I've been monitoring the board for a few weeks and have found the
exchanges very educational. I'm hoping now that I can get some direct
help to a few questions.

I'm seriously considering buying my first airplane. My goal was
something that had a low cost of ownership, could seat 4, and was or
could be easily upgraded to an IFR trainer. I don't intend to use it
for long cross country trip, but shorter trips here in the central
Alaska area.

I seem to have found an aircraft that fits the bill for sale locally.
Its a Piper PA-22-150 Tri-Pacer. Looked at it and flew it today. Seems
to have been very well maintained by the two owners (they're moving up
to a larger aircraft). Only obvious issue is the hightime engine (1900
hours SMOH). Was surprised how differently it flew than the 172 I've
been renting.

After that long preamble, I'm gong to have an A&P take a look next week
and wanted to solicit this group's help in identifying specific
questions I need to have answered. I know to ensure all the ADs have
been complied with, but what else should I know about the Pacer?

Thanks,
Scott

("anon" wrote)
[snip]
> I seem to have found an aircraft that fits the bill for sale locally. Its
> a Piper PA-22-150 Tri-Pacer. Looked at it and flew it today. Seems to
> have been very well maintained by the two owners (they're moving up to a
> larger aircraft). Only obvious issue is the hightime engine (1900 hours
> SMOH). Was surprised how differently it flew than the 172 I've been
> renting.


If you've checked various plane pricing publications, did you notice a
premium for planes sold in Alaska?

If you don't mind, what are they asking for Tri-Pacers in Central Alaska
with a hightime engine?

BTW, if you're not comfortable talking $$$$$ that's A-OK. Some people are
quite happy discussing pre-purchase numbers, others ...not so much :-)


Montblack

Yes, there is definitely a premium. Have to rationalize it as saving a
1-way ticket and lodging associated with getting it from the lower-48.

The asking price is $19K.

Montblack wrote:
> ("anon" wrote)
> [snip]
>
>> I seem to have found an aircraft that fits the bill for sale locally.
>> Its a Piper PA-22-150 Tri-Pacer. Looked at it and flew it today.
>> Seems to have been very well maintained by the two owners (they're
>> moving up to a larger aircraft). Only obvious issue is the hightime
>> engine (1900 hours SMOH). Was surprised how differently it flew than
>> the 172 I've been renting.
>
>
>
> If you've checked various plane pricing publications, did you notice a
> premium for planes sold in Alaska?
>
> If you don't mind, what are they asking for Tri-Pacers in Central Alaska
> with a hightime engine?
>
> BTW, if you're not comfortable talking $$$$$ that's A-OK. Some people
> are quite happy discussing pre-purchase numbers, others ...not so much :-)
>
>
> Montblack

> After that long preamble, I'm gong to have an A&P take a look next week
> and wanted to solicit this group's help in identifying specific questions
> I need to have answered. I know to ensure all the ADs have been complied
> with, but what else should I know about the Pacer?
>
> Thanks,
> Scott

Scott,

First thing I would check out is the electrics. If you are thinking of
loading up with electrical devices then you need to be sure the system can
cope. Upgraded electrics include an alternator.

Go to the Short Wing Piper Club's web site and search for information there.
http://www.shortwing.org/mod.php?mod=userpage&menu=1804&page_id=34

They are a great airplane!
There were a few problems with corrosion around the baggage door and
other places.
How old is the fabric?
That question not only concerns the fabric, but the underlying structure.
Fabric can last a lifetime, but it's good to be able to look at the
structure underneath every so often.
If I was in Arizona i wouldn't be too concerned, but in a moist,
possibly salty climate it needs more attention.
Find an A&P with good tube and fabric experience.

The Tripacer is a great airplane for the money. I'd much rather have one
than a spam can "C" product.

Dave

Chris wrote:
>>After that long preamble, I'm gong to have an A&P take a look next week
>>and wanted to solicit this group's help in identifying specific questions
>>I need to have answered. I know to ensure all the ADs have been complied
>>with, but what else should I know about the Pacer?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Scott
>
>
> Scott,
>
> First thing I would check out is the electrics. If you are thinking of
> loading up with electrical devices then you need to be sure the system can
> cope. Upgraded electrics include an alternator.
>
>

wrote:

> The Tripacer is a great airplane for the money. I'd much rather have one
> than a spam can "C" product.

