Welcome! Becoming a registered user of ShortWingPipers.Org is free and easy! Click the "Register" link found in the upper right hand corner of this screen. It's easy and you can then join the fun posting and learning about Short Wing Pipers!

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: What Tri-Pacer to buy?

  1. #1
    DeltaFlyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    54
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default What Tri-Pacer to buy?

    I have been lurking here for a few weeks, gathering info on purchasing my first plane. I have to say I 've learned so much and it has helped in educating myself on these planes.

    After wanting a SuperCub (and realizing I couldn't afford one) and looking at Pacers (more room) I have ended up wanting a Tri-Pacer (I have no tail wheel time, good plane to log some time, I have a couple young kids)

    SO here is the question: For the same cost and generally same condition would you rather buy:
    160 with 1600 hr TSMOH
    or a 150 with 700 TSMOH

    What am I looking at cost wise to rebuild the 160 when the time comes? (Im told around 2000 TBO)
    How much does the 10 hp extra matter?

    What is it worth to have that extra 900 hr cushion?

    Any input would be appreciated....Thanks

  2. #2
    Stephen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lopez Island, WA
    Posts
    4,140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Generally, you will not notice the difference. It depends on your mission...if you plan on LOTS of high altitude, back country flying the 10 hp will be nice...but not necessary. Prop pitch will make a significant difference for T.O. and climb performance. as well as empty weight of the A/C. A 700 hour engine is a good choice, assuming other factors are not significant. I have a 150hp Pacer and easily out do my buddy in his 160hp Pacer (Read this Dave) in the back country, because my plane is lighter. Our cruise speed is similar and fuel comsumption is almost the same. Buy the best plane!! What are some of the other factors?? You are probably wise to stick with a T-Pacer...it's a good air plane. Good luck
    "You can only tie the record for flying low."

  3. #3
    Administrator Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Graham, Texas, United States
    Posts
    15,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I'd take the lower time 150 hp over the higher time 160 hp if everything else was the same.

  4. #4
    av8ing's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tehachapi CA
    Posts
    150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The 900 hour total time difference makes a big difference in the value of the engine. Also I have owned both a 160 horse and a 150 and there is only a minimal difference if you even notice one at all. And one other thing that should weigh your decision is AD 98-02-08. It is a recurring crankshaft inspection that is applicable to the 160 horse with a hollow crankshaft, fixed pitch prop but not the 150 horse (go figure). It's not a particularly difficult or expensive inspection to do, but if you find any corrosion that basically can't be removed with a piece of scotch brite you have to replace the crank. That's where the big $$ comes in. I definitely would go with the 150 horse.

  5. #5
    Administrator Steve Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Graham, Texas, United States
    Posts
    15,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Good point on the AD. Didn't think of that one.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Live in Clermont County, Ohio
    Posts
    360
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    DeltaFlyer,
    I have to agree with Stephen. Stick with the Tri for your first plane. I did, and have NEVER regretted it. Just like my Little RedHead, she is a sweetheart. But I have a few other tidibits of earned knowledge, ( and opinions ) I have to throw in. I have a question with regard to the engines of both. When ( year) were both engines majored and by whom ? If an engine was majored 25 or 30 years ago, personally I would probably stay away from it as our engines deteriorate because of LACK of flying them. There are cases of engines with only 500 hours on them with a 30 year old major that looked worse ( corrosion and pitting ) than engines with triple that time and a much more recent major. Engines seem to remain healthy when they are used. And in my opinion, 700 hours of flying time in 30 years is not enough to keep an engine healthy. I know there are exceptions, but for my peace of mind, i would have to have my mechanic split the case and look at everything very closely. I know it would co$t$ a lot of hard earned bucks, but if I really liked the plane I would consider it a must.

    My Tri is a '55 150 . She has NEVER felt underpowered even on the hottest of days. Granted, I am a "flatlander" ( Ohio ) and have never done any backcountry flying. BUT, I have had my Tri loaded with lard-asses --- er-- oops -- I mean people , and never sweated any departure. But, I will chime in and say I have never flown a 160. But what I WILL say is that I am more than happy with ny 150's performance and apparent reliability.
    Also, but definitely NOT the least to consider, find an IA ( one that *YOU* trust and preferrably has no connection with the seller ) that knows our ShortWings inside and out, forwards and backwards and have them to a THOROUGH prebuy inspection. All the knowledgeable folks will tell you,** this is a MUST**.

    Finally, when you do purchase your Dream, find an instructor that actually has a considerable amount of ShortWing time and use them for your check out because even though they are VERY easy to fly, they DO have their particular flying characteristics that can surprise newcomers to the type. For one, some can get them way to slow on short final and they run out of elevator to arrest the descent and bang 'em hard on the runeway -- with less than favorable results.( In searching ther records for my Tri, I found it happened to mine in 1961 , and I did the same to a Colt I was learning in ,, but no damage occured -- a testament to how tough they seem to be ). So find a good instructor and practice some good old "engine out" power-off approaches.

    Delta Flyer, I've probably bored ya'all to death with my rambling, but I will have to tell you that my TriPacer experience has been a very favorable one. My wife really likes flying with me in it. She says she feels "safe" becsause it "looks really sturdy and well built". I, too, realy like flying her in One-Two Papa for an evening dinner or an early morning breakfast and having folks looking at her on the ramp and asking questions ( not checking ouit my wife , but One Two Papa hahah --- the former scenario would bring out my mean streak ). All-in-all, her "cool factor" is off the scale. But, so is the Little RedHead's.
    FWIW Johnnie
    Last edited by bigjohnnie; 08-11-2010 at 08:31 AM.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    428
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Possibly a BIGGER question is calendar time since MOH.

    Also frequency of operation.

    TBO will ONLY be reached by an engine that is used on a consistent basis.

    Rust trumps wear.


    While is currently may make little sense the 150 can burn Mo-gas.

    To my knowledge the 160 can't.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    428
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    There are other factors in the equation.

    I suggest you get an A & P that is knowledgeable with Short Wings.

    Start with copies of the dreaded paperwork.

    An important factor is the Struts. Sealed?

    Condition may overrule all other things.
    Last edited by P.o.P.; 08-11-2010 at 10:25 AM. Reason: typo

  9. #9
    DeltaFlyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    54
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Thank you all for your input. I am leaning towards the 150 at this point. It does have sealed struts, and the 700 hrs have been accumulated over 15 years (Though not much during the last couple years)
    One thing the 150 doesn't have is Toe Brakes, which I have been researching and may add if needed. I am going to be flying out of a strip with a not so big turnaround area, how tough are they to turn sharp with no independent braking?

    The 150 does have a LH seaplane door which I like. Looking for a good A&P right now...will update. Thanks again...DF

  10. #10
    Troy Hamon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    PAKN
    Posts
    948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Single bar brake on my tripe also, so no differential braking. I find that I have plenty of room to turn around on a runway that is 60 feet wide, haven't tried a narrower one.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •