One issue is insurance. I'm not knowledgeable enough to propose a specific remedy, but could the SSA endowment be used, in part, for some blanket policy that would cover owner/operators of tugs? During contests only?experimental aircraft designed purely as tugs...perhaps when passengers are not carried in either aircraft?
I know the Pawnee has been a godsend, as the single seat cut insurance vs. L-19's, 182's &c. But they're aging and the outfit that holds the TC is of no assistance.
Another remedy might be getting to the bottom of the FAA's boilerplate restriction against aircraft with an experimental a/w cert being used for tows. I know it has not always been applied, but can we get a path towards eliminating it and get
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 4:12:56 PM UTC-4, sgs...@gmail.com wrote:experimental aircraft designed purely as tugs...perhaps when passengers are not carried in either aircraft?
One issue is insurance. I'm not knowledgeable enough to propose a specific remedy, but could the SSA endowment be used, in part, for some blanket policy that would cover owner/operators of tugs? During contests only?
I know the Pawnee has been a godsend, as the single seat cut insurance vs. L-19's, 182's &c. But they're aging and the outfit that holds the TC is of no assistance.
Another remedy might be getting to the bottom of the FAA's boilerplate restriction against aircraft with an experimental a/w cert being used for tows. I know it has not always been applied, but can we get a path towards eliminating it and get
Nice topic, I have owned three Pawnee's and really liked the all, my current Pawnee is a beast and is our primary tow plane. If you find one grab it up and do everything you can to keep it in excellent condition. Not only are they getting hard to findthe prices are crazy and finding someone with experience to fly it is another challenge. The self launch owners are saying goodbye to all towplanes, they may just be ahead of the game. OBTP
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 6:28:31 PM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:experimental aircraft designed purely as tugs...perhaps when passengers are not carried in either aircraft?
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 4:12:56 PM UTC-4, sgs...@gmail.com wrote:
One issue is insurance. I'm not knowledgeable enough to propose a specific remedy, but could the SSA endowment be used, in part, for some blanket policy that would cover owner/operators of tugs? During contests only?
I know the Pawnee has been a godsend, as the single seat cut insurance vs. L-19's, 182's &c. But they're aging and the outfit that holds the TC is of no assistance.
Another remedy might be getting to the bottom of the FAA's boilerplate restriction against aircraft with an experimental a/w cert being used for tows. I know it has not always been applied, but can we get a path towards eliminating it and get
find the prices are crazy and finding someone with experience to fly it is another challenge. The self launch owners are saying goodbye to all towplanes, they may just be ahead of the game. OBTPNice topic, I have owned three Pawnee's and really liked the all, my current Pawnee is a beast and is our primary tow plane. If you find one grab it up and do everything you can to keep it in excellent condition. Not only are they getting hard to
I was lucky enough to cut my teeth on tail draggers, cubs, champs, pacers, T Craft, 120s and 140s at a little grass field in Inverness, Fl. I hadn't flown power in 37 years when I was asked if I would fly tow at SLGP. I went and flew a cub a couple ofhours and it was like riding a bike, you never forget. To get some experience with higher horsepower I flew the Stearman for 5 hours and had a ball. Then I did some acro in a Pitts and upset training in a Zlin and felt I was good to go, upset training is
WaltWe’ve become addicted to horsepower. Pawnees guzzle gas and have two extra cylinders to replace. The extra ponies largely just make the pig fly. Most don’t remember that the first Pawnees only had 150hp but a lighter airframe! Up to now the clubs I
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 6:34:45 PM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:experimental aircraft designed purely as tugs...perhaps when passengers are not carried in either aircraft?
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 6:28:31 PM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 4:12:56 PM UTC-4, sgs...@gmail.com wrote:
One issue is insurance. I'm not knowledgeable enough to propose a specific remedy, but could the SSA endowment be used, in part, for some blanket policy that would cover owner/operators of tugs? During contests only?
I know the Pawnee has been a godsend, as the single seat cut insurance vs. L-19's, 182's &c. But they're aging and the outfit that holds the TC is of no assistance.
Another remedy might be getting to the bottom of the FAA's boilerplate restriction against aircraft with an experimental a/w cert being used for tows. I know it has not always been applied, but can we get a path towards eliminating it and get
find the prices are crazy and finding someone with experience to fly it is another challenge. The self launch owners are saying goodbye to all towplanes, they may just be ahead of the game. OBTPNice topic, I have owned three Pawnee's and really liked the all, my current Pawnee is a beast and is our primary tow plane. If you find one grab it up and do everything you can to keep it in excellent condition. Not only are they getting hard to
of hours and it was like riding a bike, you never forget. To get some experience with higher horsepower I flew the Stearman for 5 hours and had a ball. Then I did some acro in a Pitts and upset training in a Zlin and felt I was good to go, upset trainingI was lucky enough to cut my teeth on tail draggers, cubs, champs, pacers, T Craft, 120s and 140s at a little grass field in Inverness, Fl. I hadn't flown power in 37 years when I was asked if I would fly tow at SLGP. I went and flew a cub a couple
have been at have gotten by with 150hp Super Cubs and Citabrias, but we just recently upgraded to a newish 180hp High Country Explorer (Citabria) and pit a TOST system release on it. It is an excellent towplane, with all the power we could want (at leastWaltWe’ve become addicted to horsepower. Pawnees guzzle gas and have two extra cylinders to replace. The extra ponies largely just make the pig fly. Most don’t remember that the first Pawnees only had 150hp but a lighter airframe! Up to now the clubs I
On Wednesday, 29 June 2022 at 17:08:32 UTC-6, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:experimental aircraft designed purely as tugs...perhaps when passengers are not carried in either aircraft?
