Pa-22 of course is my choice... For your altitude though I would be looking at 160 versions only.... Also, put VG's on if it does not have them already and a set if Svenns or Hendrix wing tips.....

I can't talk much for 150/150, but I have a few hours in a 152 with an o-235 based out of KLMO. My only experiences with that plane was the start of my my primary training to get a little bit of trike time for insurance reasons before switching to the 22/20-150. With gas a 2 aboard, the climb right is downright pitiful. The Pacer easily outperforms it in all areas of the flight envelope.

The Pacer is a good little performer but does suffer when loaded heavily and at very high altitudes. Keepin it light is key, as always, and it will surprise many people. I've gotten some weird looks rolling up on the ramp at Leadville for gas with 2 aboard. I really like going for short hops around the Summit County area and the Estes/Granby area, in fact my avatar picture is at Granby. When leaving Longmont I can climb right up to 13-14000 cross the divide just south of Long's Peak or follow the I70 corridor and cross over Loveland Pass.

This all takes place from KLMO at 5050 msl but DA's easily get 85 - 9500 in the summer. In the pacer with full gas and 2 aboard, an average 6 - 7000 DA day it takes 800 - 1000 feet to get airborne without special technique, just 1 notch of flaps and keeping it tail low to fly off. Takeoff distance can be made shorter, but I don't really find a need at the majority of strips around here. When alone, I start with 1 notch of flaps, hoist the tail up early and pull in full flaps and back on the yoke when ias reaches 40 mph. I'm not exactly sure of the ground roll but its 4 - 500 feet. The plane will jump a few feet in the air where I accelerate to 60-65 and 1 notch if i'm trying to climb steeply. I find that zero flaps and 75ish mph is more comfortable and gives the best climb rates. With full gas and 2 up I generally see 750-1000 fpm, solo and full gas gives 1200ish fpm. Once up above 10k the rate obviously goes down but it does okay right up to my ceiling of 14k due to the lack of an O2 system. The main factor in climbing here is to be aware of up/downdrafts that can be very helpful or hurtful depending on planning.

Most all of my landings use full flaps, wheel or 3-point, unless the crosswind component is over about 15. Then I use 1 notch and only wheel landings. I don't want to start the usual wheel vs 3-point debate because I enjoy both and find that different situations require different techniques. Landings are easy to make shorter than I can takeoff, normal approaches are flown at 70 on base and 60-65 on short final. When I want to stop really quick, approach at 60, slowing to 50-55 with lots of power. The tailwheel will contact the ground noticeably before the mains. In this case there is simply not enough energy to bounce much, so as soon as the tail touches, I cut the power and the mains will plop down. When ready on the brakes this technique results in a landing roll just a couple hundred feet long.

For cruise I flight plan 105 knots and 8 gph, that seems to be perfect for planning because its usually a touch faster and at our altitudes burns more like 7-7.5 gph calculated. I don't change my planning numbers because they give my a safety margin for time of flight and fuel burn. When playing around I can outrun some of the local 172's and cherokee 140's etc.

Most of the time I have the back seat out and this makes the Pacer a great 2 person and gear plane. Its easy to access rear baggage through the baggage door and bulky items go through the rear passenger door. The heaviest I've been able to get the plane is when my dad and I go trips with all of our gear (standard camping stuff for 1-2 weeks) the performance does suffer but these trips are usually headed towards lower elevation. Only a fraction of my flight experience is closer to sea level, so I'm always amazed at how the Pacer performs when in the thick air. It takes about 5 minutes to throw the back seat in and I can fill the seats to take my friends for a short hop, the main restriction is headroom in the back for anyone taller than 5'10ish.

Obviously I'm partial to the Pacer series as I grew up flying in ours since I was a kid, soloed it at 16 and got my ticket in it at 17. They're great planes with a supportive community and they're so easy to work on! I've been doing owner assist annuals for years which are generally cheap and easy. My dad originally bought the plane as a tripacer and did the Univair conversion at the first annual. In my first couple hundred hours we went through multiple batteries (Gil G-35) and had ongoing electrical problems which were all magically solved by replacing the pos generator with a Plane Power alternator. Our plane is pretty much stock, no vg's, normal 76" cruise/climb prop, wheel pants (most of the time) and the o-320 150hp. 160hp or even the o-360 would be nice but our o-320 keeps running strong (1 quart of oil between every 25 hr change) and mogas is a significantly cheaper than avgas at KLMO.

Don't be afraid of the tailwheel, its more fun and makes the plane look sooo much better. Without that nosewheel sticking out in the air, you will gain climb performance, slight bump in cruise, and better glide. People tend to think that a tailwheel Pacer is a groundloop waiting to happen but the majority of people saying that have no real experience in them. Just be quick on your feet and make the airplane go where you want to, not let the plane take you along for the ride.

