Towplane performance

It sounds like you don't want a plane, you want an
engine.

How about a
G-164 Super Ag Cat C with a 600hp turbine? Looks like
they are $50,000 US maybe?

The aggies love 'em, so they can't be TOO pricey for
maint.
Fuel cost is maybe a bit higher, but you specified
PERFORMANCE, right? Gotta pay SOMETHING for that...


A nice experimental sticker and a towhook/looksie by

whatever govt. agency and bzzzz...you're off!

Good luck...I hope the propwash doesn't blow the wings
off...
maybe use a longer towrope? :P

At 07:30 03 April 2005, Chris Rollings wrote:
I can't think of any regularly used towplane that will
achieve what you want. A 260 hp Pawnee will probaly
launch a Janus safely in anything but a significant
tail-wind component, but you won't usually get 300
feet over the fence, except on cool, windy days. Why
do you need the 300 foot margin?

At 22:30 02 April 2005, Roy wrote:
Our operation has started the hunt for a new towplane.
The main criteria is that from our 2200ft strip at
sea level we need
to have a two seater (janus) 'over the fence' at 300ft
in still air.

What would you recommend?
Dont dwell on purchase cost but rather performance/running
costs

We would consider
a) Used
b) New
c) Experimental/anything else.

Thanks for your thorts.





Mark J. Boyd

Many thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far.

Non of the suggestions were for other than standard (old) aircraft
products.

It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor (160-200hp) would
be great to do the job.

Anyone else considered this approach?
We are not a commercial operation and dont have to pay our pilots.
There is no insurance problem so this solution has some appeal. ie
new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.

"Roy" wrote in message
om...
Many thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far.

Non of the suggestions were for other than standard (old) aircraft
products.

It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor (160-200hp) would
be great to do the job.

Anyone else considered this approach?
We are not a commercial operation and dont have to pay our pilots.
There is no insurance problem so this solution has some appeal. ie
new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.

Have a look at this site.
http://www.soarmn.com/soaring_files/...ison_table.jpg
This Towplane table was done in 1994. The calculation are all referenced to
see level and standard temperature. The performances appear high,
but are not, because most of the comments on this group referred to High
temperature and high altitude. All Climb performances are with a fully
loaded
twin Grob. Acceleration on the Ground was not taken into account.
For example if the temperature is 80F and a 1000ft the factor becomes .77
Please note how well the Zenith 300 with a 180 HP does.

I could well imagine Dick VanGrunsven RV 9 with a 180HP would do very well
but
the RV 10 would be a better choice, as the airframe is stronger and designed
to take a bigger engine, the airframe would still be well under 1500lb if it
is a
very basic tow plane. For example the RV 9 with a pilot and fuel and a max
160HP
( allowed only) has a power loading of 10.

The RV10 with the same pilot and fuel would, but 180 HP, would have the
same
power loading as the RV9. The RV 10 has a larger wing area, it would climb
better
at the speeds we tow at. Also the Airframe is designed for up to 260HP.

For a club with a small membership and limited options I would favour a
stripped down
C-170 or 172 with 180HP if Summer temperature and see elevation allow.
Parts and services are readily available and the performance is not bad at
all for 180HP.
Regards
Udo

Uh, but I think you might be missing an important point. Experimental
aircraft such as the RV series can't be used for hire. If the plane and
pilot are provided free, and not compensated in any way, then it might
be doable. I guess you'd have to find a pilot that is only interested
in building time and not wanting to make money...I'm out


Scott


Udo Rumpf wrote:

"Roy" wrote in message
om...

Many thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far.

Non of the suggestions were for other than standard (old) aircraft
products.

It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor (160-200hp) would
be great to do the job.

Anyone else considered this approach?
We are not a commercial operation and dont have to pay our pilots.
There is no insurance problem so this solution has some appeal. ie
new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.


Have a look at this site.
http://www.soarmn.com/soaring_files/...ison_table.jpg
This Towplane table was done in 1994. The calculation are all referenced to
see level and standard temperature. The performances appear high,
but are not, because most of the comments on this group referred to High
temperature and high altitude. All Climb performances are with a fully
loaded
twin Grob. Acceleration on the Ground was not taken into account.
For example if the temperature is 80F and a 1000ft the factor becomes .77
Please note how well the Zenith 300 with a 180 HP does.

I could well imagine Dick VanGrunsven RV 9 with a 180HP would do very
well but
the RV 10 would be a better choice, as the airframe is stronger and
designed
to take a bigger engine, the airframe would still be well under 1500lb
if it is a
very basic tow plane. For example the RV 9 with a pilot and fuel and a
max 160HP
( allowed only) has a power loading of 10.

The RV10 with the same pilot and fuel would, but 180 HP, would have
the same
power loading as the RV9. The RV 10 has a larger wing area, it would
climb better
at the speeds we tow at. Also the Airframe is designed for up to 260HP.

