Talk:Piper PA-20 Pacer

After further review I'm downgrading it to "Start" status - 24.9.10.235 04:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing an advertisement (old and yellowed) that mentioned the tricycle landing gear as "Land-O-Matic" but not 100% sure it was for the PA-22. kind of an interesting thing...has anyone else seen something similar in tri-pacer literature?Statisticalregression 19:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That term was actually a Cessna trademark. See the item at Cessna Marketing Buzzwords!! Ahunt 10:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

PA-22

The PA-22 really needs its own article, any comments MilborneOne (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't leave much here, would it? Then there is the problem of where to put PA-22s that have been converted to PA-20s? - Ahunt (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The PA-22 Tri-Pacer generally used bigger powerplants than the PA-20 Pacer (which never got beyond 135hp), with more performance, and had bungee interconnects between rudder and aileron, and generally better panels and interiors, on top of the tricycle gear. The PA-20 Pacer / PA-22 Tri-Pacer differences are so significant that the FAA certifies them on separate Type Certificates.

The Pacer / Tri-Pacer distinction is every bit as historically significant as the Cessna 170 / Cessna 172 differentiation. In fact, it was the Pacer (over 1,100 built) that forced Cessna to expand its 2-seat 120/140 into the 4-seat Cessna 170. Before the 170, the Pacer, on its own, became the preferred single-engine, 4-seater of its time, outselling all other rivals. For that, it was simply historic by itself. But, as a low-powered taildragger, it was a "pilot's plane," best suited to unpaved strips, and not an "airplane for the everyman."

It was the Tri-Pacer (not the very-late-comer Cessna 172, nor even the pre-Pacer Ercoupe) that revolutionized the popularity of tricycle landing gear in general aviation -- thousands of them pouring out of Lock Haven, re-defining (and almost devouring) the 4-place, fixed-gear, single-engine market, during the years that Cessna dithered. Even after Cessna's 172 emerged in response, Tri-Pacers kept selling for half a decade more -- 7,600 in all, until making way for Piper's all-metal PA-28 line.

With the simplifications of elastic rudder-aileron interconnects and tricycle gear, the PA-22 Tri-Pacer was promoted as an "airplane for the everyman," and the right type of aircraft for the emerging postwar profusion of modern, hard-surfaced airports. The astronomical Tri-Pacer sales -- and resulting conspicuous change in the variety of ordinary people populating personal and business aviation -- reflected its revolutionary role in general aviation. (see "The Turbulent Decade" by Frank Kingston Smith, Flying Magazine, Sept.1977, p.208) For that, alone, the Tri-Pacer merits its own article.

(I say this as a Cessna-flyer/lover, former Cessna & Beech worker, and Wichita aviation historian.) Give the devil (William T. Piper) his due.

Also, the tailwheel-converted, so-called "PA-22/20"s are, legally, just PA-22 Tri-Pacers with modified landing gear, not actual PA-20s, legally. You wouldn't call the Texas Taildragger (tailwheel-modified Cessna 150) a "Cessna 140B," would you? People call the conversions "PA-22/20"s because reversion to the taildragger gear position gives them the look of its PA-20 Pacer predecessor -- but that is only a single physical difference (and not a officially re-defining one), compared to the various other characteristics of the PA-22 Tri-Pacer.

Most "PA-22/20"s have the typical PA-22 Tri-Pacer power (150-160hp), (not the 125hp/135hp mills of the whole PA-20 Pacer line), so that, without the weight and drag of nosewheels, the "PA-22/20"s have performance and payload on the high side of the PA-22 Tri-Pacer, opposite from the PA-20 Pacer.

And most "PA-22/20s" have superior-handling tailwheels to the PA-20 Pacer (in fact, some don't even use the PA-20/PA-22 gear legs -- but reportedly substitute Cessna- or Citabria-type mains; I've seen the photos.) But, since less than 2% of PA-22's have been tailwheel-converted, the taildragger "PA-22/20" mod is just a variant/mod footnote; not a fundamental issue.

And, yes the PA-22-108 Colt is a case (and article) unto itself.

~ 174.210.129.43 (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

~ 174.210.129.43 (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

~ 174.210.129.43 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Well there is an old discussion revisited from 13 years ago! In general, since that time, we have been splitting combined types like this into separate articles. - Ahunt (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No evidence of it here -- nor in article about the even more numerous, diverse and advanced Piper PA-28 Cherokee line. Does some Wikipedia editor not take Piper -- for nearly a century one of General Aviation's "Big Three" -- seriously? 2600:100A:B002:376A:F0AE:7C24:5BDB:6CBD (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If you have a proposal for the article then please propose it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wing Loading

I see that my addition of Wing Loading, copied from the template on the C-172 page, was reverted as not included in the template. I've re-reverted it and would like to suggest that it be included, perhaps in a different part of the template if preferred. It is very relevant info to anyone considering purchase of a Tri-Pacer, as I can attest personally. The wing loading gives an impression of performance in turbulence, and has been a major consideration for my wife as we decide between a C-152 (which also has wing loading included on the wiki page) and a Tri-Pacer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw4nvc (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Fine - but all the specs here require refs cited as per WP:V - Ahunt (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge, and for fixing the formatting. I'd left it as copied (with value changed of course) from the Cessna page, and thought it looked funky. Thanks also for reminding me to sign out. Jw4nvc (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually that was a bot who added your signature! Let me see if I can locate a ref for the specs. - Ahunt (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. Wiki collaboration is Cool!  :) Jw4nvc (talk) 05:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Many editors are actually better than one. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)