Found and you have 500 extra feet of runway on to



Wednesday, November 30, -0001
WREN 460

1963–75


STANDARD DATA: Seats 4. Gross wt. 2,800. Empty wt. 1,690. Fuel capacity 65. Engine 230-hp Continental.
PERFORMANCE: Top mph 160. Cruise mph 151. Stall mph 31. Initial climb rate 1,080. Range 1,150. Ceiling 19,200. Takeoff run 270. Landing roll 250.

A 150-160hp Pacer is a lot of airplane for the money. There are a lot of mods available for the Pacers/converted Tri's. Put a borer propeller on it, some bushwheels, and go play with the supercubs, especially when kept light.

Really miss my Pacer





Some more info if you are interested in Pacers:
http://brentpahls.wix.com/triple3eightzulu
http://www.backcountrypilot.org/forum/
http://shortwingpipers.org/

Still around, now it is known as the Peterson Katmai.

It'll do the the 750ft, it won't do the 50k.

An early 182 with any of the leading edge modifications and VGs should do 750ft when loaded light and may fit into the budget.

I had a 67 182, all stock. At a 5000 foot DA, no wind it would take off and land in 450 feet.

Still around, now it is known as the Peterson Katmai.

It'll do the the 750ft, it won't do the 50k.

An early 182 with any of the leading edge modifications and VGs should do 750ft when loaded light and may fit into the budget.

Have gotten a suggestion for a straight tail 182 with STOL and AOA indicator on another forum. Seems like a pretty good option that is fairly easy to maintain, certified and can expand it's envelope when a luxurious 2000' of runway is available.

I had a Cessna 175 with a Bush STOL kit on it. It would take off loaded lightly in around 400 or so feet. If you're looking for something that could possibly offer multiple purposes, an older 182 would probably be great.

Also I believe you get the full 40 Deg of flaps which is great for the short field work if you went with an older 182.

That guy really has built a brand. Through the depth of the recession, he had a waiting list of several years. The Katmai owners are about as nuts as the mooniacs, just in a different kind of way.

What they're really saying is buy a light plane. The 182 has always had 230 HP but they always got heavier as the years went by. The simple fact of the matter is there's no 182, with any mods, that will handle 500 feet safely. Can't be done. 500 feet is Piper Super Cub territory.

85-100 j3 been doing it for 20 years

Yep, this is true. A PA11 will do it too.

I just feel strongly that to be safe you really need a super cub or a variant of it to give you any decent margin. Trust me - there will come a day when you're not on your A-game and you come in a little too hot. If you have an airplane that really only needs 400' max, it gives you the extra margin to make it no big deal. If you buy an airplane that requires max effort on every takeoff and landing, eventually the odds will catch you.

For your family's sake, save your money and buy the right airplane.

50k would buy a real nice bulldozer to make the runway longer.

I'm not sure how to interpret that given that the runway is 750 feet. Are you saying 500 feet is the target so that 750 feet leaves some margin of error?

I'm not sure how to interpret that given that the runway is 750 feet. Are you saying 500 feet is the target so that 750 feet leaves some margin of error?

Mission out of the 750 foot strip would be 400lbs in cabin and 30 gal fuel. That work?