On Wednesday, June 29, 2022 at 6:34:45 PM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 6:28:31 PM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 4:12:56 PM UTC-4, sgs...@gmail.com wrote:
One issue is insurance. I'm not knowledgeable enough to propose a specific remedy, but could the SSA endowment be used, in part, for some blanket policy that would cover owner/operators of tugs? During contests only?
I know the Pawnee has been a godsend, as the single seat cut insurance vs. L-19's, 182's &c. But they're aging and the outfit that holds the TC is of no assistance.
Another remedy might be getting to the bottom of the FAA's boilerplate restriction against aircraft with an experimental a/w cert being used for tows. I know it has not always been applied, but can we get a path towards eliminating it and get
find the prices are crazy and finding someone with experience to fly it is another challenge. The self launch owners are saying goodbye to all towplanes, they may just be ahead of the game. OBTPNice topic, I have owned three Pawnee's and really liked the all, my current Pawnee is a beast and is our primary tow plane. If you find one grab it up and do everything you can to keep it in excellent condition. Not only are they getting hard to
of hours and it was like riding a bike, you never forget. To get some experience with higher horsepower I flew the Stearman for 5 hours and had a ball. Then I did some acro in a Pitts and upset training in a Zlin and felt I was good to go, upset trainingI was lucky enough to cut my teeth on tail draggers, cubs, champs, pacers, T Craft, 120s and 140s at a little grass field in Inverness, Fl. I hadn't flown power in 37 years when I was asked if I would fly tow at SLGP. I went and flew a cub a couple
We used one here one summer in Telluride and it was fine. it had a extra oil cooler.Walt
A good towplane readily available today is the early Cessna 182.
I have been at have gotten by with 150hp Super Cubs and Citabrias, but we just recently upgraded to a newish 180hp High Country Explorer (Citabria) and pit a TOST system release on it. It is an excellent towplane, with all the power we could want (atWe’ve become addicted to horsepower. Pawnees guzzle gas and have two extra cylinders to replace. The extra ponies largely just make the pig fly. Most don’t remember that the first Pawnees only had 150hp but a lighter airframe! Up to now the clubs
Good topic. In the western states with density altitudes horse power is key. At contests it is getting very hard as the latest machine need lots of power to get off the ground but also newer airfoils on the tow planes to be able tow at 80+ knots forfully ballasted racing gliders
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a
heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast
to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob
103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway,
especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly
sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there
are times that the climb behind even these gas guzzlers is anemic. The
fully tanked open class glider pilots can be heard squealing for more
speed throughout the tow, providing entertainment to those monitoring
the radio.
I have been at have gotten by with 150hp Super Cubs and Citabrias, but we just recently upgraded to a newish 180hp High Country Explorer (Citabria) and pit a TOST system release on it. It is an excellent towplane, with all the power we could want (atWe’ve become addicted to horsepower. Pawnees guzzle gas and have two extra cylinders to replace. The extra ponies largely just make the pig fly. Most don’t remember that the first Pawnees only had 150hp but a lighter airframe! Up to now the clubs
fully ballasted racing glidersGood topic. In the western states with density altitudes horse power is key. At contests it is getting very hard as the latest machine need lots of power to get off the ground but also newer airfoils on the tow planes to be able tow at 80+ knots for
I am dismayed at the monster tow plane cost-spiral I have seen a number of clubs enter. It goes something like this;sailplanes end up subsidizing this extravagant equipment. The student / club class pilots drift out of the sport in the face of looming 100$ aerotows for their 10,000$ Cirrus.
Extremely wealthy and keen club members buy new super heavy, high wingloading gliders with high speed aerofoils of which only very high power towplanes can safely tow.
The club is then locked into operating their legacy Pawnees of which maintenance and fuel costs are extremely high. Cheaper alternative tow planes are no longer an option lest these super heavies are unable to launch. The pilots of student / club
If there wasn't the requirement to cater for the super heavies, many clubs could be towing with ultralights running Rotax's at half the price (or less). They might even get a desirable ultralight to fly in its own right out of it. Some clubs try andmanage this unfairness by charging heavies more or charging by time, but somehow the maths never quite works out for the clubbies.
I think our sport would have more longevity if our clubs would tell these pilots - if you're going to order a new quarter-million+ super heavy glider, fork out the extra 30k and get your own engine.
Perhaps the IGC could arrest this trend by imposing a 60kg/sqm 600kg weight limit on aerotow at world championships, or some kind of climb performance requirement - if you want to go heavier or faster, BYO engine/tug.
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:34:06 -0700 (PDT), Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a
heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast
to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob
103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the basis for most clubs is an older two-place
trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway,
especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly
sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there
are times that the climb behind even these gas guzzlers is anemic. The
fully tanked open class glider pilots can be heard squealing for more
speed throughout the tow, providing entertainment to those monitoring
the radio.
A lot of UK clubs have replaced their 265 hp Pawnees with Robin DR-400
tugs. My club has two of them, which handle anything on our field.
Admittedly we're not high altitude (260 ft AMSL) but I've watched fully ballasted JS-1Cs being launched by them from our field on calm competition days.
Is the DR-400 available in the USA?
There is precisely one DR400 on the FAA Registry...
Dan 5J
On 6/30/22 10:35, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:34:06 -0700 (PDT), Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a
heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with
ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather
pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the basis for most clubs is an
older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed
anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which
regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees,
and there are times that the climb behind even these gas guzzlers is
anemic. The fully tanked open class glider pilots can be heard
squealing for more speed throughout the tow, providing entertainment
to those monitoring the radio.
A lot of UK clubs have replaced their 265 hp Pawnees with Robin DR-400
tugs. My club has two of them, which handle anything on our field.
Admittedly we're not high altitude (260 ft AMSL) but I've watched fully
ballasted JS-1Cs being launched by them from our field on calm
competition days.
