From: franks@synoptics.com (Frank Stutzman)
Subject: Re: Getting my feet wet (first plane suggest
Reply-To: franks@synoptics.com
Organization: Synoptics Inc. Santa Clara, California.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:19:03 GMT

Oooooo!  I knew I was going to start something when I jumped in here!

Lee said:
>Well, getting a decent C-172 for less than $20K these days is near
>impossible.  I don't know when you got your plane, but if was more than
>5 years ago, you can probably add about $7K to the figure that you paid
>to buy it now.  The $14K Tri-Pacer figure Kevin was quoting was for an
>excellent specimen with plenty of time left until TBO and recent
>covering, etc.

I guess maybe we did get lucky.  We bought our baby 3 years ago
next March in Lodi, CA.   As far as 172s go, she is not amazing
(1960 'A' model, non-IFR, ~2500 on the airframe and ~1200 on
the engine).  The Tri-Pacer that we almost bought was certainly
in excellent shape and in general I'd have to agree that for $14K
you have a much better chance in finding a Tri-Pacer than a 172.

Lee again:
>Another advantage
>is that a rag-wing worth $14K will likely have spent most of its life in
>a hangar so you're getting a much nicer plane than you would with a
>weather-ravaged bargain spam can.

True.  Unfortunately, here in the Bay Area hangar space goes for 
a premium price, if you can get one at all.  Heck, 500 square feet
 of pavement and three ropes costs you ~$70 a month.   Not much
point in getting a bargin on the plane and paying higher maintence
costs because you can't keep it in a hangar. This was a major point 
that tilted us in favor of a spam-can.

Back to the performance items that Kevin mentioned:
> My hangar mate is a 172M with the same O-320 engine as my Pacer.  I outclimb
> and out cruise him by "a bit".  I'll agree that performance is very close
> but if you believe POHs then the edge goes to the TriPacer. However, in the
> real world of bugs, non-cruise props, mis-rigging, etc. then I'd call it
> a live heat.

Yup, although  I don't put a whole bunch of credit in POHs in just
about any plane I fly  (I strongly doubt that 70T has the same
performance that it did when it was new and the POH was written)
 I think your right, though, that in a real world comparison between 
any two planes of this type, too much depends upon the eccentricity 
of each plane.

To which Jeff added:
>Trade in the nose wheel for a tail one and you'll beat your hanger mate
>hands down.  The short wing Pipers, especially the Tri Pacer, provide
>substantial performance for the money.  My dad used to be part owner of
>one, and I remember it very fondly.

I personally feel that Piper did the Pacer a major dis-service when they
turned it into the Tri-Pacer.  Both from a performance (I might even 
conceed that an average Pacer will outperform 70T, gasp ;-), and from 
an appearance standpoint.

BTW, my pop also was a parter in a Tri-Pacer in Alaska.   I don't 
remember it (I was knee high to a Luscombe at the time), but going
through the family albums and seen this plane did help inspire me
to become a pilot.

And back to Lee:
>p.s.  How's that Kevin?  Enough evangelical fervor? :-) :-)

Hey, can some Cessnoids help me out here?  I'm being beseiged
by the Piper contingent!   Mr. Hernandon, where are you when I
need you?  ;-)


Frank Stutzman          
SynOptics Communcations    |    Eagles soar, but weasels never
Santa Clara, Ca            |    get sucked into jet engines.
franks@synoptics.com       |              -- Elf Sternberg
Cessna N7770T @ PAO 





Newsgroups: rec.aviation.owning