Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 70

Thread: Stretched PA20/22, Bushmaster, Javelin, etc

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    CoeurdAlene, Idaho
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Stretched PA20/22, Bushmaster, Javelin, etc

    Since I have one, I am wondering how many stretched Pacers, there are owned by members on this site? Mine started out 20 plus years ago. Blanton type of conversion. Ford V6. It was a beautiful thing, that sat 20 years, had no hours on it. Builder passed away. I flew it 140 hours on the ford. Put an 0-360 Lyc. on it this last summer. What a change. Took 250 pounds off of the nose, engine wise. Put a constant speed prop on it, so some of that went back on. Totally differant airplane. For my purposes, it works very nicely now. Would be interested in contacts from those of you who have similiar aircraft. Thanks! Ed Lowry

  2. #2
    D.A.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Left Coast
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like
    How was your strut attach/gear fitting handled? I've heard everything from replace the fitting all together to cut the vertical stiffners, heat, bend and re-weld, and I've heard of guys just heating the fitting up and bending it down with a big Cresent. All of those make me a little un-easy. If you remove the original 22/20 fitting to weld on a SC fitting, it would seem like you cause a lot of trauma to that cluster area removing the old fitting, Yes-No? Cutting the little side vertical gussets in order to heat and bend the tab down always made me a little nervous. Valid?
    Thanks for the input from all.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    50
    Post Thanks / Like
    I helped my father-in-law build one based on Blanton plans. Is now on Wipline amphibs with 200hp IO-360 Lycoming. I have seen a WHOLE moose including hide loaded inside and a measured 400' takeoff in draggy tall grass. That's not too bad. The tailpost was kept on the original HRL, by the way.

    D.A. The strut attach was cut, bent, and rewelded.

  4. #4
    D.A.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Left Coast
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like
    It would be interesting to know how many are out there. I know of: N9728D, N9190D, N6949B, N795S, N1335K, N46MT, the Dakota one (recently sold), the yellow one belonging to Don (can't remember his last name) but I think he calls it a Montana Skyote or something like that, plus there are a couple of others that I'm not sure on the N number but I think one is N24MF maybe.

  5. #5
    D.A.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Left Coast
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like
    Add one called the Tundra Boss
    Likes MoJo liked this post

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    43
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have a stretched Pacer that has been flying since 1998. I had access to a real Bushmaster before I started on the project and I was able to look at how they did the added truss section for the fuselage stretch and I copied their approach. To extend the wings, Bushmaster splices the Pacer wings, but I used new Cub spars for the wings. Basically a Cub wing is a Pacer wing with one added bay. One of the drag wires in a Pacer is also heavier as I recall and there is some reinforcement needed over the strut attach area for 2000 lbs. I used a Cub tail and made new struts. The Bushmaster has a strut system that is like a Citabria’s, but I made mine Cub-like with a heavier rear strut. The angle of the strut attach fitting on the fuselage needs to be changed. We did it by heating and bending, using a fabricated tool to grab the fitting after it was hot with guides attached to the fuselage to get the angle right. It sounds scarey but it was not bad. I believe that’s the way the Bushmaster people do it.

    I flew the plane as a Pacer for about a dozen years before I stretched it. I liked the Pacer – it is a capable, good flying, responsive plane. But it can be a handful to land. Every time I started to get cocky about landings, it would try to teach me a lesson. After the stretch, it was a different plane, also a capable and good flying but different. I lost about 10 mph in cruise and stall speed. It became a piece of cake to land.

    Mine turned out heavier than I had hoped – it weighs 1249 – I was completely shocked when they put it on the scales. The stretch also shifts weight to the tail. When set up to be weighed, the tail has about 95 lbs on it. I fly it as a two place aircraft with lots of room for stuff. Performance wise, it is more capable as a plane than I am as a pilot, and I fly it relatively conservatively. It is a 150 with a 74-52 Sensenich and 8.50s. I would need bigger tires to run a Borer prop. It has gone anywhere I have been willing to take it and meets my needs. It has been a good plane for me and I’ve never regretted the stretch.

    BobClick image for larger version. 

