Tripacer vs Cherokee...which one?

Aaron H

Aaron H

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Dec 18, 2017
Messages
107
Display Name
Display name:
Aaron
1962 Cherokee 160, paint and interior less than 5 yes old, 3600tt 1100 smoh, Florida plane, no sb's for corrosion done. Vgs and speed mods.
25k

1952 150 tripacer, 2500tt, sboh 175, stoh 711.
Not sure when covered or interior, but looks ok from pics. 17k

First plane and am not looking to upgrade. Only me, wife and dog. For flying around pa and travelling to a few other states in the Northeast from a 2200ft grass runway.
Hangar available for $170 month or free tiedowns or 3200ft paved runway with no hangars $40 month. The paved is an extra 1/2 away.

Both seem like great planes for my mission.
Like the Cherokee for easy landing, cutting through turbulance, being able to leave outside and desent cruise.

Pacer seems to fit the grass stripe better, nice 2 door entry, cheaper. I just read about interconnects from rudder and alerons.

Is the pacer a better short field performer than the 160 with vg's?

Maintance and insurance costs be cheaper on either?

Landings easier on the Cherokee? Heard you have to come in fast with the pacer?

Cruise easier with the pacer? Heard with the interconnects you fly with your feet only during cruise?

Thinking stall is lower and speed is a little higher with the Cherokee?

Any other pros or cons of each??

Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Aaron
 
Pacer.

Carries a ton, great backcountry plane, more bang for your buck, just make sure the fabric and engine are healthy in a good prebuy and have fun!
 
Cherokee hand down. Can’t be beat for simplicity, only 1200 parts in the whole airframe. Pull the wheel pants and a Cherokee will be happy on grass. Tons were made, lots of parts and everyone knows how to fix them.
 
Plus a Cherokee will stand up to weather a lot better if you aren't going to hangar it.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Plus a Cherokee will stand up to weather a lot better if you aren't going to hangar it.
Click to expand...

Good point here, hangar would be a tie breaker for sure


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lots of fabric planes live outside and do just fine.
 
If you love your plane you'll probably end up wanting to put the Cherokee in the hangar anyway so I'd lose that part of the equation unless you're pretty tight money-wise.
 
If you can hangar the tri pacer,it may be a better deal,check for corrosion and condition of the fabric.
 
Thx all for the comments.

Seems like there is a little more support for the tripacer.
And for some reason, I like the look of the flying milkstool.

Hangaring either isnt an issue. I was just stating what was available to me.

How are these when comparing flying, landing?
One easier than the other?
Which one takes off quicker?
Can anyone comment on the interconnects?

Is getting a climb prop and bigger tires for the pacer make it a back country plane?

Thx
 
timwinters said:
Just a quick thought...

Pacers were one of the best looking airplanes ever made.

Tri-Pacers one of the ugliest.

It's amazing what moving one wheel can do to the overall looks.
Click to expand...

Lots of Tri-Pacers were converted to tailwheel. That is what I would be looking for - a 150 hp or 160 hp Tri-Pacer tailwheel conversion.
 
With the power off the Tri-Pacer sinks faster than the Cherokee (more drag, shorter wing). The fabric covering will need a “punch test” each annual and if it fails you will be required to shell out big bucks. Fabric is more maintenance than aluminum skin. Cherokee will probably cost you less in the long run.
 
Brad Smith said:
With the power off the Tri-Pacer sinks faster than the Cherokee (more drag, shorter wing). The fabric covering will need a “punch test” each annual and if it fails you will be required to shell out big bucks. Fabric is more maintenance than aluminum skin. Cherokee will probably cost you less in the long run.
Click to expand...

Unless you have a olllllld fabric job, as in like doesn’t apply to 90% of the fleet, if your AP wants to do a punch test on it, find a AP who actually knows fabric.
 
My Cherokee gave me the most facile landing of anything I've flown. And the Pacer does have an extra system, that fabric. As far as short field performance, how short a field are you envisioning? To be honest, neither aircraft is the best for short field operations, I'd think a taildragger with a big engine would be more apropos.
 
