To Buy a Pacer or Not??

[piperrocks2013]

It's been on my mind lately should I save my pennies buy a older pacer and rebuild it to my specs?? Should I convert my Tripacer FKIS to a Pacer?? Should I sell my Tripacer and buy another Pacer that flies which all probably just tear apart and rebuild eventually to my standards. I have two Tripacers right now. One on floats and the other on Wheels and Skis. Thinking for ski operation nothing would beat a Pacer 150 or 160HP with a borer prop. I know they are more challenging, What are people's thoughts of the Pacer?? Do some wish they kept the stable Tri?? Any input would be appreciated.

[1958pacer]

I will be putting the skis on later this week and have an 82/44 prop to try on it as well. My 2220 works great on skis even with the 74/58 prop. take offs in 350-450 foot range depending on conditions. the borer should make a significant improvement

[mmoyle]

More baggage space..in a Tripacer


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Pacer 24C]

Baggage is the same on 1953-54 Pacer's Converted 22's loose 55 lbs - the cheapest plane you can own is the nicest most expensive one that is already done close to what you want.

[pa20]

.....Snipped.........the cheapest plane you can own is the nicest most expensive one that is already done close to what you want.

True 'dat!!

[piperrocks2013]

What are the greatest advantages of switching over to a Pacer?? Shorter Takeoff?? Greater Cruise?? I realize it would be superior for rough field operation but how much better??

[Jim]

Hi,

.....what are the greatest advantages of switching over to a Pacer?

The looks!

[Pacer 24C]

Much lighter controls without the direct nose gear and interconnects - 55 lbs lighter, better climb and much better glide, 10 mph faster

[Student Pilot]

Found the actual figures nowhere near the one's quoted here. Found virtually no speed increase and weight wasn't a lot different. Nobody can say the Tri is a handsome bit of kit but it performs very close to the Pacer. Rough short strips are Ok as long as you keep the nosewheel light. Distances are exactly the same for take off and landing with the same weight aircraft.
* The grass is greener syndrome is one to watch our for. The lightest possible aircraft with the least farkles will perform the best. The older machines with only a couple of instruments and the 135HP would take a lot of beating. If you don't fly IFR or Night VFR why carry around all those steam driven instruments? I've heard "Just incase" quoted, unless your trained and current they will do you no good only false security. Unless you are current and trained and your aircraft is so equipped, do not go into cloud or any position that will put you so. SP
* Disclaimer: This is my opinion only going on my experience and those I've talked to,

[Brian]

I believe sans nose wheel and the sugar scoop off the lower cowl most TW conversions gain 6 to 7 MPH IAS. I also believe there is a performance increase in climb rate but I would not want to claim how much. I know a lot of this gain is typically given up after the TW conversion by installing larger tires and going to lower pitch props. Extended wing tips may cost a bit of speed as well. There just seems a natural progression of modifications that gets kick started following the TW conversion for most of us. The Taildragger just naturally begs for off airport operations and the desire for additional mods that would not have been considered when in the Tri gear config. Yes I know of some exceptions to this rule of TriPacers with 8.50 Mains which do well in the back country but they are exceptions to the rule. Prior to the Williams Toe Brake STC the TW STC was the only reasonable way to enjoy Toe Brakes and differential breaking which was a major part of my motivation to do the conversion 25 years ago to the then Tripe I had owned for 13 years at the time. There are pros to the tri gear 22 for sure. Operations on the ground are safer and more like driving a car; Walking around the hangar results in fewer scalp injuries; Far less risk & concern about being tied down outside in bad weather; and for sure easier to grease the mains on during full stall landings. But in my case the TW conversion breathed back a new level of excitement and enjoyment in an aircraft which I was feeling a bit board with. So no regrets on my decision to remove the nose gear and Johnson bar.

[j_w_Bruce]

hmm, where'd the Johnson bar go? I seem to have missed something

[Brian]

I believe I left it up at Steve's Beagle Sky Ranch hangar where we did the conversion. Haven't seen it since. Haven't really missed it either :~)

[JPerkins]

It took me a full three months of ownership before I realized why it was called a "Johnson" bar!

[Jim]

Hi again,

Made a copy of a page from my 1953 owners handbook. Piper didn't mention more than modest differences in the performance between the tail and "nose tired" planes.

[Stephen]

Hi again,

Made a copy of a page from my 1953 owners handbook. Piper didn't mention more than modest differences in the performance between the tail and "nose tired" planes.

The data sheet you posted brings up an off topic question of mine. WHAT exactly is 75% power and how is it calculated?

Brian, I added 3 feet wing span a couple of years ago with no change in wing tip and saw no change in cruise speed. I figured there had to be a slight difference in AOA during cruise.

