PA-22 Tri-Pacer

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

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.