Hey guys, I have the opportunity to buy a tri-pacer project from a friend of mine.

It's a '56 model stripped down to nothing with some of the metal work started. He has already purchased the trimmer tailwheel stc for it. I'm looking for opinions on performance if I built it light and simple with the pa-18 gear. There is no engine or prop with it so I'm wide open for engine options. There seams to be a lot of opinions inthe super cub world about bennefits of the 160vs180 lycoming. Is the same true for this, or is the 180 the only way to go?

Would the performance gains of the pacer be that much more significant than than my 172? How about hauling around 2 kids with camping gear? Just looking for some thoughts ands opinions. I would love to see some pictures and here from guys who have experience with plane. Thanks!

Some friends here in NZ have made a really cool bush-modified Pacer conversion.



-more powerful 180hp engine
-extended wings
-aggressive prop
-HD gear (original gear failed!)
-big tires all round
-float plane doors

Their friend liked the converted Tri-Pacer so much, they made a second one and sold it to him! They did have plans to convert even more.


It can almost keep up with a Cub, it's not on par with a Cub, but it is close. Both these started life as PA-22, not PA-20s.

Like the Bearhawk, it suffers from the tail low at stall speed phenomena. They do get them into some pretty hairy places though, YouTube the "Avcan" channel to see lots of video of them in action.

Comparing the above aircraft to a 172 - there would be no comparison.
I've seen the converted Pacer flown against 172 T/Ds in the STOL comp, there was no comparison. Closer to the Cub than the 172.
Now if you loaded it up with gear, I can't say how much better it would be than a 172, but it would still have to be better.

Lots to cover in this post!
I learned to fly in a pacer, have been to deadhorse and most of alaska in one and think they are great planes. They don't have a lot of wing so the more power and prop you have to swing the better it will preform. What you have to think about is what do you really need to do with the plane!!! How much runway do you need. If you want to haul the family with fuel than you will be heavy and at sea level depending on power and prop you will need 700-1000ft min with no trees at the end. The more wing the better so what ever you can do to extend the wing do it!!!! A well tuned 160 with a borer 8240 is a great combo for ripping off the ground, but it will take a lot off the top for speed. a 180 with constant speed is a good performer but will cost a LOT. In the long run fuel burn for a 180hp with fixed prop is the same or better than a 160 and the speed is better at least iin a cub. If you need to get in and out of short rough stuff with 4 than suck it up and get a 180 CESSNA. If you have over 1000ft and lower elevation than a big wing pacer 160hp pacer is fine. If you are in the Rockys consider a 180 with good prop, and plan to fly a bit slower. How about two props one for the light stuff and one for when heavy. I now have a cub and think anything above 85mph is fast. What is your mission??? Tell us what and where it is you want to do and go from there. One thing to consider is the kids will not loose weight in the next ten years so add that into the plan!!!!!!!!
DENNY

Good points from DENNY... Seems like just too many compromises trying to make something into something that it will never be great at. I flew a Pacer set up for the bush one time up in AK. Thought it was cramped, awkward, and generally not really fun.

I would take DENNYs advice to heart, and although a bunch more cash up front, your mission sounds like you would benefit a whole lot more from an early model 180. (and would probably put you at the same net cost when it all ends up in the wash)

Good luck!

Of course, Just buy a Maule comes to mind as it will do all you want to do Jeredp

The number one gripe I have with the Pacer is the R.H. entry door. I would put the L.H. door mod at the top of the list. Anything you can do to stretch the wings and fuselage is going to be a plus but I would stick to STC mods myself and keep it out of the experimental category. More horse power is always nice but I think a 160hp with the right prop combo is the best for this airframe when considering weight, simplicity etc.

I agree your boys are only going to get heavier and bigger and a project like this is going to take way more time than anybody plans for. However your boys will learn a lot and will have an airplane that will make a great trainer for them to learn in and it may very well take that long to finish the project! Maybe 2 affordable planes in the future flying side by side will be much better one Cessna 180?

Battson wrote:
.

Great photo! I recognize BSH, the owner used to post on SC.org or the SWP site (or was it here?). As I recall, he kinda balled it up a few years ago & quit posting, but it sounds like he's back in action.

I've always liked Pacers, they are pretty capable esp if you keep them light.
Some folks like to stretch the fuselage & add SC wings, in fact a guy on SC.org started a thread about that just recently. Part of my attraction to the Pacer is the small size (both length & wingspan) -- you can share a hangar or if required haul it on a trailer much easier than say a 170. Check into DakotaCub
"super 20" slotted wings, I think that & a set of SC tailfeathers would do a lot for low-speed handling. If you can't afford the slotted wings, VG's are pretty effective on the piper wing. Personally I would stick with the 320, maybe even the 150hp version for the convenience & price advantage of being able to burn 87 octane mogas. Trimmer has a lot of Pacer mods, including a LH side seaplane door. He was working on getting an STC for his mod involving squared-off wingtips, relocated ailerons & extended flaps, but I haven't ever heard that he got it.

IMHO the Pacer makes for a great 2 seat airplane with a huge baggage area, but if your kids are small it'll still work well. They start getting much bigger, it'll be time to think about going bigger with the airplane too. Like a couple people have pointed out, sounds like you're looking at needing a C180 before too many more years, maybe you should just get one now. Accept no substitute!

Those NZ Pacers are nicely done and beautiful airplanes!

This is a Pacer (22/20) that we modified over time. I really enjoyed this airplane and was considering spending 30-35K to put a Lycon 0-360 and MT prop on it.......the problem with Pacers is that the market only really supports a 25-35K airplane, so if it is not your final airplane and you want to sell it some day, you have to be careful how much money you spend modifying them.


