Backcountry Pilot • Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

Technical and practical discussion about specific aircraft types such as Cessna 180, Maule M7, et al. Please read and search carefully before posting, as many popular topics have already been discussed.
Post a reply
82 posts • Page 1 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:35 am

Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

Still on the quest for my next bird and have come down mostly to the pacer. Only reason I hesitate is their price...can I really get a good shape 4-plane plane for under $30k? I’m only considering the 160HP tri-pacer.

my budget is $75k but it just seems that I should be able to find some more performance at $50k-$75k. Something in my brain is having me question if I can really meet my mission for less than half of my budget.

The C172/182 are out. I just remembered that Maule makes a tri gear and was looking for real world figures to see if it is worth the extra cost and with which motor.

I’m looking to get 4 small people in and out of 2000’ strips without taking any branches at the end of the runways with me. I wanted initially to cruise at 150mph, but I’m ok with 130mph now.

Thx
Last edited by DJ Balla on Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DJ Balla offline
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:31 am
Location: Apex
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:50 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

Tripacers do not fly at 130 mph in cruise. If you want faster than 120, it is the wrong plane, and most of them are more in the 105 to 115 mph range unless you really dress them up for speed with small tires and fairings.
Troy Hamon offline
User avatar
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:27 am
Location: King Salmon
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... 04iX0FXjV2
Aircraft: Piper PA-22
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:57 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

The TriPacer is a good airplane but there's no comparison, even to a 180HP Maule.

Especially if looks count ;-)
Mountain Doctor offline
User avatar
Posts: 641
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 3:33 pm
Location: Richland
Aircraft: Maule MXT-7 180A
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 1:15 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

Troy Hamon wrote:Tripacers do not fly at 130 mph in cruise. If you want faster than 120, it is the wrong plane, and most of them are more in the 105 to 115 mph range unless you really dress them up for speed with small tires and fairings.


I should have stated in the original post I am looking at 160HP Tri-Pacers only. Likely vs 180hp constant speed propped Maule.
DJ Balla offline
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:31 am
Location: Apex
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 2:41 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

Tri-maule's are disgusting. Get a tripacer. They are at least ugly in a good/endearing way.

Also, btw Troy I spotted your PA22 in King Salmon last week, I'm a fan. We got 2 tri pacers to do flight instruction in and one of them is painted nearly identical to yours.
asa offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 1532
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 1:56 pm
Location: ak
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:02 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

asa wrote:Tri-maule's are disgusting. Get a tripacer. They are at least ugly in a good/endearing way.


Once you've sat behind a Lycoming 540 in a 4-seat aircraft, it's hard to go back.

Tri-Pacer: Honest, gentle flying bird. No toe brakes, just a hand brake. One door on the right side. 160hp surprisingly good performer.

MT-7: TWO doors, huge cargo door, available with 235-260hp Lycoming for hauling meat at higher speeds. Constant speed prop. Toe brakes (woo!) All things normally objectionable about the Maule.
Zzz offline
Janitorial Staff
User avatar
Posts: 2855
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: northern
Aircraft: Swiveling desk chair
Half a century spent proving “it is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:28 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

60% of all threads on BCP:

I don't want a 182, I just want a plane that does everything that 182 does, nothing more, nothing less.
asa offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 1532
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 1:56 pm
Location: ak
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:32 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

asa wrote:60% of all threads on BCP:

I don't want a 182, I just want a plane that does everything that 182 does, nothing more, nothing less.


Someone once told me that everyone ends up with a 182 eventually. I guess there are some slow learners here.
daedaluscan offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:06 pm
Location: Texada BC
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:53 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

asa wrote:60% of all threads on BCP:

I don't want a 182, I just want a plane that does everything that 182 does, nothing more, nothing less.


Probably right. There is a reason that there are so many 182s out there in the world but that doesn’t mean that they are for everyone.
DJ Balla offline
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:31 am
Location: Apex
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:56 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

DJ Balla wrote:

The C172/182 are out.

I’m looking to get 4 small people in and out of 2000’ strips without taking any branches at the end of the runways with me. I wanted initially to cruise at 150mph, but I’m ok with 130mph now.

Thx


My 1956 182 is just a bit short of 150 mph cruise. It has a 1000 pound useful load. I operate out of 1000 ft of grass at 2640 foot field elevation. I understand why a 172 is out for the mission you described but an explanation of why a strait tail 182 is out would be interesting to here.