Is the DR-400 available in the USA?
In a word: Winch.
Dan
5J
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 1:07:21 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:Never saw a winch do a retrieve. OBTP
In a word: Winch.
DanOh my man, you just hit the nail in the head. I think that a winch is the way to go.
5J
There is precisely one DR400 on the FAA Registry...
Dan
5J
On 6/30/22 10:35, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:34:06 -0700 (PDT), Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a
heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast >> to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob >> 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the basis for most clubs is an older two-place
trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway,
especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly
sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there
are times that the climb behind even these gas guzzlers is anemic. The
fully tanked open class glider pilots can be heard squealing for more
speed throughout the tow, providing entertainment to those monitoring
the radio.
A lot of UK clubs have replaced their 265 hp Pawnees with Robin DR-400 tugs. My club has two of them, which handle anything on our field. Admittedly we're not high altitude (260 ft AMSL) but I've watched fully ballasted JS-1Cs being launched by them from our field on calm competition days.
Is the DR-400 available in the USA?
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:34:06 -0700 (PDT), Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballastA lot of UK clubs have replaced their 265 hp Pawnees with Robin DR-400
to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway,
especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly
sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there
are times that the climb behind even these gas guzzlers is anemic. The fully tanked open class glider pilots can be heard squealing for more
speed throughout the tow, providing entertainment to those monitoring
the radio.
tugs. My club has two of them, which handle anything on our field.
Admittedly we're not high altitude (260 ft AMSL) but I've watched fully ballasted JS-1Cs being launched by them from our field on calm competition days.
Is the DR-400 available in the USA?
--None listed on the FAA Registry nor Type Certificate.
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 2:12:01 PM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
Dan,
I think there a model designation, but nothing registered under it.
FWIW, I think they are a nice and capable tow plane.
Frank Whiteley
There is precisely one DR400 on the FAA Registry...
Dan
5J
On 6/30/22 10:35, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 07:34:06 -0700 (PDT), Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a >> heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast
to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob
103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the basis for most clubs is an older two-place >> trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway,
especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly >> sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there >> are times that the climb behind even these gas guzzlers is anemic. The >> fully tanked open class glider pilots can be heard squealing for more >> speed throughout the tow, providing entertainment to those monitoring >> the radio.
A lot of UK clubs have replaced their 265 hp Pawnees with Robin DR-400 tugs. My club has two of them, which handle anything on our field. Admittedly we're not high altitude (260 ft AMSL) but I've watched fully ballasted JS-1Cs being launched by them from our field on calm competition
days.
Is the DR-400 available in the USA?
On Thursday, June 30, 2022 at 1:07:21 PM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
In a word: Winch.
DanOh my man, you just hit the nail in the head. I think that a winch is the way to go.
5J
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the basisfor most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are times
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote:for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are times
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the basis
There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far from justa matter of weight.
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote:for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are times
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the basis
There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far from justa matter of weight.
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the
just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far from
I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for HP.Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.
Yes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The Purist
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the
just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far from
Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for HP.
nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260 horsepower tow planeYes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't exactly cheap
WaltYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have cowl flaps.
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the
from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far
Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for HP.
cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260 horsepower towYes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't exactly
Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going to someWaltYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have cowl flaps.
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since
from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far
Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for HP.
cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260 horsepower towYes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't exactly
flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going to someWaltYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have cowl
What are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me.I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The Purist
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since
from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far
HP. Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for
cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260 horsepower towYes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't exactly
flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going to someWaltYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have cowl
What are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me.
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6kI would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The Purist
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote: >>>>>>>> Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since the
from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far
Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for HP.
cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260 horsepower towYes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't exactly
flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going to someYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have cowl
Walt
What are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me.I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The Purist
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
PA-25-235 Pawnee Cthe retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering a
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals
* Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic, I like
Walt
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at leastthe basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote: >>>>>>>> Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since
from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far
Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for HP.
cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260 horsepower towYes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't exactly
flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going to someYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have cowl
Walt
What are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me.I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The Purist
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering a 100PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals
* Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic, I like
Walt
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at leastthe basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote: >>>>>>>> Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since
from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far
Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for HP.
cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260 horsepower towYes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't exactly
flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going to someYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have cowl
Walt
What are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me.I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The Purist
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering a 100PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals
* Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic, I like
My Pawnee weighs in at 1134 pounds , HP 265, you do the math!!! Old Bob, The PuristWalt
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 12:11:16 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at least
I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in
favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since
from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far
Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for HP.
cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260 horsepower towYes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't exactly
flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going to someYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have cowl
Walt
the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering a 100What are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me.I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The Purist
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals
* Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic, I like
Doing the math:My Pawnee weighs in at 1134 pounds , HP 265, you do the math!!! Old Bob, The Purist
Walt
On 7/3/22 16:21, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 12:11:16 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at least >> I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in >> favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since
from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far
HP. Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for
exactly cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260Yes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't
cowl flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going toYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have
Walt
the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering a 100What are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me.I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The Purist
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals
* Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic, I like
Doing the math:My Pawnee weighs in at 1134 pounds , HP 265, you do the math!!! Old Bob, The Purist
Walt
Pawnee 1880/235 = 8.0
Aerospool 862/101 = 8.5 (better, but not significant)
But adding in the 1000 pound glider behind that it is trying to accelerate, Pawnee 2880/235 = 12.3
Aerospool 1862/101 = 18 (Significantly less)
Le dimanche 3 juillet 2022 à 23:37:36 UTC+2, Stuart Venters a écrit :Since the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and
On 7/3/22 16:21, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 12:11:16 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at least >> I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in >> favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs.
