![]() |
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
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 |