[j_w_Bruce]

I believe I left it up at Steve's Beagle Sky Ranch hangar where we did the conversion. Haven't seen it since. Haven't really missed it either :~)

I'm sure Steve found something to do with it... but I'm still struggling to see how removing the nose wheel and reorientating the A/C's ground ride (like it was best designed to be) leads to removal of the Johnson Bar which implies that you removed your flaps?? that kind of blows my mind.. :)

[Brian]

Okay I see what you mean't. The Johnson Bar removal referred to the lever that engaged the brakes on the Tripacer and was no longer needed with the Univair toe brake installation. Sorry for the misinterpretation of your question.

[Jim]

Hi,

I always thought the tri-pacer series had an Armstrong brake system.

[Brian]

Hi again,
Made a copy of a page from my 1953 owners handbook. Piper didn't mention more than modest differences in the performance between the tail and "nose tired" planes.

Makes you wonder since Piper was discontinuing the Pacer and putting their Single Engine future in the Tri Pacer in 1953 if they didn't optimistically fudge the Tri Pacer cruise and top speed Numbers a bit ?

[Brian]

Hi,
I always thought the tri-pacer series had an Armstrong brake system.

I think your correct because all you got by pulling it was exercise. :~)

[j_w_Bruce]

Okay I see what you mean't. The Johnson Bar removal referred to the lever that engaged the brakes on the Tripacer and was no longer needed with the Univair toe brake installation. Sorry for the misinterpretation of your question.

Ahhh, I see.. As I've never owned anything without toe brakes, it never occurred that you might be referring to that 'other' bar.

Thanks!

[j_w_Bruce]

Makes you wonder since Piper was discontinuing the Pacer and putting their Single Engine future in the Tri Pacer in 1953 if they didn't optimistically fudge the Tri Pacer cruise and top speed Numbers a bit ?

And thus was invented the 'marketing guys' and they were promptly hired away by Beech in the 60s to beef up the Musketeer POH ;)

[Pacerfgoe]

You can also note that the useful load goes up by 40 lbs (check post #14)

[Pacer 24C]

The data sheet you posted brings up an off topic question of mine. WHAT exactly is 75% power and how is it calculated?

Brian, I added 3 feet wing span a couple of years ago with no change in wing tip and saw no change in cruise speed. I figured there had to be a slight difference in AOA during cruise.

75% power of a 160 is120 our engines should burn .435 lbs per HP per hour thus you need to burn a minimum of 8.7 GPH for 75% Another rule of thumb is13HP per GPH example = 130 HP is 10GPH

[piperrocks2013]

Thanks all for that info. Think going to convert my current Tri over next winter. I know my bird and I think it would be my best option and a great learning curve. Thanks all for your input

jared

[Stephen]

75% power of a 160 is120 our engines should burn .435 lbs per HP per hour thus you need to burn a minimum of 8.7 GPH for 75% Another rule of thumb is13HP per GPH example = 130 HP is 10GPH

I was wondering about the power setting for 75%. Assuming the prop allows engine to produce full power at redline.

[MN_flyer1]

All I can say is that "I sure miss my Pacer (22/20)".

[zalto]

I was wondering about the power setting for 75%. Assuming the prop allows engine to produce full power at redline.

Here is a chart that I found somewhere for the Colt.

Dusty

[Stephen]

Here is a chart that I found somewhere for the Colt.

Dusty

Interesting data, thanks.

They must have used standard cruise prop on an 0 290. The ratio of change may be useful.

[Gilbert Pierce]

O-320 Power chart.
http://www.shortwingpipers.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=7110&d=1414531452

[rsrguy3]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit. Mine is just fine for gaining much needed flight time and my pp . The way I see it is there are 2 reasons to convert, maybe 3 if you consider looks. The first, you want to go off road, a very cool goal I'll admit, but as mentioned it sets off a fucilade of mods and associated costs, unless you're better at scrounging than most. The second reason would be for seeking speed, also an extensive and costly endeavor. For me, you guy's have helped me see this, and that IF...... I want either speed or more utility (bush) I'll probably look for something already built unless my work space issue changes. We'll see, x-country needs might just require a w10 tailwind, bd4, or a cozy, a lot less work to modify. The Pacer is turning out to be a great plane, and the way I see it the instruments are the only thing I'm going to improve, and even that will keep for another 150 hours. Like Clayton says, just fly it.

[redbarron55]

If anyone wants to rebuild their own light and fast I have decided that after many many years I have decided that I am not going to get around to finishing N7011K a 1950 PA20-125 with 150 lyc, prop, sealed struts, alternator, and much more.
Wings are covered fuselage needs door SB finished and the tube between the lower longeron and rear left spar attach fitting replaced. (that is the front of the rear door.
How much??? I don't know. If you are near Mobile, AL give me a call and drop by.