• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

170b/pacer/sedan

strangeak

Registered User
Wasilla, AK
Looking at planes... I had an arctictern...never felt overly co portable in a tail wheel even though its suppose to be an easy one (a bit of squealing and smoke a few times).

It's been 7 years since I sold it to move...

I am in a position to look at a few planes to replace it... I've found a few Pacers (some really well equipped, some with skins and floats, 3 sedans I might be able to afford, some with floats and some stock without (Lower priced) and a few fairly stock 170bs..

I know the Pacers have a rep for a handful on the ground...

The sedan and pacer seem to have to useful load edge...the 170 Bd sedan the ground handling edge..

The 170 and sedans a bit more cost up front.

Given that I am going to get a thorough check out/biannual prior to flying....which would you choose and why?
 
Buy whatever best suits your mission and learn to fly it well- don’t let rumors and hearsay influence your decision. I’d buy a Gee Bee racer if it was the best for my mission...
 
Looking at planes... I had an arctic tern...never felt overly comfortable in a tail wheel even though its suppose to be an easy one (a bit of squealing and smoke a few times).
Solve this issue first before you start looking at tail wheel airplanes. They can all be a handful if the pilot doesn't "get it". All three of those planes require the pilot to be able to handle tail wheels.

Isn't there a fellow up Talkeetna way who teaches in Pacers? Of the three that you mentioned, that would be the one which needs the most attention. Go see him first.
 
Pete beat me to it- get yourself sorted out in tailwheel before you consider the above planes.

In all honesty, stock in any of the three are very limited in other than airport use. Light they are just fine, but add more than two people and you really start needing some space to get them airborne. A B model 170 with a flat prop is amazing when light and a flat prop, but makes the Tern look like a racer in speed.

Sedans with 180 hp are incredible for those that have learned to fly them, but that is an expensive upgrade.

Pacers with the 150 hp will do well, but again, need to be light to perform well.

If going off airport, it is not the useful load, but performance loads you need to look at. None will do what the Tern did.

All that said- what is the mission? How will it be used, and how much stuff/people are you moving normally?
 
Pacer's are not a handfull at all if gear is properly setup. We have 2 pa22/20's 160hp that are very docile on the ground thru all transition to flight. Just picked up a 170B last week in Tennessee and flew her 40 hrs. back to AK. very lethargic with the 0300D and a cruise prop. Ground handling / tailwheel steering is not as good as the pacer.

Shiny
Shortwing n spamcan driver
 
First off I know little about the Sedan but have been told by those that have owned them that they are a great airplane. Alittle experience with 170s both flying and working. Lots of experience with Pacers which in my opinion are the best bang for the buck. The perform well, are moderately priced and parts are readily available. That being said they are more demanding than a Tern.
 
First off I know little about the Sedan but have been told by those that have owned them that they are a great airplane. Alittle experience with 170s both flying and working. Lots of experience with Pacers which in my opinion are the best bang for the buck. The perform well, are moderately priced and parts are readily available. That being said they are more demanding than a Tern.

What Steve said. Pacer is clearly the most bang for the buck! 170 is nice but lethargic. Not necessary better in crosswind either.
 
As Pete said, figure out your "tailwheel thing" before you buy anything. If you just never fly the plane enough to get comfortable in it, you'll never really use and enjoy it. If you're willing and able to commit to flying the thing, then get a thorough tailwheel check out, and THEN decide what airplane would be best. It may well be that a 172 would be best for you.

Also as others have suggested, what do you intend to do with this plane? Airport to airport? Gravel bars and beaches? Or ????? That's the single biggest question. You can learn to fly a tailwheel airplane IF you put in the time and effort, and STAY tuned up.

But, if you buy an airplane that won't do what you want to do....

MTV
 
The other thing to consider is how is your IA. A good one can be hard to find and they are all busy. Lots of good deals can turn into 2 year projects/money pits. Find the IA before you start looking for a plane and have him/her approve of the relationship before you fall in love.
DENNY
 
MTV beat me too it! If you are having that much trouble with the TW aircraft stick to a trike. Put bigger tires on the trike and go have a ball without your worries of screwing up a good plane. I've had my 172 for 32+ years and had it a lot of places. Nothing wrong with a trike if flown to it's limits. During these years of owning the 172, I have had a couple other planes that were TW. Actually still have an S-7 short tail which is a little on the squirrelly side when the winds get nasty. On those real bad days I take the trike and it sure makes landing/Takeoffs less demanding. Go get a trike, fly the snot out of it until you get comfortable in less than perfect conditions, then move to the TW. JM2C
 
The tail wheel tune up getting fixed is a given.. I was thinking Don Lee just north of me for that


The mission is 2 people usually..an occasional 3rd. Playing up in knik, sand bars for a bit of fishing, beaches for claming..always wanted to go to serpentine hotsprings.. general exploring alaska..
 
