I am a relatively new private pilot (85 HRS TT) and have been looking at airplanes over the last year trying to decide what would best fit my mission and experience level. Almost all my time is in C172’s and few hrs in a 210. I have 5 hours in a Chief and am working on TW endorsement in it at this time. I am finally ready to pull the trigger on a plane in the next few months. Trying to decide between a 150 HP Pacer and a Kitfox IV 80 hp. My neighbor has the 160 hp Pacer and can get it on and off the ground pretty dang short. I have no KF experience other than Youtube videos. I just finished building a hangar so the plane will be kept inside at all times. I am in South TX so I am not too worried about extremely high DA. I have family land in Central TX with a 1,400 ft field with trees on each end that I would eventually like to be able to fly back and forth to for weekend trips. Aside from that my typical mission would be short 150 mile or less trips around TX and landing in small unimproved fields from time to time. Budget is 35K. I have a lead on a KF currently, and I see the Pacers pop up all the time for sale. My only concern with the Pacer is that they are obviously much older aircraft, which scares me a little. Anyone have any advice on this with experience in both aircraft? Both seem to have very similar T/O and Landing performance and the only plus I see to the Pacer is useful load and availability. Thanks in advance.

Old vs homebuilt....it's almost a wash. Some Pacers are so nicely restored that they look new. Some Kitfoxes appear to be built by...I dunno. Someone in a hurry. That's how experimental amateur homebuilt is– build quality is everything in its valuation.

Don't spend any money until you've flown both aircraft and have an idea of how each flies. I know that will take some work to arrange but maybe someone here will come through for you.

A Kitfox can barely carry anything (volume limited) while the Pacer can carry children and bikes and all sorts of stuff and actually go kinda fast with a decent prop. I think a Kitfox will beat a Pacer easily on short field performance.

Source: Own a Pacer and frequently fly a Rans S7, a similar scope aircraft to the Kitfox. I have sat in a new Kitfox though and it had quite good ergonomics.

The one feature of the Kitfox, and a lot of other homebuilts for that matter, was the seating is too low and doesn't allow upright sitting with the knees bent. To be fare, I never have flown in a Kitfox but my back doesn't tolerate that kind of position for very long. The Pacer is very comfortable and would be my choice between the two.

Pacer hands down. Make sure in your research that the SB-819 was complied with if it’s a recent restoration, or if it’s ever been done. Basically looking under the window and door frames for tube corrosion, gets very expensive if it needs work done. Take the back seat out and have a camping gear hauler! If I ever decide to get another airplane it will be a pa20 for sure. A buddy of mine built and owned a KF, he didn’t like it and neither did I.

As many have said before its all about the pluses, minuses and "correctly" identifying your 90% needs, no one ride will do it all. We've all gone thru this process; I did, was patience and I'm very happy with the outcome. A good friend is running the airplane selection gauntlet currently, he's a high time career pilot and it would appears he's close to settling on a Pacer after much research.

I went through this as we all did. I flew both the kitfox and the pacer. I chose the pacer between the two. There were more pluses on the pacer side of the equation. Then a different plane entered into the mix.

The pacer was my second over all choice. I am not sure if I was looking again if it would not be my over all choice.

One thing you will find is that there are lots of choices to be made in the pacer and lots of mods that folk have done. Take your time ferret out the best of the best. The choices that you will have to wade through is vast in condition and what each plane has or does not have.

There have been great treads here on pacers, tri-pacers, converted tri-pacer to pacer, etc. It gets really frustrating wading though it all. Take your time and you will end up with a really good plane.

It sounds like we have a similar mission - I ended up with a really nice Pacer (sort of). It’s a pretty handy airplane that’s fun to fly and does a lot of things pretty well at an economical rate.

You’ve already done the hard part and laid out your budget. I’d recommend that your next step is laying out in a list the must haves, wants, and nice to haves in that order.

Then I’d scour trade-a-plane, barnstormers, and walk around the local airports oogling airplanes and asking if ones you like are for sale.

You might end up with something other than a Pacer or a Kitfox.

Your OP states most of your time is in a 172. The Pacer will perform fairly similar to the 172, all things being equal. Of course a modded out Pacer will have the advantage. Personally I think a 172 can land a little shorter, but then a lot is pilot experience and technique. If you can build more time in the 172, you might find it'll fulfill a lot of your desires, other than having a TW of course. TW planes can be a bit more of a handfull than a nosewheel when those nasty crosswinds are thrown into the flight.

A Kitfox is a great little plane. Just remember that the wing loading on them is much less than the Pacer and as such will be a much rougher ride and more of a handful for a beginner pilot when the winds and turbulence start developing during the middle of the day. You'll probably wan tto limit your flying to mornings and evenings until you get more experience in a TW. JM2C.

I feel like it's down to the mission like has been said. I too was looking between a kitfox and a pacer. Ended up with the pacer due to it being certified, a decent load hauler, and faster. I believe the pacers value is only going to increase also.

I am not against the rotax by any means, but I like knowing I have a Lycoming up front. Plus, I get weak in the knee for anything vintage.