Aaron H said:
...How are these when comparing flying, landing?
One easier than the other?
Which one takes off quicker?
Can anyone comment on the interconnects?

Is getting a climb prop and bigger tires for the pacer make it a back country plane?

Thx
Click to expand...

I've owned six planes. I currently own a Piper Cherokee. I've had other pipers, cessnas, etc. The flying/handling differences between ANY production aircraft w/tricycle gear, 4 place, w/150hp, are so minor, you shouldn't really even think about that in your purchase. Go with the one that has better maintenance, or a better view, or if you want two doors, or is cheaper, or you like the look of one over the other better...lots of reasons to pick between the two, I just wouldn't consider performance one of them...5 knots faster in cruise, or 200 feet shorter ground roll, is really meaningless in most situations. Any made since 1950 (which is pretty much ALL tricycle gears) is "easy" to fly. And if your situation REALLY requires it to be different than most, then if I were you I wouldn't consider a run-of-the-mill four place 150hp tricycle gear, I'd consider something more geared for the mission, like more hp and/or taildragger for short grass fields, or retractable for more speed.
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
My Cherokee gave me the most facile landing of anything I've flown. And the Pacer does have an extra system, that fabric. As far as short field performance, how short a field are you envisioning? To be honest, neither aircraft is the best for short field operations, I'd think a taildragger with a big engine would be more apropos.
Click to expand...
I spent a year at a 4000 ft runway (45 ft wide) with my cherokee, never had problems either takeoff or landings.
 
James331 said:
Unless you have a olllllld fabric job, as in like doesn’t apply to 90% of the fleet, if your AP wants to do a punch test on it, find a AP who actually knows fabric.
Click to expand...

How long does fabric last if hangared and cared for?
How often does it need to be repainted?
 
steingar said:
My Cherokee gave me the most facile landing of anything I've flown. And the Pacer does have an extra system, that fabric. As far as short field performance, how short a field are you envisioning? To be honest, neither aircraft is the best for short field operations, I'd think a taildragger with a big engine would be more apropos.
Click to expand...

I've read Cherokees are one of the easiest to land, one of the reasons I'm looking at it.
What do u mean by extra system?
 
Aaron H said:
How long does fabric last if hangared and cared for?
How often does it need to be repainted?
Click to expand...
One of the planes in my "ownership past" was fabric. My mechanic said the fabric now-a-days lasts too long (as in "longer than you want to go without being able to see how things look under the fabric").
 
I love my old 52 Tri-Pacer, but that year was slightly under powered with the 0-290-D2 engine. Also, you mention it has 2 doors, and your right, except the left one is on the rear. Hardly ever use mine with just me or 1 pax. You might with your dog.
 
Keep in mind that when the fabric needs replacing, unless you do the work yourself, it is really economically unviable. Whenever you do a recover it becomes a complete restoration. Think about it, that new fabric will last twenty years, the only logical time to do a lot of inspection and repair is when the plane is torn apart.

I have a Tri-pacer that is disassembled with a 700hr O-320. It was on floats and did all right but I doubt if it will ever fly again. I plan to part it out and find another Cessna 180 on floats.
 
Aaron H said:
What do u mean by extra system?
Click to expand...
There are systems in common to most GA aircraft, for example engines. Any GA aircraft can have a catastrophic engine failure at any time except a gilder. They all share that.

There are systems more unique to some aircraft not found in others that can create extra issues. For example, Mooney aircraft all have wet wings, i.e. the fuel isn't stored in gas tanks, but in the wing itself. 50 years later the sealant used in the wings is degrading on many if not most, this is an issue found in Mooneys not found in other aircraft. Comanche's have bungees in the landing system. Some Bo's have magnesium in the ruddervators. Lots of aircraft have systems not shared with others.

One often has to think about these systems prior to ownership. The cost to overhaul and engine is huge, but it is shared by all GA aircraft. The cost of repair is similarly huge and similarly shared. The cost to reseal Mooney tanks is huge and not shared. The cost to replace the fabric on a rag airplane is huge, and is not shared with a Cherokee, which has a metal fuselage.