far from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's
for HP. Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute
exactly cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260Yes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't
cowl flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going toYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have
Walt
PuristWhat are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me. >>>>>I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
like the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering a
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals
* Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic, I
problem is only on the ground: you have to get the tow moving and accelerating, and you need enough HP for that. Once airborne, the aerodynamic quality of the Dynamic or motorglider compared to a classic tug is such, that the available horspower forDoing the math:My Pawnee weighs in at 1134 pounds , HP 265, you do the math!!! Old Bob, The Purist
Walt
Pawnee 1880/235 = 8.0
Aerospool 862/101 = 8.5 (better, but not significant)
But adding in the 1000 pound glider behind that it is trying to accelerate,I have been towed by a Dynamic at Saint-Auban (France) and by a Super Dimona motorglider in Germany, both with a Rotax 115 hp IIRC. It is a non-event, IF you've got a concrete runway. On grass, it will entirely depend on the quality of the surface. The
Pawnee 2880/235 = 12.3
Aerospool 1862/101 = 18 (Significantly less)
On 7/3/22 16:21, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 12:11:16 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at least >> I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in >> favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since
from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's far
HP. Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for
exactly cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260Yes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't
cowl flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going toYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have
Walt
the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering a 100What are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me.I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The Purist
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals
* Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic, I like
Doing the math:My Pawnee weighs in at 1134 pounds , HP 265, you do the math!!! Old Bob, The Purist
Walt
Pawnee 1880/235 = 8.0
Aerospool 862/101 = 8.5 (better, but not significant)
But adding in the 1000 pound glider behind that it is trying to accelerate, Pawnee 2880/235 = 12.3
Aerospool 1862/101 = 18 (Significantly less)
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:37:36 AM UTC+10, Stuart Venters wrote:Since the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and
On 7/3/22 16:21, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 12:11:16 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at least >> I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in >> favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs.
far from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's
for HP. Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute
exactly cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260Yes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't
cowl flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going toYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have
Walt
PuristWhat are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me. >>>>>I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
like the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering a
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals
* Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic, I
tugs like the Pawnee just so we can tow the odd super heavy, when something with lower operating costs could cater to 90% of the fleet.Doing the math:My Pawnee weighs in at 1134 pounds , HP 265, you do the math!!! Old Bob, The Purist
Walt
Pawnee 1880/235 = 8.0
Aerospool 862/101 = 8.5 (better, but not significant)
But adding in the 1000 pound glider behind that it is trying to accelerate,The newer Dynamic's have 914 or 915 engines with up to 141hp. They're highly aerodynamic, especially the retracts.
Pawnee 2880/235 = 12.3
Aerospool 1862/101 = 18 (Significantly less)
I did see a video of a 912 Dynamic with 100hp towed the 900kg 31m eta out of Prievidza once upon a time, but as I recall a lot of people had to push to get it rolling. As per the point I made earlier though - I don't think we should be hanging onto
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 1:26:28 AM UTC-6, Stéphane Vander Veken wrote:Since the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and
Le dimanche 3 juillet 2022 à 23:37:36 UTC+2, Stuart Venters a écrit :
On 7/3/22 16:21, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 12:11:16 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at least
I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in
favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs.
far from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's
for HP. Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute
exactly cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260Yes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't
cowl flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going toYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have
Walt
PuristWhat are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me. >>>>>I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
like the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering a
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals
* Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic, I
The problem is only on the ground: you have to get the tow moving and accelerating, and you need enough HP for that. Once airborne, the aerodynamic quality of the Dynamic or motorglider compared to a classic tug is such, that the available horspower forDoing the math:My Pawnee weighs in at 1134 pounds , HP 265, you do the math!!! Old Bob, The Purist
Walt
Pawnee 1880/235 = 8.0
Aerospool 862/101 = 8.5 (better, but not significant)
But adding in the 1000 pound glider behind that it is trying to accelerate,I have been towed by a Dynamic at Saint-Auban (France) and by a Super Dimona motorglider in Germany, both with a Rotax 115 hp IIRC. It is a non-event, IF you've got a concrete runway. On grass, it will entirely depend on the quality of the surface.
Pawnee 2880/235 = 12.3
Aerospool 1862/101 = 18 (Significantly less)
Bikle's altitude record was set with a tow out of KWJF to 10,000' behind an 85hp Luscombe.I knew Paul, spoke with him many times about that flight, I can assure you that he would have been happier with a 236-265 Pawnee. I was once towed with a 65 hp J-3 finally got me to where I could release and go, but it did work. I guess Burt Compton
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 10:20:08 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and there are
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 7:37:36 AM UTC+10, Stuart Venters wrote:
On 7/3/22 16:21, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 12:11:16 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at least >>>>> I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in >>>>> favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs. Since
far from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It's
HP. Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no substitute for
exactly cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260Yes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The PuristIt would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't
cowl flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills by going toYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better have
Walt
like the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering aWhat are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me. >>>>>>>>I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The Purist
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals
* Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic, I
tugs like the Pawnee just so we can tow the odd super heavy, when something with lower operating costs could cater to 90% of the fleet.The newer Dynamic's have 914 or 915 engines with up to 141hp. They're highly aerodynamic, especially the retracts.Doing the math:My Pawnee weighs in at 1134 pounds , HP 265, you do the math!!! Old Bob, The Purist
Walt
Pawnee 1880/235 = 8.0
Aerospool 862/101 = 8.5 (better, but not significant)
But adding in the 1000 pound glider behind that it is trying to accelerate, >>> Pawnee 2880/235 = 12.3
Aerospool 1862/101 = 18 (Significantly less)
I did see a video of a 912 Dynamic with 100hp towed the 900kg 31m eta out of Prievidza once upon a time, but as I recall a lot of people had to push to get it rolling. As per the point I made earlier though - I don't think we should be hanging onto
The 141 hp engine with an airframe of such improved aerodynamics should work quite well. I believe they can also be turbocharged? Again though, it will be a cost consideration and all too often people see a short term vs long term view.
