PA-22 Tri-Pacer

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...804&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