Name:	MA20.jpg 
Views:	338 
Size:	67.8 KB 
ID:	4594
    Thanks scotthayd thanked for this post

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    890
    Post Thanks / Like
    My two-place Bushmaster is stretched 27 inches Tripacer with Smith wings, 4130 tailfeathers squared, adding maybe 15 per cent area On 2250 floats, with 0-360 and 84/43 wonderful hunting/fishing machine. Empty weight floats 1537, feels more like 185 than SC but drops quicker into confined spaces. I wasted too much time and frustration on certified aircraft.

  8. #8
    dplunkt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    S.E. Pennsylvania
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like
    longpacer,

    How much length did you add?

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    43
    Post Thanks / Like
    I stretched it 22 inches.

    I believe the rationale of the stretch is to give tail enough leverage to offset the increased pitching moment caused by lengthening the wing. A good working model for this is the Cub of course. What I believe both of the approved stretches do, that is the Bushmaster and the Producer, is to get the distance between the trailing edge of the wing and the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer to about the same distance as on a Cub or a 12.

    Before I did my stretch, I measured that distance on a genuine Bushmaster and three Producers. No two were exactly the same, but they were close and the average was 22.1. I also measured the distance between the wing attach fittings and the stabilizer mounting bracket on Piper drawings of the PA-18 and the PA-22. The difference was 23 inches. In the end, I decided to go with 22.

    In my opinion, you don’t want to stretch it any more than necessary to get the required tail power because the stretch is moving the CG ever more aft.

    Bob

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bob

    Where did you place the Prop from the WLE? and what are your numbers for CG of the plane, and the range of CG? What size engine?

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    50
    Post Thanks / Like
    Longpacer,
    So where is your tailpost in relation to the HRL, vertically speaking? Did you keep the same relationship as the original?

    Wow, so many questions.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    43
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jim -- FWF my plane is PA-22, so the prop is where Piper put it. According to the original W&B, it is at 50" from the WLE. The empty weight CG is at 15" relative to the WLE. The aft CG is set by the builder of an experimental and I put it at 21" with a maximum weight of 2000. As points of reference, the empty CG of this plane when it was built as a tripacer was at 11" and the maximum aft CG was 22.5. A PA-14 which has a gross weight of 1850 has a maximum aft CG of 21". I wanted no surprises with the aft CG, so I set mine at 21. Flown as a two-place plane, the aft CG has never been an issue so far. It has an O-320 A2B

    aviweld -- I kept the original location. The added truss section creating the stretch went in behind the baggage compartment and just linearly extends the fuselage 22" top and bottom making no changes to anything in the tail.

    Bob
    Last edited by longpacer; 12-15-2011 at 06:48 PM.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bob,

    I think you have a great deal of good information for folks that are doing this kind of conversion. I take it your mains weighed in at 577, tail at 95. What did you do for length of wings, fuel tanks stock 36gal? flaps. can you give up some # on climb at your elevation, and performance over all with the 0320. With what you know now, would you move the engine forward?

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    43
    Post Thanks / Like
    Jim -- you are close on the weights -- they were 587 & 567

    I am in Anchorage at sea level. 7531Z climbs about 900 ft /minute at 70 mph with the engine turning about 2500+ and the plane weighing at about 1800 lbs. In cruise, I see 95 mph and run at 2350.

    The wings are typical Cub extended wings that maintain the full airfoil out to the end of the spars and then Wag Aero wing tips. I have a 102" flaps and an 85" ailerons. The flap has a single actuator located in the middle and can deflect to 40 degrees.

    Just for comparison, the one real Bushmaster I’ve inspected had 104" flaps that were made of two PA-22 flaps (each 52") connected in series with two actuating levers, one for each half. The aileron in that Bushmaster was 85". I’ve also seen a Producer with extended flaps at 102" and a 87" aileron. Since a Producer has a PA-14 wing, I suspect they were able to use a PA-12/14 STC for this mod. In the STC the flap is deflected by a single actuator and limited to 40 degrees.