Take a look at my gallery for some pictures, all the inflight photos are between 12-14k.

Go to vimeo and search piper pacer improbable pacer. Superior to a c150.

Nice pirep. I didn't have a big engine...and usually didn't see more than 700 fpm with half fuel and 2 ppl at 5k'. It still does better than a 172 until you get to cruising altitudes.With the smaller engine, the practical ceiling was usually close to 12k' to 13k' for most summer flying with a passenger and a decent fuel load. The 172 seemed to go faster.

My numbers were nearer lesthur's in a 150 hp Tri-Pacer, but I hardly ever went for a cruising altitude (only going long distance on an easterly heading) and I always beat 172s.

I have told more than one person if I was to do it over again I would of never bought a Cessna 150 for my primary trainer, instead of I would of gotten a Tri-Pacer. What you get for the money a Tri-Pacer is a true value.

Now I fly a 180hp Pacer. I can't say it is a Maule, but it is as close to a baby Maule as you can get. Having owned 2 Cessnas I can say that the Piper is simple and simple means less money to maintain.

I really wish you guys would STOP talking the pacer up, your driving the market price up on a plane that a couple years ago could be had CHEAP

I have said for years that it is the most under rated plane on the market. While I never flew mine over 10,000 I had a ton of time in it from SL to 5,000 and it will kick the crap out of a 172 in everything but cruise. If you put a climb prop on it, you will loose even more cruise, but you can get it out pretty damn short hauling a big load. I have had mine with 2 people, full tanks and 75 gallons behind the seat and was able to get off and climb out about like an empty 172 would.

Friend lets me fly his 150.. It has a 160hp 0-320 with 9.5/1 comp. and a climb prop that makes 2700rpm at 70 knots best rate.. What a fun airplane... Will climb with half gas and two people at 1600 ft/min

Aircamdriver1 wrote:Friend lets me fly his 150.. It has a 160hp 0-320 with 9.5/1 comp. and a climb prop that makes 2700rpm at 70 knots best rate.. What a fun airplane... Will climb with half gas and two people at 1600 ft/min

Agreed, and the LEGAL useful load is????

MTV

With roughly equal power, this becomes a question of lift in my humble opinion. PA-22 wing area 147 ft, C-150 160 ft. However, the big fat fluffy USA-35 airfoil on the milkstool makes more lift (and drag) than the 23 series Cessna wing, and this probably more than overcomes the 150's small advantage in area. Any extension or improvement in wingtip[ area or shape makes it even better.

I never had the extended droop wingtips on any of the three Tri-Pacers I owned, but they were very helpful on the 235 hp Pawnee at high density altitude. I carried 120 gallons of spray out of La Plata and 100 gallons out of a spray strip at Ignacio, Colorado. That was two gallon per acre work so I had to carry quite a bit of fuel. Piper made the best wing for heavy lifting.

I've owned a C150/150TD for about 6 years now. It's a 1964 D model-- "omnivision" rear window, square tail, manual flaps. Good performer and sporty to fly, but pretty small inside. It'll hold a fair amount of gear, but no where near as much as a PA-22 or 20 esp with the rear seat removed. The Pacer is also easier to load/unload through the back door- access is tough with the 150 (over the seats). The Pacer is probably a better choice for what the OP's talking about-- I was thinking about getting one one but could only find beaters (cheap) or freshly-rebuilt ones ($$$), so since I've always liked them when I found a nice C150/150TD I bought it.
The gross weight on the fastback 150's is 1500# & it doesn't go up with the bigger engine. The D model and up were 1600# stock and the 150hp stc I have bumps them to 1760. You need it-- mine left the factory at around 1060# but weighs in today at around 1240 with O-320, 40 gallon tanks, t/w conversion, & 850's. So 520# useful, which equals 30 gallons fuel (my usual loadout), me, & 160# of girlfriend & gear. Which is not a whole lot different than a lot of supercubs- but the Pacer can carry more.

These guys have a lot of fun in their Pacer ... https://www.youtube.com/user/avcan
So much fun, right now they're on their way back from the USA with two more Pacers (+ bushwheels!).

Of course a PA20 180hp conversion on 31" ABWs is quite different to a stock PA22. But still, cool videos.

<iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/80651544" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe> <p><a href="http://vimeo.com/80651544">Piper pacer improbable pacer</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user23099729">Jacob Silicz</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

mtv wrote: Unless you weigh less than 100 pounds, and anyone you propose to give instruction to weighs less than 100 pounds, don't even think about a Cessna 150 with a 150 Lycoming engine. The 150 doesn't have a very generous useful load in the first place, and when you add that bigger engine, the useful load goes waaaay down. ...........MTV

Your post indicates that you're a bit short on facts. See my previous post re: empty & gross weights and useful load & payload.
While there are definitely PA18-150's which are lighter, there are some around which are 1200+ so are pretty close to my airplane in the useful load department. Who on the board here has a PA-18-150, and what's the real-life no-bullshit empty weight?

Hi guys,
Firstly, thanks for all the info on my future purchase. One final (haha, probably not) question... There are very few 160 hp Tri Pacers on the market. I will be based at 7000msl in Colorado on the west side of the divide. Probably won't be flying east too much. Will I be fine going with a 150 hp version given my area or would you guys recommend definitely having the 160 hp? Is the performance gain that necessary? I know there is "no replacement for displacement" but I just wanted to hear some real world views. The only 160 hp's I have found have brand new engines and are more than I originally wanted to spend, however, it is just a more valuable airplane in the end. Thoughts? Again, thank you so much for the help. Love this forum.

I would treat the 160hp has a "nice to have" if you are OK with not being able to burn autofuel.

hotrod150 wrote:

mtv wrote: Unless you weigh less than 100 pounds, and anyone you propose to give instruction to weighs less than 100 pounds, don't even think about a Cessna 150 with a 150 Lycoming engine. The 150 doesn't have a very generous useful load in the first place, and when you add that bigger engine, the useful load goes waaaay down. ...........MTV

Your post indicates that you're a bit short on facts. See my previous post re: empty & gross weights and useful load & payload.
While there are definitely PA18-150's which are lighter, there are some around which are 1200+ so are pretty close to my airplane in the useful load department. Who on the board here has a PA-18-150, and what's the real-life no-bullshit empty weight?

By your own reckoning, your "average load" would be : pilot at 180, passenger at 160, and fuel at 180 which would bring you to max legal weight. Are those facts accurate?

So, with the original poster's weight of 155 (of course, that begs the question: Is that standing on the scales in his undies, or dressed to fly the mountains?) assuming your airplane weights given, he'd be able to carry 30 gallons of gas and a 185 pound passenger, and NO camping gear, no survival gear, etc. And, in my experience, that 150 engine is probably going to burn around 8 gallons an hour....or maybe a bit less. So, that 30 gallons of gas is three hours with a good reserve. Not much range for backcountry flying, actually. So, in practice, he's more likely to top the tanks, or at least add another hour range, so decrease that payload now to a 125 pound pax and NO survival gear/camping gear. Or, use that 125 pound payload to carry camp gear and survival gear SOLO.

I have no idea why you opt to inject the Super Cub into this discussion, since this was a comparison between the Cessna 150 with 150 hp engine and the Piper PA 20/22, not the PA 18. But, like your 150/150, the PA18 has an STC to increase gross weight as well....to 2000 pounds. That provides an 800 pound useful load on your hypothetical Super Cub at 1200 lbs. And I have operated Super Cubs ranging in weight from 960 empty (yes, you read that right) up to some real porkers at over 1300 pounds. But again, that wasn't the airplane being compared here.

Finally, it sounds like you have a very light example of the 150/150. The two that I've flown were both absent the GW increase, so very limited useful load. But the fact remains that even your rather light example has a very poor useful load compared to the vast majority of Piper PA 20/22 aircraft.

And, I would assume that at some point, the poster MAY desire to take a passenger along on one of his forays. That would be pretty improbable, LEGALLY with a 150/150 and a decent camp setup.

I did not intend to knock your airplane, I'm sure it's a great little airplane, and I think the 150 is one of the greatest airplanes ever built in many ways. By the way, I now own a Piper PA 11, so my useful is close to yours. But I sure wouldn't compare my airplane to a Pacer for what most folks do with airplanes.

MTV

Hi MTV,
Thanks for the input. I've been a listener and infrequent participant for many years. I think that the reason for my post might have been a little misunderstood. I was merely adding to this post as to not pollute the chain with more info similar to the last. I have taken everything said in the above post, along with my research and have decide to get a tri pacer for my next airplane. There is not more 150 Cessna vs pacer debate. I am merely asking ones opinions of the 160hp vs 150 hp tri pacer. There are tons of 150 hp available from $18k to 26k. I hadn't expected to spend more than that however all of the 160 hp are newer engines. At the end of the day they are more valuable airplanes with less engine hours. I'm just trying to figure out it if is worth the extra money to make sure I get 160 hp(based at 7000') or if I will be fine for my mission with o320 150hp.