To Pawnee or not to Pawnee...that is the question...

[Travis Beach]

Our club has a Piper Pawnee 235hp in excellent condition.
We just spent $35000 five years ago to completely overhaul
her...new fabric, new engine, anything that needed
to be replaced was...

Heres the rub...we are in the middle of a new two place
acquisition with the club making a decision about getting
a new two place intermediate performance. We were about
to drop the hammer when a very vocal minority raised
the issue of PAWNEE needing to be replaced citing extreme
maintenance cost (???) and inability to get parts.
He/She cited the local aero repair facility as his/her
source of information...Many of us just dont see this
as a problem. The replacement that was cited was a
Husky 180HP...I just dont see the reasoning of such
a switch...I surely would rather two a heavier two
place with a proven performer with 235 hp vs a 180...

What say you? Discuss...should we scrap the Pawnee
in favor of a Husky?

Beach

[BT]

We do not seem to have any problems getting Pawnee Parts.
What are the "extreme maint costs"? and how could those costs be reduced
with a more expensive to purchase Husky?
Do they remember the cost to rebuild from 5 years ago? Not to be repeated
soon.
You just put $35K into the Pawnee, does it have the wing attach points STC?
Any reason why you did not up the HP to 250HP on rebuild available via STC?

After 5 years, (based on our club) you are about 1000-1200 hours into the
engine.
Are you facing a rebuild soon or do you expect it to go to TBO??.. that's 4
more years.
Hopefully you have been "paying yourself" and have a separate "engine fund".

Everyone is facing the "horizontal attach points" AD that was released this
summer. You've got 1000 flying hours to fix it, if you find no problems on
regular inspections. We estimate about $2000-$2500 for that AD.

We average 12 gph in tow operations with a 250HP Pawnee, I'm guessing that
180HP Husky will be about 9-10gph, or at $4/gal, about $12 per hour cheaper
to operate... the 200HP (new at about $200K) will run 10-12gph.

But now lets look at the cost of insuring a $150-$200K Husky vice a $35K
Pawnee. fuhgetaboutit.

Someone mentioned the 200HP Husky, I'm sure it's a great tow bird, but you
may loose useful load.
Sure it's nice having a two seat tow for training purposes. We have a friend
with a Scout and tow hook. We train tow pilots in that and "graduate" them
into the Pawnee.

Keep the Pawnee, if your flying field can support a winch, get one.
BT


"Travis Beach" > wrote in message
...
> Our club has a Piper Pawnee 235hp in excellent condition.
> We just spent $35000 five years ago to completely overhaul
> her...new fabric, new engine, anything that needed
> to be replaced was...
>
> Heres the rub...we are in the middle of a new two place
> acquisition with the club making a decision about getting
> a new two place intermediate performance. We were about
> to drop the hammer when a very vocal minority raised
> the issue of PAWNEE needing to be replaced citing extreme
> maintenance cost (???) and inability to get parts.
> He/She cited the local aero repair facility as his/her
> source of information...Many of us just dont see this
> as a problem. The replacement that was cited was a
> Husky 180HP...I just dont see the reasoning of such
> a switch...I surely would rather two a heavier two
> place with a proven performer with 235 hp vs a 180...
>
> What say you? Discuss...should we scrap the Pawnee
> in favor of a Husky?
>
> Beach
>
>
>

[Roy Bourgeois]

Our club runs a pair of 235 Pawnees (a "D" with the full Hutch =
conversion and a stock "C" model). We also tow with a L-19 Bird Dog. =
Another club I teach for runs a 260 hp Pawnee with the constant speed =
prop and a third club in New England runs a pair of 235s also. I think =
Caesar Creek also runs Pawnees as does Bermuda High. There are several =
at Boulder CO and one nice one at Salida. All Pawnees have had a hard =
life before they came to be tow planes and it's pretty easy to spend =
enough on an engine overhaul, a fabric recover, and the attach point =
AD/STC so that you've got more into the plane than any stock Pawnee is =
worth. There are a few parts that are hard to find but an experienced =
mechanic can usually work around those. We tend to burn through =
starters and brake pads - but most tow planes do. The solo checkout is =
not a problem - they fly real honest and and are not hard to land, but =
the inability to do dual practice towing would make me not want to use =
it as my sole towplane. I've towed behind (but not piloted) the Husky =
at both Mifflin & Albert Lea - and it does a credible job as a =
towplane. I would only be concerned about the high initial cost and the =
insurance costs. It's a little like the price difference between an old =
beater pick up truck and a spiffy new one. If you can afford the new one =
fine. If not, fly & fix your Pawnee.

Roy B.

[fred]

On Oct 15, 8:19 pm, Roy Bourgeois >
wrote:
> Our club runs a pair of 235 Pawnees (a "D" with the full Hutch =
> conversion and a stock "C" model). We also tow with a L-19 Bird Dog. =
> Another club I teach for runs a 260 hp Pawnee with the constant speed =
> prop and a third club in New England runs a pair of 235s also. I think =
> Caesar Creek also runs Pawnees as does Bermuda High. There are several =
> at Boulder CO and one nice one at Salida. All Pawnees have had a hard =
> life before they came to be tow planes and it's pretty easy to spend =
> enough on an engine overhaul, a fabric recover, and the attach point =
> AD/STC so that you've got more into the plane than any stock Pawnee is =
> worth. There are a few parts that are hard to find but an experienced =
> mechanic can usually work around those. We tend to burn through =
> starters and brake pads - but most tow planes do. The solo checkout is =
> not a problem - they fly real honest and and are not hard to land, but =
> the inability to do dual practice towing would make me not want to use =
> it as my sole towplane. I've towed behind (but not piloted) the Husky =
> at both Mifflin & Albert Lea - and it does a credible job as a =
> towplane. I would only be concerned about the high initial cost and the =
> insurance costs. It's a little like the price difference between an old =
> beater pick up truck and a spiffy new one. If you can afford the new one =
> fine. If not, fly & fix your Pawnee.
>
> Roy B.

A log history of tow plane usage. The Husky is designed to carry a
load. When flown empty the cg is too far forward, needing up elevator
to maintain tow attitude...pure drag. I've flown them and towed behind
them. For the price of a new one, buy 4 more Pawnees.
Wing loading, Hp to wing loading climb over obstruction. Climb at high
density altitude, Pilot visability...rugged structure, easy of flying.
So many things favor the Pawnee...
Parts have not been a serious problem. They use so many common parts
of other Piper designs. PMA parts are readily available.

If you want to sell, call me. Fred

[Dan G]

Why is it only old Pawnee vs. new Husky? Are there not used efficient
180hp tugs available in the US?


Dan

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Dan G wrote:
> Why is it only old Pawnee vs. new Husky? Are there not used efficient
> 180hp tugs available in the US?
>
I was up at Milfield with my Libelle a week ago, where they run three
tow planes: 150 Pawnee, 180 Supercub, 235 Pawnee. I couldn't see much
difference between the Supercub and the 235 Pawnee but the 150 Pawnee
had a much slower climb rate than either of the others: more like my
club's 160hp Rallye.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[309]

Nobody's mentioned the Scout (Bellanca 8GCBC), with a 180 HP mill
(fixed or constant speed props available).

It kinda' sounds like the club complainer just wants a two-seater to
carry a sightseeing companion -- er, I mean a student tug driver.

It would seem to me that a Scout is roughly equivalent to a Husky, at
less cost, perhaps.

Another consideration: can you run auto gas in the 235?

I've towed with a Pawnee burning auto gas -- worked great, even towing
watered up glass birds (1100 lbs takeoff weight) at high density
altitude (Lone Pine in July). I have fond memories of towing with
that tug, despite the fact it's one of very few airplanes that have
tried to kill me (an exhaust stack broke off INSIDE the
cowl...exciting day, some anesthesia -- 3 bloody mary's -- required).

I've towed banners with 8GCBC's. Banners are far less dangerous to
tow pilots than student glider pilots, but I think a Scout would work
fine. It's an honest airplane, though the extra gear length and span
(compared to its Citabria and Decathalon siblings) make it much more
prone to ground looping.

The Pawnee has much nicer handling qualities than the Scout (sorry,
never flown a Husky). I've also towed with a CallAir A-9, and it's
honest, but not as lithe as a Pawnee (with the same engine). They're
all covered with fabric, so that liability exists for all three.
They're all taildraggers -- so that's equal, regardless of whether you
consider that a liability or an asset (I vote for asset). The only
drawback I see is that the Pawnee only has one seat.

I still concurr with some of the other respondents: regardless of the
fact that you've got $35k invested in the Pawnee, KEEP IT, buy the
glider, and tell the Husky proponents to go buy their own.

-Pete
#309

[BT]

We have towed with 180HP Scout.. does not compare to 235HP Pawnee
We sold the Scout and bought the Pawnee, we tow from 3000ft MSL field with
110F summer temps
BT

"Dan G" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Why is it only old Pawnee vs. new Husky? Are there not used efficient
> 180hp tugs available in the US?
>
>
> Dan
>

[Wayne Paul]

We have a 180HP Scout with a fixed pitch climb prop. We have found it
adequate for our needs, even when we fly out of Mackay, ID (5,900' MSL)
during our August regatta.
(http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/Mackay_2006/index.html)

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/



"BT" > wrote in message
...
> We have towed with 180HP Scout.. does not compare to 235HP Pawnee
> We sold the Scout and bought the Pawnee, we tow from 3000ft MSL field with
> 110F summer temps
> BT
>
> "Dan G" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Why is it only old Pawnee vs. new Husky? Are there not used efficient
>> 180hp tugs available in the US?
>>
>>
>> Dan
>>
>
>

[Frank Whiteley]

On Oct 16, 8:55 pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
> We have a 180HP Scout with a fixed pitch climb prop. We have found it
> adequate for our needs, even when we fly out of Mackay, ID (5,900' MSL)
> during our August regatta.
> (http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/Mackay_2006/index.html)
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 "6F"http://www.soaridaho.com/
>
> "BT" > wrote in message
>
I don't see any two-seater in the gallery photos. Anyone flying with
water there?