Walt
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 9:49:30 AM UTC-4, sgs...@gmail.com wrote:Since the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 1:26:28 AM UTC-6, Stéphane Vander Veken wrote:
Le dimanche 3 juillet 2022 à 23:37:36 UTC+2, Stuart Venters a écrit :
On 7/3/22 16:21, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 12:11:16 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at least
I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in
favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs.
s far from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too. It'
substitute for HP. Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no
PuristYes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The
exactly cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260It would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn't
have cowl flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills byYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better
Walt
PuristWhat are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me. >>>>>I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob, The
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
I like the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering a
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals >>> * Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic,
The problem is only on the ground: you have to get the tow moving and accelerating, and you need enough HP for that. Once airborne, the aerodynamic quality of the Dynamic or motorglider compared to a classic tug is such, that the available horspower forDoing the math:My Pawnee weighs in at 1134 pounds , HP 265, you do the math!!! Old Bob, The Purist
Walt
Pawnee 1880/235 = 8.0
Aerospool 862/101 = 8.5 (better, but not significant)
But adding in the 1000 pound glider behind that it is trying to accelerate,I have been towed by a Dynamic at Saint-Auban (France) and by a Super Dimona motorglider in Germany, both with a Rotax 115 hp IIRC. It is a non-event, IF you've got a concrete runway. On grass, it will entirely depend on the quality of the surface.
Pawnee 2880/235 = 12.3
Aerospool 1862/101 = 18 (Significantly less)
still remembers towing off his dad's field with a J-3. Old Bob, The PuristBikle's altitude record was set with a tow out of KWJF to 10,000' behind an 85hp Luscombe.I knew Paul, spoke with him many times about that flight, I can assure you that he would have been happier with a 236-265 Pawnee. I was once towed with a 65 hp J-3 finally got me to where I could release and go, but it did work. I guess Burt Compton
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 4:46:22 PM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:Since the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees, and
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 9:49:30 AM UTC-4, sgs...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 1:26:28 AM UTC-6, Stéphane Vander Veken wrote:
Le dimanche 3 juillet 2022 à 23:37:36 UTC+2, Stuart Venters a écrit :
On 7/3/22 16:21, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 12:11:16 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at least
I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in
favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340 lbs.
It's far from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too.
substitute for HP. Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no
PuristYes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The
t exactly cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260It would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182 isn'
have cowl flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skills byYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you better
Walt
The PuristWhat are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me.I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob,
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
I like the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about ordering
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals >>> * Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the Dynamic,
surface. The problem is only on the ground: you have to get the tow moving and accelerating, and you need enough HP for that. Once airborne, the aerodynamic quality of the Dynamic or motorglider compared to a classic tug is such, that the availableDoing the math:My Pawnee weighs in at 1134 pounds , HP 265, you do the math!!! Old Bob, The Purist
Walt
Pawnee 1880/235 = 8.0
Aerospool 862/101 = 8.5 (better, but not significant)
But adding in the 1000 pound glider behind that it is trying to accelerate,I have been towed by a Dynamic at Saint-Auban (France) and by a Super Dimona motorglider in Germany, both with a Rotax 115 hp IIRC. It is a non-event, IF you've got a concrete runway. On grass, it will entirely depend on the quality of the
Pawnee 2880/235 = 12.3
Aerospool 1862/101 = 18 (Significantly less)
still remembers towing off his dad's field with a J-3. Old Bob, The PuristBikle's altitude record was set with a tow out of KWJF to 10,000' behind an 85hp Luscombe.I knew Paul, spoke with him many times about that flight, I can assure you that he would have been happier with a 236-265 Pawnee. I was once towed with a 65 hp J-3 finally got me to where I could release and go, but it did work. I guess Burt Compton
My old club used to tow with a Tiger Moth!
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 6:51:06 PM UTC-5, stephen.s...@gmail.com wrote:lbs. Since the basis for most clubs is an older two-place trainer like the G103, a high power towplane is needed anyway, especially in high elevation locations like Moriarty, which regularly sees 9,000+ ft. density altitude. We utilize 265 HP Pawnees,
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 4:46:22 PM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 9:49:30 AM UTC-4, sgs...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, July 4, 2022 at 1:26:28 AM UTC-6, Stéphane Vander Veken wrote:
Le dimanche 3 juillet 2022 à 23:37:36 UTC+2, Stuart Venters a écrit :
On 7/3/22 16:21, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 12:11:16 PM UTC-4, Dan Marotta wrote:
I don't think you'd want the hopper full while towing gliders (at least
I never did). Dropping that 1,500 lb skews the power to weight ratio in
favor of the Pawnee.
Dan
5J
On 7/3/22 08:08, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Sunday, July 3, 2022 at 6:46:10 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 11:58:50 PM UTC-4, johngf...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 1:16:38 PM UTC-6, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 9:16:48 AM UTC-4, waltco...@aol.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 7:51:59 AM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, July 2, 2022 at 6:44:09 AM UTC-4, Matthew Scutter wrote:
On Friday, July 1, 2022 at 12:34:10 AM UTC+10, Mark Mocho wrote:
Matthew raises a good point about the horsepower required for towing a heavy "supership," but the JS1-C with 21 meter span, loaded with ballast to MTOW of 1,323 lbs. isn't much different to the rather pedestrian Grob 103 at 1,340
It's far from just a matter of weight.There is probably a 15kt difference in stall speed between a full G103 and a full 21m JS1-C, and with the history of the JS1-C I definitely would not be taking tows with an anaemic tug. Wingloading and aerofoil properties matter too.
