CT_Pilot wrote:

gdflys wrote:CT_Pilot, I know this isn't a TriPacer but I only manage to squeeze out of N41 with the O-300 powered C-172 (145 HP) with two bigger guys and half hanks. The runway is 2000' long but with the turf and high trees at both ends, if I took much more weight it's too close for comfort. The book performance numbers are very similar to the Pacer's. I can say I've often been limited by temps and lack of wind so we either have to re-position to OXC or MMK if we need to load up more fuel or weight. If you can swing it I would definitely look for something with more power.

Thanks Greg - this is Drew by the way (from RAF). Will look to head up to N41 sometime this summer in the 172 (ours is 160HP) - will shoot for early morning, though will need to fly a bit and burn some fuel off to be on the safe side - we keep it topped off on the line.

Need to meet up for lunch again soon. Actually looking to work on my tailwheel endorsement this summer I think. Starting up instrument training as well with one of the club members. Should be a fun summer. Will need to swing by OXC some time and get a ride in that Maule!

I knew it was you but didn't want to reveal your identity in case it needed to stay secret for a sneaky Pacer purchase. Anytime for the Maule. We will meet up again soon I'm sure.

evanr42 wrote:All depends on the mods as well. Extended tips, VGs, and 150hp on my Tri Pacer have gotten me off at gross weight, calm wind, in under 700' consistently. 2 up front, half fuel, we are usually taking off in 500' without being laser focused on the short ground roll, because we don't have huge tires, so we are usually in strips at least 1500' long anyway.

+1

The modified Pacers are quite impressive, especially with the 160 or even 180hp donkey under the hood.

Did a discovery flight in a tripe with a 62 year old retired physician a few nights ago who is up in AK volunteering for a few weeks. He loved it. I told him how much they cost and he left saying he could buy one with his "allowance" his wife gave him. He was a big guy, I'm a big guy, and he had never flown in small airplanes but left thinking the tripacer was the plane for him. My life's work is complete, slowly I will replace the Cirruses with Tripacers in the hands of doctors.

asa wrote:Did a discovery flight in a tripe with a 62 year old retired physician a few nights ago who is up in AK volunteering for a few weeks. He loved it. I told him how much they cost and he left saying he could buy one with his "allowance" his wife gave him. He was a big guy, I'm a big guy, and he had never flown in small airplanes but left thinking the tripacer was the plane for him. My life's work is complete, slowly I will replace the Cirruses with Tripacers in the hands of doctors.

IMG_0896.jpg

I think I passed you, coming through the pass Sunday evening!

I still miss my Pacer some days, it’s a fantastically capable plane for the right mission.

asa wrote:Did a discovery flight in a tripe with a 62 year old retired physician a few nights ago who is up in AK volunteering for a few weeks. He loved it. I told him how much they cost and he left saying he could buy one with his "allowance" his wife gave him. He was a big guy, I'm a big guy, and he had never flown in small airplanes but left thinking the tripacer was the plane for him. My life's work is complete, slowly I will replace the Cirruses with Tripacers in the hands of doctors.

IMG_0896.jpg

That thing is pretty sweet with the Tundra tires. 150HP?

CT_Pilot wrote:That thing is pretty sweet with the Tundra tires. 150HP?

160. It does well

The tires on that Tri Pacer make me....incredibly happy. The hunt to find a lower-48 approval on something like that will consume me for years, and will be done!

asa wrote:My life's work is complete, slowly I will replace the Cirruses with Tripacers in the hands of doctors.

IMG_0896.jpg

Please don't tell anymore doctors about tripacers. Soon normal guys like me won't be able to afford them.

Your plane is exactly what I'm looking for right now. It looks great on those tundra tires. Are they 8.50s main and 8.00s nose? That set up would be great for exploring the desert strips out here in California.

moto657 wrote:

asa wrote:My life's work is complete, slowly I will replace the Cirruses with Tripacers in the hands of doctors.

IMG_0896.jpg

Please don't tell anymore doctors about tripacers. Soon normal guys like me won't be able to afford them.

Your plane is exactly what I'm looking for right now. It looks great on those tundra tires. Are they 8.50s main and 8.00s nose? That set up would be great for exploring the desert strips out here in California.

Not my plane, owned by the sons of my boss, they do a lease-back to allow people to rent it for instruction.

850's all around on ABI wheels and double puck brakes. It's a great setup.

Tri-Pacer Performance? Ha ha, there's an oxymoron ; )

Hard to beat performance and price in the 150 hp four place market. Poor mans 182. Great mountain airplane.

Not sure what kind of mountain flying to which you are referring. Perhaps the the mid west and east coast mole and gopher mounds? Certainly not Idaho, the Sierras, or the Rockies. At many of the Idaho back country strips, for example, a 180/185 is a two-place airplane. Moreover you better be flying in the cool mornings and evenings and have some experience doing it. Taking 4 people to the high elevation back country in a Tri-Pacer is a recipe for disaster and to advocate otherwise is irresponsible.