We had a 180hp Scout at 5500msl. It was very marginal on hot days
with water or heavy two-seaters and we used two hours fuel only as
full fuel was too heavy. Fuel tanks had recurring leaks. The wood
spar AD required extensive recurring inspections (there were metal
spar retrofit wings produced). Complete wiring harness was replaced.
We also had a U/C strut break, which took out the prop, engine, wing
tip, and horizontal, and availability. Never quite the same after
repairs. The Scout averaged $1000/month in upkeep and inspections at
commercial rates. Despite several objections, we replaced it with a
Pawnee 235D, later updated with the 250STC. Pawnee was not without
its problems. We looked at 40 Pawnees and went for what we considered
the best available on our budget. In retrospect we should have
budgeted about $10K more and considered a few more options. Plan on
buying the Pawnee a second time in the first 3-4 years until you get
it golden. IMVHO, no one sells a really good tow plane at an average
price. Cost aside, we've had high availability and get good
performance thanks to good management and tow pilot procedures. The
250STC is worth it.

IIRC, a Pawnee (with transponder) was reported towing well above it's
advertised operational ceiling this past summer on a really high tow.
I think our's, also transponder equipped, has been to 11,500msl a
couple of times on tow and still climbing okay.

180hp Scouts with metal spars are still being built. $132,900 with
constant speed prop. Probably a good choice for all around towing at
sites <3000MSL., that is, far more than adequate.

Frank Whiteley

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Travis Beach wrote:

>What say you? Discuss...should we scrap the Pawnee
>in favor of a Husky?
>
>Beach

Much has been said and of good quality so I feel I can add my $.02 FWIW.

I have been a glider pilot with one primary commercial operation for around
20years and been at the end (trailing end) of a variety of tugs.
My perspective has been one where I watched a succesful gliderport operator
try a variety of towplanes and eventually pare the fleet down to Pawnees
exclusively.

In the process I saw Cubs, SuperCubs, a C182, Scout, and a Husky make their
way thru the fleet but all thats left are the Pawnees.

At my end of the rope, I love 'em.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[Derek Ruddock]

Speak to the people at Lake Kepit Soaring Club in New
South Wales. they had a Husky (new) for a while. Basically
the thing was not up to the rigors of towing and essentially
fell apart.
They now use a Pawnee. Go figure

At 23:18 15 October 2007, Travis Beach wrote:
>Our club has a Piper Pawnee 235hp in excellent condition.
>We just spent $35000 five years ago to completely overhaul
>her...new fabric, new engine, anything that needed
>to be replaced was...
>
>Heres the rub...we are in the middle of a new two place
>acquisition with the club making a decision about getting
>a new two place intermediate performance. We were about
>to drop the hammer when a very vocal minority raised
>the issue of PAWNEE needing to be replaced citing extreme
>maintenance cost (???) and inability to get parts.
>He/She cited the local aero repair facility as his/her
>source of information...Many of us just dont see this
>as a problem. The replacement that was cited was a
>Husky 180HP...I just dont see the reasoning of such
>a switch...I surely would rather two a heavier two
>place with a proven performer with 235 hp vs a 180...
>
>What say you? Discuss...should we scrap the Pawnee
>in favor of a Husky?
>
>Beach
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

I concur with Cloudy. Eventually, almost all high volume tow
operations in the USA have ended up with Pawnees. Rugged, inexpensive
to buy and operate, easy to fly, good viz, good crash protection -
what more do you want?

Husky's are good for a lot of things but towing is not one of ithem,
IMO. They are incredibly expensive to buy (4X+ a Pawnee), parts are
very expensive and the Internet is full of people complaining about
customer service. There is essentially only 1 place to buy Husky
parts and probably hundreds where you can get Pawnee spares.

In my 25+ years of towing with and behind Cub, Pawnee Bird Dog, Scout,
Citabria, C-182 and others, nothing is a better all-around tug than an
0-540 Pawnee.

If you need versatility, a C-182 is probably the best, albeit far
inferior to the Pawnee as a pure tug.

[BT]

I should have said the issue with the Scout was heavy two seat operations..
as Frank mentioned.
We can have greater than 200ft AGL at runway end after a 2800ft run with the
Pawnee and a heavy two seat Grob 103 or SGS2-33
With the old Scout... barely 75-100ft AGL
And the Pawnee does not even feel the 1-26 on tow
BT

"Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 16, 8:55 pm, "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>> We have a 180HP Scout with a fixed pitch climb prop. We have found it
>> adequate for our needs, even when we fly out of Mackay, ID (5,900' MSL)
>> during our August regatta.
>> (http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/Mackay_2006/index.html)
>>
>> Wayne
>> HP-14 "6F"http://www.soaridaho.com/
>>
>> "BT" > wrote in message
>>
> I don't see any two-seater in the gallery photos. Anyone flying with
> water there?
>
> We had a 180hp Scout at 5500msl. It was very marginal on hot days
> with water or heavy two-seaters and we used two hours fuel only as
> full fuel was too heavy. Fuel tanks had recurring leaks. The wood
> spar AD required extensive recurring inspections (there were metal
> spar retrofit wings produced). Complete wiring harness was replaced.
> We also had a U/C strut break, which took out the prop, engine, wing
> tip, and horizontal, and availability. Never quite the same after
> repairs. The Scout averaged $1000/month in upkeep and inspections at
> commercial rates. Despite several objections, we replaced it with a
> Pawnee 235D, later updated with the 250STC. Pawnee was not without
> its problems. We looked at 40 Pawnees and went for what we considered
> the best available on our budget. In retrospect we should have
> budgeted about $10K more and considered a few more options. Plan on
> buying the Pawnee a second time in the first 3-4 years until you get
> it golden. IMVHO, no one sells a really good tow plane at an average
> price. Cost aside, we've had high availability and get good
> performance thanks to good management and tow pilot procedures. The
> 250STC is worth it.
>
> IIRC, a Pawnee (with transponder) was reported towing well above it's
> advertised operational ceiling this past summer on a really high tow.
> I think our's, also transponder equipped, has been to 11,500msl a
> couple of times on tow and still climbing okay.
>
> 180hp Scouts with metal spars are still being built. $132,900 with
> constant speed prop. Probably a good choice for all around towing at
> sites <3000MSL., that is, far more than adequate.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>
>
>

[Frank Whiteley]

On Oct 15, 5:16 pm, Travis Beach >
wrote:
> Our club has a Piper Pawnee 235hp in excellent condition.
> We just spent $35000 five years ago to completely overhaul
> her...new fabric, new engine, anything that needed
> to be replaced was...
>
> Heres the rub...we are in the middle of a new two place
> acquisition with the club making a decision about getting
> a new two place intermediate performance. We were about
> to drop the hammer when a very vocal minority raised
> the issue of PAWNEE needing to be replaced citing extreme
> maintenance cost (???) and inability to get parts.
> He/She cited the local aero repair facility as his/her
> source of information...Many of us just dont see this
> as a problem. The replacement that was cited was a
> Husky 180HP...I just dont see the reasoning of such
> a switch...I surely would rather two a heavier two
> place with a proven performer with 235 hp vs a 180...
>
> What say you? Discuss...should we scrap the Pawnee
> in favor of a Husky?
>
> Beach

Received an e-mail from LAVIASA, Argentina today

Prices for NEW Pawnees

PA-25-235 (PROP FIX PITCH)
US$ 156,634

PA-25-260 (PROP FIX PITCH)
US$ 160,115

PA-25-260 (PROP CONSTANT SPEED)
US$ 169,397

[309]

On Oct 20, 12:20 am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
> Received an e-mail from LAVIASA, Argentina today
>
> Prices for NEW Pawnees
>
> PA-25-235 (PROP FIX PITCH)
> US$ 156,634
>
> PA-25-260 (PROP FIX PITCH)
> US$ 160,115
>
> PA-25-260 (PROP CONSTANT SPEED)
> US$ 169,397

Hmm, nobody mentioned "upgrading" to new Pawnees (and I didn't know
you could get then NEW).

Nobody's discussed getting an Air Tractor, or Thrush, or other modern
Turbine powered AgPlane.
http://www.airtractor.com/Default.aspx?p=4530
With a useful load of 9,495 lbs (isn't that approximately FIVE fully
loaded Duo Discus -- or is it Disci?), it would seem to me that the
Air Tractor 802 would pay for itself in less than a season, with tows
to 5,000 feet taking approximately 2 minutes and 34 seconds.

Hmm, turbine -- that means NO shock cooling.
Air Conditioning -- that means NO tow pilot whining.
254 gal fuel capacity -- that means gas it up once a week(end).
Double or triple tows -- that means maximum 15 minute wait for a
tow...

Is Jet fuel still less expensive than 100 LL?

