Can anyone give me iany nformation on the PA22 Bushmaster. All information would be great. I would even like to talk to the guy who holds the STC's.

Thanks,
Steve

Get on the supercub.org website forums & do a search for "Bushmaster". Also for "Producer", another version of modified Pacer. There may be other pet names. Better do one for "Pacer" also, some folks lengthen the fuselage &/or wings, but don't bother with the snappy nickname.
I'm not too sure there's any STC's involved, it might be a case of modifying the Pacer as an experimental. There are STC'd wingtips VG's & stuff available. I would think that a Pacer (which is already a pretty good airplane, and under-rated IMHO) could be thoughfully improved for backcountry use without going to the extreme mods of the Bushmaster. You know: wingtips, VG's,fat tires,climb prop,no back seat,etc

Eric

Go here, and build it from scratch :Smith Aviation's Tundra Boss

If you are intrested in modified Pacers, there are people in the short wing piper club with tons of info. Eddie Trimmer in Alaska is a great person to talk to. I had a 22/20 before my Maule, and loved it. A Pacer airframe with more hp and an extended wing would make a formidable bushplane. As I recall, the Bushmaster has a Canadian STC, but not USA. The Producer has a USA STC, but is only available from the holder of the STC. In other words he has to build it. The number I heard was $90K, and there was a wait list. There are a number of experimental airplanes out there using both names so be sure before you buy.
Have you flown a 150hp 22/20? I think it is a capable backcountry plane. They have a reputation for being squirley, and I feel like my Maule is a pussy cat in comparison. That in mind they will reward a skilled driver with surprising short field performance.
Jeff

I've spent some time in a 22/20-135 and you're right, it's a squirely bugger. The M-4 is often scoffed as a hopped up Pacer. I see the resemblence but they behave so differently it's not applicaple. Totatly differenty machines. I really enjoyed the Pacer though, good aircraft. We have 180hp/cs prop on our field and have often longed for a ride just to see what it's like.

There's a PA-22/20-150 on my home field that I have some time in. I've known the last several owners of it, including the guy 3 owners back who painstakingly converted it to tailwheel. It handles great! All that extra time spent making sure everything was just right when installing the new main gear really paid off. I think that a lot of the squirrelly reputation comes from flying converted TriPacers on which the new gear was not properly lined up. Ot from flying the early narrow-gear Pacers.
Someone just bought another 22/20 off our field, he's had several of them & told me that he had to do some serious "adjusting" with a big long cheater bar on the axles to get things trued up. Sounded scarey, kinda like how they re-pitch a propeller, but I guess it handles a whole lot better now.
BTW, this ad was in the latest GA News: "1999 Bushwhacker,extended TriPacer fuselage,Supercub wings,230 hp O470R..........$67.5L 907-772-4011 [email protected]"

Eric

This is a very old thread, but I wanted to put in what I know.

I have a certified bushmaster with a 180 hp engine on floats.
I previously owned a 135 hp pacer, and I got my float rating in a 160hp pacer with extended wings and VG's.

Pacers and Bushmasters are totally different airplanes. I don't doubt that someone skilled in flying a pacer can get a lot out of it, but that wing! It's too short. It won't fly as slow as a bushmaster. That fuselage! It's too short. The pacer isn't as stable as a bushmaster in pitch or yaw.

Chop the power in a pacer. You glide like a sumo wrestler -- which can be handy! But it also means you have to work to manage that descent rate or you're going to bounce hard. In the bushmaster when you chop the power you float for an easy touchdown. If you want to descend, use those gigantic flaps! Or slip it.

I loved my pacer - it made me a better pilot. The bushmaster is a piece of cake with a cherry on top in comparison.

Mincho wrote:This is a very old thread, but I wanted to put in what I know.

I have a certified bushmaster with a 180 hp engine on floats.
I previously owned a 135 hp pacer, and I got my float rating in a 160hp pacer with extended wings and VG's.

Pacers and Bushmasters are totally different airplanes. I don't doubt that someone skilled in flying a pacer can get a lot out of it, but that wing! It's too short. It won't fly as slow as a bushmaster. That fuselage! It's too short. The pacer isn't as stable as a bushmaster in pitch or yaw.

Chop the power in a pacer. You glide like a sumo wrestler -- which can be handy! But it also means you have to work to manage that descent rate or you're going to bounce hard. In the bushmaster when you chop the power you float for an easy touchdown. If you want to descend, use those gigantic flaps! Or slip it.

I loved my pacer - it made me a better pilot. The bushmaster is a piece of cake with a cherry on top in comparison.

It's the ideal airplane in many ways. If I had known about it or understood it better before I bought my Bearhawk, I may have gone that route.