pa22 vs pa18

Need some pro's and cons on a pa22 with 160hp and ak mods vs pa18 with the same, they are a lot cheaper but what are the negatives?

1. The true PA-22 is the tri-pacer. So Tricycle Gear.

2. The Stock PA-22 has much shorter wings. 29.3 ft versus 35.4 feet

3. The wing Area is 147.5 sq ft for the 22 and 178.5 for the PA-18

4. A stock PA-22 had an advertised a take-off roll of 1120 ft.
The stock PA-18-150 had an advertised take-off roll of 200 ft.

Apples and Oranges...


That being said, I have seen some heavily modified Pacers and Tri-Pacers out in the middle of no-where.

But, lots of that is the pilot and not the plane.

Assuming you are referring to a PA-20, as opposed to a 22, I'd add that they are a little more demanding of fancy footwork in a crosswind, or other landing evolutions. They are short coupled, so just a little more squirrelly than the 18. Not ugly, but they can get your attention.

They are also equipped with control wheels, compared to control sticks in the 18.

The Pacer is faster, though. They also have a much larger cabin than the 18.

Depends on whether takeoff and landing performance is one of your prime criteria, and whether the Pacer performance can meet your expectations.

MTV

There are 4 Pacers, all either tailwheel or converted to tailwheel on a popular Alaska aircraft for sale web-site.

3 of the 4 have either flipped over or had gear collapses on landings. According to the NTSB site. One aircraft has a history of two wrecks. I have seen it for sale by a couple owners.

I have flown a couple PA-22s that were converted to PA-20 type tail-draggers that were super squirrelly on the ground. Both of those had wreck historys and I wonder if they had twisted frames...

They are OK on floats if you put the ventral fin on them. Without that, they feel like you are trying to land a snow saucer...

PA22/20 VS Super Cub

Having owned a PA22/20-150 with some mods (VG's, Tires, Garmin 430,
Full modern instrument panel) I had two-thirds of a Super Cub's performance for slightly less than half the cost plus two extra seats.
My partner with 100 hr total time had no problems with it and got his instrument rating in it. I think they are great airplanes, however if money was no object and I only needed two seats, it would be a Super Cub.
Because money is an object, and I only now need two seats, a Vagabond it is.

Not a Super Cub but my PA22/20 gets the job done. I can work it out of about 500 feet with a 150 hp engine and a 55" climb prop. It can carry the family when needed or the back seat can come out and she can carry a lot of stuff. That said I would rather fly a SC for the sake of flying any day. I have a SC but it is in pieces at the moment. If you want to get the best performance out of a Pacer talk to Eddie Trimmer in Wasilla.

I like Steve Byrant's Producers (Stretched PA-20s with lots of mods).

But then you are no longer talking about the cheap end of the spectrum.

delete

I have flown the Clipper, and find it docile, with heel brakes. I looked at a PA22/20 that was being sold because the owner was afraid of it. Turns out that with full rudder, you had no brake on that side! I have seen PA18s with toe brakes with the same problem.

When you really, really need a little brake, it isn't there! Often because of mis-adjusted rudder cables, to accommodate some long-legged guy.

The PA-18 is maybe the best 2-place ever, but don't forget about the Scout, at half the price. On the other hand, when you park your money in a Cub, you can always get it back out!

Bob, I have never seen a Clipper with heel brakes. Was it a modification. My Clippers have toe brakes and you can get full rudder and full brake. My Tri-Pacer converted to a Pacer however will not. Very frustrating. I am going to throw away the Univair brake pedal that comes in their conversion and replace it with a pedal like Piper put in the Clipper and Pacer.

As usual it's horses for coarses, what is your use going to be?

A Pacer won't get out of a very short strip like a SC, a SC won't carry 4 people.

If you only put 2 people in a Pacer will work out of a short field, how longs the average bush strip in your part of the world? A light Pacer, even with a Lyc 290 and basic gear will get out of a pretty short strip. A lot of bush machines are loaded to the hilt with bells and whistles, origianlly a 235 Pacer came out with just 4 instruments, Airspeed, Tacho, altimeter, combination gauge and mag compass. That's about all you really need besides a GPS or 2.

If you do any trips further than 50 miles the Pacer has an extra 40 mph on a SC, heaps more room, you can talk to your pax alongside you.