-Pete
#309

[Frank Whiteley]

On Oct 20, 9:35 am, 309 > wrote:
> On Oct 20, 12:20 am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>
> > Received an e-mail from LAVIASA, Argentina today
>
> > Prices for NEW Pawnees
>
> > PA-25-235 (PROP FIX PITCH)
> > US$ 156,634
>
> > PA-25-260 (PROP FIX PITCH)
> > US$ 160,115
>
> > PA-25-260 (PROP CONSTANT SPEED)
> > US$ 169,397
>
> Hmm, nobody mentioned "upgrading" to new Pawnees (and I didn't know
> you could get then NEW).
>
> Nobody's discussed getting an Air Tractor, or Thrush, or other modern
> Turbine powered AgPlane.http://www.airtractor.com/Default.aspx?p=4530
> With a useful load of 9,495 lbs (isn't that approximately FIVE fully
> loaded Duo Discus -- or is it Disci?), it would seem to me that the
> Air Tractor 802 would pay for itself in less than a season, with tows
> to 5,000 feet taking approximately 2 minutes and 34 seconds.
>
> Hmm, turbine -- that means NO shock cooling.
> Air Conditioning -- that means NO tow pilot whining.
> 254 gal fuel capacity -- that means gas it up once a week(end).
> Double or triple tows -- that means maximum 15 minute wait for a
> tow...
>
> Is Jet fuel still less expensive than 100 LL?
>
> -Pete
> #309

Not positive, but I don't think multiple glider tows are allowed under
the SSA insurance plan.

Turbines consume a lot of fuel while on the ground also, according to
a friend of mine.

I believe there is a SIAI-Marchetti SM.1019 in Uvalde, 400hp. It's
been used as a tow plane but I don't believe it's in regular use.
Rate of climb on tow is said to be 2100fpm and 9000fpm descent.
2000ft tow cycle was reportedly three minutes. Similar to winching;^)

http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/articles/04_02_featue.pdf
http://www.shanaberger.com/sm1019.htm

Frank Whiteley

[Bill Daniels]

"309" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 20, 12:20 am, Frank Whiteley > wrote:
>> Received an e-mail from LAVIASA, Argentina today
>>
>> Prices for NEW Pawnees
>>
>> PA-25-235 (PROP FIX PITCH)
>> US$ 156,634
>>
>> PA-25-260 (PROP FIX PITCH)
>> US$ 160,115
>>
>> PA-25-260 (PROP CONSTANT SPEED)
>> US$ 169,397
>
> Hmm, nobody mentioned "upgrading" to new Pawnees (and I didn't know
> you could get then NEW).
>
> Nobody's discussed getting an Air Tractor, or Thrush, or other modern
> Turbine powered AgPlane.
> http://www.airtractor.com/Default.aspx?p=4530
> With a useful load of 9,495 lbs (isn't that approximately FIVE fully
> loaded Duo Discus -- or is it Disci?), it would seem to me that the
> Air Tractor 802 would pay for itself in less than a season, with tows
> to 5,000 feet taking approximately 2 minutes and 34 seconds.
>

With aviation fuels approaching $7/gallon, the last thing you want is higher
fuel consumption. Turbines suck fuel. They also don't like a lot of
start-up and shut-down cycles.

I don't think any tow plane ever pays for itself once all 'hidden' costs are
considered. Operating an old rag and tube airplane of any kind is fraught
with 'nickel & dime' costs that add up. The last time I took a hard look, a
Pawnee runs about $150 USD/hour. With rapidly escalating costs of fuel and
insurance, it will probably be $200/hour by next summer. You don't operate
small airplanes to make money, you do it because you either need to or want
to. Tugs are cost centers not profit centers.

I think any club interested in lowering operating costs should be
investigating winches.

Bill Daniels

[309]

On Oct 20, 9:45 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> I don't think any tow plane ever pays for itself once all 'hidden' costs are
> considered. Operating an old rag and tube airplane of any kind is fraught
> with 'nickel & dime' costs that add up. The last time I took a hard look, a
> Pawnee runs about $150 USD/hour. With rapidly escalating costs of fuel and
> insurance, it will probably be $200/hour by next summer. You don't operate
> small airplanes to make money, you do it because you either need to or want
> to. Tugs are cost centers not profit centers.
>
> I think any club interested in lowering operating costs should be
> investigating winches.
>
> Bill Daniels

I forgot to add my "turbine tow would require winch launch
authorization" punch line. ;-) Thanks, Frank.

If somebody made a twin-turbine-taildragger tug, you could get the tow
pilots to PAY for that time (building time for th airlines...).
Turbine Beech-18 gets logged as Complex-Multi-Taildragger-Turbine-High
Performance time...worth $200.00 per hour for training to be a line
pilot. Yeah, I'd go back to the club and put up with the politics for
that!

Since AUTO fuel will quickly be over $4.00 per gallon (it already has
"traded" above that in Beverly Hills), the winches aren't going to be
a hell of a lot better -- if we must insist on suckering, er I mean
recruiting teenagers into our dying sport. (Flame away, guys...I'm
trying to get my kids interested -- _I_ have a hard time competing
with video games, even when I shut the power off).

I suspect we'll soon be back to hilltops and bungee cords... Quick,
we must assemble a protest march to SAVE TORREY PINES (Gliderport)!!!!

-Pete
#309
(I just donned my flame retardant suit).

P.S.: For the record, I agree with Bill -- EVERY "club" should have a
winch. And I think winch launches COULD compete with video games.

[Frank Whiteley]

On Oct 20, 11:10 am, 309 > wrote:
> On Oct 20, 9:45 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
> > I don't think any tow plane ever pays for itself once all 'hidden' costs are
> > considered. Operating an old rag and tube airplane of any kind is fraught
> > with 'nickel & dime' costs that add up. The last time I took a hard look, a
> > Pawnee runs about $150 USD/hour. With rapidly escalating costs of fuel and
> > insurance, it will probably be $200/hour by next summer. You don't operate
> > small airplanes to make money, you do it because you either need to or want
> > to. Tugs are cost centers not profit centers.
>
> > I think any club interested in lowering operating costs should be
> > investigating winches.
>
> > Bill Daniels
>
> I forgot to add my "turbine tow would require winch launch
> authorization" punch line. ;-) Thanks, Frank.
>
> If somebody made a twin-turbine-taildragger tug, you could get the tow
> pilots to PAY for that time (building time for th airlines...).
> Turbine Beech-18 gets logged as Complex-Multi-Taildragger-Turbine-High
> Performance time...worth $200.00 per hour for training to be a line
> pilot. Yeah, I'd go back to the club and put up with the politics for
> that!
>
> Since AUTO fuel will quickly be over $4.00 per gallon (it already has
> "traded" above that in Beverly Hills), the winches aren't going to be
> a hell of a lot better -- if we must insist on suckering, er I mean
> recruiting teenagers into our dying sport. (Flame away, guys...I'm
> trying to get my kids interested -- _I_ have a hard time competing
> with video games, even when I shut the power off).
>
> I suspect we'll soon be back to hilltops and bungee cords... Quick,
> we must assemble a protest march to SAVE TORREY PINES (Gliderport)!!!!
>
> -Pete
> #309
> (I just donned my flame retardant suit).
>
> P.S.: For the record, I agree with Bill -- EVERY "club" should have a
> winch. And I think winch launches COULD compete with video games.

Actually, a winch launch to 2000agl uses very little fuel. Getting to
the gliderport will use far more.

Frank

[Bruce]

Not could - DO!

We winch only - in vintage rag and tube mostly and we seem to be able to attract
teenagers with our equally old winch.

309 wrote:
> On Oct 20, 9:45 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>> I don't think any tow plane ever pays for itself once all 'hidden' costs are
>> considered. Operating an old rag and tube airplane of any kind is fraught
>> with 'nickel & dime' costs that add up. The last time I took a hard look, a
>> Pawnee runs about $150 USD/hour. With rapidly escalating costs of fuel and
>> insurance, it will probably be $200/hour by next summer. You don't operate
>> small airplanes to make money, you do it because you either need to or want
>> to. Tugs are cost centers not profit centers.
>>
>> I think any club interested in lowering operating costs should be
>> investigating winches.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>
> I forgot to add my "turbine tow would require winch launch
> authorization" punch line. ;-) Thanks, Frank.
>
> If somebody made a twin-turbine-taildragger tug, you could get the tow
> pilots to PAY for that time (building time for th airlines...).
> Turbine Beech-18 gets logged as Complex-Multi-Taildragger-Turbine-High
> Performance time...worth $200.00 per hour for training to be a line
> pilot. Yeah, I'd go back to the club and put up with the politics for
> that!
>
> Since AUTO fuel will quickly be over $4.00 per gallon (it already has
> "traded" above that in Beverly Hills), the winches aren't going to be
> a hell of a lot better -- if we must insist on suckering, er I mean
> recruiting teenagers into our dying sport. (Flame away, guys...I'm
> trying to get my kids interested -- _I_ have a hard time competing
> with video games, even when I shut the power off).
>
> I suspect we'll soon be back to hilltops and bungee cords... Quick,
> we must assemble a protest march to SAVE TORREY PINES (Gliderport)!!!!
>
> -Pete
> #309
> (I just donned my flame retardant suit).
>
> P.S.: For the record, I agree with Bill -- EVERY "club" should have a
> winch. And I think winch launches COULD compete with video games.
>

[shawn]

Frank Whiteley wrote:

> Actually, a winch launch to 2000agl uses very little fuel. Getting to
> the gliderport will use far more.

