After being extremely frustrated renting airplanes and feeling left out of the fun at the High Sierra Fly In, I have decided to buy a plane. I have been reading a lot of posts on this forum, and have decided on a 170, older 172 or Tri Pacer. I feel these would fit my mission (with some modifications of course) and any of them would be a good choice for a first plane. I went back and forth a lot between a type plane and an experimental/LSA (S7, Kitfox etc). However, I would like to keep the price under $50k and at that price range I have more options for a 170, 172 or Tri Pacer. I have a friend that has a 59 Tri Pacer he is looking to sell at a very good price. The plane was his step fathers who passed away about a year ago. He was in the process of putting a new engine in the plane (160 hp Lycoming I believe) at the time of his death. It was completed but they never finished getting the plane re-certified and it is out of annual. The plane was well cared for but it has been sitting for about a year at Santa Monica not flown. It was in a hanger but they lost the hanger last summer so it has been outside covered for a few months. I have not seen the plane yet but plan to this weekend. My question is, am I getting in over my head? I realize that without seeing the plane or knowing the condition it is hard to estimate what all it will take to get it airworthy but we have a lot of very knowledgeable people on this forum so I wanted to get some guidance before I looked at the plane. If I assume the all the work was done on the engine and that it is in good shape, approximately how much $$$ and time are we talking to get it airworthy? Also, if someone could recommend a good person in So Cal to do a pre-buy I would appreciate it.

Thanks
Steve

Although I'm a Piper fan, I must say that Tri-pacers sell cheap for good reason. JUST after getting (flying?) it, he wants to get rid of it for cheap. Does that make you wonder?

A friend of mine has a Pacer & he doesn't like it much. I think the wing is too small for STOL & climb. It has a big gross weight number (2000# ?) but won't "carry" it well. I don't know nuthin' about your "High Sierra" but it sounds like you'll need decent climb capability.

Anything that sells cheap (regularly) is not in high demand, right?

Steve, whether or not you're getting in over your head totally depends on you. Are you very mechanically inclined, and do you enjoy working on something as well as or instead of flying it? Do you have an A&P or IA friend that will help you? Do you have a place and resources to do this job? I do know that if you hire someone to go through it and get it ready to fly, it might lose some of the "affordability" that it has right now... depending on the condition of the aircraft, of course, as well as what mods etc you want done.
It can be a great thing in that you'll learn your airplane from the inside out, which may be a really great thing sometimes! There are lots of other criteria to consider but I think most of it will be covered by others as well as present itself as you go further into the project.
As far as the performance of a tri-pacer, they're not a Supercub, but they're not priced like one either. I take care of a few of them that have been converted to conventional gear, and they're a nice, simple, fun airplane, with limits just like anything else you'll buy or fly. A 160hp engine makes it a pretty nice little airplane, in my opinion!
John

I don't understand the dissing for the PA-20 or 22...they fly great, they have bulletproof landing gear and structure, they are a total blowout bargain for the performance, and they can get in and out of any place a 170/2/5 can get out of airstrip wise.

The catch is how you load the short wing Pipers. With a 150 or 160 HP engine, they do fine as long as you still plan on packing just as light as you'd be with a 170/2/5. It's no mystery. The 170/2/5 seems to do a little better at high DA as well. And they are hands down more solidly built than the Cessnas in my opinion. There are other threads on the forums along the same lines.

I think the biggest reason the -22's are so cheap is aesthetics. People want the wheel in the back no matter what with a ragwing Piper, no matter what the performance, price, etc.

There are a number of items (AD's) that are important to account for in the 20/22's. You probably know them already (struts, door posts, longerons, mags, etc). A hangared aircraft that is up to date should have no problems with these.

So as long as your mission is along what the 170/2/5 offers, I can't really understand why the 20/22's aren't a worthy option.

The information in the OP is not enough to gauge the work that is needed. A detailed inspection would be needed for that.

I love my PA-22, though it is about the only plane I can afford.

Unless it is really in good shape, and ready to fly, any estimate of how long it will take to get it in the air will be best viewed as about 30% of the real time needed.

I think your short list sounds pretty reasonable, those are all good planes. IMO the Tri-Pacer will handle gross weight just as well as the Cessnas, we flew across the rockies, full fuel and near gross without issue. It's not a supercub but is a good family plane and a solid 2-person backcountry plane, and they don't get much simpler. Will you be able to hangar the plane? I would personally shy away from a plane that is that far out of annual and isn't flying... to hard to buy a plane and not fly it every chance you get, especially in this market where there are lots of good planes to choose from.

