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

"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

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
-------

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

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

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

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.

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

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...

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