School Me On Short Wing Pipers

J

JoshuaP

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Jul 12, 2024
Messages
11
Display Name
Display name:
JoshuaP
I've got a bee in my bonnet right now. I'm really wanting a clipper or a pacer. My initial PPL training should be finishing up soon and I am planning on tail wheel endorsement. I really like the clipper. It looks like the perfect combo of fun, character, history, and ability. I don't know anything about short wing pipers other than a few old magazine articles I have read. My experience is limited to a 59 172 a 63 172 and an older Cherokee. I am starting to possibly look for a plane. I want something fun and that will keep me flying. It seems more than capable of short cross-country trips for my wife and I of no more than a couple hours which is probably the most practical use. We have some kids but would probably only fly with my youngest son who is 8. We aren't big folks.. I'm the biggest by far at 5'9'' 175. Most of the flying I plan on doing is either solo, with her, a friend here or there, and maybe some grass strips where my in-laws live. I have seen a few with the fuselage fuel tank removed for safety and 150 hp upgraded engine. Those seem pretty capable at a reasonable fuel expenditure. Plus the cool factor is through the roof which is hugely important. I'm never going to own a 200K 180 or bonanza, but a sporty old piper may be feasible.

So for those who have flown them... give me your thoughts... The lack of glide concerns me for engine out options but those little lycomings seem to have a good reputation for lasting with good maintenance. What say you? Thanks everyone!
 
Are we talking about the Hershey Bar wing? The Arrow of that type that I have flown flared like a brick.
 
ateamer said:
Short-wing tube and fabric Pipers. PA-15, -20, -22.
Click to expand...
Actually.... PA-15 (65 Lyc Vagabond), PA-16 (125 Lyc Clipper), PA-17 (65 Cont Vagabond), PA-20 Pacer (125 Lyc, I think), and PA-22 Tri-Pacer (mostly 150/160 Lycs).

Fun little airplanes! I've owned a 15 and a 16. The Vag is pretty short-coupled, but the Clipper not so bad. We re-built the Vag and put a Lyc. in it. My Clipper had the nose tank removed and a pair of 18-gallon Tripe wing tanks installed. Made a decent cross-country airplane out of it.

I think a Clipper could do what you say you want from it.

Piece of short-wing trivia....the Clipper became the Pacer after Pan Am had a chat with Mr. Piper about the name.

Jim
 

Attachments

  • Vag%20After.jpeg
    Vag%20After.jpeg
    499.8 KB · Views: 9
  • clipper.jpeg
    clipper.jpeg
    50.4 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
It’s been a while since I flew one. I flew a Colt and a Pacer about ten years ago. I was completely underwhelmed by both it’s been too long and too many planes since to rember any details, but I was unimpressed with both of them. I remember that I liked the Pacer better than the Colt, but that’s probably because I love to tailwheel. I think the Colt had linked rudder and ailerons which take away options you need with a light plane like that.
 
I love slips. My CFI, who has become a good friend, and I alway do a lot of slipping for altitude. As I understand the clipper doesn’t have flaps and doesn’t really need them as it drops fast. I guess a slip can do the rest. I read that with the upgraded 150 hp motor they can really make a decent STOL. Nothing supernatural but serviceable in that realm. I’m 45. I’ll be retiring from my career as a firefighter in 5 years so I’m I’m looking for a plane I can just have a lot of fun with in retirement. I love that the clipper has stick controls like the cubs. That just has cool factor. I may start snooping around. I believe I’ve seen one flying around my home field KHWY, so if I get lucky I can maybe check one out. There is a cool J cub in the hanger across from my school’s. Down at my in-laws there is a private grass field where a TW could come in handy. It’s only about a 35 minute flight in the 172. I can’t land there because our school’s insurance doesn’t allow off asphalt landings.

My biggest concern with those old pipers with the short wings is engine out. From what I understand it’s whatever is underneath you is what you are landing on. That gives me a little pause. I’m still a little nervous about engine failure. They just look so fun though.
 
Jim Rosenow said:
Actually.... PA-15 (65 Lyc Vagabond), PA-16 (125 Lyc Clipper), PA-17 (65 Cont Vagabond), PA-20 Pacer (125 Lyc, I think), and PA-22 Tri-Pacer (mostly 150/160 Lycs).

Fun little airplanes! I've owned a 15 and a 16. The Vag is pretty short-coupled, but the Clipper not so bad. We re-built the Vag and put a Lyc. in it. My Clipper had the nose tank removed and a pair of 18-gallon Tripe wing tanks installed. Made a decent cross-country airplane out of it.

I think a Clipper could do what you say you want from it.

Piece of short-wing trivia....the Clipper became the Pacer after Pan Am had a chat with Mr. Piper about the name.

Jim
Click to expand...
Oh man. I’m envious. Just to open the hanger and see a classic like that sitting in there. Awesome. I’ve seen a couple floating around off and on. Thanks for sharing the photos!
 
The Maule is pretty much a copy of the Pacer except well, he made the wings longer.
 
MBDiagMan said:
It’s been a while since I flew one. I flew a Colt and a Pacer about ten years ago. I was completely underwhelmed by both it’s been too long and too many planes since to rember any details, but I was unimpressed with both of them. I remember that I liked the Pacer better than the Colt, but that’s probably because I love to tailwheel. I think the Colt had linked rudder and ailerons which take away options you need with a light plane like that.
Click to expand...
Compared to Mooneys and 120s, yeah, but if you compare them to their near peers - a Colt to a Cessna 150, and a Pacer to a Cessna 170, they actually stack up as pretty decent little airplanes. The Colt is a tad faster, roomier, and can carry more and go farther than most 150s. The Pacer is also faster than the 170 on similar fuel burn and weight abilities.
 
