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