I'm in the shopping researching phase right now. I need a plane to carry 2+2. I will be doing a lot of cross country with it, but I want to have fun when I'm home, hitting the back country.
I can get a nice pacer so much cheaper than a ratty 172 or 170. I realize they have to be recovered once in a while but so do Super Cubs and they are more than most Cessna's so what gives?
Is there some really big maintenance or operational bugaboo I'm not aware of?
I'm just sipping coffee wondering what I'm misssing, thanks.

Pacer is the winner for me. It's really an undervalued airplane.

670x wrote:I'm in the shopping researching phase right now. I need a plane to carry 2+2. I will be doing a lot of cross country with it, but I want to have fun when I'm home, hitting the back country.
I can get a nice pacer so much cheaper than a ratty 172 or 170. I realize they have to be recovered once in a while but so do Super Cubs and they are more than most Cessna's so what gives?
Is there some really big maintenance or operational bugaboo I'm not aware of?
I'm just sipping coffee wondering what I'm misssing, thanks.

Look at "Aviators Bulletin" for some good buys on PA-20 Pacer. I know of one near Kingman with really low time motor for about 25 K . Also a Colt with TW and 0-320 150 hp. Colt is great little airplane presently in New Mexico (FNM) I'd guess for about 30K . Stinson is great buy but Franklin motors are hard to find parts for. Aviators Bulletin is my monthly parts and airplane mag.

Pacer compared to 170/172 smaller interior, rt side door only, noisey, ground handing both taxi and take off trickier, slow flt more stable in cessna, 6 cyl cont. smoother than lyc 4's, brakes on rt side for duel inst.

I have owned a PA 22/20 and it was a good plane but l like the 170's and the str. tail TD-172 I now fly now much better.

As far as price there are many older 172's in the low $20k price range , this plane is more bang the the buck and easier to sell .

Pacers are not "cheap", they're "less expensive". It's all in the spin.
I think Pacers are good airplanes, they're just under-appreciated which keeps the prices down. Probably about the most affordable 2+2 type taildragger, and more capable than people realize. A friend of mine had a 150-horse version, he landed a bit longer than me in the 170 but otherwise matched or beat my 170's performance.
When I decided to sell the 170, I would have bought a Pacer except that I'd always wanted a C-150/150TD. Also, most of the Pacers I looked at were well into the service life on the fabric- they were airworthy and looked OK from 20 feet away, but I would generally classify them as utility-grade. Not that there's anything wrong with that, my 170 was utility-grade too. I just wanted something a bit shinier this time, and didn't want to get nto a big rebuild/recover project.
A friend of mine is building up a nice PA-22/20-150 from the ground up- fresh Stewart Sytem cover, lotsa fuselage mods (seaplane door,skylight,etc), extended squared wingtips, custom panel, etc. He'll have a helluvalot of time & money into it, but it's gonna be a jewel when he gets her done.
If you're thinking about getting a Pacer, see if you can finagle a ride in one- I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Eric

PA-20 Pacers and PA-22/20 TriPacer Conversions are one of the best buys and Bush plane out there. It will not perform with a “Cub” but it will hold its own with a 170 or 172. There are many bush mods available for them especially from Trimmer Aviation in Willow Alaska. Eddie Trimmer is one of the best Pacer guys in the country.

One of the negatives it has is its short coupled, a short fuselage and short wings. A Cub has 6-more feet of wing and almost 2-feet more fuselages. So Pacer drivers must have “Happy Feet”. Your always on the Rudder pedals, you never stop flying it until you get the tie downs on it. It’s not a question of will you ground loop it, it’s just a matter of time until you or circumstances put you in a ground loop. Because they’re not in big demand finding a solid one takes some looking. Most are pretty raged, but you can turn a solid one into a great bush plane for a lot less than a Cub.

Rick

P.S. If anyone knows of some one looking for a Pacer Project I have two for sale.

Pacers, especially the PA-22 with an O-320, will generally outmatch a C-172 in performance.

They have a "cheap" reputation because, in my opinion:
-they are smaller in dimension than a 172 so they don't LOOK as substantial of an airplane
-the nose gear gives it a "milk stool" appearance so they don't have the classic lines of a 172
-some of them came with the O-290 so they were underpowered relative to a 172
-172s were continuously made over the years. The Pacer production was stopped in the 60s so the average Pacer example is older than the 172.

