No... That just looks WRONG!!! Who would do such a thing?

There is a 170B that I do the maintenance on once in a while that was converted to a tricycle gear and then re-converted back to tail wheel gear.... It still has the motor mount with the nose gear mounting.

I agree that it is ugly as a tri-gear....

Brian.

Matt 7GCBC wrote:....My brother has been wanting a tail wheel he can get his wife and 2 kids into. He has been looking at Maules and 180s but I feel this would be a good economical and capable alternative to consider.

"Affordable" certificated 4 place taildraggers come in 3 flavors: Stinson, Pacer, & 170. I owned a 170 for many years, but while there's sure nothing wrong with them or with Stinsons, today I'd choose a Pacer. In fact I was looking for one when I decided to buy my current mount (C150/150TD). The trouble I had was the Pacers I found for sale were either pretty tired (esp fabric wise) and definitely afordable, or else newly recovered/rebuilt and expensive-- no middle ground, which was what I was looking for.

[quote="Matt 7GCBC"] it seemed the Pacer was the more responsive in yaw on the ground and likely the least tolerant of poor skills. While the skywagon may require more "effort" to control in some aspects, the short coupled pacer would have more problems with over control and quick oscillations on the runway. I wouldn't recommend it as a tail wheel trainer. [quote]


I remember watching a gal at Kalispell City, taking her Private check ride in a PA-20 that she and her husband had restored and she'd learned to fly in.... she got to porpoising and it was getting worse and worse, and all of a sudden she did the most perfect "save" you've ever seen! When the check pilot was talking to us later, he said that just as he was reaching to take over and throw power back in to try to save their lives, she was finally so far behind that she was far enough ahead to "save" it.... he was laughing then...but not a little while before!
John

We used to have a Colt, O-235 powered, and converted to conventional gear with the Univair kit. A sweet, docile little airplane.

The guy we bought it from never figured that airplane out, always bitching about what a twitchy handful it was. Well, it wasn't at all. He just flew it too fast on landing, way too fast. Once slowed down properly it was gentle as a lamb.

Gump

GumpAir wrote:We used to have a Colt, O-235 powered, and converted to conventional gear with the Univair kit. A sweet, docile little airplane.

The guy we bought it from never figured that airplane out, always bitching about what a twitchy handful it was. Well, it wasn't at all. He just flew it too fast on landing, way too fast. Once slowed down properly it was gentle as a lamb.

Gump

Ain't that the truth. When I took my dual in the Pitts S2A I kept waiting for it to snarl and snap. All ten hours of dual were with the wind right down the runway or light and variable but the airplane did exactly what it was supposed to do. Stick ALL the way back. Chirp, off at the first exit. I did make a pretty rough mental error one day. When the tail came up I added left rudder. Budd hollered WTF! Hey, I'm not perfect you know?

EB

I think the bad rap Pacer's get is due to airplanes on which the toe-in (aka castor) is goofed up on. Usually on 22/20's where somebody welded on the new front gear fitting in not quite the right place. There is no adjusting the wheel alignment like you do on a spring-gear cessna by using tapered shims-- if it's wrong you live with it (bitching all the way) or use a long pipe & some elbow grease to "finesse" the axle to the proper angle. A pacer with the gear properly aligned is a joy to land.

fshaw...are you still flying the 150? Or did you dive into another ownership adventure?

Troy,

I am still flying the 150 and enjoying it. I'm still wanting something with a bigger gross and better in turbulence. The 150 makes me a bit nervous with 2 people off the grass in the summer.

Just ordered a copy of your book from Amazon. Looking forward to reading it.

Frank

I hope you enjoy the book. Our first PA-22 was a bit sluggish, had a weak engine. We got that fixed at overhaul, and it was like a whole different plane. Now we have another one that has the 150 hp engine. I just took it in and out of a couple little gravel strips at gross (minus fuel burn) with three passengers yesterday. No problem, it launches with gusto. Flying is fun...

Do you have a climb prop on your O-320 TriPacer?

58 pitch. Might go to a 56 if I get serious about yanking myself into the air quicker, but it is already off shorter than the 135 hp was, so not sure I'll bother.