As for brake issues, the Pacers I've flown could still get full rudder and brake, maybe it's a setup issue? For those of you that twitchy Aircraft frighten you a bit maybe you should stick with a 172 or SC. Alex, have you checked the crash history of SC's in the same area as the Pacers?

A standard light original Pacer should be a good all round performer, something that has the capability to work short (@2-300 yards with big load at sea level) go on good cross countries (3-400 mile legs),and get there the same day.

The wheel/sticks thing doesn't matter a rats arse, I find the wheel actually gives more control roll wise in strong crosswind landings, your legs don't get in the road (taller pilots notice this more). Nobody say's a Beaver's a girlie Aircraft just cause it's got wheels. The Pacer is a nice little machine to fly.

Ain't nothing like sitting front and centered with a stick between your knees like in a Super Cub. There's never been a four place or two place side by side made that is as much fun to fly as a Super Cub. If you really need a four place back country plane then a C-180 is the place to start. If two place will do the mission then a Super Cub is it. IMHO. Crash

We obviously fly a pacer and with only my son and i in it it is considered light. we can get off pretty short maybe not as short as a super cub but we can carry alot more. My son has learned to fly with our pacer and even though it is very squirrly in the long run it makes you a better pilot when you fly other planes. We would take a super cub any day but a pacer fits our budget and we like the fact that we can carry so much more.

As most of you know, my dad and I are very fond of Pacers and Cubs. That said, along with our 150 Super Cub, we own an original Tri-Pacer 150 horse and a converted 22/20 with 180 horse and various wing mods. All of our planes have 57" pitch props. The 180 Pacer was originaly bought by my dad in 1981 due to me and my brother growing out of the baggage compartment of the Cub. The Tri-Pacer was bought only for R&D purposes.
As most of you know, we own several STC's Pertaining to the Pacers. We have a Skylight, Rudder trim system, Gascolator (of course), and our newest 0-360 A1P constant speed propeller conversion. (This was done on a friends airplane and is not owned by us)
Now the Pacer is no Cub, but with the right combination of mods they can become a very capable aircraft. Our 180 horse Pacer can haul anything that you can fit in it and more, makes one hell of a camper. But there is no way it can go in and out of some of the spots the Cub can go. Now the constant speed Pacer is a whole nother ball game. Of course if we were absolutely forced to sell out our airplanes, the Pacer's would be the first to go. The Cub will only be sold after I am dead and gone, and at that I will haunt my kids if they did that.
As for the brake problem you have mentioned, that is strictly a setup problem, dad has converted about 20 pacers over the last 30 years and setting up the peddle travel is one of the most important parts of the conversion.

Brian.

Like many have said already...it's mission and budget. My old pacer, which was my first airplane, would get into pretty much any 1000' strip you could find. That was with two/three people full gas and baggage. Solo, it was a 600-700' airplane. Not a SuperCub.

Even though I had significant Super Cub time before I bought the pacer....the first five flights in the Pacer were a real wake up call. I hate to call it "twitchy" because it not that it's unpredictable. You just have to stay on top of it much more than a super cub, Maule, Citabria etc. Many Pacers have been waded up by guys with several hundred hours of TW time in longer wheel based planes. Like I said, not unpredictable, it just takes a more proactive aproach to keeping the tail behind you. Just like transitioning to a pitts.

I flew the Pacer for 200 hours and then sold it to get my current 180. Even though the pacer can be a handfull, it will give you the nice side benefit of being able to handle just about any tailwheel airplane. After my time in the Pacer, jumping into my 180 took zero transition time.

I have owned Cubs, Pacers, and 180's. I agree with Crash that the best 2-place is a Cub, and the best 4-place is a 180. But the Pacer fits its own niche real well. I had a 1950, 125 horse PA20 (narrow and short gear), and think it was one of the best all-around inexpensive airplanes flying. Lightly loaded, I could get into and out of my 1,200' farm strip, and cruise 125 mph on 6 gph. It was very quick on the rudder but, at the same time, very positive. There was none of this "stab in all of the rudder, and sit and wait to see if it's going to come back around" that you get with the Cessna. If you put in rudder (in the correct amount), By Golly! It's going to go there! I flew a friend's Clipper, and really liked the handling better. It was a little anemic with the 108/115 power plant. Bet the 150 Clipper would be the ticket!

