Intro, Question -- 170 vs. Pacer

[swfraley]

Hi, all. Nice site, etc.

I imagine this comes up often, but I can't find much here using the search function -- Surely I'm not the only one here who considered a Pacer while looking at 170's. Pacers certainly are cheaper in TAP, and are reputed to be a bit faster and carry a bit more. They're also smaller and fall out of the sky when the power comes back. They also need to be recovered periodically, but not necessarily in my lifetime. That's all I've heard.

Oh, and they have those shakey, 4-cy Lycomings.

Any thoughts?

[cessna170bdriver]

Stuart,

The all metal 170 A and B models are probably more durable in the short term than either the ragwing 170 or Pacer if you have leave it out in the weather. You will have to keep an eye on internal corrosion in 170's, as they left the factory with out corrosion protection, other than the Alclad skins. The advantage to a Pacer in this department is that you can almost build a new one from a data plate. That said, there are still a lot of servicible 170 parts out there.

I think the load-carring ability of Pacers and 170s is comparable, but it's my impression that there's a lot more room in a 170.

Purchase price may be higher for the 170, but if you buy a decent one, with normal maintenance, and refrain from abuse and neglect, you'll never do worse than break-even on resale. My B-model is worth between 4 and 5 times what I paid for it in 1982. One member here claims that he doesn't even count the cost of engine overhaul in his operating costs, as that is covered by appreciation of the airframe. (George, I still haven't figured out how that works without selling your airplane to do the overhaul )

I don't know about type-club support in the short-wing Piper arena, but I daresay you'll have a hard time beating the technical support and camaraderie on this forum, and in the International Cessna 170 Association in general. Depending on where you live, there are quite a few local and several regional fly-ins, and we have members whose life goal seems to be to expand those types of activities. Also, we hold a week-long family-oriented convention in a new and exciting location each summer. The 2006 convention is scheduled for Kelowna, British Columbia, and for 2007 it's Galvestion, TX.

There have been several new owners of various 170 models to pop up on this forum lately, and I'm sure they can offer additional encouragement!

Miles

[N2865C]

The pacer is a great airplane that performs similarly to the 170 depending on the engine installed. They seem to run about 8-10 grand less than 170's in the same condition. That extra money for a 170 buys you more roominess and comfort, outstanding visibility, more stable ground handling and that smoother running 0-300. The short wing Piper club seems like it's pretty good from looking at their web site. I seriously looked at Pacers before I bought my 170. Deciding factor...... My wife liked the 170 better and she is good enough to let me spend ridiculous amounts of money on airplanes!

[3958v]

I own a ragwing 170 and my buddy has a Pacer which I have flown over 100 hrs as PIC The Pacer is a fine airplane for local flying it is very manuverable and flies at virtually the same speed has simlar load carrying capacity all on a little less fuel. The 170 has better visability, is more gentle in handling characteristics and is a much more comfortable airplane particularly on long cross country flights. If your not in a big hurry there is not a better old plane to cruise long distances in than a 170. Pacers are much harder to get in and out of than the 170. The other feature of the 170 that is far superior to the Pacer is the operation of the trim. The 170 trim is very crisp and never slips. The Pacer trim is a window crank on the top of the cabin cieling which I always seem to turn the wrong way.I very much enjoy flying both airplanes and have had a lot of fun in both. Bill K

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

I would have bought a Pacer instead of my 170 if it weren't for the following things.

1. Being a fabric covered airplane most people think you need to keep it in a hanger. I would be keeping it outside. I didn't want to deal with people telling me I'd show up one day at the airport to fine a pile of rust where my Pacer once was. I also figured that the Pacer I would have bought is know keeped in a hanger and will be preserved forever.

2. The Cessna has doors on both sides. I know the Pacer does as well but the doors are both in the front on the Cessna.

3. I found a 170 in my price range before I found a Pacer I couldn't pass up.

I'm very happy with my 170. I probably would have been very happy with a Pacer had I found one first.

[CraigH]

I owned a TriPacer (150hp) and enjoyed it very much. Definitely not a glider like the Cessna, but that can be used to your advantage when coming in short over obstacles.

A comparable condition pacer will run you $10K (or more) less than a comparable 170A/B. That being said, the 170 is a MUCH more comfortable cross country airplane. Way more interior room and easier to get in/out of. http://www.shortwing.org is the home of the Short Wing Piper Club. Plenty of info available there. I don't think you can go wrong with either plane, but if you can afford the extra $$$ I think you'd be happier with the 170 in the long run. I am.