One other thought. Given the questions you're asking I am assuming you haven't before owned an aircraft. No harm or foul whatsoever, everyone has to start somewhere. Cherokees are simple, recognizable aircraft found everywhere. I think they are excellent for a first ownership experience. Nothing wrong with tripacers, but I think they are less numerous and perhaps not as well suited for a first ownership experience.
 
Stickman said:
Keep in mind that when the fabric needs replacing, unless you do the work yourself, it is really economically unviable. Whenever you do a recover it becomes a complete restoration. Think about it, that new fabric will last twenty years, the only logical time to do a lot of inspection and repair is when the plane is torn apart.

I have a Tri-pacer that is disassembled with a 700hr O-320. It was on floats and did all right but I doubt if it will ever fly again. I plan to part it out and find another Cessna 180 on floats.
Click to expand...
If you're going to part it out - check with someone like me first. I'd be seriously interested in a project Pacer to make the gear right with...
 
Aaron H said:
How long does fabric last if hangared and cared for?
How often does it need to be repainted?
Click to expand...

Modern man made fabrics don’t have a expiration date, just make sure the paint is kept up and you don’t get bare fabric showing where it can get UV damage.

Fabric is really a great material for small planes, especially backcountry planes, look at the very expensive new backcountry planes like the new cub crafters, maule, husky, all done in fabric.
 
I've always wanted to fly a tripacer, call me crazy. They are usually very reasonably priced to boot.
 
Will you ever make a floatplane out of it?
Tri-Pacer 160? ...............Pretty decent
Cherokee 180? ...............Bad!!!
 
Love my PA-22. I'm an old fart and have real problems getting in and out of PA-28's. I operate my O-320 out of a 2200 ft strip in the AZ desert. I consider the PA-22 pretty easy to land. My interconnects have been removed via field approval and I still steer with my feet only on long X-countries.
Paul
Salome, AZ
 
Here’s a pretty basic article on fabric covering:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2012/december/01/ownership-tube-and-fabric-101

Your fabric may have passed the last annual inspection but may not pass the next. Where was the punch test taken on the aircraft? On a nice shaded spot on the underside of the wing or in a spot that receives direct sunlight all day long? Is the A&P who did the test familiar with fabric covering? When was the last time it was recovered? What process was used? What is the cost of recovering? Good questions to ask and part of your due diligence before purchase. I only stress this because of the possibility of having to recover a couple years into ownership can really sour the experience of owning an aircraft.
 
This is one of those apples and oranges comparisons. The two aircraft have similar missions, but very different style and eras. The Pacer is the end of a lineage dating back to the Taylor Cub of the 1930s, whereas the Cherokee was a brand new design certificated at the end of the Pacer's production. Which do you like better? If you like the romance of old airplanes, landing on grass fields, old cars, and polishing your flying skills, you'll probably like the Pacer better. If OTOH you like modern shiny things (not that an old Cherokee is all that modern either), going from point A to B with a minumum of fuss, maybe eventually getting your instrument rating, then the Cherokee might be a better choice. Personally, I find Cherokees rather boring and the Pacer kinda cool, but then I'm an old school taildragger guy who vastly prefers a grass runway populated with homebuilts and beat up old planes to a modern paved strip where I could hobnob with the doctors and lawyers in their Bonanzas and twin Cessnas. YMMV.
 
Aaron H said:
Thx all for the comments.

Seems like there is a little more support for the tripacer.
And for some reason, I like the look of the flying milkstool.

Hangaring either isnt an issue. I was just stating what was available to me.

How are these when comparing flying, landing?
One easier than the other?
Which one takes off quicker?
Can anyone comment on the interconnects?

Is getting a climb prop and bigger tires for the pacer make it a back country plane?

Thx
Click to expand...

