C-172 as tow plane?

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:08:55 PM UTC-4, wrote:

Add the Cessna AgWagon to the list. It is a Pawnee on steroids and has 300+HP - if you can't get air-born behind it, it wasn't meant to fly! ;-)

Actually, at the local FBO which had 2 Pawnees (235s) and one Agwagon (I think one of the early models), the Agwagon was far-and-away the least favorite. It's greatest attribute seemed to be converting fuel to noise swinging the big prop. It also seemed to want to fly faster and climb at a shallower angle than the Pawnees. Plus, it was significantly worse on fuel. As a result, it only flew on a couple of days a year when there was a ton of demand or the Pawnees were inop.

And no, it's not relevant to the question about a 1-72 :-)

On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:00:50 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:08:55 PM UTC-4, wrote: Add the Cessna AgWagon to the list. It is a Pawnee on steroids and has 300+HP - if you can't get air-born behind it, it wasn't meant to fly! ;-) Actually, at the local FBO which had 2 Pawnees (235s) and one Agwagon (I think one of the early models), the Agwagon was far-and-away the least favorite. It's greatest attribute seemed to be converting fuel to noise swinging the big prop. It also seemed to want to fly faster and climb at a shallower angle than the Pawnees. Plus, it was significantly worse on fuel. As a result, it only flew on a couple of days a year when there was a ton of demand or the Pawnees were inop. And no, it's not relevant to the question about a 1-72 :-)

Yea at least for "slow" gliders the Pawnee is better in my limited experience behind both. At Region 10 in 2011 the Pawnees happily pulled me at 65 mph while it was obvious from my end that the AgWagon was really struggling that slow. The Pawnees got me to altitude faster on less horsepower.

On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:05:53 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:00:50 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:08:55 PM UTC-4, wrote: Add the Cessna AgWagon to the list. It is a Pawnee on steroids and has 300+HP - if you can't get air-born behind it, it wasn't meant to fly! ;-) Actually, at the local FBO which had 2 Pawnees (235s) and one Agwagon (I think one of the early models), the Agwagon was far-and-away the least favorite. It's greatest attribute seemed to be converting fuel to noise swinging the big prop. It also seemed to want to fly faster and climb at a shallower angle than the Pawnees. Plus, it was significantly worse on fuel. As a result, it only flew on a couple of days a year when there was a ton of demand or the Pawnees were inop. And no, it's not relevant to the question about a 1-72 :-)



Yea at least for "slow" gliders the Pawnee is better in my limited experience behind both. At Region 10 in 2011 the Pawnees happily pulled me at 65 mph while it was obvious from my end that the AgWagon was really struggling that slow. The Pawnees got me to altitude faster on less horsepower.

I would also consider an L-19 Birddog. Found at the right price, it's a great tow plane. possible downside is the insurance might be a bit higher based on a higher value, but having the extra seat allows tow check outs etc. Excellent aircraft.

Tom
I've been towed many times with a 180 h.p. 172 and it does fine. We are towing from a 5,000' paved runway (elevation of 200 msl) and I'm flying without water in an LS1-d. The towplane also is used to tow the club's G-103. The Cessna has a STOL kit which, I think, includes drooped wing tips, a modified leading edge, stall strips, and a climb prop. All interior bits and pieces remain in the airplane.

I can't say how it would do pulling a 15m or 18m glider filled with water.

As others have said, the good thing about a 172 is that most any pilot can fly it and that is why the club as a nose-dragger rather than a Pawnee or other conventional-gear tug.

Ray

On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:31:11 AM UTC-4, Steve wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:05:53 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:

On Monday, April 22, 2013 9:00:50 AM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:



On Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:08:55 PM UTC-4, wrote: Add the Cessna AgWagon to the list. It is a Pawnee on steroids and has 300+HP - if you can't get air-born behind it, it wasn't meant to fly! ;-) Actually, at the local FBO which had 2 Pawnees (235s) and one Agwagon (I think one of the early models), the Agwagon was far-and-away the least favorite. It's greatest attribute seemed to be converting fuel to noise swinging the big prop. It also seemed to want to fly faster and climb at a shallower angle than the Pawnees. Plus, it was significantly worse on fuel. As a result, it only flew on a couple of days a year when there was a ton of demand or the Pawnees were inop. And no, it's not relevant to the question about a 1-72 :-)







Yea at least for "slow" gliders the Pawnee is better in my limited experience behind both. At Region 10 in 2011 the Pawnees happily pulled me at 65 mph while it was obvious from my end that the AgWagon was really struggling that slow. The Pawnees got me to altitude faster on less horsepower.