    I have Atlee's 30 gal tanks, and that has turned out to be too much fuel capacity. I wouldn’t do it again. I’d either use Dakota Cub tanks or maybe stock tanks and just carry a couple of the Alaska Bushwheel bags when I needed more range.

    I would only move the engine forward if I were planning on carrying big loads in the back where I needed to worry about the aft CG. This is not how I use the plane. I like the CG where it is for my flying because it puts it pretty much right on the center of lift of the wing. The pilot, passenger and fuel are all about that same point so there is very little trimming during flight.

    Bob

  15. #15
    Airwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    D. A., and Ed,
    I can account for at least 14 of these, both certified and experimental, all in Alaska. And I have been flying N1335K since 1981. And the original "Producer" (built back in 1959) has been in service as a guides airplane for over fifty years. N907P took the shortest landing recorded at Valdez last year with a 30 foot landing. Personally I like the 0-320, 0-360 equipped airplanes, they are lighter, better balanced and better performers. In real everyday use, they will perform with equally equipped Super Cubs. And they will do things that are physically impossible for a Cub, like hauling a 55 gallon drum, or a spare engine, or four people. - Steve
    Thanks scotthayd thanked for this post

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by longpacer View Post
    Jim -- you are close on the weights -- they were 587 & 567

    The wings are typical Cub extended wings that maintain the full airfoil out to the end of the spars and then Wag Aero wing tips. I have a 102" flaps and an 85" ailerons. The flap has a single actuator located in the middle and can deflect to 40 degrees.

    Bob
    Thanks for all the information Bob.

    What is the roll rate and aileron pressures like compared with a Super Cub with ailerons that are shorter than a Cub?

    Andrew.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    43
    Post Thanks / Like
    Andrew – I can’t compare it with a Cub – it’s been years since I flew one.

    But at the time I did the conversion, I convinced myself that the aileron power should be about the same as a Cub. Going back to my old notes, here was the reasoning. My stretched Pacer has a shorter aileron but a longer lever arm. The distance from the center of the fuselage to the center of 85" aileron is about 164". Based on Wag Aero 2+2 plans, which use a typical Cub wing, I found that the lever arm from the center of the fuselage to the center of a Cub 102" aileron was about 132". If you do the math (164 x 85 vs 132 x 102) it is about a wash.

    Operationally, I feel it has enough aileron. I have VGs and this definitely is a help. But this is no Pacer when it comes to roll rate. A Pacer is a crisp, responsive plane. This is more sluggish and needs attention to the rudder to stay coordinated. The ailerons are light and take little force to move – part of the reason for this is that the Tripacer control wheel provides generous leverage for moving the ailerons .

    Bob
    Likes scotthayd liked this post

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    890
    Post Thanks / Like
    "But this is no Pacer when it comes to roll rate. A Pacer is a crisp, responsive plane. This is more sluggish and needs attention to the rudder to stay coordinated. The ailerons are light and take little force to move – part of the reason for this is that the Tripacer control wheel provides generous leverage for moving the ailerons."

    That's it, particularly attention to rudder. It's no SC, more like 185. For my missions (and operating costs) it's the cat's meow.
    Likes scotthayd liked this post

  19. #19
    skywagon8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    SE Mass
    Posts
    9,294
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by longpacer View Post
    you are close on the weights -- they were 587 & 567 Bob
    I'm curious. Are you able to account for the 20 pound difference between the wheel weights. I know it practically never happens that they are the same but, 20 lbs? Is there a bucking bar in the wing tip?
    N1PA

  20. #20
    Chuck Avon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Hohenwald Tn
    Posts
    366
    Post Thanks / Like
    can a amateur venture a guess its a side by side plane were is the battery we fly from the left side so the factory off sets some accessories to the right to off set weight of the pilot on left in a cub all on center line so even weights side by side different weights

  21. #21
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,663
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by skywagon8a View Post
    I'm curious. Are you able to account for the 20 pound difference between the wheel weights. I know it practically never happens that they are the same but, 20 lbs? Is there a bucking bar in the wing tip?
    Most of the airplanes I weigh have such a discrepancy.