I flew and instructed on and off airport at Flagstaff, Gallup, all San Luis Valley FBOs, and Santa Fe, all above 6472 MSL in 65 hp Taylorcraft, Champ, 85 hp C-140, Tri-Pacer, Colt, 145 and 150 hp C-172, 180, 182, Centurion, Cheetah, and Tiger. The more powerful airplanes have better ROC in no wind, but the less powerful take greater advantage of both thermal and orographic or hydraulic lift. All could safely takeoff down drainage from any landing zone they could land in.

Without energy management, low ground effect takeoff, power pitch to touchdown, wind management, and various techniques, big engines will not save us from poor techniques. The design objectives of all the common airplanes, including Tri-Pacer, is more similar than different.

I am an old guy. Most of the airplanes I mentioned flew into your off airport strips when they were shorter and less improved. It wasn't called backcountry, just flying.

I'm an old guy too. Soloed on my 16th birthday in 1968. All just flying to me also.
Gallup, Santa Fe, Flagstaff - high elevation airports yes - but long smooth straight asphalt runways in wide open terrain with clear approach paths.
We are talking about high elevation dirt strips in mountainous terrain and canyons, many of them not straight and one way in with no go-arounds possible.
I'll meet you and your Tri-Pacer at Johnson Creek, and you can follow me in to some of them. (Or better yet you go first and show me how it's done) If you make it back to Johnson Creek the beer's on me, of course. And make sure you fill all four seats to back up all those performance and technique claims ; )

My favorite thing about tripacers is that they get people with 180/185/Maules panties in a bunch when it's mentioned that they might do the same job as the big bad $100k manly-man airplanes, albeit with a lesser load. And also their shameless beauty - "chicks dig milk stools".

If it's not carrying the same load it's not doing the same job!

Admittedly the Tri-Pacer is one of the sleekest airplanes ever built. I can see why people would want one solely for its timeless beauty.

Though you disagree with my posts no need to insult 180/185's by implying that Maules are in the same league ; )

With crooked ingress/approach and departure/egress, rudder turns in ground effect come into play. That is
why taking off down drainage, where possible, is wise. Energy management 1g turns, at whatever bank is necessary to miss obstructions, also makes more sense than high g, high load factor level turns. Cool decreases DA but heat/wind increases hydraulic lift. Engine thrust is neither the only nor the most powerful energy out there.

yodacat wrote:Not sure what kind of mountain flying to which you are referring. Perhaps the the mid west and east coast mole and gopher mounds? Certainly not Idaho, the Sierras, or the Rockies. At many of the Idaho back country strips, for example, a 180/185 is a two-place airplane. Moreover you better be flying in the cool mornings and evenings and have some experience doing it. Taking 4 people to the high elevation back country in a Tri-Pacer is a recipe for disaster and to advocate otherwise is irresponsible.

Same could he said for a C180. At high elevation and DA it isn't going to get you out at GW either. Comparing a tripacer to a C185 is stupid. Not in the same league. Will a tripacer get into and out of a lot of places, yes! If flown light and appropriately. No one is saying it will haul what a 185 will. But to say the aren't a good performer at a great price is wrong. They do good if respected for their capabilities.

Sent from my SM-G960W using Tapatalk

"With crooked ingress/approach and departure/egress, rudder turns in ground effect come into play. That is
why taking off down drainage, where possible, is wise. Energy management 1g turns, at whatever bank is necessary to miss obstructions, also makes more sense than high g, high load factor level turns. Cool decreases DA but heat/wind increases hydraulic lift. Engine thrust is neither the only nor the most powerful energy out there."

Fly your your Tri-Pacer (other comparable "poor man's 182") out of a high elevation Idaho back country airstrip in the middle of a summer day. There will be plenty of heat and wind to supply your "hydraulic lift". Do some rudder turns in ground effect to effect your egress. Let us all know how that works out for you.

I'm not saying steep sided canyons and high DA are not a challenge. BC glacier carved mountains are even worse. I'm just saying we could benefit from looking about us for any energy help. Idaho's remote strips are popular. Pilots are not going to change an engine out when it gets hotter than expected. Hopefully they will wait for cooler, split loads, and do various things mentioned by pilots and instructor's. Good mountains flying procedures and techniques are helpful in whatever airplane we fly. Default, habitual good techniques are there when we screw up good procedure for some reason or another. Most of us have been in the situation where we wish we hadn't started a cool, impressive climb sooner than necessary thus giving up the zoom reserve available had we just stayed in low ground effect as long as practable.

I expect my experience and point of view were somewhat economic, as in cheap. There is an artistic value also, I think, in energy management. I couldn't afford flying as a hobby, but my work offered plenty of exciting moments.

We pilots are a vast minority professionally and recreationally. Inclusion, rather than exclusion, will help keep us better served than in many other countries I think. Flown well, little airplanes do really well.