Good Afternoon All,

I recently just lost an airplane that was what I thought to be the turning point in my GA flying. A hangar collapse left me without a bird and now I am on the hunt again.

There are no 170B's that peak my interest quite like that one did. I did however come across some very nice Super Cubs and maybe even a Stinson. I was direct to a plane I had never heard of before and wanted to get your take on this, the Piper Super Colt. I searched the threads with no mention so I figured I would ask.

Thanks for any and all advice, information and knowledge.

Matt

Hey Matt, I assume you're talking about a Colt that had been converted to a tailwheel and had a 150/160hp O-320 installed. They look like fun little airplanes. Only 2 seats instead of 4 like a Pacer, no flaps, and less useful load. Gross weight is 1650lbs unless the O-320 STC raises that. Empty weight for a stock colt is 940lbs before the O-320 and any other mods.

Deckie11 wrote:Good Afternoon All,

I recently just lost an airplane that was what I thought to be the turning point in my GA flying. A hangar collapse left me without a bird and now I am on the hunt again.

There are no 170B's that peak my interest quite like that one did. I did however come across some very nice Super Cubs and maybe even a Stinson. I was direct to a plane I had never heard of before and wanted to get your take on this, the Piper Super Colt. I searched the threads with no mention so I figured I would ask.

Thanks for any and all advice, information and knowledge.

Matt

Never heard of it called the "super colt"....but there are piper colts converted to O-290's and 320's. Makes sense. The colt was just a Tri-pacer that was marketed with two seats and a smaller engine for the training market. No flaps IIRC.

I've flown a (tri)colt, a tailwheel converted colt, and have owned a converted Tri-pacer (my first plane). All three pretty much fly the same. All short wing pipers. If you've flown a pacer at high DA, you've flown a colt. That said, if interested in a "super Colt"....then also look at conventional pacers and tri-pacers. They are hard to beat as far as the $/fun metric.

Bill

Sad to hear about your 170. If your looking into that Colt, and you like what you see, may I recommend looking at the Pacers while your at it. There are quite a few on the market that have very nice mods and are set up nice. Most of the Pacers produced have also migrated to AK so that has to say something about their performance.

Rob, Yeah it has the 150hp engine in it. Sounds like a side by side Cub. It came up in conversation so i decided to look into it more. Thanks for the specs. Do you know how they fly?

I just looked into the PA-22/20 Pacer. They look very similar. How is the visibility. I have not flown anything in the Piper line up other than the Super Cub.

Are these planes set up more like the C-150 or a Cub in performance. I am all about the fun and just boring holes in the sky but the C-150 is not appealing to me. I am somewhat surprised I liked these colts with just the two seats. I have seen a few of these with the Alaskan/Bush Mods like AK said so they must be more towards the Cub side?

Matt

If you have time in a supercub, and never flown a pacer or colt, you're going to be disappointed. They won't do what a super cub can do. Not even close. If you need someone to check out a rag wing piper for you, I'm over in Loudon nh and specialize in them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tom wrote:. They won't do what a super cub can do. Not even close.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fact, Opinion, or Bias, or how are you comparing?

Steve and Brian at Steve's aircraft in Oregon seem to be the authority on all things Pacer. Good guys and usually willing to share what they know.

I think instead of the Colt I would go for a nice 150/160 Pacer. It's a 4 place airplane which means it's great for 2 people and gear. The rear passenger door makes a nice sized baggage door. Take the rear seats out and you have plenty of room for stuff. They also have flaps unlike the colt. There's a lot of good mods for the Pacers. I hear extended wings really help them out as well as VG's. A borer prop will get you out short and climbing. If you search the forums here there is a lot of good info on the Pacer.

Type this into google for some good info....

Pacer site:backcountrypilot.org

.

robw56 wrote:I think instead of the Colt I would go for a nice 150/160 Pacer. It's a 4 place airplane which means it's great for 2 people and gear. The rear passenger door makes a nice sized baggage door. Take the rear seats out and you have plenty of room for stuff. They also have flaps unlike the colt. ....

x2. Unless there's a firesale price on that "Super Colt", a Pacer / converted TriPacer would be preferable.

