Pawnee 235 vs Cessna Bird Dog vs Maule as towplanes

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

I've towed with all 3. The Maule has a very high deck angle and restricts visibility leaving the pilot wondering what's out there in front where you can't see. Not a comfortable feeling.

The PA25-235 is certainly the cheapest to purchase and is benign to fly. Wing tanks, as opposed to a center tank, reduce pilot fatigue. The weight in the wings reduce the affects of roll in turbulence. I guess this is not an issue unless you are flying all day long.

The L-19 is by far the most enjoyable to fly and it's light handling allow all day towing with minimal fatigue. It flies beautifully at slow air-speeds and still has a good roll rate, unlike the PA-25. It also sips the least amount of fuel. It does tend to be expensive to maintain. Limiting the flap speed is advised. The flaps do allow for the steeper approaches and a much slower approach speed than the PA-25.

On Friday, August 22, 2014 7:48:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:

I've towed with all 3. The Maule has a very high deck angle and restricts visibility leaving the pilot wondering what's out there in front where you can't see. Not a comfortable feeling.



The PA25-235 is certainly the cheapest to purchase and is benign to fly. Wing tanks, as opposed to a center tank, reduce pilot fatigue. The weight in the wings reduce the affects of roll in turbulence. I guess this is not an issue unless you are flying all day long.



The L-19 is by far the most enjoyable to fly and it's light handling allow all day towing with minimal fatigue. It flies beautifully at slow air-speeds and still has a good roll rate, unlike the PA-25. It also sips the least amount of fuel. It does tend to be expensive to maintain. Limiting the flap speed is advised. The flaps do allow for the steeper approaches and a much slower approach speed than the PA-25.

Great info from all, thanks!

I've seen several comments on maintenance costs. What makes the Bird Dog more expensive? Does that cost include the long-term expense of maintaining and replacing the Pawnee fabric? We also tend to do most maintenance in-house.

Note that we are looking at one of the rebuilt Bird Dogs from Air Repair (http://www.airrepairinc.com/L-19.html), not an older one. Good Pawnees, on the other hand, are getting harder to find - unless you rebuild yourself or outsource - and now the costs go up fast.

Kirk
66

On 2014-08-22 14:10:42 +0000, kirk.stant said:

Note that we are looking at one of the rebuilt Bird Dogs from Air
Repair (http://www.airrepairinc.com/L-19.html), not an older one. Good
Pawnees, on the other hand, are getting harder to find - unless you
rebuild yourself or outsource - and now the costs go up fast.

Looks like a beautiful plane. $165,000 may even be a pretty good price
for what appears to be effectively a brand new aircraft.

Interesting that the useful load is listed as only 800 lbs vs 1500 lb
for the Pawnee.

Of course something on the end of a rope wth its own wings puts
different strains on the aircraft than something internal, but I've
always thought that one reason the Pawnee works well is a dry glass two
seater or a fully ballasted single seater is a similar weight to the ag
loads it was designed to haul.

On Friday, August 22, 2014 8:10:42 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:
On Friday, August 22, 2014 7:48:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:



I've towed with all 3. The Maule has a very high deck angle and restricts visibility leaving the pilot wondering what's out there in front where you can't see. Not a comfortable feeling.







The PA25-235 is certainly the cheapest to purchase and is benign to fly. Wing tanks, as opposed to a center tank, reduce pilot fatigue. The weight in the wings reduce the affects of roll in turbulence. I guess this is not an issue unless you are flying all day long.







The L-19 is by far the most enjoyable to fly and it's light handling allow all day towing with minimal fatigue. It flies beautifully at slow air-speeds and still has a good roll rate, unlike the PA-25. It also sips the least amount of fuel. It does tend to be expensive to maintain. Limiting the flap speed is advised. The flaps do allow for the steeper approaches and a much slower approach speed than the PA-25.



Great info from all, thanks!



I've seen several comments on maintenance costs. What makes the Bird Dog more expensive? Does that cost include the long-term expense of maintaining and replacing the Pawnee fabric? We also tend to do most maintenance in-house.



Note that we are looking at one of the rebuilt Bird Dogs from Air Repair (http://www.airrepairinc.com/L-19.html), not an older one. Good Pawnees, on the other hand, are getting harder to find - unless you rebuild yourself or outsource - and now the costs go up fast.



Kirk

66

At your elevation and that kind of money, how about a new towplane?

http://www.amerchampionaircraft.com/...utPricing.html

http://aviataircraft.com/hspecs.html

Frank Whiteley

On Friday, August 22, 2014 5:26:08 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:

At your elevation and that kind of money, how about a new towplane?

We already have a pretty nice 180 Super Cub - But on a hot day with no wind and a full G-103, takeoffs take patience...

So the Scout or Husky probably wouldn't change that equation unless they had the bigger engines, which drives the cost much higher.

And they are fabric covered - so no benefit there.

So a rebuilt Pawnee is probably a better choice there. Just my opinion, while I have been towed behind Scouts and Huskies (OK but not spectacular), I've never towed in one.

Kirk
66

How about a 182 with a hook fitted?

Anyone can fly it, it's covered in aluminum, and during the week,
members can take it on trips.

Dan Marotta

On 8/23/2014 8:33 AM, kirk.stant wrote:
On Friday, August 22, 2014 5:26:08 PM UTC-5, Frank Whiteley wrote:

At your elevation and that kind of money, how about a new towplane?
We already have a pretty nice 180 Super Cub - But on a hot day with no wind and a full G-103, takeoffs take patience...

So the Scout or Husky probably wouldn't change that equation unless they had the bigger engines, which drives the cost much higher.

And they are fabric covered - so no benefit there.

So a rebuilt Pawnee is probably a better choice there. Just my opinion, while I have been towed behind Scouts and Huskies (OK but not spectacular), I've never towed in one.

Kirk
66

I tow with a C-182 for CAP and for a private party. Out of Minden, where density altitude can get to 8,000 or more. In fact just yesterday I towed that private party into wave. Twice.

I find the C-182 in these conditions to have less power than I would really like. I far prefer the Pawnee, with the biggest engine you can find.

The Bird dog is a nice looking plane, and it does have two seats, but the tail likes to be ahead of the nose.

One downside about the Pawnee, as I found out from expensive personal experience. Years of aerial application of chemicals that attract moisture can play havoc with the integrity of the tubes in the fuselage/tail. Have your IA poke them with an ice pick before you buy.