I’ve owned both, (C-170 0300, C-172 160hp,PA-22-150, PA-22/20-150,PA-22-20/180) they both have good points. Ill give my two cents for comfort you cant go wrong with a 170,172, smooth 0300 will put you to sleep, a little sluggish heavy on the controls and you will fill every bump coming across the mountains, this will remind you you’re in an airplane.
PA-22 will out climb and have a better cruise speed, very light on the controls. Comfort not getting in and out. Back seat for passengers other than kids is BAD. You will not take a beating in the mountains with the 30 feet of wing had no trouble flying at high altitudes.

Troy Hamon wrote:58 pitch. Might go to a 56 if I get serious about yanking myself into the air quicker, but it is already off shorter than the 135 hp was, so not sure I'll bother.

For what it's worth, my PA22 has a McCauley 57" pitch and it seems to be a good fit for my altitude (usually a DA north of 4000'-6000' in the summer). At 9500' MSL I could get 2600 rpm.

FLYNLW wrote:I’ve owned both, (C-170 0300, C-172 160hp,PA-22-150, PA-22/20-150,PA-22-20/180) they both have good points. Ill give my two cents for comfort you cant go wrong with a 170,172, smooth 0300 will put you to sleep, a little sluggish heavy on the controls and you will fill every bump coming across the mountains, this will remind you you’re in an airplane.
PA-22 will out climb and have a better cruise speed, very light on the controls. Comfort not getting in and out. Back seat for passengers other than kids is BAD. You will not take a beating in the mountains with the 30 feet of wing had no trouble flying at high altitudes.

How were the lower hp Pacers at altitude? My Dad's first plane was a 160hp pacer and he said it was a dog above 5,000msl, I'm not sure what prop he had. That's one thing that steered me towards the 170 instead, when I first bought it I lived in Cheyenne at over 6,000ft. Also having an all metal plane was important for me since I kept it outside at first. Having a hangar now I wouldn't mind a fabric airplane though. For what its worth I've had my 170 to 15,000 near gross weight. However it has an 80/42 prop (which slowed me down 12mph) and a Sportsman STOL kit with the newer style, larger wing tips. It adds considerable wing area bringing the total up to about 184sqft. I've had it in and out of most of the short BC airstrips in Idaho and Utah. I also like how much room the 170 has with the back seat out. I can take my wife and I, full fuel, 80lb dog and 175lbs of camping gear. I do see us out growing the 170 eventually and maybe looking for a 180 in the future. Or getting a second airplane is a possibility since my wife got her license last summer. Having a cheap tri-pacer or straight tail 172 to take along with us would be nice.

Flying out of 4,500msl for 20 years never had a problem, running a 74/56 pitch.

scottf wrote:

Troy Hamon wrote:58 pitch. Might go to a 56 if I get serious about yanking myself into the air quicker, but it is already off shorter than the 135 hp was, so not sure I'll bother.

For what it's worth, my PA22 has a McCauley 57" pitch and it seems to be a good fit for my altitude (usually a DA north of 4000'-6000' in the summer). At 9500' MSL I could get 2600 rpm.

Correction on this. I've been reviewing my logbooks and my prop is a 74" McCauley and the pitch was changed at installation so it is actually a 55" pitch.

Troy Hamon wrote:58 pitch. Might go to a 56 if I get serious about yanking myself into the air quicker, but it is already off shorter than the 135 hp was, so not sure I'll bother.

Troy,,, I had a 53 inch pitch on my tripacer... believe me it was astounding the performance I got... you could exceed red line if you wanted by 100 RPM at sea level but i got redline on takeoff at most airstrips in Idaho. Leaving Johnson creek for home with 150 lbs camping gear and nearly full fuel I would get off way before the first outhouse..(JC is over 5000 Ft altitude) 58 is the cruise prob I think .. mine was 57 before I had it twisted down to 53 and it was ok but the 53 was absolutely great... you won't be sorry if you do it...Iceman

The SWPC annual fly in is at 5B2 this year, just down the road from me. If any of you are going I'd love to meet you in person and talk airplanes. You can PM me at [email protected].

Frank

fshaw wrote:The SWPC annual fly in is at 5B2 this year, just down the road from me. If any of you are going I'd love to meet you in person and talk airplanes. You can PM me at [email protected].

Frank

I'll be there, looking forward to it. I'll PM you my phone number and you can contact me if you like.