    The Pacer is lacking in aileron in my opinion. I would want a longer aileron and moved to the tip if the wing is squared. The Super 20 with the slotted wing that I tested had great ailerons and I am not sure if it was because it was moved out to the end of the squared of wing or not but the test flying was in wicked winds and i never ran out of aileron like a stock Pacer. The early Pacers had a larger phenolic pulley on the end of the yoke vs. the small sprocket on the later ones. Made for quicker response.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  22. #22
    this would be a title NimpoCub's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Nimpo Lake, BC . . . AKA "the Floatplane Capital of BC"
    Posts
    3,023
    Post Thanks / Like
    Before rebuild, my heavy Gill battery (& the ~10' of heavy copper that was removed) were left of center.
    After rebuild, the (light) Odessey is centered & about under the CG, and more than half of that heavy copper is in the "junque room".

    Now, she weighs 519# left, 518# right, and 43# tail (level)... ON AERO 2000 SKIS.
    Haft'a weigh the skis, gear, cables, etc, in spring, forgot to do it when we weighed 'er.
    Flies great, although the tail is on the light side (jackscrew nearly to the bottom) but that'll be good for hauling carcasses (I mean gear)
    Nimpo Lake Logan... boonie SuperCubber
    200mi (300km) from nearest stoplight... just right! - "Que hesitatus fornicatus est"

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    486
    Post Thanks / Like

    Ailerons

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Pierce View Post

    The Pacer is lacking in aileron in my opinion. I would want a longer aileron and moved to the tip if the wing is squared. The Super 20 with the slotted wing that I tested had great ailerons and I am not sure if it was because it was moved out to the end of the squared of wing or not but the test flying was in wicked winds and i never ran out of aileron like a stock Pacer. The early Pacers had a larger phenolic pulley on the end of the yoke vs. the small sprocket on the later ones. Made for quicker response.
    Looking at the Dakota Cub document, the Super 20 aileron is about the same length as the original but is moved out quite a ways as a result of being squared off, which in turn allows for the longer flap. That is quite an improvement in lever arm.

    Did the Super 20 ailerons seem more responsive while flying around, like at cruise speed?

    The Husky seems to get away with little ailerons and large flaps. What do they fly like in this regard?

    Andrew.
    Last edited by MainlandCub; 12-18-2011 at 12:30 PM. Reason: Grammar

  24. #24
    D.A.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Left Coast
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Airwrench View Post
    ...the original "Producer" (built back in 1959) has been in service as a guides airplane for over fifty years...
    Steve, wasn't the original Producer built by your dad? The story that I heard is that your dad pioneered the whole movement of stretching pacers. Also, if I remember correctly, didn't your dad use PA14 wings? Do you still offer all the STC's to create a certified ship?
    Likes scotthayd liked this post

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    nd
    Posts
    3,214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Try searching producer or bushmaster here, i think there is some past discussions?

  26. #26
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,663
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MainlandCub View Post
    Looking at the Dakota Cub document, the Super 20 aileron is about the same length as the original but is moved out quite a ways as a result of being squared off, which in turn allows for the longer flap. That is quite an improvement in lever arm.

    Did the Super 20 ailerons seem more responsive while flying around, like at cruise speed?

    The Husky seems to get away with little ailerons and large flaps. What do they fly like in this regard?

    Andrew.
    Yes, The aileron is close to stock length and moved outboard on a stock length but squared wing. I have never noticed any deficiency in the stock wing/ailerons in flight but in a cross wind it can be a bear. I am spoiled however because I learned in a Clipper and have accumulated a lot of time in that airplane which matches a Cub aileron with the short wing and sticks. Always had plenty of control and is probably slips better than any airplane I have flown.
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  27. #27
    Airwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by D.A. View Post
    Steve, wasn't the original Producer built by your dad? The story that I heard is that your dad pioneered the whole movement of stretching pacers. Also, if I remember correctly, didn't your dad use PA14 wings? Do you still offer all the STC's to create a certified ship?
    D. A.
    Yes, you are right, my Dad (Jake Bryant, Jake's Aircraft Salvage ) built the first "Producer" and obtained an STC on it back in 1959. The original and the certified airplanes are utilizing PA-14 wings, with a few control changes. That gives them excellent aileron control which is an inherent problem with most of the knock-offs. The combination that he originally came up with is real hard to beat, and other than overlaying some other mods, basic design hasn't changed much.
    One of the things that I really like about them is the low speed handling characteristics. And what I can get inside, while still maintaining Cub type performance.
    I am still building both certified and an occasional experimental version. To date, I have 3 experimental versions and 10 certified airplanes that I have been the primary builder on. I still keep it low key, and only build to suit, not selling the STC outright. - Steve
    Likes scotthayd liked this post

