Reducing Pacer Engine Weight?

[chrisg]

There are a lot of engine upgrades and modifications that can significantly lighten the front of a Pacer, but given its aft CG, how much is too much? Has anyone gotten to the point where they lightened the nose to the point that handling or hauling was negatively impacted?

With lighter firewall material, no vacuum, lightweight starter and alternator, no spinner, etc. - it seems like a person might be able to shave 20-30 lbs pretty easily. The situation could be exacerbated by a heavier tailwheel and larger PA-18 tail feathers to make the aircraft a little tail heavy.

[Pacer 24C]

No problem with CG - I have a very light Pacer (1050lbs empty with the back seat in) with a relatively aft empty CG of 12.8 - still no problem - It would take the 100lbs of baggage and 400 lbs in the back seat to reach max aft CG. With the light wt and 12.8 CG I see no advantage whatsoever to the PA18 tail - with the most forward loading (solo and low fuel) I can still land tail first even with full power off.(key is trim) I have lt wt starter, lighter exh (Sutton), rear oil cooler, no vac system, lt wt battery, and a ABW TailWheel. I usually keep the backseat and seat belt out (another 28lbs) At our 200 ft MSL solo and full fuel - breaks ground in under 300 ft and climbs immediately with 1 notch and transitions to 1200 FPM, cruise at 120 MPH @2500, running a 74-53 prop, standard tips, this is with a 135- putting in a 0-320 narrow deck soon and keeping the 53" pitch for max static and climb performance- expecting approx. 1600fpm climb @S/L with the 150hp and a ground break of 250ft.(ofcourse sam 120 cruise) solo full fuel. LIGHT IN RIGHT!

[d.grimm]

A friends original PA20-135 weighed in
Around 1020, Great flying airplane. Mine weighed 1215 and had a 150
and didn't have the performance.
When I put VG's on both the 135 ran out of elevator control in a full stall landing.
50 lbs in ballast in the aft baggage fixed that. All control travels were correct
and tail VG's were installed. The 135 had alternator installed but original starter.
Dave

[redbarron55]

Personally I think thw most modifications to the engine forward fo the gCG and are a detriment to performance.
My Pacer with the O-290 performed as well as the 150. The 150 would carry more load, but I think the answer today is to do away with the vacuum system and use the new electronic "aids tonavigation" available and forget about IFR certification. The only instruments required are listed in the paperwork and do away wilt the rest. All of this is forward. Add in the "aids" not to be used for primary navigation and have fun with a better performing airpane.
O plan to do away with the vacuum system on my Pacer if I ever get around to rebuilding it.
I am seriously thinking about removing all of the not required items from my C-150 for the same reason.
There is nothing lighter, more reliable, or cheaper than the parts not installed.