Ruidoso Ron said:

Bet the 150 Clipper would be the ticket!

Click to expand...

The PA-20 is a fine plane
I think it is the result of a 180 and a PA-18 that mated. They produced a ugly child, but one that is loved by the pilots that have them.

it is 1/2 between a 180 and a PA-18 it will carry more than a cub and is a lot faster. It gets in to and out of strips my 185 will not get into. If I did not own a 185 and a cub I would strongly consider a PA-20 as the one plane that I would own. It it true that it will not get in as short as a cub and is nor is it as sexy as a cub or 180 but it is a fantastic all around plane that is priced right.

Jerry

I kind of stayed out of this discussion because my Pacer time is very low.

I agree with all of what has been said, but noticed that no one has mentioned the poor over-the-nose visibility of the Pacer compared to an -18.

As far as in and out of short stuff, That short Pacer wing will never fly as slow as an -18, so expect to have plenty of excess energy on roll-out.

This having been said, if you fly where it's usually windy, and straight down the strip, a Pacer will get you in and out short. Also, the cabin is something like twice the size of an -18's cabin. Oh, and they can be had cheap.

I sold my PA22/20 a couple of years ago, 160 horse with all the mods.
The Talkeetna air taxi guy hit the nail on the head. That airplane can carry a a bulky, heavy load that a cub cannot, It can work the 500 foot strips with 2 guys and some gear and the price is less than half of a good cub.
As for the "oh my gosh they are a groundloop waiting to happen crowd" I don't believe that at all. A good tailwheel pilot can handle them just fine.
I also found that I could work high wind conditions easier than with a long wing.
My old pacer is for sale by the way, the gentlemen who bought it is moving up to a cessna 180. I think it is on aeroalaska website.

I went through the last 100 NTSB reports (two years worth) for tailwheel converted PA-22s and PA-20s.

Most were landing ground loops and all pilot induced. Lots of nose-overs resulted from losing control and locking up the brakes.
So I looked at the hours of the pilots in question. There were lots of students and low time pilots. Or student pilots with a CFI on board who did not have brakes on the right side.

So heres my view.

A. The plane is a good plane in a different class than the Super Cub.

B. It is short coupled and takes a pair of happy feet to keep straight on landing.

C. Part, if not most of the bad reputation for ground looping is a result of the aircraft's best feature. A LOW PRICE...

Since it is affordable, many low time or beginner pilots are attracted to the Pacers. Those low time pilots are more likely to run into problems in any type of aircraft.

D. Four 1950s Seats does not mean four 2006 passengers and all their gear. Many of the take-off accidents (far outnumbered by landing accidents) were a classic case of overloading and taking off into the trees. This is seen with C-170s and C-172s, and it has nothing to do with the planes original design. Just pilots who are physics impaired.

Alex,

Wow. You just went through 100 NTSB reports to help out "duckhunter" (who hasn't chimed in for a week) on his question about the pros and cons of a Pacer? I have to give you the "atta boy" on that one. That's a significant chunk of time looking at a computer screen.

You got me inspired, though. I just went through the last 10 on PA-18's. Four were confirmed ground loops or noseovers. (The most recent was a 1900 hour pilot that landed runway 28with a 5 knot crosswind at 340. That's a whopping 3-4 knot component! ) One was a float plane accident which kind of eliminates it from this discussion (so we are down to 9). Another was a Cub that couldn't make it over a power line - the plane started to sink, and the pilot decided to go under it. This sounds like a Supercub is lift impaired. That's a dangerous airplane. :roll: Also note that all but one of the nine are arguably "pilot error" but we all know that is the defacto NTSB accident inquiry result.

My point is that statistics can be interpretted many ways. I do not have the time or the inclination to go through 100 reports on different makes and models but that is what you need to do if you are going to help duckhunter out and make statements like you made. I think it is pretty common knowledge that a loss of control on landing roll-out is the most common type of accident in any airplane. And, hey, if you can show me that a Pacer is more prone than most, great. But, you can't just say it is the most common accident in a Pacer because that it is universal. And you certainly can't say that its reputation for groundlooping is based on price and the kind of pilot attracted to it. That is a real stretch.

You are entitled to "your view," of course, but, seriously, just how much time do you have in a Pacer? Try it, you will like it.