  28. #28
    fisherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Central Okanagan near Kelowna CLYW
    Posts
    3
    Post Thanks / Like
    I have flown a Super Pacer for 20 years. It is stretched 2 ft in the fuselage and has a wing span of 37 ft. The original STC number SA819SW was issued on August 18, 1967 as a multipal approval on PA 22-150, PA 22-160, and PA 22S-160, on Edo 89-2000 floats or wheels and was designated the Super Pacer. The designers of the Super Pacer went a completely different root than the Producer and designed a new wing useing 19 ribs, spliced spars and all PA 22 parts except for the wing strut attachement and jury strut attachments which are PA 18. They also redesigned a new wing strut system that uses a 4 in. front and rear strut blank. The front strut is bolted solid to the fuselage strut attachment and the rear strut is attached to the front strut by way of a fork end so the wash out can be adjusted. Later more STCs were issued for 0-360 engine [180 hp], Gross increase to 2100 lbs, Edo 2440 or PK 2300 floats and 2-30 gallon tanks. My airplane has the optional PA 18 size ailerons [102 ins.] which are moved to the end of the wings, 0-360 engine, PK2300 floats, Long Range Tanks and MT Propeller. The MTV-15-B/210-58 [83 ins] propeller, was installed in accordance with STC SA02846CH [Svenns Aviation LLC.]. My airplane weighs in at 1381 on the PK 2300 floats and I have never had it on wheels but I would expect it to weigh around 1180 lbs. on wheels. I like my airplane so much that I am building another one just like it so I have an airplane to fly when I take apart the one I am flying now for rebuild. The numbers are Stall 40 miles per hr.,Wing Span 37 ft., Gross Weight 2100lbs., Wing Area 193.75 sq. ft., Wing Loading 10.84 lbs.per sq. ft. and Power Loading 11.67 lbs. per HP. There are 15 Super Pacers and about the same amount of Homebuilts that I know of. Would not trade it for anything!
    Regards Colin.
    Likes scotthayd liked this post

  29. #29
    Airwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Colin, No offense intended, I think that Milo DeAngeles and Jim Simpson built a very good airplane. Yes, they are very similar. What is less known is that they designed and built their airplane following a hunting trip in Alaska where they were transported into the backcountry in the original "Producer". Did they copy it? No, but I believe that they thought it to be a good idea, and developed on that. They also managed to get the multiple STC long before we acquired our multiple STC. Getting a project through the approval process is no easy task. They also allowed others to build these type of airplanes by selling the paperwork for the STC, which I do not. This equates to a lot more Bushmasters out in the field. Having worked on several of them, over the years, I am familiar with them also. Each of us has or uses a particular airplane that suits our particular needs, some have a lot of similarities, some don't. Like you, I like my airplane. - Steve

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    890
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's good to hear of Bushmaster/Producer provenance. When I heard of the Bushmaster in the 90s, my phone calls were to a builder in Calgary who referred me to a couple sources in Alaska (one with a name like Hegenfeller) and I finished with DiAngeles and the late BC painter/pilot Tony Onley who wrote a glowing report in a flying magazine.

  31. #31
    fisherman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Central Okanagan near Kelowna CLYW
    Posts
    3
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi Steve [Airwrench],No offence taken, I did not know about the hunting trip to Alaska, but I can understand why someone after flying in it, would want an airplane that performs just like the "Producer". I think it is a cedit to you and your dad to be able to design and build an airplane that can compete with the best of them and win at Valdeze. The airplanes are very similar in performance, but because I can buy the STC's and I like to build my own airplanes, I have gone the "Super Pacer" root. I have never actually seen the "Producer", other than pictures, but hope to someday get back to Alaska so I can actually compare the "Producer" to the "Super Pacer".
    Regards Colin.