Solar cells charging batteries all week for the electric winch, and ride
your bike to the airport. Save the gas for the retrieves :-)



Shawn

[Bill Daniels]

"309" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 20, 9:45 am, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>> I don't think any tow plane ever pays for itself once all 'hidden' costs
>> are
>> considered. Operating an old rag and tube airplane of any kind is
>> fraught
>> with 'nickel & dime' costs that add up. The last time I took a hard
>> look, a
>> Pawnee runs about $150 USD/hour. With rapidly escalating costs of fuel
>> and
>> insurance, it will probably be $200/hour by next summer. You don't
>> operate
>> small airplanes to make money, you do it because you either need to or
>> want
>> to. Tugs are cost centers not profit centers.
>>
>> I think any club interested in lowering operating costs should be
>> investigating winches.
>>
>> Bill Daniels
>
> I forgot to add my "turbine tow would require winch launch
> authorization" punch line. ;-) Thanks, Frank.
>
> If somebody made a twin-turbine-taildragger tug, you could get the tow
> pilots to PAY for that time (building time for th airlines...).
> Turbine Beech-18 gets logged as Complex-Multi-Taildragger-Turbine-High
> Performance time...worth $200.00 per hour for training to be a line
> pilot. Yeah, I'd go back to the club and put up with the politics for
> that!
>
> Since AUTO fuel will quickly be over $4.00 per gallon (it already has
> "traded" above that in Beverly Hills), the winches aren't going to be
> a hell of a lot better -- if we must insist on suckering, er I mean
> recruiting teenagers into our dying sport. (Flame away, guys...I'm
> trying to get my kids interested -- _I_ have a hard time competing
> with video games, even when I shut the power off).
>
> I suspect we'll soon be back to hilltops and bungee cords... Quick,
> we must assemble a protest march to SAVE TORREY PINES (Gliderport)!!!!
>
> -Pete
> #309
> (I just donned my flame retardant suit).
>
> P.S.: For the record, I agree with Bill -- EVERY "club" should have a
> winch. And I think winch launches COULD compete with video games.
>

As frank pointed out, winches comsume very, very little energy. Roughly
1kW/Hr or a liter of diesel which could easily be biodiesel. An electric
winch, if it could be powered from the grid, would comsume less than 10
cents worth of power per launch.

Bill Daniels

[John Smith]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> I don't think any tow plane ever pays for itself once all 'hidden' costs are
> considered.

A club which wants to survive *must* charge tows at full cost. At my
club, the tow plane *does* pay for itself. Which means that tows aren't
exactly cheap.

[Bill Daniels]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>> I don't think any tow plane ever pays for itself once all 'hidden' costs
>> are considered.
>
> A club which wants to survive *must* charge tows at full cost. At my club,
> the tow plane *does* pay for itself. Which means that tows aren't exactly
> cheap.

"Not exactly cheap" tows leads to an activity called "assembly practice".
This is where a pilot drives to the gliderport, assembles his glider but
then decides the conditions aren't worth the cost of a tow so he de-rigs
without flying.

When you see "assembly practice" or pilots driving to the gliderport without
flying, it's a sign your aero tow operation is verging on an economic death
spiral. You'll reach a point where tow costs are so high that you can't do
enough tows to pay the fixed overhead which, in turn, requires still further
increases in tow costs.

At $5 - $10 for a winch launch, you'll never see "assembly practice". At
$15/launch, a winch can not only support itself, it can support that tug and
some nice glub gliders. Even if you will never take a winch launch, get one
anyway just for the revenue stream.

Bill Daniels

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Frank Whiteley wrote:
> Not positive, but I don't think multiple glider tows are allowed under
> the SSA insurance plan.

The SSA insurance plan isn't the only one available. Double tows to the
mountains are pretty routinely used at Williams Soaring Center in
California...

Marc

[bagmaker]

A club which wants to survive *must* charge tows at full cost. At my
club, the tow plane *does* pay for itself. Which means that tows aren't
exactly cheap.[/QUOTE]

How much?
and, what is the breakdown, for instance, 2000' agl, + per minute or + per 100' ?

does the tow charge cover all the a/c costs, like insurance, maintenance, replacement after time etc?

curios bagger

[Ian]

On 21 Oct, 01:03, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:

> As frank pointed out, winches comsume very, very little energy. Roughly
> 1kW/Hr or a liter of diesel which could easily be biodiesel. An electric
> winch, if it could be powered from the grid, would comsume less than 10
> cents worth of power per launch.

I'm bored, so thought I'd play with some numbers ...

I've launched ASH-25's to 1,600' on the wire. At 750kg that's a PE
gain of 750kg x 10 N/kg x 500m = 3.75MJ. There's also a PE gain in
half a ton of wire rope going up 250m: 500kg x 10 N/kg x 250m =
1.25MJ. KE is small in comparison, so that's a nice round 5MJ per
launch.

That's 1.4kWh, but allowing for 85% efficiency in the electric motor
you'd need 1.6kWh. Typical domestic prices here are around 12.5p /
kWh, so that's a nice cheap 20p/launch.

The downside is that you need that energy awful fast. 5MJ over 50
seconds is 100 kW (probably what 200bhp diesel winches get to wire
after transmission losses). That gives two problems.

First of all, you need a very hefty supply. On 415V 3-phase AC, and
assuming a 0.85 power factor, that's a line current of 100 kW /
[sqrt(3) x 415 x 0.85] = 163A. That's definitely non-trivial.

Secondly, you wouldn't get the electricity on a domestic tariff.
Industrial contracts take account of peak power as well as energy
used: the club would need a 100kW supply infrastructure despite only
using, on average, a tiny fraction of that capacity. The power company
will want to recoup the cost of the supply, and that will push the
price up considerably.

The logical alternative would be to use a local energy storage
facility: a great big Li-ion battery bank in the winch would help a
lot. With a 20% service factor (one launch every five minutes) the
average power requirement would come down to 20kW. Still too much for
a standard domestic supply, but a 40A 3-phase supply is pretty
standard. The downside there is that the batteries and associated
supply kit would be horribly expensive.

I believe Tost used to offer a (mobile?) electric winch, and I'd be
interested to know what the power supply arrangements were. As far as
I can see they don't do winches of any sort any more.

I'm sure electric winches could work very well, but I think they'd do
best as fixed installations. Are any in use?

Ian

[Ian]

On 16 Oct, 13:54, Martin Gregorie > wrote:
> Dan G wrote:
> > Why is it only old Pawnee vs. new Husky? Are there not used efficient
> > 180hp tugs available in the US?
>
> I was up at Milfield with my Libelle a week ago, where they run three
> tow planes: 150 Pawnee, 180 Supercub, 235 Pawnee. I couldn't see much
> difference between the Supercub and the 235 Pawnee but the 150 Pawnee
> had a much slower climb rate than either of the others: more like my
> club's 160hp Rallye.

It's actually a 160hp Pawnee - it was uprated a few years back.
Although there have been 150bhp -> 180bhp conversion in the US, 160bhp
(it's a helicopter engine) was as far as the CAA would allow without a
complete new set of stress calculations.

When the wee Pawnee arrived it had a four blade prop and a good
silencer: amazingly silent but couldn't pull the skin off a rice
pudding. I remember circling overhead in weak wave for some time
before landing once, waiting for it to get a Bocian off. Three
circuits of the airfield, got to 350', gave up.

Ian

[John Smith]

Bill Daniels schrieb:

> "Not exactly cheap" tows leads to an activity called "assembly practice".

I've never seen this. The glider pilots I know want to fly, that's why
they are glider pilots, after all.

> When you see "assembly practice" or pilots driving to the gliderport without
> flying, it's a sign your aero tow operation is verging on an economic death
> spiral.

If you operate tow planes that don't pay for themselves, then your aero
tow operation is certainly verging on an economic death spiral.

> At $5 - $10 for a winch launch, you'll never see "assembly practice".

Unfortunately, there are airfields from wich you can't reach thermals
from the winch. Or, if you reach them, you do so only three ours later
than with aerotow, which makes big flights impossible. I *know* there
are pilots lucky enough to operate from airfileds where you reach your
first thermal reliably from the winch at 10 a.m. I just don't happen to
operate from such a field.

[[email protected]]

Ian

Check out this site for one answer to your question.

http://www.beepworld.de/members28/onkelmaggus/

Click on the English page.

Bob

[John Smith]

bagmaker wrote:

> does the tow charge cover all the a/c costs, like insurance, maintenance,
> replacement after time etc?

Everything. The tow plane just pays itself, everything included. The
calculation is done on the basis of the estimated total hours over the
year and recalculated and adjusted every spring.

We charge per minute, airborne to touchdown of the tow plane. With this
method, the glider pilot is absolutely free to decide where and how high
he wants to tow. (We have several release points, depending on the
weather, the time of day, where you want to fly and whether you want to
fight in your first climb or just release and go. And of course all our
gliders are radio equipped, so we can direct the tow pilot. (Such as in
"Try that big cloud at 10 o'clock."))

We expect the tow pilots to make the round trip as short as possible,
and they do their best. Of course there are some who do better than
others, and sometimes they manage to find thermals to accelerate the
climb, and sometimes they do not. We believe that it averages out over
the year and that charging per minute is the most transparent and
flexible method.

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

shawn wrote:
> Frank Whiteley wrote:
>
>> Actually, a winch launch to 2000agl uses very little fuel. Getting to
>> the gliderport will use far more.
>
> Solar cells charging batteries all week for the electric winch, and ride
> your bike to the airport. Save the gas for the retrieves :-)
>
Nice idea, but the price of solar cells had better drop lots.
Either that of a big win at Vegas is necessary.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Ian wrote:
> On 21 Oct, 01:03, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
>> As frank pointed out, winches comsume very, very little energy. Roughly
>> 1kW/Hr or a liter of diesel which could easily be biodiesel. An electric
>> winch, if it could be powered from the grid, would comsume less than 10
>> cents worth of power per launch.
>
> I'm bored, so thought I'd play with some numbers ...
>
> I've launched ASH-25's to 1,600' on the wire. At 750kg that's a PE
> gain of 750kg x 10 N/kg x 500m = 3.75MJ. There's also a PE gain in
> half a ton of wire rope going up 250m: 500kg x 10 N/kg x 250m =
> 1.25MJ. KE is small in comparison, so that's a nice round 5MJ per
> launch.
>
> That's 1.4kWh, but allowing for 85% efficiency in the electric motor
> you'd need 1.6kWh. Typical domestic prices here are around 12.5p /
> kWh, so that's a nice cheap 20p/launch.
>
> The downside is that you need that energy awful fast. 5MJ over 50
> seconds is 100 kW (probably what 200bhp diesel winches get to wire
> after transmission losses). That gives two problems.
>
> First of all, you need a very hefty supply. On 415V 3-phase AC, and
> assuming a 0.85 power factor, that's a line current of 100 kW /
> [sqrt(3) x 415 x 0.85] = 163A. That's definitely non-trivial.
>
> Secondly, you wouldn't get the electricity on a domestic tariff.
> Industrial contracts take account of peak power as well as energy
> used: the club would need a 100kW supply infrastructure despite only
> using, on average, a tiny fraction of that capacity. The power company
> will want to recoup the cost of the supply, and that will push the
> price up considerably.
>
> The logical alternative would be to use a local energy storage
> facility: a great big Li-ion battery bank in the winch would help a
> lot. With a 20% service factor (one launch every five minutes) the
> average power requirement would come down to 20kW. Still too much for
> a standard domestic supply, but a 40A 3-phase supply is pretty
> standard. The downside there is that the batteries and associated
> supply kit would be horribly expensive.
>
> I believe Tost used to offer a (mobile?) electric winch, and I'd be
> interested to know what the power supply arrangements were. As far as
> I can see they don't do winches of any sort any more.
>
> I'm sure electric winches could work very well, but I think they'd do
> best as fixed installations. Are any in use?
>
The German-made ESW-2B Electrostartwinde has a peak output of 220 Kw and
consists largely of a big bank of heavy duty truck-type lead-acid
batteries to buffer the power supply. It claims all day service from a
12-20 Kw power supply.

My club looked into it and came up with a similar launch cost to your
calculation. The killer was the cost of wiring up the various winch
stations on our (triangular) field. 22/04 accounts for virtually all
launches, 34/16 is used with strong N/S winds and 09/27 is used about
twice a year when wind and ground conditions require it. A lower cost
approach would involve using a diesel trailer generator set. With a
generator we could only wire 22/04 and 34 (the winch point for 34 is on
the cable run to the 22 winch station). If other winch stations were
used the winch would be run from the generator.

With the buffering batteries I think a fairly modest generator could do
the job. New 20 kw diesel trailer sets sell at around $14,000 and I see
that eBay has a 10 Kw unit with a "Buy it Now' price set at $1000. OK,
its a bit small, but the price indicates what's available.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Michael Ash]

John Smith > wrote:
> We charge per minute, airborne to touchdown of the tow plane. With this
> method, the glider pilot is absolutely free to decide where and how high
> he wants to tow. (We have several release points, depending on the
> weather, the time of day, where you want to fly and whether you want to
> fight in your first climb or just release and go. And of course all our
> gliders are radio equipped, so we can direct the tow pilot. (Such as in
> "Try that big cloud at 10 o'clock."))
>
> We expect the tow pilots to make the round trip as short as possible,
> and they do their best. Of course there are some who do better than
> others, and sometimes they manage to find thermals to accelerate the
> climb, and sometimes they do not. We believe that it averages out over
> the year and that charging per minute is the most transparent and
> flexible method.

That is an interesting way to pay, although it seems unfortunate that I'd
have to pay extra for a go around if one should occur. My club, like most
(I think), charges by altitude and nothing more, except for exceptional
circumstances like aero retrieve. I think there's a lot to be said for
this, but in the back of my mind I always thought it was slightly unfair
that a fully loaded two-place trainer going to 3000ft on a hot summer day
got charged the same amount of money as a light single seater going to
3000ft on a nice cool day.

Anyway, enough commentary, I have an actual question: roughly what do your
costs work out to for, say, 1500, 2000, and 3000ft tows? Obviously it'll
depend a lot on conditions but I imagine you have some idea of what your
tow will cost before you launch even if it's not exact.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Frank Whiteley]

On Oct 21, 10:07 am, Michael Ash > wrote:
> John Smith > wrote:
> > We charge per minute, airborne to touchdown of the tow plane. With this
> > method, the glider pilot is absolutely free to decide where and how high
> > he wants to tow. (We have several release points, depending on the
> > weather, the time of day, where you want to fly and whether you want to
> > fight in your first climb or just release and go. And of course all our
> > gliders are radio equipped, so we can direct the tow pilot. (Such as in
> > "Try that big cloud at 10 o'clock."))
>
> > We expect the tow pilots to make the round trip as short as possible,
> > and they do their best. Of course there are some who do better than
> > others, and sometimes they manage to find thermals to accelerate the
> > climb, and sometimes they do not. We believe that it averages out over
> > the year and that charging per minute is the most transparent and
> > flexible method.
>
> That is an interesting way to pay, although it seems unfortunate that I'd
> have to pay extra for a go around if one should occur. My club, like most
> (I think), charges by altitude and nothing more, except for exceptional
> circumstances like aero retrieve. I think there's a lot to be said for
> this, but in the back of my mind I always thought it was slightly unfair
> that a fully loaded two-place trainer going to 3000ft on a hot summer day
> got charged the same amount of money as a light single seater going to
> 3000ft on a nice cool day.
>
> Anyway, enough commentary, I have an actual question: roughly what do your
> costs work out to for, say, 1500, 2000, and 3000ft tows? Obviously it'll
> depend a lot on conditions but I imagine you have some idea of what your
> tow will cost before you launch even if it's not exact.
>
> --
> Michael Ash
> Rogue Amoeba Software

Wear and tear on low tows is higher. Several clubs have a hookup
charges to account for this. One large club I know something about,
waives their active 'ops teams' members the hookup charge as an
incentive for their service. The 'ops teams' work together regularly
as scheduled. IIRC, hookup is $10/tow. So if you fly often, the
value of your service time is pretty good. IANACPA, but fee waivers
may be easier to handle than credits in a financial sense (no 1099-
misc at the end of the year?).

Another example, $8 hookup, $1.00/100ft, so a 2000ft tow is $28.00, up
from $0.85/100ft 18 months ago. Tows above 9500msl or wave tows are
charged at the service rate. This former rate was based on $125/hour
service rate with approximately $5/tow profit over tow costs,
including insurance, maintenance, tow ropes, rings, etc. The latter
rate reflects increased fuel costs. Commercial tow pilots are paid a
show up credit and small credit per launch. The engine reserve is set
aside at some rate based on 2000tbo and 350tach hours per year. Last
engine service was at about 2450 hours and cost about $35,000 for 0
time, 250hp stc, and new prop, including remove and replace. The
funds were in the engine reserve set aside. Result is about one more
tow per tach hour on same fuel burn, which meant no large adjustment
was needed to tow rates as fuel charges increased. Of course this
needs analysis at least annually. Presently, I'm pretty sure profit
is zero at the moment, though I don't think there's a subsidy unless
tow plane hours are under 350 for the year. There is no sinking fund
for fabric or other contingencies. I think the transponder was
expensed to the club.

You just have to decide what you want to include in the cost of towing
Set aside funds
Airframe reserve
Engine reserve
Maintenance reserve
Contingency reserve
Insurance

Consumables
Fuel
Oil
Tires
Brakes
Tow ropes
Weak links
Tow rings

Other
Tow pilot remuneration
Upgrades

Then looks at your history and trends and come up with the numbers and
try and forecast for the next year, 2 years, 3 years, and see if your
tows are artificially low or sensible. Artificially low priced tows
may mean that pilots are towing higher than really necessary. This
lowers the launch rate, and believe me, there's nothing that matters
more to the private owner than launch rate. Some clubs have thus
banned or limited training tows during 'soaring hours' or made other
'creative solutions'. The approach to towing and pricing of same
within a club includes more than just covering the cost.

Frank Whiteley

[John Smith]

Michael Ash wrote:

> That is an interesting way to pay, although it seems unfortunate that I'd
> have to pay extra for a go around if one should occur.

That's life. There is no such thing as a pricing system which is fair
for everybody in all circumstances.

> My club, like most (I think), charges by altitude and nothing more,

Most clubs I know charge by time. I guess this is regional culture.

> Anyway, enough commentary, I have an actual question: roughly what do your
> costs work out to for, say, 1500, 2000, and 3000ft tows? Obviously it'll
> depend a lot on conditions but I imagine you have some idea of what your
> tow will cost before you launch even if it's not exact.

Well, we try very hard not to think about it... :-/

Seriously, it's hard to tell. There is no such thing as a tow to 1500,
2000 and 3000ft at our site (except for student training). There are
tows to certain known or estimated thermals.

