Looks like you can get a 170A or Pacer for around the same price. What are the pros and cons of both? Both seem to be a good fit.

You have a hangar or plan to tie outside? Where are you going, asphalt or "off road"? How much taildragger time, mainly how much Pacer time do you have?

I would keep it in a shade hangar. 25 hours in tailwheel. Some conservative off airport.

Some light reading if you haven't already seen these:

https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/170b-108-3-or-pa22-20-21379

There are some older threads buried here but they're pretty disjointed. We don't have anything that is specifically 170A vs Pacer.

Let's clarify that you should be looking for 150hp Pacers. Early PA-20s were mostly 125hp O-290s. Most converted PA-22's use the 150hp O-320. Some more rare later versions use the wide deck 160hp O-320.

My opinion is that it's hard to go wrong with either. My best advice is go fly each with an owner to try them out.

Here are some obvious contrasts:

Weight:

170A will be heavier with empty weights around 1,300 lbs
Pacer weights can be as low as 1,050 lbs


Engine:

170A uses a Continental C-145 6-cylinder.
Pacer 150 uses a Lycoming O-320 4-cylinder. Lower weight nod goes to the Lycoming IIRC.

Wings:

170A has a lower wing loading with its longer span.
Pacer has shorter, more highly loaded wings that create less lift at lower speeds.

The 170A flaps are simple hinged flaps, pretty much like the Pacer. The
170B has semi-fowler flaps like a later Cessna wing (1952 and on.)

The 170A has much less, possibly no dihedral. I can't remember. The Pacer has a little.

Construction:

The 170A is all aluminum
The Pacer is steel tube fuselage covered in fabric with some aluminum panels at the boot cowl and belly.

The 170A is an all aluminum wing with aluminum skins and a single strut.
The Pacer has a wing with aluminum spars, ribs, leading edge, but is covered in fabric. Internal rods are used to brace the wing from racking. It has two lift struts per side.

For some guys, this is everything. I personally prefer a steel fuselage and fabric.

The Pacer only has a right side door, like many Pipers. There is an STC to add a left side seaplane door but it's somewhat invasive.

Performance:

Performance is an amalgam of many things. Where do you value performance the most? Slow speeds? Cruise speed? Load carrying? Handling?

Props being equally pitched:

The 170 will likely fly a little slower simply by virtue of greater wing area.
The Pacer will cruise faster with those stubby wings.

They both handle great, but I find the Pacer to have a little higher roll rate.

Trim on the Cessna is a tab controlled by a wheel
Trim on the Pacer is a stabilator controlled by an overhead crank.

It's hard to get either one out of balance.

170A has no dihedral but I've never heard of stability complaints.


Lycoming O-320 vs Continental O-300
Lycoming has slightly more power at 150hp vs 145hp

It's said that the O-300 sits (not run for months) better as the cam is under the crank. Its a rare thing to have a rusted cam in an O-300.

O-320 is four cylinders, O-300 is six cylinders - this will be a $2,000 plus parts cost savings (plus labor) if you ever do a top end.

Oil Sumps, accessory cases and crank shafts are getting hard to come by for the O-300 and expensive when you can find them.
I don't know of any similar availability issues with the O-320

Dschuh, great post. Exactly where I'll be spring/summer. I'll be looking for one with backcountry mods and more HP. Want/need side by side and light. Pretty much always had a rag wing in the hangar since 1981 so no issues there. Down sizing T210 and upsizing current Champ.
Jack

Zzz wrote:…….Trim on the Pacer is a stabilator controlled by an overhead crank.......

A trimmable stabilizer is not the same as a stabilator.
Shame on you, Zane...and you a Pacer owner!

If it were me I'd shop for both of them, then decide based on what I found for sale. A good Pacer beats a poor 170, and vice versa.

Zzz wrote:Weight:

170A will be heavier with empty weights around 1,300 lbs
Pacer weights can be as low as 1,050 lbs

The 170A has a gross weight of 2200 and the pacer 1950, so useful load on numbers above is a wash.

Zzz wrote:Engine:

170A uses a Continental C-145 6-cylinder.
Pacer 150 uses a Lycoming O-320 4-cylinder. Lower weight nod goes to the Lycoming IIRC.

Overall weight of the airplanes compared to their wing loading is pretty similar. I wouldn't guess that the lycoming has a serious weight advantage in this application, but I would say that the lycoming is easier to work on just because it's got less cyls to deal with.

I think the fact that lycomings have cam issues if sitting a long time is worth mentioning, but then again, any airplane needs to be flown.

Zzz wrote:Construction:

The 170A is all aluminum
The Pacer is steel tube fuselage covered in fabric with some aluminum panels at the boot cowl and belly.

The 170A is an all aluminum wing with aluminum skins and a single strut.
The Pacer has a wing with aluminum spars, ribs, leading edge, but is covered in fabric. Internal rods are used to brace the wing from racking. It has two lift struts per side.

For some guys, this is everything. I personally prefer a steel fuselage and fabric.

The Pacer only has a right side door, like many Pipers. There is an STC to add a left side seaplane door but it's somewhat invasive.

Pretty good pros/cons to both. A rag and tube airplane can have a bit of rust in it, and you would never know. Also the fabric breaks down in the weather much faster, but you can fix them without buying cessna parts, which is a big deal.

The aluminum can be much more expensive/harder to fix, and if I was to be in a crash, I'd prefer rag and tube over a cessna.

My airplane is aluminum, and it sits outside, so I'm glad it's not fabric. It looks pretty sharp for being 70 years old now.