Image
qmdv offline
User avatar
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: Payette
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... I5tqEOk0rc
Aircraft: Cessna 182
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:58 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

DJ Balla wrote:
asa wrote:60% of all threads on BCP:

I don't want a 182, I just want a plane that does everything that 182 does, nothing more, nothing less.


Probably right. There is a reason that there are so many 182s out there in the world but that doesn’t mean that they are for everyone.


Sex isn't for everyone either.
qmdv offline
User avatar
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: Payette
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... I5tqEOk0rc
Aircraft: Cessna 182
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 3:59 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

Just for the record I DO NOT want a 182, great airplane but it doesn't have a round enough tail, I like round tails !!!!!!
Mapleflt offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 2324
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:35 pm
Location: Bradford
Aircraft: Cessna S170B NexGen (NM) Variant
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:11 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

qmdv wrote:
DJ Balla wrote:
asa wrote:60% of all threads on BCP:

I don't want a 182, I just want a plane that does everything that 182 does, nothing more, nothing less.


Probably right. There is a reason that there are so many 182s out there in the world but that doesn’t mean that they are for everyone.


Sex isn't for everyone either.


Many options there too. Look at all the robots they are producing and declining birth rates in certain areas.
DJ Balla offline
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:31 am
Location: Apex
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:30 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

Mapleflt wrote:Just for the record I DO NOT want a 182, great airplane but it doesn't have a round enough tail, I like round tails !!!!!!


True. The Cessna 170 may be the best looking plane they made.
qmdv offline
User avatar
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: Payette
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... I5tqEOk0rc
Aircraft: Cessna 182
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:36 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

I get it, 182’s probably don’t have a high enough Vne for the DJ.

I am curious if simply painting a new red line (thicker than original one obviously) on the ASI changes the Vne or if there’s more to it?
asa offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 1532
Joined: Mon May 16, 2016 1:56 pm
Location: ak
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:58 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

qmdv wrote:
Mapleflt wrote:Just for the record I DO NOT want a 182, great airplane but it doesn't have a round enough tail, I like round tails !!!!!!


True. The Cessna 170 may be the best looking plane they made.


You clearly understand the 170 obsession, thank you kind Sir
Mapleflt offline
Supporter
User avatar
Posts: 2324
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2017 2:35 pm
Location: Bradford
Aircraft: Cessna S170B NexGen (NM) Variant
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:08 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

Zzz wrote:
asa wrote:Tri-maule's are disgusting. Get a tripacer. They are at least ugly in a good/endearing way.


Once you've sat behind a Lycoming 540 in a 4-seat aircraft, it's hard to go back.

Tri-Pacer: Honest, gentle flying bird. No toe brakes, just a hand brake. One door on the right side. 160hp surprisingly good performer.

MT-7: TWO doors, huge cargo door, available with 235-260hp Lycoming for hauling meat at higher speeds. Constant speed prop. Toe brakes (woo!) All things normally objectionable about the Maule.


Yes...the abilities are very different. They have a common general form factor but they are really different airplanes.
Troy Hamon offline
User avatar
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:27 am
Location: King Salmon
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... 04iX0FXjV2
Aircraft: Piper PA-22
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:11 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

asa wrote:60% of all threads on BCP:

I don't want a 182, I just want a plane that does everything that 182 does, nothing more, nothing less.


This made me laugh. Very true, though.
Troy Hamon offline
User avatar
Posts: 913
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:27 am
Location: King Salmon
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... 04iX0FXjV2
Aircraft: Piper PA-22
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

Mapleflt wrote:
qmdv wrote:
Mapleflt wrote:Just for the record I DO NOT want a 182, great airplane but it doesn't have a round enough tail, I like round tails !!!!!!


True. The Cessna 170 may be the best looking plane they made.


You clearly understand the 170 obsession, thank you kind Sir


Saw a really nice 170 with a 220 Franklin in it. Just WOW
qmdv offline
User avatar
Posts: 3633
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:22 pm
Location: Payette
FindMeSpot URL: http://share.findmespot.com/shared/face ... I5tqEOk0rc
Aircraft: Cessna 182
top
Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:19 pm

Re: Tri-pacer vs. tri-Maule??

Part of my reasoning is that a 182 is big and heavy and needs 6-cylinders to do its thing vs the other two planes in my original post which are not as heavy and use 4-cylinders. My assumption is that this would result in lower fuel and overhaul costs vs the 182
DJ Balla offline
Posts: 78
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2018 11:31 am
Location: Apex
top

DISPLAY OPTIONS

Next
Post a reply
82 posts • Page 1 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Return to Aircraft Types

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Latest Features

Latest Knowledge Base