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    outside Fairbanks Alaska
    Posts
    1
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hello all I am a new member and am building a experimental pacer. I am wodering if any of you have any info on switching over to Pa 18 gear. I have new fittings to put on i am just looking for some good ideas on how to widen the v cabane.

  33. #33
    Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Graham, TX
    Posts
    18,663
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here is a thread on Charlie Aileron's Experimental Clipper where he is installing Super Cub gear. What people do not think about is the different way the landing gear loads are imposed on a Pacer, Husky, PA12 vs the cub series. I have tried to depict it in this thread. http://www.shortwingpipers.org/forum...hlight=Clipper
    Steve Pierce

    Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.
    Will Rogers

  34. #34

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like
    Your in Coeur D'Alene, Do you know Bob down in Tekoa? He has a beautiful Stretched Pacer that won Grand Champion Plans Built at Arlington in 2009.
    David Moore

  35. #35
    rtones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington/Alaska
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm looking at an airplane for sale that's advertised as a bushmaster. It's experimental. It started life as a PA-20, was completely taken apart, stretched, had a custom wing built thats longer with an aluminum reinforced spar, with a larger chord and leading edge cuff. On top of other things that were done it has an IO-540 pulling it along. It's a nice looking airplane. If anyone is still out there on this thread I'm curious what your thoughts would be. Any "hot spots" people run into when building these stretch pacers that I should watch for?

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    16
    Post Thanks / Like
    I would be looking at the engineering for the bigger engine, although Pug Piper did put a 0540 on a Pacer once just to scare the hell out of some buyers. That’s a lot of weight to be bouncing off airport landings, how about fuel capacity 25gph. And what does you WB look like after 2hours and 400lbs burn off.

  37. #37
    rtones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington/Alaska
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks for the advice!

    The aircraft belongs to a well known and respected DPE in the area and he built it about 14 years ago so I trust his numbers and performance quotes. It carries 50 gal of fuel and at 22" x 2200 rpm at 5,000-6,000 he gets 12 gph. Granted it will suck 25gph on takeoff, but that's only going to last maybe 5 min before pulling it back to more economical numbers. I will definitely take a good look at the W/B numbers. While I was looking at the plane he told me it's well balanced. You can tell he loves it and the only reason he's parting with it is because of his age. He said he used to fly it every week. We're going to fly it next week so I can see it for myself. It is definitely heavy coming in at 1380ish# empty, but he has the MGW set at 2350#. He told me he's never concerned himself with the W/B because if it fit in the plane, it would fly. I guess someone asked him a couple of years ago "Why did you put that big engine on the front of that thing!?" and his answer was "Well... at 3:00 o'clock this afternoon when I want to leave, I can get in my plane and go..." We're over here with idaho on our back door, so operations up at 7 - 8k density altitude aren't unusual. He said he has been running ethanol free premium auto gas for years with no problems. Saves a couple dollars at the pump. Haven't made up my mind, but it sure is a pretty looking airplane that jumps off the ground. I'll see how I feel next week after flying it before really digging into the numbers.

    I'm new to the field of a/c ownership and it just caught my eye with stellar performance (TO/LNDG in 150'), IFR certified, 4 seats, almost new condition, always hangared. He's asking 80K. Seemed reasonable from what I've seen. I don't know if I'm being blinded by how pretty it is, or if it's a reasonable deal. Should I be scared about it being experimental and investing in it? I've heard it can be hard to get rid of them if you need to liquidate assets. Trying to take my time and do the research.

    Thanks for any concerns or advice you might have! I don't have much in the way of experience with experimental a/c. Plenty of time flying, not a whole lot of time in the a/c buying/selling game.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    17
    Post Thanks / Like
    As I said in a previous thread, A friend of mine has built a stretched Pacer with a O-360 and it performs a lot like a Super Cub. Plus it carries 4 people. The Bush Master I believe you are referring to, with the 540 was last seen on ebay for sale.
    David Moore

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    CoeurdAlene, Idaho
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hi; I have a Bushmaster. Did not build it, but was around helping a bit, at the time it came together. Owner, and builder passed away, after it sat unused for the better part of 20 years. He built two of them, and essentially did not fly either of them enough to work out the bugs, or learn the capabilities. Both aircraft were sold, after the builders passing. Mine was done, at a time that Milo DeAngeles(?spelling) in B.C. Canada, was a source of info, parts, and was comrade of the builder. This part of Idaho, is not far from B.C. Thus it was known originally as a Canadian Bushmaster. Mine has cub airfoil, new one piece, full length spars, with wings one bay longer on each side, than the longer wing Super Cubs. Both the flaps, and ailerons are of similiar lenth, that being roughly 90 some inches each. The second aircraft he built, was done with D and E wings, so I have a little knowledge of both. My Bushmaster, started life, with a ford 3.8L V6, liquid cooled on it. It was kind of a nose heavy pig equiped with that engine. I flew it 140 hours that way. Subsequently, I put an 0-360 Lyc, with constant speed prop, on it and it acts a little more like a Super Cub now, but is a heavier, like 200 pounds. It does not stall quite as slow, nor take off quite as short. There are a number of these " types" around, with variations of engines, and differences in fuselage lengthening processes. Dave Blanton instructed a different process for the Ford-Javelin, which I believe resulted in tail feathers being in the same plane on the lengthened version, as they were on the PA20, or 22. Some of the guys are moving the horizontal surfaces, such that they mimic the Supercub tail positioning geometry which as I have flown the different versions, it strikes me as the way to do it. The one significant difference in these conversions, in my opinion, is the difference in the wing Angle of Incidence, compared to the Supercub. This difference, if not modified from the original 20 and 22 fuselages, results in an aircraft that is faster in cruse, and with a bit less performance in take off and landing as compared to the cub. It would be hard to assess a specific airframe modificaton without measuring it very carfully, and flying it. The differing weights and power plants, have produced aircraft that appear to have significantly different characteristics. Experimental it is called apparently for good reason. I doubt that any two are going to fly the same, other than possibly those done by one person, and exactly to consistent STC specifications. It is my opinion, that with guys all over everywhere, whacking off fuselage, and then lenthening them between 18 and 36 inches, and welding back together, has produced some significant differences in performance characteristics. As an aside, I have always wanted to assemble another fuselage, with a few improvements, and hang an 0-540 on it. I might do it, and suspect that when finished, I would wonder why, because I suspect that the lessons learned, would be the added weight, hanging off the front of a fuselage originally built for 0-235 thru 0-320's and what a person would have to do to get it in balance, would reduce performance in most situations, that the gains of additional power, would more than likely be mostly offset by more weight, and fuel consumption. If it was cheap and easy, I'd really like to try it, and think probably when it was compared to the Lyc.0-360 version I have now, the results would be mostly disappointment. Lighter, with more power, would be ideal. Usually the two, don't go together. I know this will sound stupid, but I am convinced that in cruise, the Bushmaster, with the large engine, would go too fast for comfort. Those big wings, really beat you up, in even light turbulence, when you get going 125 to 140mph. I run my 0-360, throttled way back, to keep it around 115. Who ever heard of an airplane that goes too fast? Is that possible? Sure is for me. A lot of opinions, not much factually useful.

  40. #40
    rtones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Washington/Alaska
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hey I really appreciate the input! Thanks for your 2 cents. It will definitely go into the list of pros vs cons. I'm looking forward to a demo flight. I'll post back my findings.

Similar Threads

  1. PA22 V6 STOL Javelin Bushmaster
    By storm in forum Experimental Cubs
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 11-20-2014, 07:08 PM
  2. Thrustline Mod - PA20 Pacer
    By avcan in forum Everything Else (formerly:My Other Plane Is A....)
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-09-2007, 11:49 AM
  3. PA18 gear on PA20
    By 750XL in forum Cafe Supercub
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-05-2005, 07:03 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •