Peformance Goal

[BatPacer]

I think we all own our Shortwings for many of the same reasons: general utility, price, maintainability, nostalgia, looks, etc. There is, however, a truism in aviation that everything is a compromise. Since no one can be perfectly "in the middle," which way do you lean? I'd like to see how many of us can actually come out on one side of the other regarding the speed versus STOL argument. My plane (BatPacer) does not haul the mail. It is much more geared to off strip conditions where it is important to me to break ground and have an excellent rate of climb in short order. But...I have to spank it pretty hard to see 3 digits on the airspeed indicator. Of course I wish it cruised faster but I have spent my time and money making it go slower! I know I can't have the best of both worlds. Poll is attached. What is the priority for your flying?

[Jim]

Hi,

......I have spent my time and money making it go slower!

Me too. I'm pretty sure I still can have the slowest plane out of about 50 or so in South Haven Michigan.

[rmalone]

I would have to say speed is more important to me. I intend to land it in at least 49 states when we are finished with the rebuild. I do love the utility of the airplane. They are a lot of bang for the buck.

[deandayton]

Only 49 states? Where's your sense of adventure? :lol: I've got a couple of 5 gallon cans you can use if you want to try Hawaii.

[Steve Pierce]

I would have to say speed is more important to me. I intend to land it in at least 49 states when we are finished with the rebuild. I do love the utility of the airplane. They are a lot of bang for the buck.
A couple of trips to the gravel bars in the Brazos River might change your mind but maybe not since you know why my Clipper is being restored. :oops:

I like more speed but I like the utility to be able to land off-airport. Like you said, everything is a compromise. :D

[Stephen]

Now that I'm retired, what's the rush, besides I love making those off airport landings.

My previous plane was a J-3, which barely saw two digits on the ASI.

[Bultaco Jim]

I like to travel to new destinations, and land on shorter strips, so I'm screwed! Seriously, the Pacer is itself a very good compromise. If I NEEDED to go 160mph, I would have bought a Mooney. And there are times that I wish that I'd brought the Colt, cause the trip is over too fast!

[joewcasey]

For the price, my Tri Pacer has provided me with adequate speed and stol. Getting off in 800 ft is fine with me, as is getting it down again in that space. I usually see around 105-107 kts true, so I'm satisfied with that. My problem is the constant 25-35kt winds aloft. A commanche 180 would be a little nicer for those conditions. :D Overall, for the price I pay, I can't find anything that'll do what I want any better.

[BatPacer]

I don't think anyone around here would argue that the Clipper/Pacer/Tri-Pacer line is not just about the best compromise airplane you can buy for under $50K (and falling...but that's another thread). In stock form, it has good speed and decent short-field performance (book numbers just slightly better than a C-172). This poll is directed to folks that IF they are going to do any mods to suit their flying, which direction will you lean. I suppose, though, if you want to put a vote in each category and then tell the readership just how you intend to make it fly faster AND slower, that would add serious value to the discussion. ;) My answer to that is just buy two and when my rich uncle with the gold mine dies and leaves it to me, I will buy a stock Pacer with small tires, all the fairings, 160hp, and a cruise prop. On the "other" site, some of the numbers posted for the Speed Challenge are darn impressive. I mean, 140+mph is real speed! Keep the votes coming.

[Curly]

I am trying to have a bit of both worlds - a bit faster by using as many drag saving ideas I can find - I will be using some of Miss Pearls mods. plus a few in the engine cooling and cowling department. At the slow end a set of VG's and decent brakes should be enough for where I want to go.
I would love to be able to land on gravel beds in rivers etc. (the fishing is always better where it's hard to get too) but I have a healthy respect for my advancing years and deteriorating skill level that goes with it.

Curly

[stevesaircraft(Bri)]

Well I can see a little of both.
The 180 Horse Constant speed prop pacer that we built cruises at 145 indicated at 2400 RPM and 24 inched of manifold pressure burning about 9 gallons an hour. With the engine/prop combo, VG's and Plane booster wingtips the airplane can easily take off in 700 feet and land as short as anyone else. I would say a good all around airplane.

Brian.

[rmalone]

Man would I love to try out a 180 hp Pacer. Talk about performance!

[d.grimm]

Brian,
Whats that thing weigh empty?
Dave

[stevesaircraft(Bri)]

Dave,

Last W&B was at 1278. Right after we redid the wings and added Dakota tanks.
Fueselage comes in this winter to get recovered.

Brian.

[d.grimm]

Wow, that's pretty good, I would have guessed 100 lbs more.
Dave

[BatPacer]

Well, didn't want to leave this post all lonely and neglected. I must admit, I'm somewhat surprised at how many folks want to get in and out of places versus the speed thing since all I ever saw discussed on the "other" site is how fast people's planes were. I am still waiting and very curious to see how the new slotted wing for a Pacer does. Who is going to be the first?!

Brian definitely has a cool thing going with his CS, 180hp. I'd sure like to take a spin around the patch in that! I may give you a call one of these days, Brian, to discuss the details on the CS. I have an -A1A and purposely got the hollow crank so that I'd have the option someday - whenever that is!

Paul

[Jim]

Hi again,

Here's a little (2.8MB} MiniMovie of a short TnG that I'd like to pull off in a Pacer.

http://jself.com/MiniMovies/TnG.wmv

[Bultaco Jim]

I've just seen the light! Now I know why people put those large tires on! They hold a butt-load of HELIUM!

[stevesaircraft(Bri)]

Jim,

Love that video, check out the droopy ailerons.......

Paul,

Come on down, I can get you in touch with the owner. One of the things I need to work on is getting our STC ammended for the other models of 0-360's with hollow cranks. Right now we are limited to the -A1P. So far we have not sold one conversion since we got Allen's Pacer approved, a 2 year process by the way. I am sure that we could have sold a couple to the guys that already have a 0-360 capable to run a constant speed. Just more paperwork to send in to the FED.

Brian.

[Stephen]

Great video. Flaperons would work on a Pacer with out too much work (not counting the s--- load of paper work with the FAA). I worked out a system on paper based on my friends J-3 who uses them to land in less than 100'. Anyone one have the time to give it a go??