Of course, if you want a project and can do a lot of the work yourself, then that changes things.

The beauty of a pacer is trying to build a budget airplane that really performs. If I did it again, I'd look for a inexpensive flying 22/20 that I could tolerate the paint and fabric on, preferably a 160hp. Then I'd strip everything not essential for flight out of it, put VG's and a Borer Prop (82/41 is my preference) on it and 31'' bushwheels. The short wing needs angle of attack and thrust to get it flying, so that is where the Bushwheels and the borer really help. Extended gear like Trimmers is really a great mod, both for strength and angle of attack, but by the time you strip the airplane to do the gear, the budget is gone........I had stock univair conversion gear that had some gussets added to make the double puck brakes legal, to run the bushwheels. My airplane got flown fairly hard off airport, and the gear held up great.

Left hand doors are nice.....but embarrassing your buddy in his 100K super cub with your budget Pacer is priceless Once again, to keep it budget, the left hand door mod is probably not an option.......the Pacer does have a great left hand 2nd row door that doubles as a massive baggage door if the rear seat is out.

I ended up with a Maule.....they come stock with 180-260hp, squared off wings, bigger flaps, left hand door and a huge bag door. This being said, I still miss my Pacer. It was really light on the controls, crisp roll rate, decent cruise speed and worked really well off airport if it was kept reasonably light.

Regarding the C-180......A Pacer falls between a cessna 180 and a cub, both in utility and off airport performance as well as light on the controls, fun flying. Also, when a rock takes out the tail of the Pacer, you will be really glad you are dealing with tube and fabric, and not aluminum.

Here is the website I had for my Pacer when I sold it, It gives a little more information for those interested in Pacers.
http://brentpahls.wix.com/triple3eightzulu

highroad wrote:Those Aussie Pacers are nicely done and beautiful airplanes!

Wash your mouth with soap!
It's OK - I forgive you because you're Canadian.

Battson wrote:

highroad wrote:Those Aussie Pacers are nicely done and beautiful airplanes!

Wash your mouth with soap!
It's OK - I forgive you because you're Canadian.

I see my mistake and fixed it.....do you see yours?

highroad wrote:

Battson wrote:

highroad wrote:Those Aussie Pacers are nicely done and beautiful airplanes!

Wash your mouth with soap!
It's OK - I forgive you because you're Canadian.

I see my mistake and fixed it.....do you see yours?

Sorry it's a bit of an inside joke between Aus and NZ Fair to say it's a love-hate relationship!

I am guessing you are actually from Canada?

Great photo of your old Pacer by the way!

[/quote]Great photo of your old Pacer by the way![/quote]

Nah, I'm from the ol' USA, but the photo of the Pacer was on a gravel bar in Canada, if that counts for anything

It's a very cool spot. Big rocks - I like that about the Pacer, lots of clearance and with the HD gear it's more than capable of handling the really rough stuff.

That would be too rough for me on the 26" tires, with my heavier aircraft - even though the landing gear are quite similar.

I'm very happy with my Pacer variant. I still need practice for slow landings and some off-airport time, but I don't think she'll disappoint.

There's a good leading edge cuff available that I might try down the road as well. Same idea as the Sportsman's cuff, it'd be interesting to see what differences in cruise/stall it made.

Highroad, I'd have bought your plane in a heartbeat if the timing was right.

CamTom12 wrote:Highroad, I'd have bought your plane in a heartbeat if the timing was right.

Thanks. Good to see it in great hands and getting flown like it was built to be flown.

Your Pacer looks like a hotrod. I was considering trying to go experimental with 38Z and wanted to incorporate a few things from your Pacer.

I can attest to the off-airport performance of Highroad's Pacer -- even with a beer-lovin' Swede as ballast in the right seat!

I love the size and weight of the Pacer. It's kind of a "4-place Lite." If I wasn't on the verge of needing 4 seats + 260hp, it would be a tempting platform. Like the 172, it's a good 2-place for backcountry ops.

.
highroad wrote:
Those Aussie Pacers are nicely done and beautiful airplanes!

to which Battson wrote
Wash your mouth with soap!
It's OK - I forgive you because you're Canadian.

@ Battson.

Maybe I am wrong, but as I understand it, isn't Austraila, also called the Western Island, one of the three Islands that form Greater New Zealand; the other two being the North Island and the South Island. The only difference being that they talk funny on New Zealand's Western Island.

highroad wrote:

CamTom12 wrote:Highroad, I'd have bought your plane in a heartbeat if the timing was right.

Thanks. Good to see it in great hands and getting flown like it was built to be flown.

Your Pacer looks like a hotrod. I was considering trying to go experimental with 38Z and wanted to incorporate a few things from your Pacer.

Thanks! It is a hot rod

Zzz wrote:I love the size and weight of the Pacer. It's kind of a "4-place Lite." If I wasn't on the verge of needing 4 seats + 260hp, it would be a tempting platform. Like the 172, it's a good 2-place for backcountry ops.

When asked, I call it "a 2+2", or "a four-seater, just like a Camaro."

Thanks for all the replies guys. I still have some pondering to do. One of my biggest motivations is doing the entire project with my kids and teaching them some things that they wont get anywhere else. That said, I'm not sure I want to go through all that and still not have an airplane that will haul all of us comfortably. The pacer has a place in my heart because my grandpa restored two of them, one of which I helped him do. With kids and another airplane and cars and house and all that other stuff in life, I can't go buy a 180, so thats not an option. More thinking is order I gues