Kit Fox was my first dream airplane....that’s when I discovered the Kitplanes Magazine. Back then Kitfox only offered the air cooled 2 cycle and the liquid cooled 582....Avid didn’t exist yet. Fast forward many years..bought a Pacer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

All true>>>

"A Kitfox is a great little plane. Just remember that the wing loading on them is much less than the Pacer and as such will be a much rougher ride and more of a handful for a beginner pilot when the winds and turbulence start developing during the middle of the day. You'll probably wan tto limit your flying to mornings and evenings until you get more experience in a TW. JM2C."

Gary

I guess that I'm a bit biased, but having flown and instructed in both a Kitfox and a Pacer, I'll stick with my Kitfox. I'm 6'2" and find it more comfortable, far more STOL capable, responsive, and cheaper to fly. The visibility is incredible. It was mentioned that it lacks useful load, but had mine been built experimental, rather than SLSA, it would be licensed at 1550 lbs gross and have a useful load of 730 lbs! Not bad for an airplane that can also cruise the backcountry for 5 hours before refueling. As with all airplanes choices, it comes down to your mission, your budget, and your taste. A nice Pacer can be had for less than half the price of my airplane. So have at it and good luck!

BTW, Kitfox is a spin-off of Avid.

^^^^ That.

I worked as the ramp rat at Caldwell when Denny was first developing the AVID. There were many configurations as they developed the planes.

Kit fox spun off from avid for a few reasons.

Indeed, mostly because Denny was an aggressive salesman (and a good wrench, to be fair) and Wilson was not ("just" a brilliant designer.) This is all ancient history, but Dan pretty much just rebranded the Avid and then came up with that radial engine cowling and even with the 2 strokes used then that bump cowling probably had more to do with the Kitfox's success then anything! I flew demo's for him at Oshkosh '88, and I'll never forget at one point looking for something in the truck in the glove box, and it was STUFFED full of cash that he was raking in! I got kinda hooked up with him as he was born and raised just 15 miles from my place, and he used to land in his folk's field. So, I ended up with serial #120 and put 325 hours on it my first year of flying fixed wing, 2 stroke and all, so I guess I liked it. At 650 hrs I moved on. I still like discrete flaps like I've had since, better then flaperons.

Nothing like a Pacer in any way, may as well compare a Yaris to a F-150, apples and oranges, and not really fair to either design. My one comment would be the per hour, out of pocket expense/fuel cost/oil cost (significant with a Lycoming I'm told) of a Pacer v. a 912 powered anything would be double or more. Even burning mo gas, 6-8 gph versus 3-4. No big deal if you really need the extra room and haul capacity of the Pacer of course. You can't beat the resale value of the older cert classics v. any homebuilt, can't go wrong that way, that to me would be the biggest reason to go Pacer, you just won't be landing at my strip in one!

The problem with people talking about 'STOL' capabilities is the same as the Valdez deal; it's not realistic. Who actually cares what a plane can do empty? Take the max useful of the kitfox and load it into both, then compare the two.

IMO a Kitfox is much more comparable to a Taylorcraft than a Pacer. If I was flying light and solo everywhere I'd take the better handling (Taylorcraft) everytime. Actually working the plane, I want the horsepower.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk to specifically annoy:
Zane
Hammer

Was comparing the two and I opted for Pacer because of the load - sometimes it feels silly burning 9GPH when I'm solo, but when my wife and I land in the backcountry with a Yeti full of food, a case of wine, and our dining table and chairs come out, the baby-maule like nature of the Pacer turns some heads. Extended wingtips, VGs, and a climb prop make it a very capable plane.

Apart from the old certified vs homebuilt, those are completely different airplanes.

Please rank the following in order of preference:

Carrying capacity. (Do you want bikes, camping gear, cooler)
Passenger capacity. (Will you be solo most of the time? Solo +1? Kids? Dogs?)
Cost to operate. (Does $10 an hour operating cost difference change things for you? Some people really need super low operating costs, others are totally fine with $100 an hour.)
Do you like gadgets/modifying things? Experimental gives you more options for sure, but with other cons.
Speed. (Do you want to cover ground quickly? Or go somewhere a little faster than your car less traffic?)
Tailwheel. (Do you really want a tailwheel? There are pros/cons. Are you sure the insurance cost is worth the prop clearance?)
Do you like classic airplanes? There is something cool about flying around an old airplane, except when it's time to repair said airplane.

What you asked is like asking if I should get an old ford bronco or a newer 4 wheeler. Well, if my only care is off road then 4 wheeler, but if it's camping and getting there and a little off road, then bronco.

schu

evanr42 wrote:Was comparing the two and I opted for Pacer because of the load - sometimes it feels silly burning 9GPH when I'm solo, but when my wife and I land in the backcountry with a Yeti full of food, a case of wine, and our dining table and chairs come out, the baby-maule like nature of the Pacer turns some heads. Extended wingtips, VGs, and a climb prop make it a very capable plane.

Slightly off-topic, but 9gph solo is a bit high. Are you flying at high power settings?

I'm generally at book numbers making 75% power, 9GPH, 7000ft and 133MPH when cruising the Tri Pacer - and reality is probably closer to 8 GPH solo, 9GPH with pax, etc - but flight planning at 9 keeps my reserves happy and large.