To Pawnee or not to Pawnee...that is the question...

Travis Beach wrote:

What say you? Discuss...should we scrap the Pawnee
in favor of a Husky?

Beach

Much has been said and of good quality so I feel I can add my $.02 FWIW.

I have been a glider pilot with one primary commercial operation for around
20years and been at the end (trailing end) of a variety of tugs.
My perspective has been one where I watched a succesful gliderport operator
try a variety of towplanes and eventually pare the fleet down to Pawnees
exclusively.

In the process I saw Cubs, SuperCubs, a C182, Scout, and a Husky make their
way thru the fleet but all thats left are the Pawnees.

At my end of the rope, I love 'em.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

Speak to the people at Lake Kepit Soaring Club in New
South Wales. they had a Husky (new) for a while. Basically
the thing was not up to the rigors of towing and essentially
fell apart.
They now use a Pawnee. Go figure

At 23:18 15 October 2007, Travis Beach wrote:
Our club has a Piper Pawnee 235hp in excellent condition.
We just spent $35000 five years ago to completely overhaul
her...new fabric, new engine, anything that needed
to be replaced was...

Heres the rub...we are in the middle of a new two place
acquisition with the club making a decision about getting
a new two place intermediate performance. We were about
to drop the hammer when a very vocal minority raised
the issue of PAWNEE needing to be replaced citing extreme
maintenance cost (???) and inability to get parts.
He/She cited the local aero repair facility as his/her
source of information...Many of us just dont see this
as a problem. The replacement that was cited was a
Husky 180HP...I just dont see the reasoning of such
a switch...I surely would rather two a heavier two
place with a proven performer with 235 hp vs a 180...

What say you? Discuss...should we scrap the Pawnee
in favor of a Husky?

Beach

I concur with Cloudy. Eventually, almost all high volume tow
operations in the USA have ended up with Pawnees. Rugged, inexpensive
to buy and operate, easy to fly, good viz, good crash protection -
what more do you want?

Husky's are good for a lot of things but towing is not one of ithem,
IMO. They are incredibly expensive to buy (4X+ a Pawnee), parts are
very expensive and the Internet is full of people complaining about
customer service. There is essentially only 1 place to buy Husky
parts and probably hundreds where you can get Pawnee spares.

In my 25+ years of towing with and behind Cub, Pawnee Bird Dog, Scout,
Citabria, C-182 and others, nothing is a better all-around tug than an
0-540 Pawnee.

If you need versatility, a C-182 is probably the best, albeit far
inferior to the Pawnee as a pure tug.

I should have said the issue with the Scout was heavy two seat operations..
as Frank mentioned.
We can have greater than 200ft AGL at runway end after a 2800ft run with the
Pawnee and a heavy two seat Grob 103 or SGS2-33
With the old Scout... barely 75-100ft AGL
And the Pawnee does not even feel the 1-26 on tow
BT

"Frank Whiteley" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 16, 8:55 pm, "Wayne Paul" wrote:
We have a 180HP Scout with a fixed pitch climb prop. We have found it
adequate for our needs, even when we fly out of Mackay, ID (5,900' MSL)
during our August regatta.
(http://www.soaridaho.com/photogaller...006/index.html)

Wayne
HP-14 "6F"http://www.soaridaho.com/

"BT" wrote in message

I don't see any two-seater in the gallery photos. Anyone flying with
water there?

We had a 180hp Scout at 5500msl. It was very marginal on hot days
with water or heavy two-seaters and we used two hours fuel only as
full fuel was too heavy. Fuel tanks had recurring leaks. The wood
spar AD required extensive recurring inspections (there were metal
spar retrofit wings produced). Complete wiring harness was replaced.
We also had a U/C strut break, which took out the prop, engine, wing
tip, and horizontal, and availability. Never quite the same after
repairs. The Scout averaged $1000/month in upkeep and inspections at
commercial rates. Despite several objections, we replaced it with a
Pawnee 235D, later updated with the 250STC. Pawnee was not without
its problems. We looked at 40 Pawnees and went for what we considered
the best available on our budget. In retrospect we should have
budgeted about $10K more and considered a few more options. Plan on
buying the Pawnee a second time in the first 3-4 years until you get
it golden. IMVHO, no one sells a really good tow plane at an average
price. Cost aside, we've had high availability and get good
performance thanks to good management and tow pilot procedures. The
250STC is worth it.

IIRC, a Pawnee (with transponder) was reported towing well above it's
advertised operational ceiling this past summer on a really high tow.
I think our's, also transponder equipped, has been to 11,500msl a
couple of times on tow and still climbing okay.

180hp Scouts with metal spars are still being built. $132,900 with
constant speed prop. Probably a good choice for all around towing at
sites 3000MSL., that is, far more than adequate.

