C172 as a towplane

Does anyone have experience using a 180HP C172 as a towplane? How does it's performance compare to, let's say, a 150HP Citabria? Any particular problems to be aware of?

Thanks,

I should add, it would be used to tow an L23 Blanik.....

I believe that an Cival Air Patrol Cadet program in MN is using one to tow an L-23, with less than steller results.

Our Anchorage CAP unit tows a 2-33 and an L-13 with a 180 hp 172. Its adequate but we have long runways and density altitude that is below sea level sometimes. It was however, better than the 150 Cub we had for a while.

I think the adequacy will in large part depend on the circumstances of your particular operation. It tows just fine. Does it provide the margin of safety you need? I don't know.

How long are your runways, what's the elevation, what is the surface, are you surrounded by landable fields or are you towing out of forested area, and how many tows are you going to make in a day? Do any guys fly with water ballast? A 172 is not a Pawnee but it will be more than adequate to tow in many places. In others it will be a source of frustration and perhaps a safety hazard.

Pete Brown

Peter D. Brown a écrit :

Do you mean the PA-18-150 ?

We have one and it's not really an efficient tugplane. Climb rate is poor.

But we had another one a few years ago that was a lot better - maybe due to the propeller.

Yes, that's what I meant. Many Cubs up here have been modified to 180 hp with extended wings, etc, etc, etc. Ours was pretty much stock.

I agree. I always had trouble understanding why the 180 hp 172 towed better than a 150 hp Cub. It may have been the prop on our particular Cub or simply the airfoil design on the old wing. I don't know.

My old club the NCSA, used to tow with a 150 hp C172. Luckily we had 5000 ft runways with 1000 ft overruns on each end. Later we moved to a shorter strip. The 172 was flown to the Sensinich (probably misspelled) factory where they removed the prop and bent it to a climb pitch. This helped tremendously. However, it still was not a great towplane.

My current club, Southern Eagles Soaring, uses a C175. It is sort of in between the 172 and 182. Four seats, fixed tricycle gear, constant speed prop, 180 hp (not the original geared engine). Took out the back seats to save some weight. We put a STOL kit on it. Leading edge cuffs, droop tips, flap and aileron gap seals. This has increased climb just a littel, but it does give the tug a lower nose angle on climbout with better visibility and engine cooling. Lower stall speed and much better slow speed handling. This is good since we have some older wood gliders that like to tow slow. The slower landing speed saves on tires, brakes, and turnaround time as well. We'd like to replace the constant speed prop with a fixed pitch for reasons of weight savings and maintenance costs. It is a fair to middlin' towplane. Definitely not a Pawnee.

A 180 hp 172 should be an OK towplane if you keep the weight down and put on the STOL kit.

Our local CAP unit is looking to put a tow package on our 172 to tow the Blanik L23. We've been using the local glider club's Citabria to date, without any problems. The airport has a 3500 ft grass runway, 800 ft MSL, with maybe at most a dozen tows on any given day.

Sounds like it's doable, but something to pay attention to on some of the hot humid summer days we get.

Thanks

Jeff

From my experience a 172 is a very marginal tow plane.

Bill Snead 600 msl in Texas

It may actually have had something to do with the 30 hp advantage.

8)

In my previous club we used C172. This plane replaced a Gawron PZL 101 and the club is still very happy with the new towplane: climbs better (2-3m/s with an IS28B2) but consumes less fuel. Do we need anything else? This plane is also used for training and parachuting, photo etc. so it earns it's price. Regards,