The cheapest tow is to a hill right besides the airfield. On reasonable
days you'll find a thermal there on one side or the other. This tow will
be to approximately 2000ft. (You decide when to release: If you feel the
thermals are strong and reliable and forming low, release earlier, if
you think that you have to try and and search and work weak 100 fpm
thermals which form only at altitude, release later.) A "normal" tow
there is about $35 to $40. Caveat: Those thermals form somewhat late in
the day and you will lose a lot of time if you want to go cross country.

If you want to launch earlier and/or plan to do a big flight, you are
better off towing to some known thermically active regions farther away.
This will cost you about twice as much, but not because of altitude, but
because of distance. You see, the "altitude price system" just wouldn't
work here.

[Bill Daniels]

"Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 21, 10:07 am, Michael Ash > wrote:
>> John Smith > wrote:
>> > We charge per minute, airborne to touchdown of the tow plane. With this
>> > method, the glider pilot is absolutely free to decide where and how
>> > high
>> > he wants to tow. (We have several release points, depending on the
>> > weather, the time of day, where you want to fly and whether you want to
>> > fight in your first climb or just release and go. And of course all our
>> > gliders are radio equipped, so we can direct the tow pilot. (Such as in
>> > "Try that big cloud at 10 o'clock."))
>>
>> > We expect the tow pilots to make the round trip as short as possible,
>> > and they do their best. Of course there are some who do better than
>> > others, and sometimes they manage to find thermals to accelerate the
>> > climb, and sometimes they do not. We believe that it averages out over
>> > the year and that charging per minute is the most transparent and
>> > flexible method.
>>
>> That is an interesting way to pay, although it seems unfortunate that I'd
>> have to pay extra for a go around if one should occur. My club, like most
>> (I think), charges by altitude and nothing more, except for exceptional
>> circumstances like aero retrieve. I think there's a lot to be said for
>> this, but in the back of my mind I always thought it was slightly unfair
>> that a fully loaded two-place trainer going to 3000ft on a hot summer day
>> got charged the same amount of money as a light single seater going to
>> 3000ft on a nice cool day.
>>
>> Anyway, enough commentary, I have an actual question: roughly what do
>> your
>> costs work out to for, say, 1500, 2000, and 3000ft tows? Obviously it'll
>> depend a lot on conditions but I imagine you have some idea of what your
>> tow will cost before you launch even if it's not exact.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Ash
>> Rogue Amoeba Software
>
> Wear and tear on low tows is higher. Several clubs have a hookup
> charges to account for this. One large club I know something about,
> waives their active 'ops teams' members the hookup charge as an
> incentive for their service. The 'ops teams' work together regularly
> as scheduled. IIRC, hookup is $10/tow. So if you fly often, the
> value of your service time is pretty good. IANACPA, but fee waivers
> may be easier to handle than credits in a financial sense (no 1099-
> misc at the end of the year?).
>
> Another example, $8 hookup, $1.00/100ft, so a 2000ft tow is $28.00, up
> from $0.85/100ft 18 months ago. Tows above 9500msl or wave tows are
> charged at the service rate. This former rate was based on $125/hour
> service rate with approximately $5/tow profit over tow costs,
> including insurance, maintenance, tow ropes, rings, etc. The latter
> rate reflects increased fuel costs. Commercial tow pilots are paid a
> show up credit and small credit per launch. The engine reserve is set
> aside at some rate based on 2000tbo and 350tach hours per year. Last
> engine service was at about 2450 hours and cost about $35,000 for 0
> time, 250hp stc, and new prop, including remove and replace. The
> funds were in the engine reserve set aside. Result is about one more
> tow per tach hour on same fuel burn, which meant no large adjustment
> was needed to tow rates as fuel charges increased. Of course this
> needs analysis at least annually. Presently, I'm pretty sure profit
> is zero at the moment, though I don't think there's a subsidy unless
> tow plane hours are under 350 for the year. There is no sinking fund
> for fabric or other contingencies. I think the transponder was
> expensed to the club.
>
> You just have to decide what you want to include in the cost of towing
> Set aside funds
> Airframe reserve
> Engine reserve
> Maintenance reserve
> Contingency reserve
> Insurance
>
> Consumables
> Fuel
> Oil
> Tires
> Brakes
> Tow ropes
> Weak links
> Tow rings
>
> Other
> Tow pilot remuneration
> Upgrades
>
> Then looks at your history and trends and come up with the numbers and
> try and forecast for the next year, 2 years, 3 years, and see if your
> tows are artificially low or sensible. Artificially low priced tows
> may mean that pilots are towing higher than really necessary. This
> lowers the launch rate, and believe me, there's nothing that matters
> more to the private owner than launch rate. Some clubs have thus
> banned or limited training tows during 'soaring hours' or made other
> 'creative solutions'. The approach to towing and pricing of same
> within a club includes more than just covering the cost.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>

This is the kind of logic I used to use to try to convince my wife owning an
airplane made economic sense since it "paid for itself".

The members are the club. The club is the members and it's a non-profit.
The members aren't 'customers'. If the club charges the members the true
cost of operating the tug then it is, in effect, charging itself. A tug is
a cost center, not a profit center. The fact that full cost of the tows are
paid for by the individual members doesn't make it a 'break even'
proposition.

If the tug costs the members big money then, since the members are the club,
it costs the club big money. It's financial shell game to say the tug is
a"break even" operation.

Put all the costs in one 'bucket' and take a hard look at it. You may fine
one reason why soaring isn't growing.

Bill Daniels

[Frank Whiteley]

On Oct 21, 1:12 pm, "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
> "Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 10:07 am, Michael Ash > wrote:
> >> John Smith > wrote:
> >> > We charge per minute, airborne to touchdown of the tow plane. With this
> >> > method, the glider pilot is absolutely free to decide where and how
> >> > high
> >> > he wants to tow. (We have several release points, depending on the
> >> > weather, the time of day, where you want to fly and whether you want to
> >> > fight in your first climb or just release and go. And of course all our
> >> > gliders are radio equipped, so we can direct the tow pilot. (Such as in
> >> > "Try that big cloud at 10 o'clock."))
>
> >> > We expect the tow pilots to make the round trip as short as possible,
> >> > and they do their best. Of course there are some who do better than
> >> > others, and sometimes they manage to find thermals to accelerate the
> >> > climb, and sometimes they do not. We believe that it averages out over
> >> > the year and that charging per minute is the most transparent and
> >> > flexible method.
>
> >> That is an interesting way to pay, although it seems unfortunate that I'd
> >> have to pay extra for a go around if one should occur. My club, like most
> >> (I think), charges by altitude and nothing more, except for exceptional
> >> circumstances like aero retrieve. I think there's a lot to be said for
> >> this, but in the back of my mind I always thought it was slightly unfair
> >> that a fully loaded two-place trainer going to 3000ft on a hot summer day
> >> got charged the same amount of money as a light single seater going to
> >> 3000ft on a nice cool day.
>
> >> Anyway, enough commentary, I have an actual question: roughly what do
> >> your
> >> costs work out to for, say, 1500, 2000, and 3000ft tows? Obviously it'll
> >> depend a lot on conditions but I imagine you have some idea of what your
> >> tow will cost before you launch even if it's not exact.
>
> >> --
> >> Michael Ash
> >> Rogue Amoeba Software
>
> > Wear and tear on low tows is higher. Several clubs have a hookup
> > charges to account for this. One large club I know something about,
> > waives their active 'ops teams' members the hookup charge as an
> > incentive for their service. The 'ops teams' work together regularly
> > as scheduled. IIRC, hookup is $10/tow. So if you fly often, the
> > value of your service time is pretty good. IANACPA, but fee waivers
> > may be easier to handle than credits in a financial sense (no 1099-
> > misc at the end of the year?).
>
> > Another example, $8 hookup, $1.00/100ft, so a 2000ft tow is $28.00, up
> > from $0.85/100ft 18 months ago. Tows above 9500msl or wave tows are
> > charged at the service rate. This former rate was based on $125/hour
> > service rate with approximately $5/tow profit over tow costs,
> > including insurance, maintenance, tow ropes, rings, etc. The latter
> > rate reflects increased fuel costs. Commercial tow pilots are paid a
> > show up credit and small credit per launch. The engine reserve is set
> > aside at some rate based on 2000tbo and 350tach hours per year. Last
> > engine service was at about 2450 hours and cost about $35,000 for 0
> > time, 250hp stc, and new prop, including remove and replace. The
> > funds were in the engine reserve set aside. Result is about one more
> > tow per tach hour on same fuel burn, which meant no large adjustment
> > was needed to tow rates as fuel charges increased. Of course this
> > needs analysis at least annually. Presently, I'm pretty sure profit
> > is zero at the moment, though I don't think there's a subsidy unless
> > tow plane hours are under 350 for the year. There is no sinking fund
> > for fabric or other contingencies. I think the transponder was
> > expensed to the club.
>
> > You just have to decide what you want to include in the cost of towing
> > Set aside funds
> > Airframe reserve
> > Engine reserve
> > Maintenance reserve
> > Contingency reserve
> > Insurance
>
> > Consumables
> > Fuel
> > Oil
> > Tires
> > Brakes
> > Tow ropes
> > Weak links
> > Tow rings
>
> > Other
> > Tow pilot remuneration
> > Upgrades
>
> > Then looks at your history and trends and come up with the numbers and
> > try and forecast for the next year, 2 years, 3 years, and see if your
> > tows are artificially low or sensible. Artificially low priced tows
> > may mean that pilots are towing higher than really necessary. This
> > lowers the launch rate, and believe me, there's nothing that matters
> > more to the private owner than launch rate. Some clubs have thus
> > banned or limited training tows during 'soaring hours' or made other
> > 'creative solutions'. The approach to towing and pricing of same
> > within a club includes more than just covering the cost.
>
> > Frank Whiteley
>
> This is the kind of logic I used to use to try to convince my wife owning an
> airplane made economic sense since it "paid for itself".
>
> The members are the club. The club is the members and it's a non-profit.
> The members aren't 'customers'. If the club charges the members the true
> cost of operating the tug then it is, in effect, charging itself. A tug is
> a cost center, not a profit center. The fact that full cost of the tows are
> paid for by the individual members doesn't make it a 'break even'
> proposition.
>
> If the tug costs the members big money then, since the members are the club,
> it costs the club big money. It's financial shell game to say the tug is
> a"break even" operation.
>
> Put all the costs in one 'bucket' and take a hard look at it. You may fine
> one reason why soaring isn't growing.
>
> Bill Daniels