FWIW if you can afford to buy a Supercub, you can probably afford an early C180.
Both are awesome airplanes, but with different capabilities and strengths / weaknesses.

The Pacer or Tri is a nice capable, rugged bird. A Colt is an anemic Tripacer you can buy for next to nothing. A Super Colt climbs well, but there is not much useful load left with the new engine.

All will get you most places you want to go, with time to set up camp and go fishing well before your friends with their supercubs finally show up.

It's kind of easy on a forum like this to always recommend, in response to questions like this, a Super Cub or a Cessna 180. Well duh...those planes are like the standard bearers of backcountry aviation. They also, Super Cubs especially, command tip-top money, due not only to their utility but also their "following." Fact is, a Super Cub is an amazing performer AND super popular among a cadre of people who have the disposable income to afford them. Sure, for 6 figures and a itch to fly off-airport, a Super Cub is a great choice. Now that we've figured that piece of rocket science out, lets maybe address the virtues of a plane like a PA-20, 22/20:

- The Pacer, from the moment it was introduced, was acknowledged as a real pleasure to fly. A direct relation to the Clipper, a plane that to this day people who actually love the act of stick and rudder flying talk about with superlatives rarely heard, the Pacer was a sweet flying plane. I suggest folks look up Richard Collins (former editor of Flying magazine) writing on the Pacer, and basically nearly every published flight review going back to 1950. The Pacer, like the Clipper, was a pilot's plane with a control authority and harmony rare among any GA plane.

- The Pacer, once introduced, was seen as, used, and even marketed as a rugged airplane. Flying Magazine for instance had cover photos of the plane on floats and out in off-airport areas. Unlike today, in the 50s etc, backcountry/utility flying in most places didn't require crazy STOL ability, huge tires, etc etc. The Pacer was seen as useful because of its ability to lift quite a load for its size, its large door, and the same steel tube and airfoil that made the Super Cub so rugged.

- If your flying requirements reflect more of a 1950s or so backcountry profile that doesn't involve landing on a 400ft gravel bar, a 300ft scratch of land at 5000ft on the side of a mountain, a Pacer may be a great plane for that! It will certainly be good fun and practice to fly well. Can it do literally everything a Super Cub can do? Of course not! Nor can it do what a Fieseler Storch can do. So what!? Its stout, nice flying, and does real well. Oh, a nice once costs like 1/4 of a Super Cub too. Sorry, thats a thing. I know plenty of people, including 170 owners, that actually prefer a Pacer and how it flies.

Just some stuff to think about......

Deckie11 wrote:There are no 170B's that peak my interest quite like that one did. I did however come across some very nice Super Cubs and maybe even a Stinson. I was direct to a plane I had never heard of before and wanted to get your take on this, the Piper Super Colt.

170, 180, Stinson, super cub, super colt.....yep, the 170b is a great plane, for certain things. The 180 is a great plane, for certain things. Heck, a 120 is a great plane for certain things.

It is difficult to recommend an airplane without knowing the mission. The planes you might be considering are all so different and do some things better than others, but all planes are a compromise. You may have already done this and chose not to disclose it in your post; but my advice is to define your mission. Then go get the plane that best suits that mission within your budget. Good luck.

AKJurnee wrote:

Tom wrote:. They won't do what a super cub can do. Not even close.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fact, Opinion, or Bias, or how are you comparing?

Own a super cub, bunch of off airport time, bunch of time in short wings, clipper and pacers. He said he has supercub time, and i I feel like he would be disappointed. I have a friend who has a nice pa-12, got it before he flew a super cub, and for the last few years he has had super cub fever.

I've flown with guys in pacers, and the last camping trip I ended up taking his passenger and there gear out so he could take off out of a sand bar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The super Cub is amazing but that price tag is definitely up there.

The fact that the Colt was a two place immediately made me think of the C-150. I believe I am a Cessna Guy myself. I think they look great and handle even better. The Pacer is sounding more like the 170 than the Colt with decent handling and room for one other and gear or whatever.