substitute for HP. Weight , HP, wing loading and design all play an important role. The DR would not be my choice for towing, would it work in a pinch, sure, but tow weight restrictions certainly would come into consideration.I often see comments regarding tow planes from non tow pilots, and the information is always interesting. I have towed with Super Cubs, Maules. Husky, C172, C180, Pawnee's from 150-265hp, AgWagon 300, and I say that there is no
PuristYes, I do pull a few heavy ships, they are not my favorite and I have imposed weight restrictions for certain aircraft. the JS-3 , full and bubbling over takes a healthy towplane to make for a comfortable and safe tow. Old Bob, The
isn't exactly cheap nor are super cubs and other suggested substitutes. The 182 with a constant speed prop and cowl flaps provides the pilot with a bit more work and thinking to do. You could easily see and feel the difference when you got out of a 260It would take a gun to my head and about five times what I was being paid to tow to get me to do it again but I can tell you from my perspective there is NO substitute for horsepower. Yes, not everyone can fly the Pawnee but the 182
better have cowl flaps. Walt, my days of towing are soon coming to an end, old age is creeping up and I would like to get back to flying my PURE glider, even considering a newer ship 18 meters. You can certainly bet that I will not be degrading my skillsYou are absolutely correct, there is NO substitute for HP during a tow, as mentioned earlier I could not imagine towing behind a 100 hp europuke! HP will save your life, in reference to the 182 , it makes a good towplane, but you
Walt
The PuristWhat are your thoughts on this option? Seems very anemic to me.I would not be comfortable in towing with such an anemic powered towplane! I see these sport craft planes at our strip most everyday, and there is no way that they can handle the extreme application needs of towing our gliders. Old Bob,
https://youtu.be/0Q7xIOvUY6k
Dynamic, I like the retractable tow cable system too. The question is cost, not just operationally but upfront purchase price. Depending on who is writing the checks, this might be an option or perhaps not. Considering I had to argue with someone about
Aerospool WT9 Dynamic with fixed landing gear
Data from Bayerl, Tacke and Aerospool[2][3][6]
General characteristics
* Crew: one
* Capacity: one passenger
* Length: 6.40 m (21 ft 0 in)
* Wingspan: 9.00 m (29 ft 6 in)
* Height: 2 m (6 ft 7 in)
* Wing area: 10.35 m2 (111.4 sq ft)
* Empty weight: 264 kg (582 lb)
* Gross weight: 450 kg (992 lb)
* Fuel capacity: 75 litres (16 imp gal; 20 US gal) standard, 125 litres (27 imp gal; 33 US gal) optional
* Powerplant: 1 × Rotax 912ULS four cylinder, liquid and air-cooled, four stroke, 75 kW (101 hp)
Performance
PA-25-235 Pawnee C
Data from: Macdonald Aircraft Handbook [4]
General characteristics[edit]
* Crew: One
* Capacity: 150 US gal (568 L) or 1,500 lb (545 kg) of chemicals
* Length: 24 ft 9 in (7.55 m)
* Wingspan: 36 ft 2 in (11.02 m)
* Height: 7 ft 2 in (2.19 m)
* Wing area: 183 ft2 (17.0 m2)
* Empty: 1,457 lb (662 kg)
* Loaded: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Maximum takeoff: 2,900 lb (1,317 kg)
* Powerplant: 1 x Lycoming O-540-B2B5, 235 hp (175 kW)
*
At a glance without crunching numbers it would appear that the power to weight ratio is about the same when comparing the two aircraft. The improved aerodynamics of the Dynamic when compared to the Pawnee seems to be in favor of the
surface. The problem is only on the ground: you have to get the tow moving and accelerating, and you need enough HP for that. Once airborne, the aerodynamic quality of the Dynamic or motorglider compared to a classic tug is such, that the availableDoing the math:My Pawnee weighs in at 1134 pounds , HP 265, you do the math!!! Old Bob, The Purist
Walt
Pawnee 1880/235 = 8.0
Aerospool 862/101 = 8.5 (better, but not significant)
But adding in the 1000 pound glider behind that it is trying to accelerate,I have been towed by a Dynamic at Saint-Auban (France) and by a Super Dimona motorglider in Germany, both with a Rotax 115 hp IIRC. It is a non-event, IF you've got a concrete runway. On grass, it will entirely depend on the quality of the
Pawnee 2880/235 = 12.3
Aerospool 1862/101 = 18 (Significantly less)
Compton still remembers towing off his dad's field with a J-3. Old Bob, The PuristBikle's altitude record was set with a tow out of KWJF to 10,000' behind an 85hp Luscombe.I knew Paul, spoke with him many times about that flight, I can assure you that he would have been happier with a 236-265 Pawnee. I was once towed with a 65 hp J-3 finally got me to where I could release and go, but it did work. I guess Burt
for the tow plane, eliminates need for aviation fuel, no more cranky tow pilots, and no more landing out in a carbon fiber toy that costs more than most peoples' house. Well, most of the time...My old club used to tow with a Tiger Moth!As much as I love towing in the Pawnee (and in 180 Super Cubs - 172s, not so much), I think the future will be a winch (preferably electric) + FES (or equivalent). Gets rid of the noise problem, of the need for expensive aircraft maintenance and parts
Or, everybody just stays home and flies any glider anywhere they want in MSFS with a VR headset...And the cause for one being a cranky tow pilot???
Kirk
66
And the cause for one being a cranky tow pilot???
Cause and effect!And the cause for one being a cranky tow pilot???I don't think there is a "cause." I think it's one of the requirements for the rating. :-)
Yes, those are valid reasons to be cranky, but do we want nice, laid-back tow pilots who will let this behavior continue? Or do we need crotchety, old SOBs who will attempt to stamp out shaky performance from the pilot on the end of the trolling line?
