Tripacer for sale

T

Thomas

Pre-Flight
Joined
May 1, 2008
Messages
41
Display Name
Display name:
Thomas
Very nice tripacer, freshly restored. Email for complete specs and more pix. 240 hours since crome major, built in Lowrance 2000c, Icom200, narco trxp. All new hardware, new polyfiber, powder coated epoxy primed metal parts, located in Spokane Wa. ksff
$25000.
tomstoyflyer@earthlink.net
509 995 5523
 

Attachments

  • toms+plane+004[1].JPG
    toms+plane+004[1].JPG
    28.4 KB · Views: 97
  • panel4.jpg
    panel4.jpg
    282.6 KB · Views: 101
  • annualed & ready.jpg
    annualed & ready.jpg
    10.1 KB · Views: 61
  • fueling up at sandpoint.jpg
    fueling up at sandpoint.jpg
    412.2 KB · Views: 65
...don't need one, but what a sweet-lookin' bird.
 
can't afford one, but i'd like to see a better picture of the panel. the rest of it looks nice! I'll gladly ferry it for you once you find a buyer (should you need that done).
 
ntbjounin said:
can't afford one, but i'd like to see a better picture of the panel. the rest of it looks nice! I'll gladly ferry it for you once you find a buyer (should you need that done).
Click to expand...
Thank you for your offer, and I will keep that in mind. I will get a better picture of the panel today. I put in a lot of new instruments, in fact the only ones I left in there from before was the roc, airspeed and tack.
 
Out of curiosity, what are the empty weight/useful load numbers?

Looks nice, just don't think "the boss" will allow a purchase at this time.
 
I haven't flown one -- yet.

The wings are short, the gear is close-coupled....

What are the particular quirks of the Tri-pacer that must be overcome?
 
You have to learn to live with a plane which is funny-looking, and carries more while going faster than a 172, but costs a lot less.
 
mjburian said:
Out of curiosity, what are the empty weight/useful load numbers?

Looks nice, just don't think "the boss" will allow a purchase at this time.
Click to expand...
It weighs 1031 empty, book says 1800 gross, but with the engine upgrade and oil cooler relocated, and a couple of other mods we did it meets all the criteria for 1950 lbs. It just aint worth the FAA hassle for me.
 
dmccormack said:
I haven't flown one -- yet.

The wings are short, the gear is close-coupled....

What are the particular quirks of the Tri-pacer that must be overcome?
Click to expand...
It wont do a power on stall, it just mushes thru the air while loosing altitude @ 20-50 fpm. Lands at 42 and cruises at 108 knots.
Its nick name is a flying milk stool. Those who have em love em. It is just to small for a 283 pound guy like me. Burns around 6.5 to 7.5 pending power settings.
I dont know what the gear width is, but it is a very easy airplane to fly and has one of the highest cross wind components available. It is a whole lot differant than the tailwheel version. If you can fly the tailwheel version [pacer] you can fly the tripacer, but it dont work the other way around.
With the short wing and steep angle of aproach, you can get in a lot shorter than you can get out. The performance specs dont even come close to what they actually will do. Everything changes on a hot day tho. Need to pay attentin to the DA. Should do that with any airplane anyway.
 
dmccormack said:
I haven't flown one -- yet.

The wings are short, the gear is close-coupled....

What are the particular quirks of the Tri-pacer that must be overcome?
Click to expand...

Short-wing Pipers don't glide especially well. Other than that, they're very nice aircraft.


Trapper John
 
...never known anyone who flew one and did not like it.
 
Trapper John said:
Short-wing Pipers don't glide especially well. Other than that, they're very nice aircraft.


Trapper John
Click to expand...
Like a greased crescent wrench? Actually it is steep, but the airpseeds are slower too. The saying is, with power off, if you can see it over the nose, you are going to be short. Another one is they are capable of crossing the threshold at patern altitude and still hit the numbers.
 
Last edited:
I have always liked the short wing Pipers. I almost bought a Tripacer as my first plane, but bought a Cherokee 140 because I found one locally. Not in the market as I have a Tiger, but if I were looking for relatively inexpensive, fun flying that would be it. NICE Tripacer!
 