I think the "little more support" for the Tri-Pacer may have come about because you dropped the "Tri" in some of your posts, and that got the tailwheel fanatics all riled up.

if you like the looks of the Tri-Pacer better, and you enjoy that 40's-50's vibe they give off, then go that way. Both airplanes will do what you're contemplating, but there are differences. One's high wing, the other is low. The Tri-Pacer has a back door, the Cherokee does not. Which one can you get your dog into more easily? Do you or your wife have mobility issues that would make it easier to get in a high winger? As others have noted, if the Tri-Pacer needs new fabric, it's pretty much totaled unless you do it yourself, so do consider that. Also, if you do go Tri-Pacer, make sure you get one that has an 0-320 under the cowl. As little money as Tri-Pacers bring these days, there's no reason to get one with an 0-290.

I don't know that there is an STC for big tires on a Tri-Pacer, you'd need a revised nose gear to accommodate it.

In any case, both of these airplanes are old. Most Tri-Pacers would be eligible for Social Security if they were people. Condition counts more than anything, so look for a good airplane that meets your needs rather than a specific model.
 
tawood said:
One of the planes in my "ownership past" was fabric. My mechanic said the fabric now-a-days lasts too long (as in "longer than you want to go without being able to see how things look under the fabric").
Click to expand...

I personally don’t feel that it is a problem with the fabric lasting too long, the problem is more that cheap owners force the fabric to remain on their airplanes longer than it should be there.

As you (and others) have mentioned, fabric airplanes need to get naked periodically. Most of the ads for older fabric planes that are for sale indicate fabric jobs from the ‘70s or ‘80s, that is way too long in my opinion for anything but an airplane that has seen very light use. Even then it might have been too long.

FormerHangie said:
I don't know that there is an STC for big tires on a Tri-Pacer, you'd need a revised nose gear to accommodate it.
Click to expand...

The way you put big tires on a tri-pacer is by doing the tailwheel conversion first. The way they all should have been...
 
Brad Smith said:
Here’s a pretty basic article on fabric covering:
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2012/december/01/ownership-tube-and-fabric-101

Your fabric may have passed the last annual inspection but may not pass the next. Where was the punch test taken on the aircraft? On a nice shaded spot on the underside of the wing or in a spot that receives direct sunlight all day long? Is the A&P who did the test familiar with fabric covering? When was the last time it was recovered? What process was used? What is the cost of recovering? Good questions to ask and part of your due diligence before purchase. I only stress this because of the possibility of having to recover a couple years into ownership can really sour the experience of owning an aircraft.
Click to expand...


If the AP was familiar he wouldn't have punch tested it.



"AC 43-13.1B 2-34 FABRIC TESTING
4. FABRIC TESTING. Mechanical devices
used to test fabric by pressing against or
piercing the finished fabric are not FAA approved"

"2-2. PROBLEM AREAS.
a. Deterioration. Polyester fabric deteriorates
only by exposure to ultraviolet radiation
as used in an aircraft covering environment.
When coatings completely protect the fabric its
service life is infinite. Therefore, it is very important
to thoroughly protect the structure
from deterioration before covering and provide
adequate inspection access to all areas of fabric-
covered components to allow inspection for
corrosion, wood rot, and mice infestation.
Multiple drain holes in the lower ends of all
fabric-covered sections also provide needed
ventilation to remove condensation."


Basically it's visual on most all modern covered planes, if the paint isn't cracking or missing anywhere you shouldn't have some yahoo trying to poke holes in your plane.
If you look at what the big fabric manufactors like polyfiber say, they all say no punch and do a visual.
 
Tri-Pacer, only because they are more fun than a Cherokee. Also they have a total lack of attitude, cool or panache.
Sort of the nerds airplane. A buddy has one I steal on a semi-regular basis.
 
Shepherd said:
Tri-Pacer, only because they are more fun than a Cherokee. Also they have a total lack of attitude, cool or panache.
Sort of the nerds airplane. A buddy has one I steal on a semi-regular basis.
Click to expand...
When I see the way Tri-Pacers are priced, I think anyone who buys one "steals" it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top