Poll: Will Anyone Really Vote For The Tri-Pacer?

(click pic to enlarge)   Taildraggin' Pacer and milk stool of a trike Tri-Pacer (photo:wiki)

 Personally I think it was a huge mistake when Piper moved the third wheel on the PA-20 Pacer from the tail to under the nose in 1953 to create the PA-22 Tri-Pacer. The Pacer went from being a cute and stylin' short wing 4-seater to becoming the flying milk stool as the Tri-Pacer. But I wondered if there's really anyone out there that thinks the Tri-Pacer is actually more attractive than the Pacer.

 So, I whipped up this little poll to see what y'all think. From just a looks or attractive standpoint, which do you think is the better looking airplane?

Comments

[Matt E.]

I agree that on looks only, the Pacer wins, but I think a converted Tri-Pacer makes a better plane.

Also, I think Piper should have kept the sticks from the Clipper when they developed the Pacer.

[John Preacher]

I feel the same way about the RV-8-8A. The 8 is a sexy fighter, The 8A looks odd and out of place. Especially true considering how docile of a taildragger the eight is.

[D. Rowan]

The lines of the Pacer are certainly cleaner and less wheels have less drag. However, when you put the wheel pants on the PA-22, it looks pretty good. Also, reviewing the accident reports, the lack of ground loops on the PA-22 vs. the PA-20 really makes it look good. I selected the PA-22 specifically because it was simple to maintain, simple to fly, versatile and very forgiving for someone that flys for fun instead of as a profession. Beauty is a subjective thing and I think the Tri-pacer is a real head turner.