A club is also a member services organization and there's nothing that
prevents a non-profit organization from making a profit. It's what
you do with the profit that matters, that is, there can be no private
benefit and the profit must go towards that stated purpose of the
organization. Some clubs offer glider rides to the public for a fee
as a means of capital accumulation. This is fine as long as it's
properly done. The NFL is a non-profit organization.

If a member avails themselves of specific services (assuming they have
some choice), then any excess over costs benefits the membership as a
whole. In my opinion, most services should be at least revenue
neutral, though subsidies through dues are likely pretty common (many
clubs do not charge extra for glider use but limit seat time to 1 or 2
hours). Careful planning for fixed costs, operating costs,
replacement costs, and a vision of where a club wants to be in 5, 10,
or 20 years should allow for some progress. Too many clubs use knee-
jerk response management however. I know of one club operating at the
same field as a commercial operator. If the club tow pilot does not
show up on scheduled club days, members take tows from the commercial
operator. It's my understanding that the member is then credited back
the difference between the price of a club tow and the commercial
tow. Furthermore, I understand the tow pilots are the only members
that get a vote and pay no dues. Now, I'm not trying to tell any club
how to conduct its business, but this doesn't seem a particularly
appropriate way to use club capital. More curiously, how did such a
policy develop? That club also had sold one glider and was
considering selling a second due to underutilization. Training had
dwindled to one day per week. What's really going on there?

Now, were a club to offer a diversity of launch means, ground launch
and aero tow, as equally available, then bucket subsidies would
probably need to come into the business model for getting aloft.
Certainly there would be pressure from those wanting affordable aero
tows.

Frank Whiteley

[John Smith]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> If the tug costs the members big money then, since the members are the club,
> it costs the club big money. It's financial shell game to say the tug is
> a"break even" operation.

I don't get your logic. *Somebody* has to pay the tug. If it isn't the
pilot behind the tug, then it's the club as a whole. Do you advocate
that the non-flying pilots should subsidize the flying ones? Do you
advocate low tow rates subsidized by high club membership fees? Do you
think high membership fees would lead to a growth in club membership?

[Bill Daniels]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>> If the tug costs the members big money then, since the members are the
>> club, it costs the club big money. It's financial shell game to say the
>> tug is a"break even" operation.
>
> I don't get your logic. *Somebody* has to pay the tug. If it isn't the
> pilot behind the tug, then it's the club as a whole. Do you advocate that
> the non-flying pilots should subsidize the flying ones? Do you advocate
> low tow rates subsidized by high club membership fees? Do you think high
> membership fees would lead to a growth in club membership?

Of course it makes sense for individual members to pay for the services they
recieve. That's just the nuts and bolts of club finances. It's up to a
club membership to decide how they allocate costs and fees. Whatever they
choose, there's no right or wrong answer as long as it's legal and the
majority of the membership agrees. Having one activity subsidize another is
fine if the membership agrees.

But don't stop with the nuts and bolts, stand back and look at the big
picture the way a prospecitve new member looks at it. They ask, "What's it
going to cost me to fly gliders with this organization?" The cost of tows
is a big part of the answer. If the total cost is too high, they go another
direction. If that happens too often, the remaining members are burdened
with a bigger and bigger share of the cost of a tug.

I'm just saying look at it both ways and don't try to sweep the real costs
of operating a tug under the rug by saying, "Well, it pays for itself so
we're OK." If a smaller and smaller number of members are paying the cost,
you're not OK, you're in a financial death spiral.

A winch can be used to generate a substantial revenue stream while reducing
the individual members launch cost - a big win-win. That revenue stream can
be used to subsidize a tug. For sure, it won't work the other way around.

Bill Daniels

[John Smith]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> But don't stop with the nuts and bolts, stand back and look at the big
> picture the way a prospecitve new member looks at it. They ask, "What's it
> going to cost me to fly gliders with this organization?" The cost of tows
> is a big part of the answer. If the total cost is too high, they go another

The total cost is always the same, there's no free lunch. If your tows
are too cheap, then the membership fees must be higher, unless you have
some magic money print press in your basement. I strongly believe that
high membership fees are much more prohibitive for new members than tow
fees.

My club bills the true towing cost. On the other hand, we don't bill the
glider usage by time but by the membership fee, because glider ownership
costs the same whether the glider is flown or not.

> A winch can be used to generate a substantial revenue stream while reducing
> the individual members launch cost - a big win-win.

You don't have to convince me of the advantages of a winch, after all,
I'm a winch driver. And I just *love* those catapult take offs. But as I
said in another post, you can't go cross country from the winch at every
site. At ours, for example, we mostly can't, so we use the winch mainly
for training. As landing practice is a major part of the student
training, a winch does reduce training cost tremendously. As you only
need one launch for an 8 hour cross country flight, tow cost isn't such
a big problem for cross country flying.

[Michael Ash]

John Smith > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>> That is an interesting way to pay, although it seems unfortunate that I'd
>> have to pay extra for a go around if one should occur.
>
> That's life. There is no such thing as a pricing system which is fair
> for everybody in all circumstances.

Certainly, just pointing out a small problem.

>> My club, like most (I think), charges by altitude and nothing more,
>
> Most clubs I know charge by time. I guess this is regional culture.

Interesting. In looking around at other clubs and commercial operations,
the ones I've seen have always quoted prices for various altitudes.
Time-based pricing has always been for retrieves from what I've seen. Of
course I haven't looked at a huge number of places either.

> If you want to launch earlier and/or plan to do a big flight, you are
> better off towing to some known thermically active regions farther away.
> This will cost you about twice as much, but not because of altitude, but
> because of distance. You see, the "altitude price system" just wouldn't
> work here.

Oh, it would work, maybe just not as well.

Nothing says you can't keep climbing as you tow. You'll get charged for
all the extra altitude. My club has no official limit on how high you can
tow, you just get charged for wherever you get off. If you want to tow to
some place far away, you can tell the tow pilot what your plan is and go
straight out until you get there, then pay your fee for however high you
were when you arrived. Maybe this will be higher than you'd like, but it
does you no harm to start out with too much altitude (unless you're going
for a badge, I suppose). Although I haven't really seen anyone do this;
where I fly, a 3000ft straight out tow seems to be about as far as anyone
likes to go. We do occasionally do higher tows, but not in order to gain
more distance.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

[Bill Daniels]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
. ..

> You don't have to convince me of the advantages of a winch, after all, I'm
> a winch driver. And I just *love* those catapult take offs. But as I said
> in another post, you can't go cross country from the winch at every site.
> At ours, for example, we mostly can't, so we use the winch mainly for
> training. As landing practice is a major part of the student training, a
> winch does reduce training cost tremendously. As you only need one launch
> for an 8 hour cross country flight, tow cost isn't such a big problem for
> cross country flying.

I don't argue against aero tow. There will always be time and places where
it's the best.

So why can't you get away XC from your winch?

Bill Daniels

[Dan G]

On Oct 18, 3:49 am, " > wrote:
> I concur with Cloudy. Eventually, almost all high volume tow
> operations in the USA have ended up with Pawnees. Rugged, inexpensive
> to buy and operate

Reason I mentioned "other efficient 180hp tugs" is because at least at
sea-level sites, the likes of SuperCubs and Robin DR400s (guess you
don't have them in the US) tow to height just as fast as a Pawnee, but
use only something like two-thirds of the fuel by virtue of a much
more efficient aerodynamic design. The Robin saves even more on aero-
tow retrieve (it's fast), and is a very popular tug in the UK (moreso
than the Pawnee). In fact we even tried towing with a Rotax Falke -
only 100hp or so, but very efficient. Within its tow limit (600kg)
what it loses in climb to a Pawnee 250 it more than makes up on
descent as it's water-cooled.

The only place a Pawnee shines (at sea-level) is for acceleration on
the ground roll. If you have the room, that's not an issue.


Dan

[John Smith]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> So why can't you get away XC from your winch?

Our runway is 2000ft. We can use about 2300ft of cable which gives us
1300ft of height if wind conditions are ideal, more typically 1150ft and
sometimes only 1000ft if conditions are poor. This just isn't enough to
reach our nearest thermal, simple as that. Not everybody is operating
from a 5000ft runway and not every airfield was placed with thermals in
mind.