I would also consider an L-19 Birddog. Found at the right price, it's a great tow plane. possible downside is the insurance might be a bit higher based on a higher value, but having the extra seat allows tow check outs etc. Excellent aircraft.

When I first learned to fly Lo, Many years ago the operation had an L-19. Even in a K21 dual from 800ft MSL takeoff the climb rate was at least 800fpm. Later
I moved to a club with Pawnees, where we were lucky to get 600fpm in the K21s.
I asked why we didn't have an L-19, and was told that its narrow gear makes it
trickier to handle on the ground. The first operation had to be very picky
about who would tow as a result.

Matt

Why the hell does anyone *want* to get towed by the pilot that can't handle a Pawnee? Sorry... I'm just not seeing this as a big impediment. It's about as stable, easy going and docile as any airplane I've flown. Yes, you have to know how to fly TW. So what? The pilot that cares so little for airmanship that he won't get a TW endorsement concerns me a little as tow pilot.


T8

On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:23:30 PM UTC-4, wrote:

I asked why we didn't have an L-19, and was told that its narrow gear makes it

trickier to handle on the ground. The first operation had to be very picky

about who would tow as a result.

L-19 loves to bounce, is a bit squirrely on pavement and the transition between enough directional control to "oh, ****!" with a gust from behind is pretty thin. It's also a blast to fly, so maybe the other tow pilot just liked to fly :-).

T8

On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:24:43 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
Why the hell does anyone *want* to get towed by the pilot that can't handle a Pawnee? Sorry... I'm just not seeing this as a big impediment. It's about as stable, easy going and docile as any airplane I've flown. Yes, you have to know how to fly TW. So what? The pilot that cares so little for airmanship that he won't get a TW endorsement concerns me a little as tow pilot.. T8

maybe they get their airmanship challenge from towing gliders and flying gliders. maybe they would like to get a tailwheel endorsement but they can't afford to buy a taildragger and no tailwheel airplanes within reasonable driving distance are insured for tailwheel training.

On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:42:03 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:24:43 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:

Why the hell does anyone *want* to get towed by the pilot that can't handle a Pawnee? Sorry... I'm just not seeing this as a big impediment. It's about as stable, easy going and docile as any airplane I've flown. Yes, you have to know how to fly TW. So what? The pilot that cares so little for airmanship that he won't get a TW endorsement concerns me a little as tow pilot. T8



maybe they get their airmanship challenge from towing gliders and flying gliders. maybe they would like to get a tailwheel endorsement but they can't afford to buy a taildragger and no tailwheel airplanes within reasonable driving distance are insured for tailwheel training.

Yup - what Tony said. In the US at least, it's not about "real men (or women)" who fly taildraggers. It's just that in many locations, it's not that easy to find enough tailwheel qualified people that meet the demands of the insurance policy, the FBO's requirements, etc. In our club, we used Super Cubs or Scouts just so we had the second seat available so our one or two tailwheel qualified CFIs could do the transition training and signoffs, but not all locations have the luxury of having a two-place towplane...

On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:35:39 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
On Monday, April 22, 2013 12:42:03 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote: On Monday, April 22, 2013 11:24:43 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote: Why the hell does anyone *want* to get towed by the pilot that can't handle a Pawnee? Sorry.... I'm just not seeing this as a big impediment. It's about as stable, easy going and docile as any airplane I've flown. Yes, you have to know how to fly TW. So what? The pilot that cares so little for airmanship that he won't get a TW endorsement concerns me a little as tow pilot. T8 maybe they get their airmanship challenge from towing gliders and flying gliders. maybe they would like to get a tailwheel endorsement but they can't afford to buy a taildragger and no tailwheel airplanes within reasonable driving distance are insured for tailwheel training. Yup - what Tony said. In the US at least, it's not about "real men (or women)" who fly taildraggers. It's just that in many locations, it's not that easy to find enough tailwheel qualified people that meet the demands of the insurance policy, the FBO's requirements, etc. In our club, we used Super Cubs or Scouts just so we had the second seat available so our one or two tailwheel qualified CFIs could do the transition training and signoffs, but not all locations have the luxury of having a two-place towplane...

and in my old club, under the SSA group policy, it was strictly forbidden for us to provide tailwheel training. we could not provide tailwheel endorsments, only towpilot checkouts. they had to come to us already tailwheel endorsed.