our pilots.
> There is no insurance problem so this solution has some appeal. ie
> new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.

Have a look at this site.
http://www.soarmn.com/soaring_files/towplane_comparison_table.jpg
This Towplane table was done in 1994. The calculation are all referenced to
see level and standard temperature. The performances appear high,
but are not, because most of the comments on this group referred to High
temperature and high altitude. All Climb performances are with a fully
loaded
twin Grob. Acceleration on the Ground was not taken into account.
For example if the temperature is 80F and a 1000ft the factor becomes .77
Please note how well the Zenith 300 with a 180 HP does.

I could well imagine Dick VanGrunsven RV 9 with a 180HP would do very well
but
the RV 10 would be a better choice, as the airframe is stronger and designed
to take a bigger engine, the airframe would still be well under 1500lb if it
is a
very basic tow plane. For example the RV 9 with a pilot and fuel and a max
160HP
( allowed only) has a power loading of 10.

The RV10 with the same pilot and fuel would, but 180 HP, would have the
same
power loading as the RV9. The RV 10 has a larger wing area, it would climb
better
at the speeds we tow at. Also the Airframe is designed for up to 260HP.

For a club with a small membership and limited options I would favour a
stripped down
C-170 or 172 with 180HP if Summer temperature and see elevation allow.
Parts and services are readily available and the performance is not bad at
all for 180HP.
Regards
Udo

[Scott]

Uh, but I think you might be missing an important point. Experimental
aircraft such as the RV series can't be used for hire. If the plane and
pilot are provided free, and not compensated in any way, then it might
be doable. I guess you'd have to find a pilot that is only interested
in building time and not wanting to make money...I'm out ;)


Scott


Udo Rumpf wrote:
>
> "Roy" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>> Many thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far.
>>
>> Non of the suggestions were for other than standard (old) aircraft
>> products.
>>
>> It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor (160-200hp) would
>> be great to do the job.
>>
>> Anyone else considered this approach?
>> We are not a commercial operation and dont have to pay our pilots.
>> There is no insurance problem so this solution has some appeal. ie
>> new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.
>
>
> Have a look at this site.
> http://www.soarmn.com/soaring_files/towplane_comparison_table.jpg
> This Towplane table was done in 1994. The calculation are all referenced to
> see level and standard temperature. The performances appear high,
> but are not, because most of the comments on this group referred to High
> temperature and high altitude. All Climb performances are with a fully
> loaded
> twin Grob. Acceleration on the Ground was not taken into account.
> For example if the temperature is 80F and a 1000ft the factor becomes .77
> Please note how well the Zenith 300 with a 180 HP does.
>
> I could well imagine Dick VanGrunsven RV 9 with a 180HP would do very
> well but
> the RV 10 would be a better choice, as the airframe is stronger and
> designed
> to take a bigger engine, the airframe would still be well under 1500lb
> if it is a
> very basic tow plane. For example the RV 9 with a pilot and fuel and a
> max 160HP
> ( allowed only) has a power loading of 10.
>
> The RV10 with the same pilot and fuel would, but 180 HP, would have
> the same
> power loading as the RV9. The RV 10 has a larger wing area, it would
> climb better
> at the speeds we tow at. Also the Airframe is designed for up to 260HP.
>
> For a club with a small membership and limited options I would favour a
> stripped down
> C-170 or 172 with 180HP if Summer temperature and see elevation allow.
> Parts and services are readily available and the performance is not bad
> at all for 180HP.
> Regards
> Udo

[Udo Rumpf]

"Scott" > wrote in message
...
> Uh, but I think you might be missing an important point. Experimental
> aircraft such as the RV series can't be used for hire. If the plane and
> pilot are provided free, and not compensated in any way, then it might be
> doable. I guess you'd have to find a pilot that is only interested in
> building time and not wanting to make money...I'm out ;)
>
>
> Scott
I did not make a point about the viability as it relates to
the regulation, but rather performance.
Udo



>
> Udo Rumpf wrote:
>>
>> "Roy" > wrote in message
>> om...
>>
>>> Many thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far.
>>>
>>> Non of the suggestions were for other than standard (old) aircraft
>>> products.
>>>
>>> It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor (160-200hp) would
>>> be great to do the job.
>>>
>>> Anyone else considered this approach?
>>> We are not a commercial operation and dont have to pay our pilots.
>>> There is no insurance problem so this solution has some appeal. ie
>>> new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.
>>
>>
>> Have a look at this site.
>> http://www.soarmn.com/soaring_files/towplane_comparison_table.jpg
>> This Towplane table was done in 1994. The calculation are all referenced
>> to
>> see level and standard temperature. The performances appear high,
>> but are not, because most of the comments on this group referred to High
>> temperature and high altitude. All Climb performances are with a fully
>> loaded
>> twin Grob. Acceleration on the Ground was not taken into account.
>> For example if the temperature is 80F and a 1000ft the factor becomes
>> .77
>> Please note how well the Zenith 300 with a 180 HP does.
>>
>> I could well imagine Dick VanGrunsven RV 9 with a 180HP would do very
>> well but
>> the RV 10 would be a better choice, as the airframe is stronger and
>> designed
>> to take a bigger engine, the airframe would still be well under 1500lb if
>> it is a
>> very basic tow plane. For example the RV 9 with a pilot and fuel and a
>> max 160HP
>> ( allowed only) has a power loading of 10.
>>
>> The RV10 with the same pilot and fuel would, but 180 HP, would have the
>> same
>> power loading as the RV9. The RV 10 has a larger wing area, it would
>> climb better
>> at the speeds we tow at. Also the Airframe is designed for up to 260HP.
>>
>> For a club with a small membership and limited options I would favour a
>> stripped down
>> C-170 or 172 with 180HP if Summer temperature and see elevation allow.
>> Parts and services are readily available and the performance is not bad
>> at all for 180HP.
>> Regards
>> Udo

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Marc Ramsey > wrote:

> If you are in the US, towing gliders with experimental aircraft is
> prohibited by the FAA.

