If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cessna 182 as a Tow Plane?
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"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 You may try contacting Burt Compton at Marfa Gliders. I believe he used a 182 as a tow plane when he operated in Florida. Here is the contact info for Burt from the SSA web site: Burt Compton www.flygliders.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On 1/24/04 9:13 AM, in article
et, "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. When the alternative is an equivalent or better wing, 50 more HP, constant speed prop, and a relatively few more pounds of empty weight, why even consider the 172? Google search returns zero hits on "Cessna 172 tow plane", a half dozen hits on "Cessna 182 tow plane", and 7 pages of URLs on "Pawnee tow plane". Take the hint. You can tow with a lot of low power airplanes, but you can't tow safely some of the heavier gliders off the average strip in the summer with a low power tow plane. Those gliders which can be safely towed with less power will still take a long time to get to release altitude. If you have a significant volume of launches to do in order to catch the best of a summer's day soaring, use a 182 or a Pawnee 235, even at sea level. If you want the safest operation in glider-filled airspace, get a Pawnee or other converted ag plane that allows you reasonably good visibility from the cockpit. When you are climbing and/or turning in the same airspace with gliders, few aircraft below you or outside your turn will present much of a hazard. The ones which do present a hazard are the hardest to see in a high wing airplane. ------- Jack ------- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
I believe they use a 182 at Estrella Sailport just South Of Phoenix. The
day I was there, they were using a Pawnee as tow plane as they were working on the 182. I believe their website is http://www.azsoaring.com -- Scott http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/ Building RV-4 Gotta Fly or Gonna Die "Jim Newton" wrote in message ink.net... 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I have flown tow with Pawnees, Old 182s and new 182s, pulling 2-33s, 1-26s,
and Blaniks. New 182s have a wing optimized for higher speed, and don't climb as well at 2-33 tow speeds. We towed in 90+ F high humidity at a 267 ft MSL airport (Thomasville, GA, USA) with the straight tail 182, but had to install dual oil coolers to keep the temps in line. It worked OK but the tow speed was still too slow for the 182, but better than the new ones. The Pawnee is still king in my opinion. All of them will work, and the 182s are better than stayng on the ground. The 180 hp 172 may be better if it's "best climb" speed is slow enough. -- Hartley Falbaum "Jim Newton" wrote in message ink.net... 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Kutztown in PA at around 500' uses 182s. Phone 610-683-5666. I've done some
towing for them but not a 2-33 or a 1-26 and not during the summer - so I can't comment on cooling issues while towing the slow stuff in the heat. I'd talk to Marty and Cindy at Caracole Soaring in California City, CA. If they don't now, they did use a 182 and it gets HOT in the Mojave Desert. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Our club just sold a 1960 C-182 to go to a second Pawnee
in addition to our L-19. I also had a fair amount of experience with a newer 182 towing 2-33s and 2-22s for the CAP program at Hobbs a few years ago. Both were uncomfortable down at the the tow speeds that you want with the Schweitzers but both were better in acceleration and climb than the 180 Lycoming conversion 172. In my opinion, the primary reason to go to any of these trike towplanes is the higher availaibility of tow pilots for them compared to the high horsepower taildraggers. But when it comes to clearing the tree tops on a hot summer day, or fast tow turnaround, there is no substitute for horsepower. The 182 is no bargain to maintain either. Roy |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 We use a 150/150 (with bare aluminum) and a 150aerobat/180 for towing 2-33s and L-13s from a sea level airport, and do OK, even in 100+ degree heat of the summer. We do use the whole 3300 feet of runway, however, and are fortunate to have few obtacles (ok maybe a 3 foot fence) and flat terrain on the departure end. I'd personally pick a 172 180hp with a correctly pitched climb prop over any contant-speed prop for towing, really because of expense. The bit of added inefficiency from a fixed pitch prop seems to me a small sacrifice for the weight savings and maintenence ease. The other thing to really do is to keep the weight of the airplane as low as possible. Less weight = more climb and is a cheap way to do it. I am NOT an A&P, but I did a lot of work to my own 172 under supervision. I pulled out the old AN gyros, and replaced the old heavy vac pump, and pulled out my huge, bulky, heavy avionics and installation kits and harnesses, and rotted, heavy carpeting, and I redid my seats and interior. I also flew it a LOT with less than half tanks. Since I leaned the same way all the time, my tachometer was an extremely accurate way to measure fuel consumption (within a half gallon per hour 100% of the time). The lightest 172 would have NO avionics or instruments except day VFR, completely stripped paint, no interior, an electrical system removed, a lightweight starter installed, and be started off a portable battery (good for only a few starts), perhaps in the aft baggage compartment for weight and balance. One would find the lightest "midget" pilot and fill the tanks with the minimum fuel required. All the seats except for the pilot would be removed. And no wheel pants. I bet a 1970s 172 would have an 1100 to 1200 pound empty weight, and probably double or triple the climb of max gross, depending on the density altitude... Could you get a mechanic to sign this off? Well, some of it you could. But this is just an example to show you what adds weight. You get the idea, right? Less weight is the equivalent of free horsepower, so if you'd be willing to spend $12,000 for a bigger engine, can't you spend a few thousand $s to make the plane weigh less? For the power part, the Wolf remote oil coolers are really great for cooling the oil, and I used an EGT/CHT, which is my first choice for an "optional" instrument. Next, I found that a meaty prop, of the right size and pitch, really makes a difference, and is reasonably priced ($a few thousand, fixed pitch of course). Some towpilots really like the iridium (?) spark plugs too, especially for the bottom cylinders, for less fouling. If you're buying a plane, I'd weigh it first. Twenty years of "corrosion X" applications can weigh a lot. So can one or two paint jobs. I suspect a low time, original 172 is pretty hard to find, but I got one, and at a steal because the paint and interior were original (and trashed). Of course a 180hp conversion would have been some extra $$$$s and some weight, I suppose. If I already had a 172 as a towplane, I'd take the extra $$$s I was considering for a 182 and instead put it into a super tune up. Timing just perfect, maybe a top overhaul, check and pitch a beautiful prop, a second set of plugs cleaned religiously, remote oil filter/cooler, EGT/CHT, clean, new, perfectly contoured baffling, etc.... Yeah, and polish it with a diaper, that's the ticket :P P.S. Our tugs both have wheel pants on them. Not quite sure why...I guess I'll ask... |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article CbRQb.113818$Rc4.847735@attbi_s54,
"HL Falbaum" wrote: I have flown tow with Pawnees, Old 182s and new 182s, pulling 2-33s, 1-26s, and Blaniks. New 182s have a wing optimized for higher speed, and don't climb as well at 2-33 tow speeds. So presumably, for those of us in the rest of the world who train in glass, the 182 would be just fine? What speed do they like to climb at? I can't imagine a problem with grobs if it's maybe 75 or 80 knots. We normally tow at 65 knots (indicated in the glider) behind our Pawnees. -- Bruce |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Plane down - NASCAR team plane crashes... | Chuck | Piloting | 10 | October 28th 04 12:38 AM |
Thinking out loud | Marco Rispoli | Owning | 21 | May 4th 04 04:22 PM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | October 1st 03 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | September 1st 03 07:27 AM |
rec.aviation.aerobatics FAQ | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | August 1st 03 07:27 AM |