Hi guys.
Been a long time since I have been on this forum but I'm back and looking for a new set of wings. I thought you guys could help me out..please.. Im looking for a mainly 2 place+ camping gear airplane. (182 was too expensive to maintain and fly since I barely used the rear seats). I live in Colorado and fly in the mountains a lot. The weight to HP of the Tri-Pacer (and the price) is very enticing. I was wondering if anyone knows how these things fly above 10k? I will definitely be climbing to 12k regularly. It seems like they should be great with an empty weight of about 1100 and 150hp on the front. Any of you flown them up high? How do they do with 2 people on mellow backcountry strips?

Secondly, I have intrigued by a 150/150 with STOL, aux tanks, and higher gross stc. Similar wing to 172 but with a couple of hundred pounds shaved off of it and no back seats... Sounds like it could be a good climber and fit the mission. Anyone have personal opinions of these two airplanes? Again, just looking for a plane to pop around Colorado recreationally and do the occasional camp trip to UT, ID, ect.. No need for four seats because they never end up helping pay for gas anyway..

P.S. Im a light guy, (155 lbs)

Thank you in advance for any help.

ington6 wrote:Hi guys.
Been a long time since I have been on this forum but I'm back and looking for a new set of wings. I thought you guys could help me out..please.. Im looking for a mainly 2 place+ camping gear airplane. (182 was too expensive to maintain and fly since I barely used the rear seats). I live in Colorado and fly in the mountains a lot. The weight to HP of the Tri-Pacer (and the price) is very enticing. I was wondering if anyone knows how these things fly above 10k? I will definitely be climbing to 12k regularly. It seems like they should be great with an empty weight of about 1100 and 150hp on the front. Any of you flown them up high? How do they do with 2 people on mellow backcountry strips?

Secondly, I have intrigued by a 150/150 with STOL, aux tanks, and higher gross stc. Similar wing to 172 but with a couple of hundred pounds shaved off of it and no back seats... Sounds like it could be a good climber and fit the mission. Anyone have personal opinions of these two airplanes? Again, just looking for a plane to pop around Colorado recreationally and do the occasional camp trip to UT, ID, ect.. No need for four seats because they never end up helping pay for gas anyway..

P.S. Im a light guy, (155 lbs)

Thank you in advance for any help.

I flew a 150 years ago that had been converted to a taildragger. I can't remember if it had a 150HP engine or not, but I do remember that it was one heck of a performer - climb and cruise were impressive (I'm thinking it was a 150 conversion, but can't be sure). On the downside, it had what I consider very little rudder authority in a taildragger configuration. I remember walking away thinking it was nothing more than a ground-loop waiting to happen.

I am assuming that in a nose-dragger configuration it would be a pretty good performer.

I don't have any experience in a Tri-pacer.

Thanks for the response. I'd love to have a tail dragger but I will be doing some instruction in it and would want to trike. Also forgot to mention that I will be basing the aircraft at 8,000 msl, although I am on the west side of the divide and see myself very rarely flying east. All the fun is westward...

Id say go with the tripacer. Quite a bit more room for camping gear. Also, not sure about the 150/150, but in stock configuration, myself (150lbs, and instructor (180lbs) could just legally fly with full fuel, standard tanks. I would think that aux tanks, stol kit, heavier engine, etc, would burn up your extra gross quite quickly. I could very well be wrong as I've never seen weight numbers for a 150/150.
David

lesuther is based over in longmont - and he owned a pacer for a long time before his now 182 - he should be able to give you some good advice.

Also there is another guy at longmont who flies his converted tri-pacer a fair bit - though he is currently in college over in san luis obispo. I think it's coloradokevbot is his username.

Oh nice. Thank you. Ill try to get in touch with them.

Ington6,

I have flow both and prefer the Tri-Pacer. Small airplanes with big engines don't balance out as well as stock. You get extra climb, but you pay for it in the way it flies. Fowler flaps are great for short field work, but you will have to carry the nose a bit higher with the bigger engine and carry more power to get slow enough for short field landings.

Either airplane is fine at high altitude. Keep in mind that there is much more oregraphic ridge lift and thermal lift in the afternoon than excess engine thrust for climb. Even with the 182, I assume you flew slow in updrafts and fast in downdrafts for a net gain in altitude and airspeed. Even in a 182 in the summer afternoon, we generally find that it is much faster to get off around 5-8,000' MSL and ridge climb up to 10,000' MSL passes. Thermalling up, flying slow in up air and fast through down air, will not work as well with the 0-320 going west because you will not have a lot of ground speed when you get up there and will spend considerable time getting up.