For the record...with over 500 hours in one...Pacers are not hard to land. In fact, to me Cubs are harder. Heel brakes?! It is not natural to have your toes and heels trying to do the same thing at the same time. Dumb idea but, hey, we adapt.

Paul

And you certainly can't say that its reputation for groundlooping is based on price and the kind of pilot attracted to it.

Click to expand...

Yes I can.
Just my opinion based upon the number of student and low time pilots leaving perfectly good runways.
The ground-loop tendency is an undeserved reputation, as far as the aircraft itself is concerned.

I also said

The plane is a good plane in a different class than the Super Cub.

Click to expand...

Which apparently you agree with.

I sometimes get 5 thousand hour pilots for tail-wheel sign-offs. Sometimes that means 4500 in small planes and they do OK. Sometimes they have nothing but heavy iron time and they couldn't land a Cessna 172 unless it was done by an on-board computer.

There is a thread in here someplace where I break-down the Super Cub accidents for a few years back.
You are right,
Lots of leaving the runway there too. Lots of them not really a runway.

I agree that the NTSB guys seem to make sure all of their reports end on a common theme....

thanks for all of your replies. My reason for asking was that i was considering purchasing one and leaving it up north for recreation. I have a lot of tailwheel time and presently own a j-3 and 185. It costs a lot in time and money to ferry either one up and back from ms. Most outfitters can't afford to rent a bushplane out in the busy season. Do any of you know of any rentals avalaible?

Alex Clark said:

And you certainly can't say that its reputation for groundlooping is based on price and the kind of pilot attracted to it.

Click to expand...

Yes I can.
Just my opinion based upon the number of student and low time pilots leaving perfectly good runways.
The ground-loop tendency is an undeserved reputation, as far as the aircraft itself is concerned.

....

Click to expand...

The same thing could be said for the 180/185. The accidents during the landing/takeoff phase are horrendous. A member of the 180/185 club did a study on it and he came up with something a little different though. The accidents happened pretty much indipendent of experience. Lots of high time TW pilots still wadding up airplanes.

I will say from my own limited pacer experience though, about 200 hours, is that I've seen 2 of them destroyed by guys with more than 1000 hours of TW time and 5,000 hours total. Neither of them had any pacer time in their log books. Both declined a checkout.

Bill

Getting a good check out in any plane is a super idea. Pacers are cool planes for those who know how to really fly them.
My experience is mostly in float operations compared directly to flying a Cub, C-180 or something else, the same day, on the same lakes.
Usually doing BFRs. There are lakes that you just can't do with a Pacer. But they may be the same lakes that lots of Cessnas won't ever come out of either.

But they do get back home lots faster than any of my Cubs ever dreamed about going.

Heck-Fire their float approach speed is slightly faster than my cruise.
And they lift off the water about where my economy cruise speed sits..

Very interesting discussion, but one subject of interest to me was not covered- what about a 150 HP PA-20 on floats? Is it a good combination? Are EDo 1650s a decent match for a PA 20 150 HP? I am looking at a float plane for fun mostly, and while I fantsize about being a Walte-Mitty type Alaska Bush pilot, for the most part I will be flying off longer lakes around Wa., with one other guy plus camping gear and gas, I have been looking for a PA 12 but maybe I would get more use out of a PA 20. I am checking one outr right now, so the sooner the better. Thanks.

There is a Pacer on floats at Kenmore. He is on the SWPC site quite often posting some awesome pictures.

pa22 vs. pa18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very interesting discussion, but one subject of interest to me was not covered- what about a 150 HP PA-20 on floats? Is it a good combination? Are EDo 1650s a decent match for a PA 20 150 HP?

I dont know the first thing about floats but dont ya need EDO 2000's for a 2000 lb gross weight aircraft?

There was a PA-22/20 in Anchorage at one time that had 1650s field approved. I believe the legal gross on floats was reduced. I can't remember exactly.

The rule is that one float must support 90% of the planes gross weight. Or both floats 180%.

In the case of the field approved EDO 1650s (the amount one float supports), 1650 pounds would be 90% of @ 1835 pounds.


The 150 and 160 horse Pacers on EDO 2000s are good planes for medium to larger lakes. The right propeller makes all the difference in the world.

There is a local Pacer with the wrong prop on it for float operations. That thing could not pull a greased string out of a monkeys butt.