Club Homepage Forums Classified Ads Buy & Sell - Everything But Airplanes Four place for $11,500

Poobs,

Did you ever fly the predecessor to the Pacer, the Clipper? I only did so one time, with two people, nothing in back. I liked that it had sticks rather than wheels and was suitably impressed with the way it handled. Modest performance, but that was the idea at the time, keep it as cheap as possible. From what I could tell it was Piper's foray into the market for the couples who had bought its two-place airplanes and now had a little kid or two and needed more space on a budget.

Wonder if anyone here has memories of going over the river and over the woods to Grandma's house in a Clipper or Pacer in the '50s.

Best regards,
Rick

Never did anything with the Clipper. I did ride twice in a Vagabond. (We used to call it the Bag-a-bones). That was my first taildragger ride.

Poobs,

Got a good laugh for the name for the Vagabond - very low end airplane as company was darn nearly broke. As I recall it didn't even have shocks.

Best regards,
Rick

The name I heard for the Vagabond from someone who flew a long cross country in one was "Vagabondage."

My CFI, Chuck, had a Tri-Pacer when I first met him and I flew with him in it a few times. At the time, I was learning in a 152 and he let me try a few touch and goes in the Tri-Pacer one day. Pull the power in a Tri-Pacer and it goes down, now!

Later, Chuck bought a basket case Tri-Pacer and rebuilt it, converting it to a 180HP Pacer. That was a nice plane to fly. He said it could be a handful on the ground because it was short coupled.

Just curious, how much time do you have in short wing Pipers?

Dave,

I always liked the short wing Pipers a lot. While they will descend nicely, they also climb quite nicely. The Pacer/Tripacer series were fast for their power, although the cabin was, shall we say compact. Handling was straightforward and honest. Haven't flown a Pacer, but the Clipper, its predecessor, was a true delight and very honest on the ground.

My brother owned a Colt. Amazing airplane, more space inside than a 150 and outperformed it on roughly the same horsepower while having more endurance. His was rigged so that if you got the wheel all the way back to the stop in the flare you would almost invariably just roll it on. Sometimes I wished it had flaps, as despite the reputation for sink rates on short wing Pipers, the 150 would approach more steeply with full flaps. It was a great little airplane until the day it was holding short for takeoff at Des Moines and a DC-10 blew it over and turned it into twisted Colt remains.

Best regards,
Rick

Medford is a Pacer haven, so I'm pretty familiar with them. They're GREAT airplanes. Period. Not perfect, but I've yet to find an airplane that is. They all have their strengths and weaknesses.

Nuttin' wrong with short wing Pipers. When a pilot has a problem getting an airplane to do what he/she wants...it's usually a piloting problem not an airplane problem.

I'm building a replica of the Vagabond (Wagareo plans). How it came to be is quite a story. The Piper firm took bandruptcy. Their bank sent a guy to the factory who moved into old man Piper's office, though the Piper family stayed on. The bank guy knew nothing about airplanes. He was taken around the factory and told about this & that pile of Cub parts.

"I want a plane with side by side seating that uses up all these damned parts. Thirty days." he said. Two Piper sons set about designing the Vag and had it done in about 30 days. The ailerons use about 2/3's of the wing because the Vag/Clipper wing is shorter than the Cub. The Vag P 15, then the Clipper P 16, then the improved Vag P 17, saved the company.

A few years ago there was a story in the Short Wing Piper Mag by a retired guy about his round trip from the States to Alaska. He and another old buddy loaded up a P 15 (little Franklin 60 HP), including camping gear. "Worked great, had a great time," I remember he wrote.

The P 17 adding duel controls and shock struts. But, people have commented that the P 15 w/o the shocks works just fine.

Well my Tripacer which has the Lycoming 150 sure wouldn't have problems taking 4 regular guys. As for the famous quote "they glide like a rock" isn't as bad as people are making it to be. They do sink more but not as bad as one thinks. Usually people that don't have much time or any, intend to knock down the old bird without really knowing the true facts first hand. Only thing I don't care for the tripacer is because its short coupled you will notice getting thrown around more on a turbulent day. Otherwise what are plane can you bye for 11k that get you flying

The problem with the sink rate on Tri-Pacers/Pacers is that it is different if all you are used to is Cessnas. In the big scheme of things, it's really not all that bad. My experience as a student landing the Tri-Pacer vs. the 152 didn't scare me away from Chuck's Tri-Pacer and later his Pacer. I never learned to land the Pacer but did get a few hours at the controls.

No plane is perfect, they all have their quirks. Flying and enjoying them is mostly a matter of learning the quirks and adapting to them. I would rate the Pacer and Tri-Pacer just as much fun to fly as a 172, which is to say, not quite as much fun as a 150/150.