The mission would be described as solo or with one other and some gear. Just to go exploring and bore some holes in the sky. I believe my mission aircraft was the Cessna 170B. I really like the side by side and I think it can go most reasonable places a Cub can go. I live in Maine so the larger peaks are not an issue unless I pick up and head west .

The reason I mention all the big ones (types of aircraft) is that my mission creep could see the void being filled with any of them. The 180 for great cross country and laud hauling to explore more areas and great distances. The Super Cub to just bore the holes, STOL and still have another person and gear. The 170B to be the intermediate between the both. That's why I bought the 170. I don't see myself landing gravel bars or remote fields anytime soon. There needs to be a build up of experience but there also needs to be room to grow with Floats being a possibility as well. It feels like trying to fit 6 gallons into a 5 gallon pale.

Thanks for the insight and ideas. It really is good to continually reassess the mission and needs.

Deckie11,

Sounds reasonable to me. As a guy that's had 180's, 185's.....one of my favorite planes is still my first Pacer (univair conversion). It was a 135 HP, pretty stock, but freshly re-covered. it's was a great first plane, taught me a lot about TW flying. I used it similarly to what you mentioned above; solo or 2 place with lots of stuff. Cruise wise and load it's more of a 170/172 competitor. It won't land as short, but it's not too far off. Easy to maintain.

If back in that market, I'd look for a late 50's converted Tri-pacer with a 150/160 horse engine. That, with 8.50's and VG's is a pretty great combo for what you are looking for. Lot of nice planes out there in the 20's and 30's. Good luck.

Bill

Have a PA-22/20, 150hp with VGs and standard wingtips on 26in tires. Doesn't land and take-off like a Supercub by any stretch. But then, I didn't buy it to be able to do that. If I watch my P's and Q's it will go into a 1000ft strip near sea-level with my rear, my wife and enough stuff for light fishing/camping. I don't want to be at gross doing such with any obstacles. So far, it has been cheap to maintain. It is my first tailwheel airplane and I enjoy it immensely, despite it's unholy reputation as a ground-loop king. I switch between it and a 170 or 172TW. Either of the C series feels ponderous on the ground and in the air in comparison. With my 26" tires I'm cruising about the same speed as the 170/172 on 8.50s. When I had the 6.00 tires and wheel pants on the airplane for it's trip up from Montana I was seeing 125 to 135 pretty routinely according to a couple of GPSs I had with me. Visibility with the 26" tires is not great but I don't have to S-Turn either.

If you find one with the 150hp, VGs and one of the newer Wingtip STCs, that makes for a great combo. The Sullivan, Stewarts or Crosswind wing STCs add quite a bit of wing area that improves low speed ability/handling considerably while minimally affecting cruise performance.

In doing some research and talking with friends, the Maule has come up numerous times. They look fairly reasonable to get into and are said to be great back country planes. What is the visibility like over the nose on the ground? How is ground handling and is it true they are not the easiest to land straight?

The PA 22/20 looks like a side by side Cub and that is great. It got me thinking about the absolute blast of a time I had flying a Cub around with the door open mid summer. Are there mods to the Maule, PA 22/20 or even a Cessna to allow this?

Deckie11 wrote:In doing some research and talking with friends, the Maule has come up numerous times. They look fairly reasonable to get into and are said to be great back country planes. What is the visibility like over the nose on the ground? How is ground handling and is it true they are not the easiest to land straight?

The PA 22/20 looks like a side by side Cub and that is great. It got me thinking about the absolute blast of a time I had flying a Cub around with the door open mid summer. Are there mods to the Maule, PA 22/20 or even a Cessna to allow this?

One real nice M4 on BS with a 220 Franklin, they are ass kickin bird, also a M5 220 Franklin also either one less than 40, maybe get it for 35!!
Don't talk to anyone else but a Maule or Piper Pacer Pilot or you will get the proverbial BS about them from folks who don't like them!! ( Or know how to FLY one!!)

The M4 with the 220 is THE HOT ROD of all the Maules!! Have fun with what ever you get, Good Luck!!