For a club with a small membership and limited options I would favour a
stripped down
C-170 or 172 with 180HP if Summer temperature and see elevation allow.
Parts and services are readily available and the performance is not bad
at all for 180HP.
Regards
Udo

"Scott" wrote in message
...
Uh, but I think you might be missing an important point. Experimental
aircraft such as the RV series can't be used for hire. If the plane and
pilot are provided free, and not compensated in any way, then it might be
doable. I guess you'd have to find a pilot that is only interested in
building time and not wanting to make money...I'm out


Scott
I did not make a point about the viability as it relates to
the regulation, but rather performance.
Udo




Udo Rumpf wrote:

"Roy" wrote in message
om...

Many thanks for all the advice and suggestions so far.

Non of the suggestions were for other than standard (old) aircraft
products.

It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor (160-200hp) would
be great to do the job.

Anyone else considered this approach?
We are not a commercial operation and dont have to pay our pilots.
There is no insurance problem so this solution has some appeal. ie
new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.


Have a look at this site.
http://www.soarmn.com/soaring_files/...ison_table.jpg
This Towplane table was done in 1994. The calculation are all referenced
to
see level and standard temperature. The performances appear high,
but are not, because most of the comments on this group referred to High
temperature and high altitude. All Climb performances are with a fully
loaded
twin Grob. Acceleration on the Ground was not taken into account.
For example if the temperature is 80F and a 1000ft the factor becomes
.77
Please note how well the Zenith 300 with a 180 HP does.

I could well imagine Dick VanGrunsven RV 9 with a 180HP would do very
well but
the RV 10 would be a better choice, as the airframe is stronger and
designed
to take a bigger engine, the airframe would still be well under 1500lb if
it is a
very basic tow plane. For example the RV 9 with a pilot and fuel and a
max 160HP
( allowed only) has a power loading of 10.

The RV10 with the same pilot and fuel would, but 180 HP, would have the
same
power loading as the RV9. The RV 10 has a larger wing area, it would
climb better
at the speeds we tow at. Also the Airframe is designed for up to 260HP.

For a club with a small membership and limited options I would favour a
stripped down
C-170 or 172 with 180HP if Summer temperature and see elevation allow.
Parts and services are readily available and the performance is not bad
at all for 180HP.
Regards
Udo

Scott wrote in message ...
Uh, but I think you might be missing an important point. Experimental
aircraft such as the RV series can't be used for hire. If the plane and
pilot are provided free, and not compensated in any way, then it might
be doable. I guess you'd have to find a pilot that is only interested
in building time and not wanting to make money...I'm out


Scott

Scott

Presume you haven't heard of that phenomina called Gliding Clubs,
where volunteers act as instructors and others as towpilots... FOR
FREE.

I hear there are lots of them functioning around the world.:-))

AND gentlemen, wonder of wonders, there are other juristictions than
the USA that have glider towing.....sometimes it appears that people
presume only US residents read or contribute to this news group :-)))

Well off to go flying on a great Noo Zeeland day. Yep its FRiday and
the therms are popping.

Roy wrote:

Presume you haven't heard of that phenomina called Gliding Clubs,
where volunteers act as instructors and others as towpilots... FOR
FREE.

I hear there are lots of them functioning around the world.:-))

AND gentlemen, wonder of wonders, there are other juristictions than
the USA that have glider towing.....sometimes it appears that people
presume only US residents read or contribute to this news group :-)))

Well off to go flying on a great Noo Zeeland day. Yep its FRiday and
the therms are popping.

Oh relax Roy. We'll get over ourselves as soon as we're done selling
ourselves to the Chinese. Sometime around the second week of December.
How were those upside down thermals?

Shawn

Roy wrote:
It has been suggested that an RV9 with a big motor (160-200hp) would
be great to do the job.

Anyone else considered this approach?
We are not a commercial operation and dont have to pay our pilots.
There is no insurance problem so this solution has some appeal. ie
new airframe, easy repair & maintenance.

If you are in the US, towing gliders with experimental aircraft is
prohibited by the FAA. I can't remember the exact place where it is
spelled out (it's probably in an AC), I'm sure someone else will know...

In article ,
Marc Ramsey wrote:

If you are in the US, towing gliders with experimental aircraft is
prohibited by the FAA.

That seems silly.

Sure, taking some random aircraft and using it to tow a glider would be
a silly idea, but surely it's ok to design and build your own
experimental aircraft for the specific purpose of towing gliders!

I seem to recall an experimental aircraft called "White Knight"
air-dropping a glider called "SpaceShipOne", with the FAA administrator
present.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

Bruce Hoult wrote:
That seems silly.

Sure, taking some random aircraft and using it to tow a glider would be
a silly idea, but surely it's ok to design and build your own
experimental aircraft for the specific purpose of towing gliders!

If this was the only silly FAA rule, perhaps it would be worth worrying
about.

I seem to recall an experimental aircraft called "White Knight"
air-dropping a glider called "SpaceShipOne", with the FAA administrator
present.

Ah, but that did not fit the definition of a "glider tow". In fact, it
does not fit definition of any form of glider launch currently
recognized by the FAA (i.e., aero tow, ground launch, or self-launch),
so the pilots weren't required to have a launch type endorsement...

Marc