Hi,

I'm curious in the differences in metalized vs fabric pacers. I've seen a few metalized pacers for sale and was wondering what everyone knows about them. Are the metalized pacers heavier than the fabric/painted versions? is the performance reduced/improved? It seems like they would be less maintenance, but that could be deceiving to someone as airplane illiterate as myself. Thanks in advance.

Jeff,

Surprisingly to me at least, the metalized planes I've seen are heavier than their fabric covered brethren, but not as much as you'd think.

But to me, the biggest argument against metalizing is that it makes it impossible to inspect/repair fuselage tubing for repairs. It's a good thing to have to recover a fabric plane every thirty years or so and inspect that structural tubing for corrosion/cracks, etc.

I would stay away from a metalized plane for that reason. Oh, and many of them are pretty ugly as well.

MTV

I have to agree with Mike. I think that nothing looks classier than a fabric covered aircraft. On the other hand, nothing much uglier than a fabric craft converted to metal skin.

I have no personal experience with metalized airplanes, but the underlying principle of it all seems flawed. You are paying the price for the metal (cost, weight, ugliness, inability to inspect) and not getting any large scale structural benefit from that metal like you would with a "stressed skin" aircraft (Cessna et al).

Certainly the metal skin will add some small amount of extra rigidity to the structure, but it I believe not nearly the same as what you get with a riveted semi-monocoque setup. The trained engineers here can feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong.

One other thing that would kinda irk me is that many of the metalized airplanes use P-K screws to attach the metal skin, which means a million holes drilled into the steel tubes where holes were not originally designed to be. That becomes its own maintenance issue.

I haven't been around a metalized Pacer, but have been around a couple metalized Stinsons. The weight difference was about 40# if I remember. The big difference was performance. The metalized aircraft just didn't perform as well as their fabric covered counterparts. That being said, you can always convert it back....it's a bunch of work, but it can be done. With the "modern" synthetic fabrics, I can see absolutely NO reason to ever metalize an airplane.
John

I would think that there'd be some structural weakening of the tubing, by puncturing it with a bunch of screw holes. I'd also be concerned about moisture getting into the tubing through those holes. I have very little experience in fabric airplanes, but what little I have, I don't see any benefit to metalizing them. It's a lot different from an airplane which uses the metal skin as part of the structure.

Cary

Metalizing fabric planes has always been a show stopper for me

No advantage for the fuselage but what about the wings? I've heard but don;t know if true that a metal skin holds the airfoil shape better.

Thanks all of the useful information. I never even thought of the holes that would be needed in the tubing for mounting the metal. That sounds really scary.

Metalizing any fabric covered aircraft is sacrilege. Especially any Piper or Stinson!

The Stinsons I was around, the metal was attached to the formers, not the fuselage tubing....from what I remember.
John

Metalized fuselages are all attached to sub structure and never to primary structure.. I.E., fabric formers, welded on tabs and secondary formers... The wings are attached of course to the ribs. This in turn destroys the rib integrity as you have to drill several holes in them... It is especially bad on the truss style ribs as used in Pacers and Cubs.. If I was to convert back to fabric on one I would insist on replacing all the ribs... The Stinson rib is stamped and not as susceptible to damage from drilling...

As for weight it can be a huge amount... A friend of mine removed the metal from his Cessna 140 wings and covered them back in fabric... All the painted metal was weighed and it came in at 60 pounds for both wings... The net weight loss in just the wings was around 40 pounds difference.... That was just the wings on a little Cessna 140...

Brian

My experience comes from my Stinson 108-1, which was metalized by Met-Co-Aire. The process added 20 lbs. each to the wings and fuselage, for a total of 40 lbs. The fuselage skin was supported by steel stand offs, so I don't think there was any skin to tube contact, except maybe way back in the tailcone, under the horizontal. It's my understanding that Stinsons use screws or rivets to attach the fabric too the wing ribs, so no difference there.

When I was looking, I was anticipating keeping the airplane outside for at least half of the year, so metal was preferable to me. I found one for a fair bit less than my budget some paint issues, but because was metal, I was able to fly it without having worry about the paint. I was looking in the $25k range, so most 170's were out of my range. I wasn't aware that people metallized Pacer's, otherwise I would've been looking at them also.

As far as flying, the only other Stinsons I've flown were either powered by a 220, or were brand new restorations, so not straight comparisons. In my case, I'm happy with my decision. I've moved onto a Maule, now I have to plan for a fuselage recover along with ADS-B.

As a guy who has made several time consuming repairs to the bottom of my fuselage and horizontal stabilizer of my Maule over the years I would LOVE a metal belly and lower stabilizer surface.

Otherwise I don't see much advantage in an all metal conversion, although I'd prefer an all metal (factory design) airplane in general, especially if it's not hangered.

The cost of a recover/repaint can exceed the value of the aircraft.

I've got a friend with a 150hp Tri-Pacer with a metalize fuselage. A couple myths to dispel first.

1. Structure is not drilled into for the metalization process, at least not on this airframe. The wood stringers were replaced with sheet metal standoffs, and the skins are riveted onto them.

2. Inspection is not really compromised. If you need to see something, you can cut a hole in the skin and make a inspection cover for it. The skin is not structural, so anything you could inspect on the fabric fuselage, you can uncover if you want to on the metal one.


Now that said, I don't think that metalizing wings is a great idea. The fuselage is actually a little smoother, and although its a touch heavy, this airplane is pretty quick for the type. The wings have few advantages being metal. They are easy to cover, far away from the ground, not prone to damage. I think his airplane is a great compromise for someone looking for durability and weight.

That's an interesting perspective. Note that the Maules are very "similar" to a Pacer in many ways, except that Maule metalized the wings. If you look at a Maule wing, it's essentially a metalized wing derived from a fabric covered wing.

MTV

I"ve had 3 tripacers all fabric.. and there is a guy down the hangar row from me with a metalized tripacer, he swears by as superior ...till one day we were headed for the same breakfast location... he went off first and took most of the runway at gillespie field to get off the ground.. while I took off and turned crosswind at the intersection of runway 35 and 27..... I was seated at my table at the restaurant in Hemet when he walked in.... do you need any more info.....

I've never seen a metal covered pacer or other metalized aircraft, does anyone have any photos or links to same?

Metal non structural panels were often attached to the bottom and sides of Pawnees when rebuilt. These allowing easier and better cleaning of the lower longerons where they join in the back. A big problem with a Pawnee that has managed to keep the same fabric fuselage several years was that it was hard to turn one direction on the ground because the tailwheel leaned one way.

I flew one CallAir that had never been wrecked. I could easily put my finger through the fabric covered wood wing anywhere the paint had chipped. The fuselage had been recovered several times.

Keeping the lower longerons clean, in a tailwheel airplane is difficult and important. Lots of poison, dirt,oil, and salt gets back there.

mtv wrote:That's an interesting perspective. Note that the Maules are very "similar" to a Pacer in many ways, except that Maule metalized the wings. If you look at a Maule wing, it's essentially a metalized wing derived from a fabric covered wing.

MTV

Coincidentally, I'm not a fan of Maules. I never understood why they chose to build them the way they did. I mean the end result works obviously, but fabric on the wings just seems like a no-brainer, and metal on the fuselage does too. It doesn't help that the internal structure is still not-quite stress skinned, so it seems light the wings weigh more than they would have to if they were truly a clean sheet design or just left fabric.