Zzz wrote:
Performance:

Performance is an amalgam of many things. Where do you value performance the most? Slow speeds? Cruise speed? Load carrying? Handling?

Props being equally pitched:

The 170 will likely fly a little slower simply by virtue of greater wing area.
The Pacer will cruise faster with those stubby wings.

I wouldn't assume that, but perhaps I'm wrong. The cessna has the longer wings, but it also has a much cleaner tail, much cleaner gear, and a single strut. That makes up a lot. Also aluminum wings almost always cruise faster than fabric wings due to deformation.

What do you cruise at? I get right at 100mph with my 170A with a 80/43 prop cut down to a 78.5.

As for performance, both airplanes are two person airplanes if you are counting on any reasonable amount of performance. My 170A with a Horton stol, VG's and climb prop can safely operate with 2 people and 1/2 tank of fuel in 1000ft. That's enough to go play, but it's not great performance compared to other stuff.

Both have a lot of bang for the buck. Having a 2 person airplane you can go play in, for around $35k, burning 7.5gph, is super cheap, right until it needs cyls or fabric or whatever.

Zzz wrote:
They both handle great, but I find the Pacer to have a little higher roll rate.

Trim on the Cessna is a tab controlled by a wheel
Trim on the Pacer is a stabilator controlled by an overhead crank.

It's hard to get either one out of balance.

The 170A doesn't fly as well as the newer cessnas. The rigging is such that there is much more adverse yaw, and I find myself going to slight opposite aileron with rudder in some turns. I suspect the pacer flies a little better.


In summary, I agree with Hammer, shop for both, buy the nicest one you can.

In recent times there's been a couple of sweet looking Pacers and 170's on Barnstormers, lots of candy to look at almost better then Cabella's Candy Store at Christmas time !!!!

akschu wrote:The 170A doesn't fly as well as the newer cessnas. The rigging is such that there is much more adverse yaw, and I find myself going to slight opposite aileron with rudder in some turns. I suspect the pacer flies a little better.

I did notice that when flying your bird, actually. Didn't mind it though, I enjoyed it.

Just clarifying the GW on Pacers...

Early model PA-22 mainly 135’s up to 1955 model year had a GW of 1950 lbs.
Later model 1956 PA22-150/160 GW is 2000 lbs.
The PA22-108 Colt is a bit of an anomaly as it’s only a 2 seater with no flaps and a Lycoming 235.. it’s GW was only 1650 lbs.

Brian



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just had a friend at our grass strip get a very good deal on a 170B at a nearby field.
It had sat for 8 years without running.
We pulled all the jugs and the internals looked in decent shape. The plan is to replace a couple of jugs with ones we have at the shop and fly it this Spring and Summer as is. In the Fall his plan is to put a 180 with a C/S prop in it.
I sat in it and was very impressed by the comfort and visibility.
Being an all metal airplane I would look at it as perhaps a better investment than the pacer.

If you have potential passengers, I'd let them try out the seats and visiblity, especially in the back seats. You could use any of the pre-back-window Cessnas or I think any of the 4 place fabric Pipers for their evaluation.

Resky wrote:If you have potential passengers, I'd let them try out the seats and visiblity, especially in the back seats. You could use any of the pre-back-window Cessnas or I think any of the 4 place fabric Pipers for their evaluation.

And then let them climb in a Sedan.

akaviator wrote:

Resky wrote:If you have potential passengers, I'd let them try out the seats and visiblity, especially in the back seats. You could use any of the pre-back-window Cessnas or I think any of the 4 place fabric Pipers for their evaluation.

And then let them climb in a Sedan.

The Sedan totally belongs on this list, though I figured with the name of the thread we should keep it constrained.

I'm still enamored with Sedans, but I found they command a little higher price than the Pacer.

Sedan’s are a great option if you can find one, they are a rare bird.

Mapleflt wrote:Sedan’s are a great option if you can find one, they are a rare bird.

I agree about rare.
I've been flying for well over 20 years (based in western WA),
and I've only seen about three of them, ever.
CallAirs are great too, by all accounts, but they're even less common.
One other option maybe worth considering though is the Stinson 108,
esp if you want something with a little more oomph for not much more money.
I've seen 470-powered "Super Stinsons" for sale at really attractive prices--
much less than for a comparable C180.

akschu wrote:

Zzz wrote:
Performance:

Performance is an amalgam of many things. Where do you value performance the most? Slow speeds? Cruise speed? Load carrying? Handling?

Props being equally pitched:

The 170 will likely fly a little slower simply by virtue of greater wing area.
The Pacer will cruise faster with those stubby wings.

I wouldn't assume that, but perhaps I'm wrong. The cessna has the longer wings, but it also has a much cleaner tail, much cleaner gear, and a single strut. That makes up a lot. Also aluminum wings almost always cruise faster than fabric wings due to deformation.

What do you cruise at? I get right at 100mph with my 170A with a 80/43 prop cut down to a 78.5.

As for performance, both airplanes are two person airplanes if you are counting on any reasonable amount of performance. My 170A with a Horton stol, VG's and climb prop can safely operate with 2 people and 1/2 tank of fuel in 1000ft. That's enough to go play, but it's not great performance compared to other stuff.

Both have a lot of bang for the buck. Having a 2 person airplane you can go play in, for around $35k, burning 7.5gph, is super cheap, right until it needs cyls or fabric or whatever.

Schu - I think Z meant that they 170 flies slower at the bottom end, lower stall speed.

I would hasten to add that the wing extension for the Pacer is a fantastic performance modification! It can almost keep up with a stock Super Cub with that mod, or slow down as the case may be.

YouTube the "Avcan" channel to see what a highly modified Pacer can do.