Frank Whiteley

On Oct 15, 5:16 pm, Travis Beach
wrote:
Our club has a Piper Pawnee 235hp in excellent condition.
We just spent $35000 five years ago to completely overhaul
her...new fabric, new engine, anything that needed
to be replaced was...

Heres the rub...we are in the middle of a new two place
acquisition with the club making a decision about getting
a new two place intermediate performance. We were about
to drop the hammer when a very vocal minority raised
the issue of PAWNEE needing to be replaced citing extreme
maintenance cost (???) and inability to get parts.
He/She cited the local aero repair facility as his/her
source of information...Many of us just dont see this
as a problem. The replacement that was cited was a
Husky 180HP...I just dont see the reasoning of such
a switch...I surely would rather two a heavier two
place with a proven performer with 235 hp vs a 180...

What say you? Discuss...should we scrap the Pawnee
in favor of a Husky?

Beach

Received an e-mail from LAVIASA, Argentina today

Prices for NEW Pawnees

PA-25-235 (PROP FIX PITCH)
US$ 156,634

PA-25-260 (PROP FIX PITCH)
US$ 160,115

PA-25-260 (PROP CONSTANT SPEED)
US$ 169,397

On Oct 20, 12:20 am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
Received an e-mail from LAVIASA, Argentina today

Prices for NEW Pawnees

PA-25-235 (PROP FIX PITCH)
US$ 156,634

PA-25-260 (PROP FIX PITCH)
US$ 160,115

PA-25-260 (PROP CONSTANT SPEED)
US$ 169,397

Hmm, nobody mentioned "upgrading" to new Pawnees (and I didn't know
you could get then NEW).

Nobody's discussed getting an Air Tractor, or Thrush, or other modern
Turbine powered AgPlane.
http://www.airtractor.com/Default.aspx?p=4530
With a useful load of 9,495 lbs (isn't that approximately FIVE fully
loaded Duo Discus -- or is it Disci?), it would seem to me that the
Air Tractor 802 would pay for itself in less than a season, with tows
to 5,000 feet taking approximately 2 minutes and 34 seconds.

Hmm, turbine -- that means NO shock cooling.
Air Conditioning -- that means NO tow pilot whining.
254 gal fuel capacity -- that means gas it up once a week(end).
Double or triple tows -- that means maximum 15 minute wait for a
tow...

Is Jet fuel still less expensive than 100 LL?

-Pete
#309

On Oct 20, 9:35 am, 309 wrote:
On Oct 20, 12:20 am, Frank Whiteley wrote:

Received an e-mail from LAVIASA, Argentina today

Prices for NEW Pawnees

PA-25-235 (PROP FIX PITCH)
US$ 156,634

PA-25-260 (PROP FIX PITCH)
US$ 160,115

PA-25-260 (PROP CONSTANT SPEED)
US$ 169,397

Hmm, nobody mentioned "upgrading" to new Pawnees (and I didn't know
you could get then NEW).

Nobody's discussed getting an Air Tractor, or Thrush, or other modern
Turbine powered AgPlane.http://www.airtractor.com/Default.aspx?p=4530
With a useful load of 9,495 lbs (isn't that approximately FIVE fully
loaded Duo Discus -- or is it Disci?), it would seem to me that the
Air Tractor 802 would pay for itself in less than a season, with tows
to 5,000 feet taking approximately 2 minutes and 34 seconds.

Hmm, turbine -- that means NO shock cooling.
Air Conditioning -- that means NO tow pilot whining.
254 gal fuel capacity -- that means gas it up once a week(end).
Double or triple tows -- that means maximum 15 minute wait for a
tow...

Is Jet fuel still less expensive than 100 LL?

-Pete
#309

Not positive, but I don't think multiple glider tows are allowed under
the SSA insurance plan.

Turbines consume a lot of fuel while on the ground also, according to
a friend of mine.

I believe there is a SIAI-Marchetti SM.1019 in Uvalde, 400hp. It's
been used as a tow plane but I don't believe it's in regular use.
Rate of climb on tow is said to be 2100fpm and 9000fpm descent.
2000ft tow cycle was reportedly three minutes. Similar to winching;^)

http://www.warbirds-eaa.org/articles/04_02_featue.pdf
http://www.shanaberger.com/sm1019.htm

Frank Whiteley

"309" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 20, 12:20 am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
Received an e-mail from LAVIASA, Argentina today

Prices for NEW Pawnees

PA-25-235 (PROP FIX PITCH)
US$ 156,634

PA-25-260 (PROP FIX PITCH)
US$ 160,115

PA-25-260 (PROP CONSTANT SPEED)
US$ 169,397

Hmm, nobody mentioned "upgrading" to new Pawnees (and I didn't know
you could get then NEW).