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 8:41:03 AM UTC-6, Mark Mocho wrote:density altitudes in the heat of summer are "moderate". In the western US/Rocky Mountains, many airfields are above 5,000ft (1,500m) with density altitudes sometimes in excess of 10,000 ft (3,000 m). This is where, I believe, horsepower becomes essential.
Yes, those are valid reasons to be cranky, but do we want nice, laid-back tow pilots who will let this behavior continue? Or do we need crotchety, old SOBs who will attempt to stamp out shaky performance from the pilot on the end of the trolling line?I agree that winching needs to be the future. The other issue of concern I have about the Dynamic is that typically (correct me if I'm wrong), most European glider ports are at lower altitudes. St. Auban is only at 1,500 ft (less than 500m) AGL, so
Bikle's altitude record was set with a tow out of KWJF to 10,000' behind an 85hp Luscombe.
Yes, those are valid reasons to be cranky, but do we want nice, laid-back tow pilots who will let this behavior continue? Or do we need crotchety, old SOBs who will attempt to stamp out shaky performance from the pilot on the end of the trolling line?
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 10:41:03 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:have to mix with a towed hang glider operation(talk about random events).
Yes, those are valid reasons to be cranky, but do we want nice, laid-back tow pilots who will let this behavior continue? Or do we need crotchety, old SOBs who will attempt to stamp out shaky performance from the pilot on the end of the trolling line?I've been trying , from both ends, to reduce stupid pilot stuff for more than 40 years. We emphasize these issues at every safety meeting.
We still continue to have pilots not ready to go, with checklist complete, when the tug shows up. We're at about 50% most days. We talk till we are blue in the face about how we lose the picture of the traffic situation when the pace is broken. We also
Most common tow pilot yell-" Get in the fucking glider!"You have never met cranky until you meet OBTP, I take ass chewing to a new level! I even had a glider pilot get out of his glider because he forgot to put his chute on. Or what about an instructor doing a debriefing while you are sitting there burning
But we still love it and do it anyway.
We reserve the right to be cranky.
UH
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 4:49:46 PM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:line?
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 10:41:03 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
Yes, those are valid reasons to be cranky, but do we want nice, laid-back tow pilots who will let this behavior continue? Or do we need crotchety, old SOBs who will attempt to stamp out shaky performance from the pilot on the end of the trolling
also have to mix with a towed hang glider operation(talk about random events).I've been trying , from both ends, to reduce stupid pilot stuff for more than 40 years. We emphasize these issues at every safety meeting.
We still continue to have pilots not ready to go, with checklist complete, when the tug shows up. We're at about 50% most days. We talk till we are blue in the face about how we lose the picture of the traffic situation when the pace is broken. We
100LL at 7 plus bucks a gallon, don't blame me, I did not vote for the clown! Yes, us old cranky tow pilots certainly have reason to snarl at the so called glider pilots when they are holding up the entire operation. Do NOT think that motor gliderMost common tow pilot yell-" Get in the fucking glider!"You have never met cranky until you meet OBTP, I take ass chewing to a new level! I even had a glider pilot get out of his glider because he forgot to put his chute on. Or what about an instructor doing a debriefing while you are sitting there burning
But we still love it and do it anyway.
We reserve the right to be cranky.
UH
Someone once told me that they thought UH was grumpy until they met me. Old Bob, The Purist
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 3:05:52 PM UTC-7, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:line?
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 4:49:46 PM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 10:41:03 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
Yes, those are valid reasons to be cranky, but do we want nice, laid-back tow pilots who will let this behavior continue? Or do we need crotchety, old SOBs who will attempt to stamp out shaky performance from the pilot on the end of the trolling
also have to mix with a towed hang glider operation(talk about random events).I've been trying , from both ends, to reduce stupid pilot stuff for more than 40 years. We emphasize these issues at every safety meeting.
We still continue to have pilots not ready to go, with checklist complete, when the tug shows up. We're at about 50% most days. We talk till we are blue in the face about how we lose the picture of the traffic situation when the pace is broken. We
burning 100LL at 7 plus bucks a gallon, don't blame me, I did not vote for the clown! Yes, us old cranky tow pilots certainly have reason to snarl at the so called glider pilots when they are holding up the entire operation. Do NOT think that motorMost common tow pilot yell-" Get in the fucking glider!"You have never met cranky until you meet OBTP, I take ass chewing to a new level! I even had a glider pilot get out of his glider because he forgot to put his chute on. Or what about an instructor doing a debriefing while you are sitting there
But we still love it and do it anyway.
We reserve the right to be cranky.
UH
Twofive, pay close attention, you may learn something.Someone once told me that they thought UH was grumpy until they met me. Old Bob, The PuristOld Bob, do a deep dive into the cause of high gas prices and then get back to us explaining just how it’s Biden’s fault.
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 4:49:46 PM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:line?
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 10:41:03 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
Yes, those are valid reasons to be cranky, but do we want nice, laid-back tow pilots who will let this behavior continue? Or do we need crotchety, old SOBs who will attempt to stamp out shaky performance from the pilot on the end of the trolling
also have to mix with a towed hang glider operation(talk about random events).I've been trying , from both ends, to reduce stupid pilot stuff for more than 40 years. We emphasize these issues at every safety meeting.
We still continue to have pilots not ready to go, with checklist complete, when the tug shows up. We're at about 50% most days. We talk till we are blue in the face about how we lose the picture of the traffic situation when the pace is broken. We
100LL at 7 plus bucks a gallon, don't blame me, I did not vote for the clown! Yes, us old cranky tow pilots certainly have reason to snarl at the so called glider pilots when they are holding up the entire operation. Do NOT think that motor gliderMost common tow pilot yell-" Get in the fucking glider!"You have never met cranky until you meet OBTP, I take ass chewing to a new level! I even had a glider pilot get out of his glider because he forgot to put his chute on. Or what about an instructor doing a debriefing while you are sitting there burning
But we still love it and do it anyway.
