Pawnee 235 vs Cessna Bird Dog vs Maule as towplanes

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:35:59 AM UTC-4, kirk.stant wrote:
I realize this has been hashed over in the past, but looking for a fresh discussion on the relative merits of these three towplanes.



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



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



Kirk

66

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

Great info from all, thanks!

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

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

Kirk
66

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

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

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

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

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

On Friday, August 22, 2014 8:10:42 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:
On Friday, August 22, 2014 7:48:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:



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







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







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



Great info from all, thanks!



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



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



Kirk

66

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

http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/...utPricing.html

http://aviataircraft.com/hspecs.html

Frank Whiteley

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

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

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

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

And they are fabric covered - so no benefit there.

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

Kirk
66

How about a 182 with a hook fitted?

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

Dan Marotta

On 8/23/2014 8:33 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
On Friday, August 22, 2014 5:26:08 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:

At your elevation and that kind of money, how about a new towplane?
We already have a pretty nice 180 Super Cub - But on a hot day with no wind and a full G-103, takeoffs take patience...

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

And they are fabric covered - so no benefit there.

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

Kirk
66

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by kirk.stant

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

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

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

Kirk
66

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

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

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

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

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

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

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