[Dan G]

On Oct 22, 9:27 am, Dan G > wrote:
> In fact we even tried towing with a Rotax Falke -
> only 100hp or so, but very efficient.

"As a tug, the SF25C Rotax Falke seems to perform very well, climbing
with heavy two-seaters at 400ft/min. This is marginally slower than,
say, a Robin DR400, but this Falke uses only half as much fuel and the
noise pollution is much less. In Germany, official analysis of
comparative tug noise estimates a single tow in a Robin DR400 type tug
equates to 4.8 tows in a SF25C Rotax Falke. Glider-tug speed
compatibility, similar wing loadings and aspect ratios, and reduced
wake turbulence, mean the motorglider aerotowing option offers
significant safety features.

The manufacturer's fuel consumption figures are 16-18 litres (c 3.5
gallons) an hour, hardly thirsty for tugs. Taking into account all the
costs of operating the Falke, including an engine rebuild every 2,000
hours, insurance, fuel and maintenance costs, a Falke is estimated by
its makers to tow at about 60 per cent of the cost of today's
conventional tugs."

http://www.fffoundation.co.uk/SGart.html

[309]

On Oct 22, 5:07 am, Dan G > wrote:
> > In fact we even tried towing with a Rotax Falke -
> > only 100hp or so, but very efficient.
>
> "As a tug, the SF25C Rotax Falke seems to perform very well, climbing
> with heavy two-seaters at 400ft/min. This is marginally slower than,

Well, imagine that. If the students (and/or instructors...and/or
private ship owners) really **** of the tow pilot, he can shut the
"money making motor" off and soar for himself! I like that idea.

Having been stuck as the only "tow slave" on many booming days when I
wanted to soar (but was too chicken to shut off the motor in the
Pawnee or CallAir). Yeah, I know pilots that have taken Pawnee
"gliders" to 20,000+ feet in wave -- I guess I never got THAT
desperate.

-Pete

[Frank Whiteley]

On Oct 22, 6:07 am, Dan G > wrote:
> On Oct 22, 9:27 am, Dan G > wrote:
>
> > In fact we even tried towing with a Rotax Falke -
> > only 100hp or so, but very efficient.
>
> "As a tug, the SF25C Rotax Falke seems to perform very well, climbing
> with heavy two-seaters at 400ft/min. This is marginally slower than,
> say, a Robin DR400, but this Falke uses only half as much fuel and the
> noise pollution is much less. In Germany, official analysis of
> comparative tug noise estimates a single tow in a Robin DR400 type tug
> equates to 4.8 tows in a SF25C Rotax Falke. Glider-tug speed
> compatibility, similar wing loadings and aspect ratios, and reduced
> wake turbulence, mean the motorglider aerotowing option offers
> significant safety features.
>
> The manufacturer's fuel consumption figures are 16-18 litres (c 3.5
> gallons) an hour, hardly thirsty for tugs. Taking into account all the
> costs of operating the Falke, including an engine rebuild every 2,000
> hours, insurance, fuel and maintenance costs, a Falke is estimated by
> its makers to tow at about 60 per cent of the cost of today's
> conventional tugs."
>
> http://www.fffoundation.co.uk/SGart.html

That article was published in 2000. How many are currently in use as
tugs?

[Dan G]

Ours was used for a couple of comps in 2005 with great effect (matched
the Pawnees as due the very quick descent and only used 1/3 the fuel),
but since then it hasn't been insured for towing. Another club is a
using a G109 with the turbo Rotax, but has performance issues once the
5-minute boost period is over (i.e., if you want to go higher than
about 3,000'). Finally I know of a Rotax-engined microlight being used
for towing in South Africa.

So, being honest, it's not being used widely (at least not to my
knowledge). There's no good reason though - maybe it's a combination
of it not being around for long, that there's still a lot of Pawnees
and Robins knocking around which are still in use, and that new things
rarely get taken up widely in gliding even if they're proven (e.g.
plasma rope).


Dan

[Dan G]

A couple of links about towing with Rotax power. First the microlight
in SA:

http://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=91

And also on using Rotax Falkes:

http://www.glidingmagazine.com/FeatureArticle.asp?id=117

I bet a fair few Falkes are being used as tugs in Germany - any of our
members from over there know?


Dan

[Dan G]

> I bet a fair few Falkes are being used as tugs in Germany - any of our
> members from over there know?

Bleurgh, it would help if I RTFA I linked to. At least 20 are used for
towing over there, and that was in 2001. A good point made in the
article is also that, of course, a motorglider tug still gets used for
circuit training, field landing exercises etc., and all that ups
utilisation and lowers costs. And it is damned quiet - ours is *much*
quieter than our Pawnee.


Dan

[Bruce]

About as many as Scheibe elected to build...

Scheibe has recently gone through ownership change, and hopefully will get more
focussed on building gliders.

Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Oct 22, 6:07 am, Dan G > wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 9:27 am, Dan G > wrote:
>>
>>> In fact we even tried towing with a Rotax Falke -
>>> only 100hp or so, but very efficient.
>> "As a tug, the SF25C Rotax Falke seems to perform very well, climbing
>> with heavy two-seaters at 400ft/min. This is marginally slower than,
>> say, a Robin DR400, but this Falke uses only half as much fuel and the
>> noise pollution is much less. In Germany, official analysis of
>> comparative tug noise estimates a single tow in a Robin DR400 type tug
>> equates to 4.8 tows in a SF25C Rotax Falke. Glider-tug speed
>> compatibility, similar wing loadings and aspect ratios, and reduced
>> wake turbulence, mean the motorglider aerotowing option offers
>> significant safety features.
>>
>> The manufacturer's fuel consumption figures are 16-18 litres (c 3.5
>> gallons) an hour, hardly thirsty for tugs. Taking into account all the
>> costs of operating the Falke, including an engine rebuild every 2,000
>> hours, insurance, fuel and maintenance costs, a Falke is estimated by
>> its makers to tow at about 60 per cent of the cost of today's
>> conventional tugs."
>>
>> http://www.fffoundation.co.uk/SGart.html
>
> That article was published in 2000. How many are currently in use as
> tugs?
>

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Dan G wrote:
>> I bet a fair few Falkes are being used as tugs in Germany - any of our
>> members from over there know?
>
> Bleurgh, it would help if I RTFA I linked to. At least 20 are used for
> towing over there, and that was in 2001. A good point made in the
> article is also that, of course, a motorglider tug still gets used for
> circuit training, field landing exercises etc., and all that ups
> utilisation and lowers costs. And it is damned quiet - ours is *much*
> quieter than our Pawnee.
>
I think you'll also find that a number of German operations are using
modern glass ultralights as tugs. IIRC the Wasserkuppe uses a Virus or
similar - a nose gear gear high-wing anyway - for towing single seaters
and a GR400 for their ASK-21s.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[[email protected]]

On Monday, October 15, 2007 7:16:11 PM UTC-4, Travis Beach wrote:
> Our club has a Piper Pawnee 235hp in excellent condition.
> We just spent $35000 five years ago to completely overhaul
> her...new fabric, new engine, anything that needed
> to be replaced was...
>
> Heres the rub...we are in the middle of a new two place
> acquisition with the club making a decision about getting
> a new two place intermediate performance. We were about
> to drop the hammer when a very vocal minority raised
> the issue of PAWNEE needing to be replaced citing extreme
> maintenance cost (???) and inability to get parts.
> He/She cited the local aero repair facility as his/her
> source of information...Many of us just dont see this
> as a problem. The replacement that was cited was a
> Husky 180HP...I just dont see the reasoning of such
> a switch...I surely would rather two a heavier two
> place with a proven performer with 235 hp vs a 180...
>
> What say you? Discuss...should we scrap the Pawnee
> in favor of a Husky?
>
> Beach

must be single place glass your towing with the scout and husky, no comparison between the 2 and a 235-260 pawnee, not safe hauling our ask21 loaded with anything but the pawnee, my old club had pawnees and a scout and the scout was seldom used, not enough HP, and we only towed the light gliders with it, you just can't replace horse power.

[[email protected]]

All this talk of horsepower ... I've never towed with anything other than a 150hp Super Cub and a 150hp Citabria and they got the job done from 1500' altitude fields off 2500' grass strips, even with two place glass. I've enjoyed being towed by Pawnees but as others have noted, the only real difference from the quiet end of the rope was the initial ground roll. More horses are nice but not really necessary at low altitude ... in fact they used to tow at one of my clubs with a Tiger Moth!

[bumper[_4_]]

On Sunday, March 23, 2014 2:31:52 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> All this talk of horsepower ... I've never towed with anything other than a 150hp Super Cub and a 150hp Citabria and they got the job done from 1500' altitude fields off 2500' grass strips, even with two place glass. I've enjoyed being towed by Pawnees but as others have noted, the only real difference from the quiet end of the rope was the initial ground roll. More horses are nice but not really necessary at low altitude ... in fact they used to tow at one of my clubs with a Tiger Moth!


This thread is from 2007, so I suspect they made a decision . . . unless they're really slow.

Up high, Minden is at 4730' and high desert, there's no comparison. I own a 180 HP Husky with PowerFlow exhaust and cooling improvements. I've towed heavy two place glass and it's doable, just barely. And not at all kind to the Husky with CHTs over 400 F and climb sub 200 fpm. Pawnee, no problem.

Haven't towed near sea level, but of course have taken my Husky there - - totally different animal! The roughly 3% change in horsepower per thousand feet makes a remarkable difference when you're used to mostly flying mountains.

bumper