We reserve the right to be cranky.
UH
Someone once told me that they thought UH was grumpy until they met me. Old Bob, The Purist
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 6:05:52 PM UTC-4, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:line?
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 4:49:46 PM UTC-4, Hank Nixon wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 10:41:03 AM UTC-4, Mark Mocho wrote:
Yes, those are valid reasons to be cranky, but do we want nice, laid-back tow pilots who will let this behavior continue? Or do we need crotchety, old SOBs who will attempt to stamp out shaky performance from the pilot on the end of the trolling
also have to mix with a towed hang glider operation(talk about random events).I've been trying , from both ends, to reduce stupid pilot stuff for more than 40 years. We emphasize these issues at every safety meeting.
We still continue to have pilots not ready to go, with checklist complete, when the tug shows up. We're at about 50% most days. We talk till we are blue in the face about how we lose the picture of the traffic situation when the pace is broken. We
burning 100LL at 7 plus bucks a gallon, don't blame me, I did not vote for the clown! Yes, us old cranky tow pilots certainly have reason to snarl at the so called glider pilots when they are holding up the entire operation. Do NOT think that motorMost common tow pilot yell-" Get in the fucking glider!"You have never met cranky until you meet OBTP, I take ass chewing to a new level! I even had a glider pilot get out of his glider because he forgot to put his chute on. Or what about an instructor doing a debriefing while you are sitting there
But we still love it and do it anyway.
We reserve the right to be cranky.
UH
of paying better attention or some additional training. Any comments I may have made to them later went in one ear and out the other. If in 10 percent of your life you find yourself in near peril you need to reevaluate your situation. Maybe I was justSomeone once told me that they thought UH was grumpy until they met me. Old Bob, The PuristMost glider pilots only get to observe a few tows, theirs and a few in front of them. The tow pilot sees them all, careless, stupid, dangerous, all of them. My record day was 57 tows, 90 percent were just fine and the remaining 10 percent were in need
I wonder how many times a day a busy operation was saved of an accident by an observant (or maybe grumpy) tow pilot? I was looking in the mirror one day as I thought I could see a solo pilot get in the back seat of a training glider. The Japanesestudents who hooked him up seemed concerned but being polite Japanese and only students themselves they seemed to think maybe it was okay? I shut down and walked back to make sure I saw what I thought I saw and there he was, empty front seat, him in the
I remember an impatient glider pilot sitting in position for a tow as I pulled up to the pumps to refuel. I had a hard and fast rule of 1.5 hours on the tach at which time I would refuel. He came on the radio and asked, "Hey tow plane, don't you haveone more tow in that gas tank?" I'm sure I did but I was thirsty and needed to relieve myself, flying in the hot Florida sun can drain you and it is a safety measure to hydrate on a regular basis. I told him I just might have but I didn't want to find
My last squadron commander in Vietnam was a full Colonel, he had done it all, flew P51's and F86s in Korea, the F4 over North Vietnam. He was often thought to be grumpy but in retrospect I understood that he only insisted things be done right, the USAFway, no stone left unturned, by the book. Sometimes he had to crack the whip to get people to perform. We had a perfect operational record under his command, not so his predecessor.
Sometimes people have a reason to be grumpy, tow pilots among them. Have a nice day everyone, I hope to get to fly a helicopter today. Gonna see how my back feels in that rock assed hard Gimbal Cabri G2 seat.
Walt
One issue is insurance. I'm not knowledgeable enough to propose a specific remedy, but could the SSA endowment be used, in part, for some blanket policy that would cover owner/operators of tugs? During contests only?experimental aircraft designed purely as tugs...perhaps when passengers are not carried in either aircraft?
I know the Pawnee has been a godsend, as the single seat cut insurance vs. L-19's, 182's &c. But they're aging and the outfit that holds the TC is of no assistance.
Another remedy might be getting to the bottom of the FAA's boilerplate restriction against aircraft with an experimental a/w cert being used for tows. I know it has not always been applied, but can we get a path towards eliminating it and get
One issue is insurance. I'm not knowledgeable enough to propose a specific remedy, but could the SSA endowment be used, in part, for some blanket policy that would cover owner/operators of tugs? During contests only?experimental aircraft designed purely as tugs...perhaps when passengers are not carried in either aircraft?
I know the Pawnee has been a godsend, as the single seat cut insurance vs. L-19's, 182's &c. But they're aging and the outfit that holds the TC is of no assistance.
Another remedy might be getting to the bottom of the FAA's boilerplate restriction against aircraft with an experimental a/w cert being used for tows. I know it has not always been applied, but can we get a path towards eliminating it and get
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 2:12:56 PM UTC-6, sgs...@gmail.com wrote:experimental aircraft designed purely as tugs...perhaps when passengers are not carried in either aircraft?
One issue is insurance. I'm not knowledgeable enough to propose a specific remedy, but could the SSA endowment be used, in part, for some blanket policy that would cover owner/operators of tugs? During contests only?
I know the Pawnee has been a godsend, as the single seat cut insurance vs. L-19's, 182's &c. But they're aging and the outfit that holds the TC is of no assistance.
Another remedy might be getting to the bottom of the FAA's boilerplate restriction against aircraft with an experimental a/w cert being used for tows. I know it has not always been applied, but can we get a path towards eliminating it and get
FWIW, Arizona Soaring's Facebook page has pictures of it's new, zero time Puelche (Pawnee PA-25-260) and announces that they are the US/Canada rep with Laviasa Aircraft, the producer. Nothing on their web site yet.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 296 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 66:02:26 |
| Calls: | 6,654 |
| Files: | 12,200 |
| Messages: | 5,331,878 |