On buying a plane, every aircraft in existence is a compromise. Finding the best compromise for you is a good thing to do. The bigger issue, in my mind, is finding an aircraft you can fly, meaning, condition wise, insurance wise and fuel burn wise. I've flown a bunch of airplanes and there's never been one I'd turn down flying next time but the ones that can't be taken off the ground, for whatever reason, suck. So, my suggestion is to put that issue at the front of your decision making: Is it in airworthy? can you get it airworthy? Can you keep it airworthy? Can you fuel it? Etc. Maintenance issues can be a huge cost. Insurance can be surprising.
I have loved every aircraft I've flown but the ones I've owned we're definitely better than the rentals until they were sitting, grounded and waiting for me to hemorrhage more money, then it got a little iffy.
Good luck!

I'm guessing like most of us, you will buy your first plane, build lots of time in it and then want to buy something else because your experience is getting better and you want to explore more. If this sounds like this could be your case, buy a plane ready to fly, no fixer uper it's a waste of time unless that's what you want to do with your time and money. My first plane was a turn key purchase. I did the pre-purchase, the plane and pilot was well known throughout the aviatioin community and it was a done deal, the second plane I bought I spent more time fixing it up than flying the first year because I got a "good deal".

cozmicharlie wrote:After being extremely frustrated renting airplanes and feeling left out of the fun at the High Sierra Fly In, I have decided to buy a plane. I have been reading a lot of posts on this forum, and have decided on a 170, older 172 or Tri Pacer. I feel these would fit my mission (with some modifications of course) and any of them would be a good choice for a first plane. I went back and forth a lot between a type plane and an experimental/LSA (S7, Kitfox etc). However, I would like to keep the price under $50k and at that price range I have more options for a 170, 172 or Tri Pacer. I have a friend that has a 59 Tri Pacer he is looking to sell at a very good price. The plane was his step fathers who passed away about a year ago. He was in the process of putting a new engine in the plane (160 hp Lycoming I believe) at the time of his death. It was completed but they never finished getting the plane re-certified and it is out of annual. The plane was well cared for but it has been sitting for about a year at Santa Monica not flown. It was in a hanger but they lost the hanger last summer so it has been outside covered for a few months. I have not seen the plane yet but plan to this weekend. My question is, am I getting in over my head? I realize that without seeing the plane or knowing the condition it is hard to estimate what all it will take to get it airworthy but we have a lot of very knowledgeable people on this forum so I wanted to get some guidance before I looked at the plane. If I assume the all the work was done on the engine and that it is in good shape, approximately how much $$$ and time are we talking to get it airworthy? Also, if someone could recommend a good person in So Cal to do a pre-buy I would appreciate it.

Thanks
Steve

Get in contact with 182STOL, Bill Reid here on the BCP, He will come do prebuy, maybe even get it flying for you if needed, Standup guy, Call him!
EDIT Best plane I ever had is the current one I own and fly!!

The lack of current registration may be more of a hurdle than you think. With a dead guy involved you need LOTS of documents showing chain of ownership. Call OK City for advice, or an aircraft title company. Don't even bother with the local FSDO.

Steve, I think you were in the right track looking at an experimental like a Kitfox. I've seen many on Barnstormers go for $25K-$40K. I bought a Kitfox III in 2009 and have flown it 3 times to Oshkosh from TX and twice to Sun n Fun as well as trips to South Carolina and Mississippi. You can do all of your own maintenance and upkeep. It costs me about $150 for an owner assisted annual every year.

Pete

Thank you for all the responses - some great info and lots to think about. Unfortunately, my internet went down today so I could not respond to any of the questions or comments. I am typing this at kinkos now.

The lack of current registration may be more of a hurdle than you think. With a dead guy involved you need LOTS of documents showing chain of ownership.

That is my concern - I may not have been clear in my post. It is the paperwork and the hoops I will have to jump through to get it back airworthy that I am not sure of. Is this going to be bureaucratic hell for me?

JUST after getting (flying?) it, he wants to get rid of it for cheap. Does that make you wonder?

Actually it is not flying. The owner got sick and passed away before the plane was re-certified with the new engine. To him the plane was his pride and joy - for his kids though (they inherited the plane) it is just an expense they want to get rid of.

Get in contact with 182STOL, Bill Reid here on the BCP,

Thanks M6RV6 - I will do that.

Hopefully my internet will be back up so I can respond to other posts.
Thanks
Steve

Having been in similar shoes as you are I will relate my experiences. Listen to the guys above that have asked if you want to fly or fix!! My first plane needed 'a little work' but was flying. Several YEARS later I had a nice plane.
I am a guy that likes projects, but I also like to fly so now days if I find a project I make possitively sure I also have another plane to fly as it is very easy to lose interest in an airplane when you work on it all the time without being able to fly it.

Personal opinion....I have never really cared for the looks of the Tri-pacer/Pacer. I think there was a reason the 170/172's were much more popular. I will say that if a Tripacer is all I could afford to own I would not pass one up.
I have a friend that owns one and is happy with it, yet I have seen him take off with just he and his wife aboard with some baggage and it sure is a ground hugging aircraft. He burns up most of the runway before getting airborn. He does have a cruise prop on the plane which another friend and myself have suggest he have repitched or changed.

The above post about the prop is true. The stock prop was definitely a "marketing" prop to hit cruise numbers. With a climb prop, 54 or 55" pitch it is a different animal.

You have decisions to make. Project or flying plane. Choice between several models.

The project or flying plane decision is the priority. Since it is your first plane you probably want to go fly. The uncertainty of a project is really difficult to assess until you are already in the swamp unless you have a lot of experience. Anybody that has done a project will tell you it always takes longer and costs more than your think in the beginning. Given your experience level I can guarantee you don't want a project. Once you have a flying plane you can take on a project to keep you occupied when you can't fly. Don't buy a project at this point in your flying life. Go fly. Working on planes is a lot more fun when you can take a break and go fly.

The model choice is really wide open given you are in the early learning stages. Practically, it is a matter of value. That is dollar for quality. Set your budget and look for the best deal. Then have a good A&P do a thorough pre-purchase inspection. The art of buying a plane is a whole other subject.

Get flying any tail dragger you can afford to build your flying experience. Your second plane will be a more critical choice.

Mike

Mike makes a good point about the model selection being wide open. Uncle Jorgy always says; "Buy a good airplane at a fair price". That may be a Stinson, a Tri-Pacer, a 170 series, a Maule M4 or something else. I'm partial to the Shortwing Pipers (check out shortwingpipers.org ) because I started my flying career in a Colt. They don't float you know? Wing extensions and a PA-18 tail would be in order. The OP, folks, lives in Gardnerville. That's in Nevada. High Density Altitude Nevada. Gump has a 170 something with the 0-300 on it. Ask him how he likes it. I was spoiled too. My first airplane out of training was a Mooney. My next one was a 220 horse 172. There is no substitute for power.

I think the OP said he's got under $50K. Fourty nine thousand five hundred is a lot of Bonanza or Mooney or an acceptable 182 maybe. A flying project is just fine but it's way cheaper to let somebody else spend the money so that you can fly it off. You don't need a fancy panel you need a low to mid time engine and in annual. Really.

I'd look for a Mooney M20C or E. You won't be able to do everything that AKTahoe does but you can fly along with him most places. Piperpainter does. They stall clean at the same speed as a 172.

There are always 2 major issues in airplane ownership, mission and money. Honestly, mission is the hardest, because until you've flown for awhile and have discovered what you want to be able to do with an airplane, you can't decide on the mission.

But once you do decide on mission and which airplane(s) fit that mission, then purchase price is only the tip of the iceberg. Unexpected maintenance is the big bugaboo. I had my airplane all of 15 hours when it threw a rod through the top of the case and I landed in a field. Was I happy with the $23,000 for the new engine? Not at all. Was I able to spend the money for the new engine? Yes--or the airplane would have been an expensive derelict. If all I had available was the purchase price and the projected first year's maintenance available, I'd have been in trouble.

Unexpected maintenance can eat you alive--things like brake calipers and sticking valves and broken alternators and starters, and especially vacuum pumps. Updates and regular maintenance aren't cheap, either. At this point in just short of 10 years of ownership, counting the new engine, all the updates, and the unexpected maintenance but not counting the regular maintenance, I have more than twice the purchase price into my airplane--it's probably close to the most expensive 50 year old 172 out there! Add another $15,000 or more for regular maintenance over that time, and of course another $27,000 in fuel for that time.

Airplane ownership is not inexpensive, no matter what you fly. You can certainly do it less expensively than I have--live with the airplane the way it is and just maintain it and fly it a reasonable number of hours per year. But don't expect to save money over renting, because it won't happen. You don't buy an airplane to save money; you buy an airplane because you want to own your own airplane, one that fits your lifestyle, you needs, your wants.

Cary

I don't understand the dissing for the PA-20 or 22...they fly great, they have bulletproof landing gear and structure, they are a total blowout bargain for the performance, and they can get in and out of any place a 170/2/5 can get out of airstrip wise.

The girlfriend purchased a Tri-Pacer w/ a low time 0-320 (150 hp) in it for very cheap in August. She is getting her PPL and currently has 50 hours on the airplane. The front nose gear is built like a brick shit house and the darn thing starts, runs and flies nearly perfect. I think the Tri-Pacer's are some of the best bargains going. As said before, most folks think they are just darn ugly, hence the milkstool nick name. The only thing she has really done to the airplane is change the oil and adjust the brakes.

I have owned two 172's and they have been OK two place airplanes but I will likely never own another one. The little Tri-Pacer just makes you smile when you open the hangar door or maybe laugh out loud, whatever the case.

Have Fun-

As Cary mentioned, the purchase price is only the 'Tip of the Iceberg' in aircraft ownership, and the rest of his post is about as accurate a picture as you can hope for.

I wish you the best in your purchase, but take your time, don't fall in love, and make absolutely sure you have a very qualified A&P/IA do an extremely thorough pre-purchase inspection.

And most importantly, don't be afraid to walk away.

You're bird is out there, it may just take a little time to find the perfect one.