Backcountry Pilot

[Tadpole offline]

Anyone here that can tell me how these two compare to each other for performance? I hear that the 150hp Pacer will outperform the 165hp Stinson.

[mountainmatt offline]

First off, I have neither flown a 165HC Stinson, nor a 150hp Pacer, so I'm not sure how much help this would be.

The believe the Pacer would be faster in cruise and cheaper overall to own (but neither plane will be "cheap" to own). Parts are more available and fuel consumption would be around 8gph instead of about 10gph. The 150 Pacer would most likely be better in higher D/A situations because it has lower overall empty weight. I haven't heard great things about the flight characteristics of a Pacer. But I haven't flown one so it's not fair for me to comment on that. Also the door thing would bug me, but I guess I would get use to it over some time.

The Stinson would be more of a joy to fly (it was the Caddy of its time). The extra wing will lower cruise speed, but it should have better short field performance.(???) It a has a little more room in the cabin/baggage area. It is about as stable as they come flying. The gear on the Stinson make a tailwheel low - wheel landing easy. Range is about the same on both. Parts take a little longer/cost more, but with Univair in the area, the only thing you'll have a hard time finding is a crank. A better looking plane too IMO.

I guess all depends on your mission and budget. Try taking rides in both and I think one will present itself. Also, if you want a Pacer, get a Pacer (same goes with Stinson). As long as you get a good clean plane, you'll be happy with what's in the hanger.

I bet Terry would have some good advice.

[Tadpole offline]

Thanks Matt. I like both and want both, so that doesn't help! They seem to run around the same when it comes to purchase price, and the difference in operating cost doesn't seem to be a whole lot. From the book numbers the Stinson does better at being short, but slower in cruise, like you said due to the wing. I love your Stinson, absolutely.

My overall thoughts between the two are this... I think the Stinson is more attractive, I love the left door already there, and I've been told it would be better for my low time skill. I like that the Pacer has a million mods you can do to it for the backcountry, like the left door, it's a bit cheaper on the fuel bill, and engine parts are easier to find. It too looks good, but not as good as the Stinson.

I've been told by one person that the 165hp Stinson just wouldn't cut it up here in Colorado, but that the 150hp Pacer would. Just doesn't seem to me that there's that much difference. Sounds like the Stinson would be better for getting in and out of places, but maybe not climb as well...but if I keep it light....hmmm.

I've been shopping for cheap Tri-Pacers so I have something to fly sooner rather than later, but all the ones that are cheap, are well, cheap, so I walk.

I have been trying to ride in a Pacer for a years and haven't had any luck yet. Also, it'll have to be tied down for a bit I think, unless I get my promotion this year...Thangars are flipping expensive!

[Tadpole offline]

For those that haven't heard my mission before, it's colorado flying, mostly just me solo and maybe one passenger from time to time. Carrying camping gear, backcountry flying, fly-ins. I'd probably have the back seat out alot of either plane, but toss it in to fly Young Eagles, or when my wife and daughter want to go see the grandparents in Phoenix....but that wouldn't happen very often.

[Vick offline]

Splitting hairs here -- I have time in a Stinson w/165 and a Tri-Pacer w/135 - the Tri-Pacer is likely draggier with the protuberance on the nose and there may be a marginal loss of climb performance with the 135 vs 150hp, but the in-flight handling characteristics should be comparable. I looked at Pacers when I was shopping and ultimately went with the Stinson simply because I preferred it, all critical data points were a virtual draw.

As MtnMatt pointed out, probably the most important point of comparison is the empty weight. A heavy example of either model will quickly lose any appeal. The Pacer is short-coupled compared to the Stinson and uses bungees - with it's gear geometry and oleos the Stinson is about the most forgiving tailwheel you're likely to fly. The short-wing Pacers are also notorious for their sink rates on final - not a major concern, but you don't fly final at or close to idle.

[Tadpole offline]

Thanks Vick, kind of my thoughts, was just looking from others with experience. My greatest concern is power here at higher DA's, but the bigger engined models carry to hefty a price tag for purchase and fuel bill. That one guy telling me the 165hp Stinson would suck here at this altitude just didn't make sense if the 150hp Pacer would be fine. I know the Pacer is lighter empty, but I wouldn't think that would outright kill any chance of the Stinson to work just as well.

[Vick offline]

Something else to consider - can you get clean (ethanol-free) mogas where you are? If not, I'd be less enthusiastic about buying a Franklin. When I had mine I could get clean mogas, 10/gal/hr of mogas was very easy to deal with. The Franklin is certified for use with lead-free fuel and does not like 100LL. Burn it without adding TCP and you will stick a valve. If 100LL is you only option, when you factor in the cost of the extra fuel burn per hour (~2 gals ave) and the TCP you'll have to add there will be a difference - however marginal - in hourly operating expenses, not to mention having to lug the jug of TCP around with you, real PITA.