Had both, the 3P (metalized) had better performance, the C products are
easier to get in and out of the front seats...

The C products cost more and are a newer product...

In article >,
Darrel Toepfer > wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > The Tripacer is a great airplane for the money. I'd much rather have one
> > than a spam can "C" product.
>
> Had both, the 3P (metalized) had better performance, the C products are
> easier to get in and out of the front seats...
>
> The C products cost more and are a newer product...


I flew a couple of "Pie Chasers" 40-some years ago. I did not
particularly like their flying characteristics -- especially the bungees
that interconnect the rudder and ailerons. It made slips feel unnatural
and added unnecessary force to the control feel.

The short wing and flaps allow some steep approaches, which may at first
seem too steep, but you will get used to it.

The single (hand) brake handle is another deficiency (IMHO), as you
cannot use the brakes for ground maneuvering.

It has a fairly cramped cabin but will cruise an honest 130-135 mph, on
about 9GPH.

The 150 hp O-320 is one of the most robust engines out there -- and --
it is very happy burning mogas.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> Darrel Toepfer > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Tripacer is a great airplane for the money. I'd much rather have one
>>>than a spam can "C" product.
>>
>>Had both, the 3P (metalized) had better performance, the C products are
>>easier to get in and out of the front seats...
>>
>>The C products cost more and are a newer product...
>
>
>
> I flew a couple of "Pie Chasers" 40-some years ago. I did not
> particularly like their flying characteristics -- especially the bungees
> that interconnect the rudder and ailerons. It made slips feel unnatural
> and added unnecessary force to the control feel.
>
> The short wing and flaps allow some steep approaches, which may at first
> seem too steep, but you will get used to it.
>
> The single (hand) brake handle is another deficiency (IMHO), as you
> cannot use the brakes for ground maneuvering.
>
> It has a fairly cramped cabin but will cruise an honest 130-135 mph, on
> about 9GPH.
>
> The 150 hp O-320 is one of the most robust engines out there -- and --
> it is very happy burning mogas.
....
(And it has been known to vapor lock on hot summer days when using mogas!)

In article >,
john smith > wrote:

> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Darrel Toepfer > wrote:
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The Tripacer is a great airplane for the money. I'd much rather have one
> >>>than a spam can "C" product.
> >>
> >>Had both, the 3P (metalized) had better performance, the C products are
> >>easier to get in and out of the front seats...
> >>
> >>The C products cost more and are a newer product...
> >
> >
> >
> > I flew a couple of "Pie Chasers" 40-some years ago. I did not
> > particularly like their flying characteristics -- especially the bungees
> > that interconnect the rudder and ailerons. It made slips feel unnatural
> > and added unnecessary force to the control feel.
> >
> > The short wing and flaps allow some steep approaches, which may at first
> > seem too steep, but you will get used to it.
> >
> > The single (hand) brake handle is another deficiency (IMHO), as you
> > cannot use the brakes for ground maneuvering.
> >
> > It has a fairly cramped cabin but will cruise an honest 130-135 mph, on
> > about 9GPH.
> >
> > The 150 hp O-320 is one of the most robust engines out there -- and --
> > it is very happy burning mogas.
> ...
> (And it has been known to vapor lock on hot summer days when using mogas!)

Vapor lock isn't an engine problem, but an installation problem!

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article >,
> john smith > wrote:
>
>
>>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Darrel Toepfer > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Tripacer is a great airplane for the money. I'd much rather have one
>>>>>than a spam can "C" product.
>>>>
>>>>Had both, the 3P (metalized) had better performance, the C products are
>>>>easier to get in and out of the front seats...
>>>>
>>>>The C products cost more and are a newer product...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I flew a couple of "Pie Chasers" 40-some years ago. I did not
>>>particularly like their flying characteristics -- especially the bungees
>>>that interconnect the rudder and ailerons. It made slips feel unnatural
>>>and added unnecessary force to the control feel.
>>>
>>>The short wing and flaps allow some steep approaches, which may at first
>>>seem too steep, but you will get used to it.
>>>
>>>The single (hand) brake handle is another deficiency (IMHO), as you
>>>cannot use the brakes for ground maneuvering.
>>>
>>>It has a fairly cramped cabin but will cruise an honest 130-135 mph, on
>>>about 9GPH.
>>>
>>>The 150 hp O-320 is one of the most robust engines out there -- and --
>>>it is very happy burning mogas.
>>
>>...
>>(And it has been known to vapor lock on hot summer days when using mogas!)
>
>
> Vapor lock isn't an engine problem, but an installation problem!
>
I want to thank everyone for the responses. You've definitely given me
some things to ponder. I'm going to be talking to a couple of A&Ps this
week about taking a look.

Plan to do it in two phases, pay for a couple hours of a mechanics time
to do a document review and cursory look. If that looks clean and we
can settle on a fair price, do a full pre-buy.

Scott

I love Pacers and TriPacers. I owned one, I've spent hundreds of hours
flying them and instructing in them, and hundreds more working on them.
I think they're the best entry-level airplanes Piper ever built. But
I am biased.

There are some major advantages to a TriPacer. It was designed so any
swinging dick with a toolbox could fix it out in the field. It's VERY
easy to work on, and if you plan to do much of your own work, it's a
great first airplane. On the other hand, there as some major
disadvantages. It needs a lot of work. If you're going to pay someone
to do it all, it's not such a great deal. Also, it is cramped.

Check the age AND condition of the fabric. A punch test is a must.
Don't believe anyone who says he can determine the condition of the
fabric without it. Can't be done. Make sure to punch the tops of the
fuselage, tailfeathers, and wings.

Beware the strut AD. Punch those in a few places too.

(BTW - punching does not mean making a hole - it means using a Maule
tester to a predefined pressure - if a hole (or, in the case of struts,
a dent) is made, that means the fabric/strut is not airworthy.

If you're going to upgrade to IFR, make sure it has a static system.
Many of them vent to the cabin and thus can't get a pitot-static check
- which means they're not legal for IFR. If it does have a static
system, hook a piece of plastic hose to it, and suck gently until the
altimeter reads 4000 ft or so. Then plug the hose (or bend it over)
and see if the system holds pressure. If not, you're looking at
expensive troubleshooting/repairs to make it IFR legal (not safe - in a
TriPacer, a static leak really is a non-issue).

Make sure the gyros work. On average, I find such planes generally
have one of the three gyros not working.

If you want an IFR installation, you need the high panel. Most of the
PA-22-150's had them, but some planes people call -150's are actually
earlier versions coverted to 150 hp. They have the low panel, which
just doesn't have enough room unless you buy modern (expensive)
slimline avionics.

The O-320 is a bulletproof engine, and many run well past the 2000 hour
TBO if flown regularly. Every mechanic is familiar with them, so no
special issues there. Beware the muffler AD - those mufflers with more
than 1000 hours on them require compliance every 50 hours.

The electrical systems on these planes are 1930's tech. You will never
get enough juice out of the generator to power both the IFR panel and
the landing lights. The alternator mod is a good one.

Any more questions - just ask.

Michael

Michael wrote:
> Beware the strut AD. Punch those in a few places too.

A few other ADs: Check the attach point of the fabric at the top
of the windshield. The SB referenced by the AD has pictures -
make sure it's done right.

There are corrosion problems with the lower longerons and the bottom
of the window channels - someone who knows what they are doing can
tap along the lower longerons and tell what sort of shape they're in.

Oh, yes: Join the Short Wing Piper Club. www.shortwing.org

Other then that, I second Michael: I love my Tripacer, and I
fly a reasonable amount of IFR in it. It's a great, stable
IFR platform, although a bit lacking in range for alternates.

Tina Marie
--
http://www.tripacerdriver.com "...One of the main causes
of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way
to indicate successful termination of their C programs." (Robert Firth)

The hand brake never bothered me, since you can turn the airplane on a
very short radius using normal nose gear steering. I once had a 57
model 150 and like it a lot. They do have a high sink rate, which may
be a plus or minus depending on your flying plans.