That seems silly.

Sure, taking some random aircraft and using it to tow a glider would be
a silly idea, but surely it's ok to design and build your own
experimental aircraft for the specific purpose of towing gliders!

I seem to recall an experimental aircraft called "White Knight"
air-dropping a glider called "SpaceShipOne", with the FAA administrator
present.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Marc Ramsey]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> That seems silly.
>
> Sure, taking some random aircraft and using it to tow a glider would be
> a silly idea, but surely it's ok to design and build your own
> experimental aircraft for the specific purpose of towing gliders!

If this was the only silly FAA rule, perhaps it would be worth worrying
about.

> I seem to recall an experimental aircraft called "White Knight"
> air-dropping a glider called "SpaceShipOne", with the FAA administrator
> present.

Ah, but that did not fit the definition of a "glider tow". In fact, it
does not fit definition of any form of glider launch currently
recognized by the FAA (i.e., aero tow, ground launch, or self-launch),
so the pilots weren't required to have a launch type endorsement...

Marc

[M B]

The Zenair CH601XL SLSA has an O-200.
With 800# empty weight,
one pilot and light fuel, I wonder what it would tow...

At 300# under max gross, it may just get over the trees
towing 800# or less. 2 people in a 1000#+ aircraft,
hmmm...pretty doubtful there.

I have yet to believe an RV-9 under 1000# empty can
be built with any engine bigger than a O-200. An
inquiry to Van's confirmed that there are no plans
to try to make any of the existing RV kits into SLSA
or ELSA eligible aircraft. They are sturdy and capable,
but a few hundred pounds past the 600kg limit. Flaps,
engine weight, engine accessories, battery, and sturdy
landing gear all add up.

I think a good SLSA towplane would need to be made
from the
bottom up as a single seater. I don't see enough demand
for a single-seat SLSA to make this likely. I'm not
sure we will ever see a single seat SLSA airplane at
all...

At 01:00 07 April 2005, Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>'Roy' wrote in message
om...
>> Many thanks for all the advice and suggestions so
>>far.
>>
>> Non of the suggestions were for other than standard
>>(old) aircraft
>> products.
>>
>> It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor
>>(160-200hp) would
>> be great to do the job.
>>
>> Anyone else considered this approach?
>> We are not a commercial operation and dont have to
>>pay our pilots.
>> There is no insurance problem so this solution has
>>some appeal. ie
>> new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.
>
>'Experimental - Amateur Built' aircraft will always
>have a 'No glider
>towing' paragraph in their operation limitations letter.
> However, Sport
>Light Aircraft under the new regs seem to have a loophole
>that allows glider
>towing for profit.
>
>Actually the key design parameter isn't the engine
>it's the propeller and
>after that, the wing. If you start with a prop optimized
>for max thrust at
>towing speed and then a wing optimized for that speed,
>the HP requirements
>go way down. This assumes that the prop RPM can be
>reduced by belts or
>gearing.
>
>Maybe somebody should cook up an SLA design optimized
>for towing. This
>would be a very efficient and very quiet airplane.
>
>Bill Daniels
>
>
Mark J. Boyd

[Nick Olson]

Getting back to the original thread - what you need
my friend is a Turbo-Czmelak like they used at WGC2003.
1000ft/min+ with a fully loaded Nimbus4/4D/ASH25, throttled
back I believe!

[Mike Schumann]

Have you considered winch launching?

Mike Schumann

"Roy" > wrote in message
om...
> Our operation has started the hunt for a new towplane.
> The main criteria is that from our 2200ft strip at sea level we need
> to have a two seater (janus) "over the fence" at 300ft in still air.
>
> What would you recommend?
> Dont dwell on purchase cost but rather performance/running costs
>
> We would consider
> a) Used
> b) New
> c) Experimental/anything else.
>
> Thanks for your thorts.

[Roy]

Scott > wrote in message >...
> Uh, but I think you might be missing an important point. Experimental
> aircraft such as the RV series can't be used for hire. If the plane and
> pilot are provided free, and not compensated in any way, then it might
> be doable. I guess you'd have to find a pilot that is only interested
> in building time and not wanting to make money...I'm out ;)
>
>
> Scott
>
Scott

Presume you haven't heard of that phenomina called Gliding Clubs,
where volunteers act as instructors and others as towpilots... FOR
FREE.

I hear there are lots of them functioning around the world.:-))

AND gentlemen, wonder of wonders, there are other juristictions than
the USA that have glider towing.....sometimes it appears that people
presume only US residents read or contribute to this news group :-)))

Well off to go flying on a great Noo Zeeland day. Yep its FRiday and
the therms are popping.

[Shawn]

Roy wrote:

> Presume you haven't heard of that phenomina called Gliding Clubs,
> where volunteers act as instructors and others as towpilots... FOR
> FREE.
>
> I hear there are lots of them functioning around the world.:-))
>
> AND gentlemen, wonder of wonders, there are other juristictions than
> the USA that have glider towing.....sometimes it appears that people
> presume only US residents read or contribute to this news group :-)))
>
> Well off to go flying on a great Noo Zeeland day. Yep its FRiday and
> the therms are popping.

Oh relax Roy. We'll get over ourselves as soon as we're done selling
ourselves to the Chinese. Sometime around the second week of December.
How were those upside down thermals?

Shawn