Nobody's discussed getting an Air Tractor, or Thrush, or other modern
Turbine powered AgPlane.
http://www.airtractor.com/Default.aspx?p=4530
With a useful load of 9,495 lbs (isn't that approximately FIVE fully
loaded Duo Discus -- or is it Disci?), it would seem to me that the
Air Tractor 802 would pay for itself in less than a season, with tows
to 5,000 feet taking approximately 2 minutes and 34 seconds.


With aviation fuels approaching $7/gallon, the last thing you want is higher
fuel consumption. Turbines suck fuel. They also don't like a lot of
start-up and shut-down cycles.

I don't think any tow plane ever pays for itself once all 'hidden' costs are
considered. Operating an old rag and tube airplane of any kind is fraught
with 'nickel & dime' costs that add up. The last time I took a hard look, a
Pawnee runs about $150 USD/hour. With rapidly escalating costs of fuel and
insurance, it will probably be $200/hour by next summer. You don't operate
small airplanes to make money, you do it because you either need to or want
to. Tugs are cost centers not profit centers.

I think any club interested in lowering operating costs should be
investigating winches.

Bill Daniels

On Oct 20, 9:45 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
I don't think any tow plane ever pays for itself once all 'hidden' costs are
considered. Operating an old rag and tube airplane of any kind is fraught
with 'nickel & dime' costs that add up. The last time I took a hard look, a
Pawnee runs about $150 USD/hour. With rapidly escalating costs of fuel and
insurance, it will probably be $200/hour by next summer. You don't operate
small airplanes to make money, you do it because you either need to or want
to. Tugs are cost centers not profit centers.

I think any club interested in lowering operating costs should be
investigating winches.

Bill Daniels

I forgot to add my "turbine tow would require winch launch
authorization" punch line. ;-) Thanks, Frank.

If somebody made a twin-turbine-taildragger tug, you could get the tow
pilots to PAY for that time (building time for th airlines...).
Turbine Beech-18 gets logged as Complex-Multi-Taildragger-Turbine-High
Performance time...worth $200.00 per hour for training to be a line
pilot. Yeah, I'd go back to the club and put up with the politics for
that!

Since AUTO fuel will quickly be over $4.00 per gallon (it already has
"traded" above that in Beverly Hills), the winches aren't going to be
a hell of a lot better -- if we must insist on suckering, er I mean
recruiting teenagers into our dying sport. (Flame away, guys...I'm
trying to get my kids interested -- _I_ have a hard time competing
with video games, even when I shut the power off).

I suspect we'll soon be back to hilltops and bungee cords... Quick,
we must assemble a protest march to SAVE TORREY PINES (Gliderport)!!!!

-Pete
#309
(I just donned my flame retardant suit).

P.S.: For the record, I agree with Bill -- EVERY "club" should have a
winch. And I think winch launches COULD compete with video games.

On Oct 20, 11:10 am, 309 wrote:
On Oct 20, 9:45 am, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:

I don't think any tow plane ever pays for itself once all 'hidden' costs are
considered. Operating an old rag and tube airplane of any kind is fraught
with 'nickel & dime' costs that add up. The last time I took a hard look, a
Pawnee runs about $150 USD/hour. With rapidly escalating costs of fuel and
insurance, it will probably be $200/hour by next summer. You don't operate
small airplanes to make money, you do it because you either need to or want
to. Tugs are cost centers not profit centers.

I think any club interested in lowering operating costs should be
investigating winches.

Bill Daniels

I forgot to add my "turbine tow would require winch launch
authorization" punch line. ;-) Thanks, Frank.

If somebody made a twin-turbine-taildragger tug, you could get the tow
pilots to PAY for that time (building time for th airlines...).
Turbine Beech-18 gets logged as Complex-Multi-Taildragger-Turbine-High
Performance time...worth $200.00 per hour for training to be a line
pilot. Yeah, I'd go back to the club and put up with the politics for
that!

Since AUTO fuel will quickly be over $4.00 per gallon (it already has
"traded" above that in Beverly Hills), the winches aren't going to be
a hell of a lot better -- if we must insist on suckering, er I mean
recruiting teenagers into our dying sport. (Flame away, guys...I'm
trying to get my kids interested -- _I_ have a hard time competing
with video games, even when I shut the power off).

I suspect we'll soon be back to hilltops and bungee cords... Quick,
we must assemble a protest march to SAVE TORREY PINES (Gliderport)!!!!

-Pete
#309
(I just donned my flame retardant suit).

P.S.: For the record, I agree with Bill -- EVERY "club" should have a
winch. And I think winch launches COULD compete with video games.

Actually, a winch launch to 2000agl uses very little fuel. Getting to
the gliderport will use far more.

Frank