[Tadpole offline]

Something else to consider - can you get clean (ethanol-free) mogas where you are? If not, I'd be less enthusiastic about buying a Franklin. When I had mine I could get clean mogas, 10/gal/hr of mogas was very easy to deal with. The Franklin is certified for use with lead-free fuel and does not like 100LL. Burn it without adding TCP and you will stick a valve. If 100LL is you only option, when you factor in the cost of the extra fuel burn per hour (~2 gals ave) and the TCP you'll have to add there will be a difference - however marginal - in hourly operating expenses, not to mention having to lug the jug of TCP around with you, real PITA.

I've read that about the Franklins. I know there are a couple of airports about 70nm away that have mogas, not a bad trip to fill up the tanks and a gas can or two. I've not sure about a local gas station that sells any, I'd have to look around for that.

[Vick offline]

When I lived in NC the gas station around the corner from my field had clean mogas - I always had 4-6 jugs to fill up before I headed over to the hangar. I wouldn't count on buying it from a distant field as a routine plan - with start up and taxi you're talking an hour each way just to go get gas.

You can probably google to find out if Colorado is an ethanol-mandated state. If not you should be good to go for now. If so you're SOL, thank your enviro-wackos and politicians...

[Tadpole offline]

You can probably google to find out if Colorado is an ethanol-mandated state. If not you should be good to go for now. If so you're SOL, thank your enviro-wackos and politicians...

We're not mandated..yet. I just sent an email out to the local EAA chapter asking about any gas stations with clean mogas. I have no problem lugging jugs, or sticking a tank with a pump in the back of the pickup.

[crazyivan offline]

I was mulling over the same debate about a year ago. PA-22/20-15 vs Stinson (165) vs C-170. I didn't go with a Stinson because it was heavier and slower than a Pacer with less takeoff and landing performance. I work out of an often-mushy 1900' grass strip with big trees on one end and I don't think I would have been comfortable on warm summer days with a 165 Stinson.

My Pacer numbers:
-STOL (droop) wing tips,
-Tailwheel conversion (but the Tripacer is still faster than a Stinson)
-1135# zero fuel weight with a 2000# max.
-120-125mph cruise,
-yesterday I had 950'/min climb at 65mph with 2 people aboard full fuel and 30 deg F at 1000' MSL,
-They look small but the interior is actually almost as big as a C-170 and Stinson. The back seat in the Pacer doesn't have as much leg room as the others, but there is still a pretty big baggage compartment.

On the plus side for the Stinson, it has very few (if any) ADs, it's a strong airframe, I believe it's more docile as a taildragger than a Pacer (then again what isn't), and if you really need it then there are more Stinsons with the metal wing flying around than Pacers.

My guess, like Vic said this debate is splitting hairs. Like any airplane, get the best example you can for the money you want to spend. You'll be much happier with a great Stinson than a ragged-out Pacer.

Last year there was a guy in Illinois selling a C-170 with a 165 Franklin on it. I was reallly interested in that one but he was asking more than I could spend ($39k if I remember correctly). Also, look at the maule M-4. There are some with the C-145 (or is it the O300?) for less than $40k. Remember, it's a buyers market.

[highroad offline]

I have never flown a Stinson so I cannot comment. Matt hit it on the head IMO interms of getting a good airplane, and learning to fly it to its potential etc.

My first question would be, what is your definition of Performance? Cruise, load carrying, STOL, high DA operations?
I fly a 160hp stock winged Pacer and when I bought it, I was looking for good short field performance. I was dissapointed with the short field performance at first, but a repitch of the prop and some seat time made a big difference. My pacer with a 58 pitch prop was a 120mph airplane with 600x6's on it at 9-10gph. The tach was off when I first bought it so what I thought was a low cruise power setting, actually was 75%+ power setting. The high fuel burn was due to this. With a 56 pitch prop and 8.50x6's it cruises at 110mph at 2450rpm and burns 8gph but performs much better when doing short field work. I would really like to try a long borer prop (will require bushwheels) as this seems to really wake up the take off/climb performance but obviously will make a substantial impact on cruise. A light weight MT constant speed prop would be really neat, lol.

I would love to have a pilot door, but it is not too big of a deal. With the back seat out, the rear door on the pilot side makes a great baggage door, much bigger than any cessna etc. for loading and if the rear seat is in, it is just like any other baggage door for loading.

In my mind, it all comes down to what you like.....the problem with the pacer is that if you start doing mods to it, you most likely will not get your money back out of it. But if it is an airplane you plan to keep for awhile, there is a lot of great mods that can be done (pilot door) etc.

All this being said, I really like my pacer. There are not a lot of them being used in the backcountry and it works great for my small family and our camping gear to go just about anywhere I want to take them.

Another airplane to look at, is a M-4 Maule with the 210hp cont. or the 220 Frank. Basicly a Pacer with more power, constant speed and that famous maule baggage door. If you could get into one for the right price......

[highroad offline]

Had to go see a pt. while posting and this thread really got some attention. Some of what I posted was already explained.....sorry about that.

[Tadpole offline]

decent M4's go out of the budget, I"m looking around $25k for a taildragger...of course, currently I'm at $15k and been looking at Tri-Pacers...lol. But since I can't seem to find a decent one, I'll probably keep saving for a taildragger.