Don't let the reputation fool you. The PA-22 is a great plane, and more fun with a tailwheel conversion. With their undeserved reputation, they are also a great value.

Thanks for the replies I admit "cheap" was the wrong word.
I have been comparing them and the Cessnas seem to be double the price.
The quandry being spend 50k on a cessna and get a high time engine and hope nothing breaks. Or spend 20k get a lower time engine and fly the crap out of it for a few years then cover it and add the seaplane doors ect. It seems to me a 1950's cessna has probably never had it's structure examined but a recovered Pacer has.

The pacers in the 50k range are CHERRY...

Are Cessnas really bigger across the shoulders? I can only find 40" on line for a Pacer which is the same as a 172 I believe.
Lastly are the tailwheels any faster? I'm thinking I'm leaning for a 22/20 conversion but can't find any performance data for a 150 or 160 hp conversion. (Yes I did check shortwingpipers). all there data is rather shall we say Goofy.
Thanks

The 172 may have an inch at the shoulders.

I have a 150hp PA-22 with a tailwheel conversion. I have 8.5 tires, no wheel fairings, and a climb prop. I get about 115-120 mph IAS at 2400 rpm while burning 8.5 gph. I'll bet you'd get 10-15 more mph with the cruise prop, 6.0 tires, and wheel fairings. Climb varies depending on density altitude and load. I can climb 1000'/min solo with 1/2 tank of gas at 55 deg f. Full tanks with 2 aboard and 50 F I get about 700-800.

My ZFW is 1130 so I can get 870 lbs of stuff in the air.

701driver wrote:.... It’s not a question of will you ground loop it, it’s just a matter of time until you or circumstances put you in a ground loop. ....

No offense, but this sort of comment kinda annoys me. Kinda like retractables- "there's them that has & them that will". Bullshit! A properly-aligned Pacer handles just fine- they're just quick on the pedals. Someone who is used to a longer airplane like a Cessna 170 might find himself behind the airplane when he starts flying a Pacer, esp on takeoff, but as long as he is a good tailwheel pilot to begin with he'll be fine if he starts paying attention and makes an effort to lead the airplane (instead of the other way around).
One problem with Pacers, esp converted TriPacers, is that a lot of them have mis-aligned main gear. If you don't have pretty much neutral castor, it'll be a wild ride esp on pavement. Good alignment = good handling. This is true with any taildragger, but since Pacer alignment can't be easily corrected with axle shims like a cessna more of them have alignment problems.

Eric

Our Pacer was a converted Tri-Pacer, very well done and I installed a Garmin 430 and a standard six-pack instrument panel. 8:00x6 tires and VG's. I could go most anywhere, IFR/VFR, short grass strip/major airport. Great airplane. It won best modified Shortwing at Sentimental Journey/Lock Haven after we sold. $45,000 invested. Try www.shortwingpipers.org for more info.
Dave

I agree with Eric completely. Taking the attitude that you WILL ground loop an airplane is defeatist, and sooner or later, you probably will. His comments on gear alignment are absolutely correct as well. Piper gear CAN be aligned by a VERY smart and old Piper savvy mechanic, but it's a job. Nevertheless, if your gear is misaligned, even a little bit....things can get exciting. I've seen so many Cessna taildraggers with gear alignment issues....and they can be spooky.

The Pacer is a little busier to land. Consider that the geometry is very similar to the early Maules (and a lot of the later Maules). Maules too are a little busier to land.

Simple answer for both: Get some GOOD quality training in the airplane. Then stay current in it. "Problem" solved

MTV

Just to chime in here. Last week I flew my pacer up to northern Maine to show it to a guy and got my ass kicked the whole way up and back. The entire flight I stayed below VA because it was so rough. I took a break and landed in Lincoln, ME with a 45 to 50 degree crosswind at 17 mph gusting to 24. I got the upwind wheel down in the first 100 feet of the runway, the second down about 100 feet later and man they were screeching, but it wasn't that hard to stay aligned, just lots of rudder and aileron work. I suppose if there had been an opportunity to ground loop, that would have been it. Just like MTV and Eric have said, get good training and practice alot, and fly the plane to the hanger.

I was trying to sell my plane for about a month or so, (buy the way, I worked my ass off for the last two months and don't have to sell it now) and most of the people that have contacted me seem to want a "cheap" plane and can't understand why I want so much. I point them in the direction of some cheap planes that I know of. I also tell them I wouldn't fly in them on a bet, but cheap is cheap.