Given those choices? I'd favor the 170B. I've seen some impressive performance even with an 0-300. But I'm biased. I like Cessnas. I like Cessna flaps. I like metal plane durability for parking outside.
 
Given those choices? I'd favor the 170B. I've seen some impressive performance even with an 0-300. But I'm biased. I like Cessnas. I like Cessna flaps. I like metal plane durability for parking outside.

I love my shortwing pacers, but I have now been a converted fan to the 170B , yes the o300D is lethargic with cruise prop but if you put the 1A175SFC8040 oh her and 26" tires, BBwheel tailwheel , she climbs like a homesick angel and will get you onto and off again on beaches and off airport places. I LOVE THE FLAPS. I will be home in 2 weeks if you want to come down to KENAI and fly a pa22/20 and a 170B. Just pm me if you are interested.

Shiny
Shortwing and Spamcan driver
 
I love the 180. I would not have a 170, B or otherwise.

Don Lee convinced me that a 160 Pacer is actually a good aircraft. His would do anything we asked it to do. But I have an aversion to steering wheels, so maybe a 160 Clipper?

I think the Pacer gets an undeserved reputation due to toe brakes on the conversions. Right when you really need a touch on the brake the rudder pedal is up against the firewall.
 
I love my shortwing pacers, but I have now been a converted fan to the 170B , yes the o300D is lethargic with cruise prop but if you put the 1A175SFC8040 oh her and 26" tires, BBwheel tailwheel , she climbs like a homesick angel and will get you onto and off again on beaches and off airport places. I LOVE THE FLAPS. I will be home in 2 weeks if you want to come down to KENAI and fly a pa22/20 and a 170B. Just pm me if you are interested.

Shiny
Shortwing and Spamcan driver

Strange, that's a pretty sweet offer. Go find out which one you prefer. What an opportunity!

I can probably get you a ride in a Sedan but it'd be on floats. Interesting airplane on tires or skis. You'll learn to be an aggressive slipper if you go with a Sedan. No flaps, no flap mods.
 
Last edited:
I'm no help but having tailwheels all my flying life, and current owner of 0360 Bushmaster, if I were to try another brand it would be 0360 Aeronca Sedan in experimental category, from what I've heard and read.
 
I'm no help but having tailwheels all my flying life, and current owner of 0360 Bushmaster, if I were to try another brand it would be 0360 Aeronca Sedan in experimental category, from what I've heard and read.

Why experimental? What experimental category?
 
Don't underestimate the capabilities or a 180hp 172 or 182 with a big nose wheel fork. If you have any doubts just look at some of the videos MotoDave posts. I would think a big tire trike would have no problem at Poly Creek or many places in Alaska. You would enjoy your flying more and be more relaxed while out exploring. Also consider, trikes are much cheaper to insure if you insure your airplane. Just my opinion.

Kurt
 
That is a great offer... I'll see if I can swing a trip down that way and let you know.

Went to the talkeetna gross weight stol competition. No Pacers. A lot of 170s both 180hp and 145. that Bush air guy can really work that plane.
 
G44, I'm musing on Sedan experimental; I couldn't go back to anything certified. Maybe Owner Maintenance; there must be a way! (I believe in miracles and magic.)
 
When I was looking a year ago I ended up settling on a Pacer, because you can get one with most of the desirable mods for 7-10k less than than a similar 170. Performance will be similar, fabric is easy to repair, and useful loads leans toward Pacers. Also O-320s have much better support.
 
The STOL contests are fun to watch, however, real off airport landing is not the same due to the increased risk of landing short/long. Similar, if you multiply the distance X 2 or more. Lots of planes will do well off airport, they just don't compete well in a STOL event to a striped down big wing/big power plane.
DENNY
 
I forgot about the Stinson. We had a dash 5 that would out-lift a C-180, and go practically straight up. It was a beautiful thing, and the back seat was the most comfortable sitting place ever designed by humans. The last thing I did with it was an aileron roll - it was really quick!

But it was slow, and ate gas. The Lyc 180 conversion might be a better choice.

A good Clipper might cost $25 grand. With a decent engine and radios, it is a very nice traveling machine.
 
Don't discount the Cessna 175. Even some skilled and notorious aviators have considered them a worthy steed. Cool factor is still high enough up the scale that the chicks line up for rides; despite the pilots white legs coupled with a Hawaiian shirt.

20180712_104029_resized.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20180712_104029_resized.jpg
    20180712_104029_resized.jpg
    217 KB · Views: 1,558
Back
Top