Shoot me an e-mail and I will attach my e-book, "Safe Maneuvering Flight Techniques," that explains all this stuff in detail. The Tri-Pacer is a great mountain airplane, a poor mans 182.

Jim Dulin
[email protected]
417-830-0638

2 people plus gear the TriPacer will haul a lot of bulk. Regardless of performance the C150 will need two loads to haul the same assignment.

Have had my PA-22 to 10.5K multiple times. Works fine. 12K should work fine as well but mightbe a stretch if you loaded heavy on a hot day.

The comparison is not really equal. A PA-22 is very similar in mission profile to a C172...so ask yourself how the 172 would compare to the C150. The milkstool has a lot of room inside...especially if you get the 1953 and later models with the expanded baggage.

The 150 or 160 HP Tri-Pacer would be my choice. We crossed the rockies with two adults and two kids and baggage at 12k+ and did just fine. Take that back seat out and you have tons of space to carry your gear. If you fly smart, early morning for high DA, etc. you will enjoy it as it is a fine plane and about as simple as they get. Maintenance is very reasonable and the nose gear is built like a tank.

I need to finish up some code for a fluid dynamics class, but later tonight or tomorrow I'll try to post a longer write up on the performance of the 22/20-150. I learned to fly in it, based out of KLMO and routinely fly in the teens. Most of the time its set up as two-place with a huge baggage area and it does quite well, definitely outperforms any stock c-150/152/172 and much more fun to fly.

Unless you weigh less than 100 pounds, and anyone you propose to give instruction to weighs less than 100 pounds, don't even think about a Cessna 150 with a 150 Lycoming engine. The 150 doesn't have a very generous useful load in the first place, and when you add that bigger engine, the useful load goes waaaay down.

I doubt you could LEGALLY give much instruction in one. And bear in mind that if you're instructing, presumably at some point you're going to send a student to an examiner with an endorsement. I know of at least one instructor who lost all his certificates after doing that with a fellow in an airplane in which that instructor and that student could not have legally completed the training logged.

Every time you fly with a student, you document it in THEIR logbook and sign it..... If the two of you and gas for the mission exceeds the useful load of the plane, that logbook is evidence that will cost you dearly.

The Tri Pacer, as many others have said, is a great little airplane, and it should work for your proposed mission.

MTV

one other thing I have found - pay attention to the W&B when looking at Pipers. It seems in nearly every case, when weighed at the factory, Piper's scales where VERY optimistic. If you look at any planes that do not have a fairly recent W&B, or just calculated W&B from way back when, I would not trust them to be anywhere near accurate.

If you look at any planes that do not have a fairly recent W&B, or just calculated W&B from way back when, I would not trust them to be anywhere near accurate.

I think that's true of any older airplane--makes me wonder about the math skills of some A&Ps. When my airplane was actually weighed a few years back, the actual varied a lot from the calculated up to that point--don't recall how much, but significant.

Cary

Opinion of C150/2

Touch and goes and 50 NM X-country OK. Good training for light students.

Density Altitude is an issue.

Very hard, if not impossible, to fly one under gross W/PAX

Never flew a Tr-pacer. But, they are getting old and abused as time goes on. There should be some goods out there however, just like any popular bird.

There are a few restored good looking Pacers out there but this one seems to fit the bill the best. Or at least it is close to me so a proper pre purchase isn't a painstaking and expensive process. Anything to look out for?http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Single+Engine+Piston/1956/Piper/Tri-Pacer/1740807.html

ington6 wrote: How do they do with 2 people on mellow backcountry strips?

ington6 wrote:Anyone have personal opinions of these two airplanes?

... nope.. but I'd love to have one

ington6 wrote:Thank you in advance for any help.

I wanted to add that there really is no comparison between the cessna 150 and a pa22. Then Rob posts the pictures of those 150 150 tail draggers. Nota lot of cargo room but who cares...I bet they get it on!

Rocket

Rob wrote:

ington6 wrote: How do they do with 2 people on mellow backcountry strips?

ington6 wrote:Thank you in advance for any help.

How is rudder authority with these? My recollection was not good!

My recollection of flying along with friends who have swept tail t/w conversions is that the rudder stories are on par with the short coupled stories of maule ownership....of course they used rudder in the air and favoured brakes for ground handling...
Trying to rudder turn a supercub on 35's at walking speed is just short of impossible, but no one's complaining about rudder in
one of those

Rob,

I've never been in a plane with bigger than stock tires; Stearman had big stock tires. Isn't that like pulling a spreader around?