Pacer vs 108 vs C-170 vs Maule
Technical and practical discussion about specific aircraft types such as Cessna 180, Maule M7, et al. Please read and search carefully before posting, as many popular topics have already been discussed.
All four have proven themselves as great types, with the Pacer and the Maule giving a sportier image.
Have flown the C-170, the others are on my to do list, but on retro appeal I am fond of the 108 in its -1 or -2 variant, ideally with a Lycoming -360.
Entry price the Pacer and 108 seem better value.
-
L18C-95 offline

-
Posts:
156
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:44 am
- Location: Oxford
- Aircraft: Piper L18C-95
-
I think lots of us have considered these options, especially the 170/Stinson/Pacer since they are really the only choices for a certified budget tailwheel backcountry plane. Pacer and the Stinson both have a back seat that is easy to remove. If you get a O-320 in the Pacer that will be easy to support going forward. PA-22/20s can have the baggage door. After you remove the rear seat the rear door in a Pacer is like a big cargo door. To me, Stinsons look the best. Hard choice.
-
scottf offline

-
Posts:
650
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:56 am
- Location: Meridian, ID
- FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... cbQCpIqefS
Thu May 01, 2014 10:51 am
...also rather quaintly, the Stinson 108 is approved in the AFM for some limited aeros, specifically loops and barrel roll, in the utility category.
-
L18C-95 offline

-
Posts:
156
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:44 am
- Location: Oxford
- Aircraft: Piper L18C-95
-
Thu May 01, 2014 11:42 am
I can't speak to the 108 or Maule, but for me it's Pacer over 170 hands down. I sooooo wanted a 170 but the math didn't add up so I "settled" for a 150 HP Pacer. I won't look back. Best bang for the buck for sure.
-
northernguy offline


-
Posts:
98
- Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 1:09 pm
- Location: Anahim Lake & Prince George
-
Thu May 01, 2014 12:08 pm
Love my 108, although mine is a big tail. Great useful, just over 1100. Built like a tank.
-
soaringhiggy offline

-
Posts:
711
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Kimberly, ID
-
48 Stinson 108-3
I wanted a Maule M7 or a Cessna 180.
Couldn't afford to feed either one let alone buy one.
My Pacer seemed to be the best value all the way around. Not a super performing in the backcountry, but it is reasonable for my piloting skills. A guy like Highroad can really make a Pacer perform.
-
gptc offline

-
Posts:
258
- Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 7:52 am
- Location: Grants Pass
-
gptc wrote:I wanted a Maule M7 or a Cessna 180.
Couldn't afford to feed either one let alone buy one.
My Pacer seemed to be the best value all the way around. Not a super performing in the backcountry, but it is reasonable for my piloting skills. A guy like Highroad can really make a Pacer perform.
I think you got a great deal on that Pacer, Sean. With the O-360 I bet its a great flying airplane. I remember seeing it come up for sale, if it was out there when I was looking I would have tried to buy it.
-
robw56 offline

-
Posts:
3263
- Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:30 pm
- Location: Ward
- Aircraft: 1957 C-180A
-
Gents,
I have a straight 108 with a lightly modded 0-360. It is a great performer and compares very well. Makes a awesome floatplane with a useful load of 754 on floats and 880 on wheels. Just added 8.5 mains which make it look just right. With one person it flys like a super cub. I am adding the auxiliary fuel tank so it will carry 53 gallons for long trips. Looking to add the baggage compartment as well in the future.
All great planes!
-
Jimbo2601 offline

-
Posts:
29
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 8:25 pm
- Location: Illinois
DISPLAY OPTIONS
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests