Pawnee 235 vs Cessna Bird Dog vs Maule as towplanes

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

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 8:35:59 AM UTC-7, 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

Don't exclude the Cessna 175 from consideration.

Mike

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:18:10 AM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
Don't exclude the Cessna 175 from consideration. Mike

Only if is has at least the 180HP conversion with C/S prop. Or better yet, the 0-470 conversion (230 HP) with C/S Prop. The only real issue with the latter is the CG tends to be very far fowrard, and you can not use more than 2 of the 4 notches of flap for landing, or you will not have enough elevator power to slow down and the nose gear will be the first thing to contact the ground. Not a good way to land those things!

Have no data to help out relative to the others. My club operates a 182 and a 175 with the 0-470 conversion. Both are good at pulling gliders up even with the spoilers out.

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:35:59 AM UTC-6, 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

This is my best recollection from a long-ago experience towing with a Maule. The memory may be wrong and the airplane may have changed over the intervening years.

IIRC, the Maule seemed to tow with a pronounced nose-up attitude so jerks on the rope tended to cause it to rock alarmingly in pitch. It was a very unpleasant tow plane for both the tug pilot and glider pilot.

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

Birddog is expensive, charismatic, fun to fly and has some maintenance bugaboos that can get expensive (electric flaps fail regularly, ours has manual flaps and they've caused problems too!). It does tow well. The back seat isn't nearly as useful for towing checkouts as you might think -- sit in the back and you'll understand why!

Pawnee is generally a better work horse, easier to fly, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain.

Also consider Callair.

Evan Ludeman

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:36:40 AM UTC-5, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Thursday, August 21, 2014 11:18:10 AM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:

Don't exclude the Cessna 175 from consideration. Mike



Only if is has at least the 180HP conversion with C/S prop. Or better yet, the 0-470 conversion (230 HP) with C/S Prop. The only real issue with the latter is the CG tends to be very far fowrard, and you can not use more than 2 of the 4 notches of flap for landing, or you will not have enough elevator power to slow down and the nose gear will be the first thing to contact the ground. Not a good way to land those things!



Have no data to help out relative to the others. My club operates a 182 and a 175 with the 0-470 conversion. Both are good at pulling gliders up even with the spoilers out.

Our field is all grass so we prefer taildraggers; in fact, all of the power planes on our field (2 club towplanes and 3 private planes) are taildraggers.

We're thinking of charging a landing fee for nosedraggers... ;^)

Kirk
66

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 12:41:29 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
We're thinking of charging a landing fee for nosedraggers... ;^) Kirk 66

As a friend of mine once said, "Tail-dragger pilot break ground and head into the wind. Nose-dragger pilot break wind and head into the ground!" Good enough to put on a tee shirt?

Steve

Not the rile the conservative feathers of the tow plane experts, but I wonder if anyone in the USA has a scenario where a combination tow plane motor-glider trainer like the Phoenix makes sense? http://www.phoenixairusa.com/Specifications.php

I believe it has a bigger engine option if you need the pull for towing.

I wonder how it compares to the traditional big iron choices if you fairly consider all of the variables. Would it make sense if a club used it as a backup tow plane and otherwise used it for training (including XC training!). You might get some income from renting it by the hour. It might make sense for a private hobby-commercial glider port in a remote area with few customers and an owner with other reasons for owning a commuter plane.

I've towed with all three plus the Ag Wagon, CallAir, 180 Super Cub, and
180 Citabria.

I think the Ag Wagon is the best of what I've used and it uses by far
the most gas, but of the three requested, I'd choose the Pawnee. It's
simple to fly, tows well, and it's very basic so maintenance won't be as
much. The CallAir is extremely heavy on the controls and will wear you
out, but it is also the easiest to land tail dragger I've ever flown
(except for the Stearman). The Maule was no fun at all as a tow plane.
The Bird Dog was a lot of fun but maintenance will be higher.

Dan Marotta

On 8/21/2014 5:02 PM, son_of_flubber wrote:
Not the rile the conservative feathers of the tow plane experts, but I wonder if anyone in the USA has a scenario where a combination tow plane motor-glider trainer like the Phoenix makes sense? http://www.phoenixairusa.com/Specifications.php

I believe it has a bigger engine option if you need the pull for towing.

I wonder how it compares to the traditional big iron choices if you fairly consider all of the variables. Would it make sense if a club used it as a backup tow plane and otherwise used it for training (including XC training!). You might get some income from renting it by the hour. It might make sense for a private hobby-commercial glider port in a remote area with few customers and an owner with other reasons for owning a commuter plane.

On Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:02:41 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:
Not the rile the conservative feathers of the tow plane experts, but I wonder if anyone in the USA has a scenario where a combination tow plane motor-glider trainer like the Phoenix makes sense? http://www.phoenixairusa.com/Specifications.php

This makes a lot of sense. The far better aerodynamics and lower weight of a touring motor glider airframe makes up for about half the HP of a Pawnee.

I believe it has a bigger engine option if you need the pull for towing.

Interestingly, a group of pilots visiting the 15m/Open Nationals at Montague told a story they were testing a higher HP version of the ROTAX - they said as much as 140HP. That would make the Phoenix a dandy tug.