JoshuaP said:
I've got a bee in my bonnet right now. I'm really wanting a clipper or a pacer. My initial PPL training should be finishing up soon and I am planning on tail wheel endorsement. I really like the clipper. It looks like the perfect combo of fun, character, history, and ability. I don't know anything about short wing pipers other than a few old magazine articles I have read. My experience is limited to a 59 172 a 63 172 and an older Cherokee. I am starting to possibly look for a plane. I want something fun and that will keep me flying. It seems more than capable of short cross-country trips for my wife and I of no more than a couple hours which is probably the most practical use. We have some kids but would probably only fly with my youngest son who is 8. We aren't big folks.. I'm the biggest by far at 5'9'' 175. Most of the flying I plan on doing is either solo, with her, a friend here or there, and maybe some grass strips where my in-laws live. I have seen a few with the fuselage fuel tank removed for safety and 150 hp upgraded engine. Those seem pretty capable at a reasonable fuel expenditure. Plus the cool factor is through the roof which is hugely important. I'm never going to own a 200K 180 or bonanza, but a sporty old piper may be feasible.

So for those who have flown them... give me your thoughts... The lack of glide concerns me for engine out options but those little lycomings seem to have a good reputation for lasting with good maintenance. What say you? Thanks everyone!
Click to expand...
You are correct that Clippers and Pacers are very capable aircraft. Pacers have more HP and can climb a bit steeper than Clippers. Clippers have control sticks and Pacers have yokes and flaps. Clippers don't have flaps, so that might give the Pacer the edge.

I used to own a '68 Hershey Bar Cherokee 140 with a 30' wingspan just like the Pacer. I used to figure my best glide about 1.5 nautical miles per thousand feet, or about 75% of a C172. It seems awful at first, but you get used to it, and you can use it to advantage to get in short when necessary.

The Pacer is lighter than the Cherokee and carries less fuel, but the range is similar. I often flew fuel to the tabs, which was about the same fuel as the Pacer when full. I added a Lift Reserve indicator to mine and started training with it. The wing was so forgiving at high AOA that it opened up a whole new performance window at the bottom of the flight envelope. The Cherokee was exceptionally good in high crosswinds and could handle grass strips with ease. The Pacer won't be as good in high crosswinds, but its grass strip performance is stellar, plus you can set up a tent under the wing when camping.

Hope this helps. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
I have a PA-17 with a C-85-8. No electrical system.
Carb ice is a way of life.
Gets up and goes until you get to 105-110 mph. At that point it's like pushing a 4x8 piece of plywood through the air.
Fun to fly, but no aerobatics or spins. The POH is clear: Don't spin it unless you have only 1/2 tank of fuel, nothing in the baggage area, and are wearing a parachute. Yup.
Sips gas. Only 12 gallons, all usable. Add wing tanks and it's a one person airplane.
I believe it requires more attention than a J3 while landing. Not a glider.
 
I think my ideal would be a clipper with wing tank STC (fuselage tank removed), and a simple panel. Definitely need/want ADSB and a radio around here. I’m 2 inches from SFRA and often fly into it. Will be flying the 172 potentially into KHEF later this afternoon actually.

Thank you guys for all the replies!
 
texasclouds said:
Pacers are cool, but a little too cozy for me at 6’2”. I preferred the C170.
Click to expand...
Yea. The 172 fuselage is nice. I’m assuming the 170 is the same fuselage. But a C170 the same condition and TSOH is significantly more money. My wife and I are about 300 pounds combined. 170 ish and 130 ish. Plus the stick is awesome. Don’t get me wrong. I would LOVE a 170. But they are so hot right now the prices are out of budget. I appreciate the TBO of the smaller lycos as well! But I hear you. A 170 or 180 would be sick.
 
We love our PA22-108 Colt. We've had it just over a year now. It's basically a 2 seat Tripacer with a Lyc O-235 engine so climb and top speed are a little less than a tripacer will give you but it hasn't been an issue for us in Southern California. At 2400 RPM I cruise just above 100 mph indicated and less than 6 gallons an hour. Useful load is plenty for my wife and I to go with full tanks and roughly 40 lbs of bags if we wanted. If we need more luggage we don't fill both tanks. Just completed the first annual and it cost us $1320 but we also did some other maintenance to the plane at the same time so it could have been cheaper on the annual. I'd recommend you check out the shortwing piper groups on Facebook as they have a wealth of information. There is also a Shortwing Piper club you can view online to see other data about them. If you look at one in person educate yourself on what to look for on a fabric aircraft, there are a few youtube videos of what to look for on SWPs and their normal areas of concern. Also, when its time for the prebuy get someone familiar with fabric airplanes. They aren't difficult, but they are different and its nice when you have someone that has an idea of what they are looking at.

Let me know if you have any specific questions.

415552260_7598124443540390_6945488135870428868_n.jpg
 
texasclouds said:
Pacers are cool, but a little too cozy for me at 6’2”. I preferred the C170.
Click to expand...
I considered Luscombes and Pacers when I was shopping, ended up with a C140A. I probably should have gone with a 170A from the start. The difference in purchase price will be insignificant after a few years of ownership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top