[blueldr]

My Pacer friends are good guys, but they have a tendency tp chase cars and howl at the moon.

[johneeb]

My Pacer friends are good guys, but they have a tendency tp chase cars and howl at the moon.

Sounds like a fun group, is it open to just anyone or do I have to buy a Pacer to join

[tshort]

Stuart-

Just noticed you're in Indy. I just bought a ragwing 170 within the last month. It will be at KUMP after I get signed off - it is in Marion (MZZ) now while I fly off my 10 hours of dual and get my tailwheel signoff. Don't know much about Pacers .. a buddy has a shortwing piper taildragger that is a 4 seater (excuse the ignorance ... is the pacer the only 4 seat piper TW? for some reason I thought his wasn't a pacer. Could be wrong...) and he would be more than happy to show it to you.
Let me know if I can help.

[CraigH]

Stuart-

.. a buddy has a shortwing piper taildragger that is a 4 seater (excuse the ignorance ... is the pacer the only 4 seat piper TW? for some reason I thought his wasn't a pacer.

Possibly a Clipper. Or, if he bought a really rare bird it could be a Family Cruiser.

[swfraley]

Tom,

I'll take you up on that. UMP is about 5 miles from my house.

Could you pm or email me a name and number for your friend with the Short Wing? I'd also like to talk to you about where you got your airplane, prepurchase, etc.

Y'all have been helpful. I'd forgotten about the doors. One reason I'm looking to trade up is the difficulty people have getting into the J-3.

[Kyle Wolfe]

I don't have a lot of experience in various short wing Pipers, but I'm just over 6 foot tall. I've always bumped my head on the cabin ceiling in every Piper I've been in. May just be the seats, but check that out. Not pleasant when in turbulence.

[flyguy]

In 1967 we bought our first 4 place plane, a 1949 Tri-pacer. I was a newbie to family flying and didn't know too much about fabric vs. metal, having been in a "Club" that only had a fabric covered plane. The "Club" was 6 guys chipping in $250.00 each and buying a BC12D TaylorCraft. We never went more than 50 miles from home base and with non-electric panel all flying was in daylight hours. '67 saw "Sugar" and I buying into a partnership with another family and bringing home a 1949 TriPacer out of Manhatten, KS. Our partner family was also "four" bodies so we filled the seats every time either family went anywhere. The '49 had only three doors, left and right front and right rear. It was difficult to enter and exit but once seated the shoulder room was almost OK. It only had the 125HP Lyke and most certainly wans't any speed demon! We flew the heck out of Old '97A.

Things were just peachy till I got acquainted with a crazy 170 guy, parked beside us at the old Noah's Ark airport west of KCI. He took me for a ride in his 170 and shortly after that we started a search for a 170 of our own. Several years and a couple different planes in between we finally found our 170B. The day we went to pick it up, we flew to it's home base in our current family plane, a 1960 TriPacer with the venerable Lycoming 150HP and the wide cabin. I thought we had made a mistake during the next several weeks when I learned that the Tri-Pooper would take off shorter, climb quicker and cruise faster than our "new" '52 170!

I had owned a '50 Pacer in between also and except for the limited horse power and small cabin, enjoyed the Little Bird a lot. Would I go back? Maybe!! I became a "Tail-Wheel junkie and had told "Sugar" the only way I would keep that '60 model TriPacer was if I could transform it into a PA20/22 tail-wheel plane. "Sugar" advised me in no uncertain terms, that plane better have all the wheels in the same location or "you" will find a "new" location! Well we eventually sold it and guess what? The new owner did what I would have liked to do - - made it into a PA20/22! There are limitations to a PA20's performance and drawbacks to owning any fabric covered airplane but $/$ the Tri Pacer/Pacer offeres lots of bang for the buck.

There is a mod that lets you put another door in the left side so rear seat pax don't have to slide all the way across. There is an upgrade to make the 150HP into a 160HP and a conversion to individual wheel brakes which makes steering much better when you go to the tail-wheel config.

If you do choose to own a "pooper" you will have fun.

[GAHorn]

The only Tri-Pacer I've ever flown would only climb to 7500' and then it'd level off and stay there no matter what you did. You could spend the next 30 minutes trying to climb but it simply wouldn't. It was the strangest airplane I ever flew. (Even after I finally got used to the goofy location of the master switch!)

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

You can also put a 180 in a Pacer with an STC and like the 170 really boost the performance.