Trapper John said:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Makes a 172 seem like a sailplane, doesn't it? :D


Trapper John
Click to expand...

I flew a TriPacer last summer and found the sink rate quite acceptable. It's not a lot worse than the 172. I could not stall it at any power setting, but there were no pax in the back seats, either. At full power and full aft elevator, it actually climbed. I did not think at the time to run the trim full nose-up to see if it would stall, since the trim adjusts the stab and would give more nose-up authority. I wanted to stall it so I could spin it. The POH says nothing about spins.

I used to think the TriPacer was just ugly. It's still ugly, but it's an airplane that makes a lot of sense. Carries more than a 172, goes faster, takes off shorter and climbs better. Piper replaced it with the Cherokee because Cessna had the modern all-metal 172 that made the Tripe look dowdy. Another case of marketing trumping performance. Form over function. If I bought one I'd buy one that needed recover and I'd make a Pacer out of it, since only taildraggers are real airplanes, and I'd STC the pilot's side door into it, too.

Dan
 
Big nose-up tendency when flaps are deployed. As in "Whoaaaaaa!"

dmccormack said:
I haven't flown one -- yet.

The wings are short, the gear is close-coupled....

What are the particular quirks of the Tri-pacer that must be overcome?
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
Big nose-up tendency when flaps are deployed. As in "Whoaaaaaa!"
Click to expand...
I've never noticed that. Actually I've never noticed the flaps doing anything other than help block the sun behind you. B) Try putting one into a hard slip with a good headwind. The glidepath scares the bejeezus out of the people on the ground. :D

Great airplanes. Easy to fly, cheap to fix. Can pass the 172's on the way to Oshkosh and still get to park in Vintage, as well as flying out with whatever will fit through the doors.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I flew a TriPacer last summer and found the sink rate quite acceptable. It's not a lot worse than the 172. I could not stall it at any power setting, but there were no pax in the back seats, either. At full power and full aft elevator, it actually climbed. I did not think at the time to run the trim full nose-up to see if it would stall, since the trim adjusts the stab and would give more nose-up authority. I wanted to stall it so I could spin it. The POH says nothing about spins.

I used to think the TriPacer was just ugly. It's still ugly, but it's an airplane that makes a lot of sense. Carries more than a 172, goes faster, takes off shorter and climbs better. Piper replaced it with the Cherokee because Cessna had the modern all-metal 172 that made the Tripe look dowdy. Another case of marketing trumping performance. Form over function. If I bought one I'd buy one that needed recover and I'd make a Pacer out of it, since only taildraggers are real airplanes, and I'd STC the pilot's side door into it, too.

Dan
Click to expand...
Here is a modified Tripacer built by Bob Gatherer from Tekoe Wa. He extended the wings by 6 feet, fusalage by about two feet, put a 180 and constant speed prop on it. Now, that is a neet airplane. Unbelievable performance.
 

Attachments

  • BG 10.jpg
    BG 10.jpg
    43.7 KB · Views: 28
  • BG 8.jpg
    BG 8.jpg
    448.3 KB · Views: 20
  • BG 12.jpg
    BG 12.jpg
    403.8 KB · Views: 28
  • BG6.jpg
    BG6.jpg
    444.2 KB · Views: 16
  • BG 2.jpg
    BG 2.jpg
    395.8 KB · Views: 24
Last edited:
Nice mod. Is is for sale?

Thomas said:
Here is a modified Tripacer built by Bob Gatherer from Tekoe Wa. He extended the wings by 6 feet, fusalage by about two feet, put a 180 and constant speed prop on it. Now, that is a neet airplane. Unbelievable performance.
Click to expand...
 
Thomas said:
It weighs 1031 empty, book says 1800 gross, but with the engine upgrade and oil cooler relocated, and a couple of other mods we did it meets all the criteria for 1950 lbs. It just aint worth the FAA hassle for me.
Click to expand...

Strut swap? Or sealed struts?
 
Thomas said:
Here is a modified Tripacer built by Bob Gatherer from Tekoe Wa. He extended the wings by 6 feet, fusalage by about two feet, put a 180 and constant speed prop on it. Now, that is a neet airplane. Unbelievable performance.
Click to expand...

Yeah but now he has a Stinsn 108-3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top