I'm not looking for hardcore backcountry flying for performance. I'd like to go into some of the private strips around here, do some of the Idaho and Utah strips, nothing super fancy. This would most likely be a plane that I won't be keeping forever, rather a handful of years until the next one.

[mountainmatt offline]

Tadpole,

There's a gas station in both Elbert and Kiowa that have ethanol-free gas. The 165 Franklins don't prefer 100LL due to guides/valves sticking but run flawless on mogas. I have a few 55gal drums too.

The issue of the 165 working out of a field at 6000msl on a hot day... well, it just requires a bit more planning. I know of many people in the area that fly 100hp Cessna 140's and 145hp Cessna 170's, 65hp Champs, etc all summer long on 90+ deg days, but they pay more attention to the small things.

I've done more stuff in the CO Rockies with a 100hp C140 than some guys with a C182 would care to do, but like stated above, if you know your plane and know your skills you can stretch that margin of error a bit further.

And seeing Terry work his 165HC 108-2 in the ID backcountry I don't think the DA problem will be a HUGE factor.

Do I need the 220 Frank in mine... nope, but I'm glad I have it.

[Tadpole offline]

Tadpole,

There's a gas station in both Elbert and Kiowa that have ethanol-free gas. The 165 Franklins don't prefer 100LL due to guides/valves sticking but run flawless on mogas. I have a few 55gal drums too.

The issue of the 165 working out of a field at 6000msl on a hot day... well, it just requires a bit more planning. I know of many people in the area that fly 100hp Cessna 140's and 145hp Cessna 170's, 65hp Champs, etc all summer long on 90+ deg days, but they pay more attention to the small things.

I've done more stuff in the CO Rockies with a 100hp C140 than some guys with a C182 would care to do, but like stated above, if you know your plane and know your skills you can stretch that margin of error a bit further.

And seeing Terry work his 165HC 108-2 in the ID backcountry I don't think the DA problem will be a HUGE factor.

Do I need the 220 Frank in mine... nope, but I'm glad I have it.

Cool. Bill just told me that Limon has mogas on field, and I think he said there is a company that will deliver to 00V, so it doesn't look like that's an issue. Guess it just comes down to the nicest plane I can get ahold of at the time.

Thanks everyone! I really appreciate the info.

[pacerflyer offline]

Tadpole,
I have a PA22/20 160 with stock wings. If I'm alone and half fuel, I get in the air in less than 500 ft without any trouble and can easily land in less than the same distance with a clear approach (I do however live at just about sea level). I did put VGs on last year and that really made all the difference with slow flight handling. Last June I flew out of a 1800' grass strip @ about 1000 agl. My pacer was frieghted with me (250), my buddy (200), full fuel (200+), camping gear, food and drink for 4 days. I was in the air in about 1000' and did a slow climb over the trees, leveled off to build up speed, then up and around the mountains towards Mt Washington. Needless to say, I love my pacer. I bought the STC for the 8.50s and that just made it even better during take off and landing. I fly with a guy who has a supercub, so I'm flying really slow, generally about 85mph, I'll turn about 1900rpm or less and burn less than 6 gph.

I have never flown in a Stinson, but have been told that they are smooth and a dream to fly. I'm also told that they are alot easier to land than the Pacer. They are great looking planes too. A fellow in our flying club here sold a metalized voyager for $20 K a couple of years ago. Another guy sold a 108-3 for less than $14 K but it had motor troubles. PA22/20 150s and 160s are out there for less than $30 K. For the money, you really can't beat them. Cruise at 120mph, burn 8-9gph, land and take off at most any place you like.

Hey Ivan, what's going on with Merry Meeting? I flew over it last week and there are no planes there. It doesn't look like the RW was plowed. Where are you keeping you Pacer now?

Mike

[Tadpole offline]

The metalized versions of both are going cheaper than the fabric ones, but for good reason I guess. They weight a bit more and I've heard they are more noisy.

[Terry offline]

Tadpole,
I fly a 165 stinson that is my first plane, so I am no help for a comparison. I would say that the earlier posts have pretty well summed up the stinson.
I don't think I would wright off a metalized stinson if it looks good, I learned from Shorton that the metal skin is held off the frame with spacers, which would probably be more anti-corrosion than fabric.
Look closely at the lower longerons at the tail spring area for corrosion on the stinson (maybe any taildragger?) it cost me $2500.
The franklin is an awesome motor, smooth, starts very easy, even by hand, in fact I don't remember it ever turning over more than a half of dozen times before firing....but, good luck finding a crank if you ever need one.
I have about 300 hrs on it and have stuck a valve once. I have learned to use the additive and run it hard (cruise at 2600) and have not had anymore problems. The 150 is more prone to leading problems than the 165.
The back seats are some of the most comfortable you will sit in and are a sling type that are light weight.
I am sure that it's handling characteristics have saved me more than once in my first few hrs.
As for performance with density altitude, I don't have much experience but at sea level I have been very happy with it.
Would I buy another stinson.....DAMN straight I would.....but I also have this craving for a maule.

[mountainmatt offline]

Would I buy another stinson.....DAMN straight I would.....but I also have this craving for a maule.

Just throw a big bore motor in there Terry and that craving will go away.

Which additive do you use?