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

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

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

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

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

Just my opinion,

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA


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