Everyone likes to brag about their plane and I'm know different. I take off in 400ft with half fuel and a modest headwind, can land in 300 ft no problem (need clear approach). Initial rate of climb with half fuel is 1400 ft a minute, at gross 700. I cruise at 120mph IAS turning 2400 and burn 8gph. I fly with a Supercub and turn 1700 rpm for 85 mph and burn less than 6gph. I am so happy I didn't sell this bird and am looking forward to flying all over gods creation this summer. Let em have cheap!!

Mike

Mike, I'm glad you didn't have to sell off your airplane. Seems like when people have to sell for financial reasons, they quite often never get bucks-ahead enough to get another airplane. That's happened to a couple different friends of mine-- usually due to family-related financial issues which should & do take priority over having fun (I guess).
I was wondering how much the "want so much" price tag was on your Pacer. Also wondering what the empty weight is, and what prop you're running. Like I mentioned, a buddy's building up a Pacer & trying to keep it real light. He's always interested in what other Pacers weigh in at a & what prop etc on them. He's planning on getting a field approval for a borer prop eventually, but will be running a 74DM6 Sensenich for starters & is trying to decide what pitch. I have a 56 pitch on my C150/150 & thought that would work pretty well for him, or maybe even a 54 for more low-end oomph. He tells me that the consensus on the SWP.org site seems to be that a 58 is the way to go, but a lot of them guys seem more interested in speed and/or fuel economy than STOL op's.

Eric

Eric,
Actually there is a STC for a Borer on a Pacer, and not that you asked me but mine weighed 1218
and a friends original 135 Pacer weighs 1045.
Dave

Eric,
Svenns Aviation has an STC for the borer on the 150-160hp Pacers. I am using his STC for my borer and also for 8.50x6's/26" good years. His contact: http://www.shortwingpipers.org/forum/sh ... s-Aviation

The web site that I find the most useful for short wings is: http://shortwingpipers.org/

Brent

Thanks for the info. My buddy's a (low profile) regular on that SWP.org site. He' already bought a couple STC's from Sven (PA18 tailfeathers,etc), so he's probably aware of the borer stc. I'm the ignorant one I guess. (nothing new there.....)
Kepp that Pacer info coming....

SWP.org is run by the Pierce Aero guys out of Texas, a good bunch of people and authorities on Pacers. Our own Steve's Aircraft in southern Oregon is another.

Eric,

My pacer is pretty much stock. I do have 8.50s and VGs though. It weighs 1244 lbs empty and gross weight is 2000. I have alot of stuff in it; com radio, nav/com gps, mode c, GS/VOR radio, 8 gallon reserve tank. I took out the rear seat and just got an XL 250 to replace the old com and gps, I'm going to try and get her less than 1200 lbs. I should probaly loose weight too. I run a stock prop, but am saving my gumballs for a Borer and will be doing the Stewart tip and wing extensions this fall. I have over $40K in the plane in the last two years including a complete engine overhaul with new lycoming cylinders, accessory case, overhauled case, you name it. I was asking $29,000. One guy e-mailed me to say I was asking to much and that I should have the price down around $22K. I told him I had seen three on Barnstormers for around that price and he should shop there.

Mike

pacerflyer wrote: My pacer is pretty much stock. I do have 8.50s and VGs though. It weighs 1244 lbs empty and gross weight is 2000. I have alot of stuff in it; com radio, nav/com gps, mode c, GS/VOR radio, 8 gallon reserve tank. I took out the rear seat and just got an XL 250 to replace the old com and gps, I'm going to try and get her less than 1200 lbs. I should probaly loose weight too. I run a stock prop, but am saving my gumballs for a Borer and will be doing the Stewart tip and wing extensions this fall. .......

Stock prop meaning the 74" Sensenich? What's the pitch? That 1244 empty weight might sound heavy to you but I'll bet that it's probably pretty close to average. Unless someone's done a big Jenny-Craig-for-airplanes program, their airplane is usually heavier than they like (or will admit). My ragwing 170 weighed in around 1320 after some judicious slimming-down work-- my current C150/150TD comes in only around a hundred pounds less at 1227. It weighed 1271 when I bought it, and I had to remove or replace a lot of parts to take off that 44 pounds.

Eric