tripacer value

[jay heil]

just out of curiosity since im kinda borderline if i can afford to fly anymore with the av gas at 4.10 per gallon I dont fly much sooooooo
what would eveyone think my tripacer is worth its a 59 PA22-160 with 75 hrs smoh not quite 2000 tt gen, starter, mags&harness ,carb all 75 hours oh 75 on the exhaust as well new carpet new battery new solid state voltage regulator new tires , north river brake booster new [2 yr old] ceconite with airtech finish[ i believe to be show quality] its basically very origional and very nice but not to sure if i can afford it ,I can keep it but not fly it lol oops one more thing it has no radios installed but does have antennas for comm and transpander installed with the wires tied up behind the panel i have the transponder and encoder and intercom but i might just keep them not sure

[Tom T.]

You might want to check out the swp classifieds and do some comparisons on your own. The asking prices does not necessarily mean the selling prices, but it sounds like yours should be one of the upper end market except for the radios not installed. Mine is a 1951, and I have about $26K+ invested, but I dont think it would sell at that price. I found another plane I want real bad, and I would sell it right now for $23K
Tom T.

[13357]

Jay, Out of curiosity what is your normal fuel burn rate? I have a Colt with the 108 and I burn about 7-8 gallons an hour, depending on how fast I want to go and how much I want to carry. It would be a shame for you to have to give up your flying... I'm no expert at all, but I'd say you're probably somewhere in the mid-twenties for your plane. Of course the radios on these older birds do have an effect on the price.

Bill

[BigJohnnie]

Jay
In my 2 plus year quest for a Tripacer, I did a lot of looking ,and a lot of extensive "market reasearch" both online and hard-copy publications. Personally, I set a budgetary limit of $28.5k . I found that most tripes for that price were recovered/restored within the last 10 years or so, and had relatively low hours/years on a major engine overhaul. They had a single nav and single com , and the other required WORKING radio installed. For me,the plane being "hangared" was a must . I know that aesthetics area matter of personal taste, but for that price the interior had to be free of rips and tears. Now, this is just MY opinion. My particular airplane was just purchased in June. It doesn't have an alternator STC / conversion, doesn't have center-stacked radios, was recovered/restored in '91 (Stits and Aerothane --the paint looks like new still), been hangared since then, has the 8 gal aux tank, clevelands, has 900 hours on a major (1996)and runs like a swiss watch. Iwouldn't take a penny less than $ 28k for her. Hope this helps.
John

[jay heil]

it burns about 9 i havent kept real close track of it but it seems around 9

[jay heil]

the problem with the classifieds are i see tripacers anywhere from 20 to 45 grand i wonder it thats very close to realistic there was a pretty nice 135 tripacer for sale here for 15000 i mean it was really nice had a nav com[i think it was a kx170b] and a transponder nice interior engine was good fabric was good paint was nice[looked like polytone] he had it for sale for 2 years finally sold it for 13,500 and my buddy just bought a 1960 150hp with some decent modern radios toe brakes is a decent looking airplane he paid 16 for it kinda makes a guy wonder , the projects with half of it missing are going for that in these classifieds

[Wayne]

I burn anywhere from 6 to 12 gph. in my O-320 powered PA22/20. That equates to 140+ mph on the high(well over red line) and about 105mph or so putting at 2200 rpm.
In my opinyon, being able to climb at 2550 rpm going up pritty fast then sipping fuel like a Cessna 150 and at least as fast is a pritty good compramize.

[jay heil]

how the heck do you only burn 6 gallons an hour ? mine is the same engine as yours apparently that 9 gallons per hour im talking about was mostly at 2200 with about 4 take offs included in that 3 hour flight im probably afraid of leaning it to much but 6 gph @2200? i could almost afford that , i was just waiting for fuel to go do but its still 4.10 at the airport although 30 miles away its 3.37 so thats where i will refuel

[Wayne]

Jay, at those low power settings it is real hard to hurt anything because exhaust heat. At that power setting I lean to peak rpm with smooth engine. However I don't recomend running that low of power setting continuously all the time. I don't think it is that good for our engines. Most manuals dont have power settings below 55%. ^ gph is about 50% power.
Is your tach accurate? What max rpm do you get at say 4000 feet full throttle leaned to peak rpm?
An rpm that gets you about 100 mph indicated at 4000 ft leaned should get you around 6 gph.

[Gilbert Pierce]

An rpm that gets you about 100 mph indicated at 4000 ft leaned should get you around 6 gph.

Part throttle at 6 gph is just barely on the Lycoming chart. It indicates you are making 45% power at 2000rpm and 14 inches of manifold pressure. Do your really believe you make a Tri-Pacer do 100 mph on 45% power (45% of 150 is 67.5 HP)? It must be aerodyamicly a lot cleaner then any TP I ever saw.

[Mark Rasmussen]

Gilbert-

In my Colt on a standard, or reasonably close to it, day, 2500 rpm at 4000 ft will indicate about 100mph. That's about 75% power, or 81 hp. Fuel burn is about 6.5 gal. per tach hour, or about 6 gal. per clock hour. Since the Colt is just an underpowered Tri with no flaps, the aerodynamics are the same. Wayne may not be that far off .

Mark

[Wayne]

I flew from WJF to Chiraco summit. landed and visited the General Pattent Tank Museun. Then flew up to Goffs VOR and looked the area over by air for a half hour. Then headed back to WJF. I landed ar Barstow/Daggit for fuel because of a 30 kt headwind I couldn't make WJF on that tank of gas. I landed at Barstow after 5 hr 2 min. of flight and 2 take-off and landings. It took 30.9 gal. to fill my tanks. That figures to 6.14 gph.
Thanks Gilbert for the support and yes your 75% power is my 50% power. The only difference is that it is a lot harder to burn valves by aggressive leaning at 50% power then it is at 70% power. Wayne

[Wayne]

I want to say that I don't and don't recomend doing most of my flying at this power setting. If have a 20 kt or better tailwind I pull the power back. Also I f I am just putting around the area I also use 2200 rpm. Remember that at 4,000 feet full throttle I turn up almost 2800 rpm so 2200 is a low power for me.

[Gilbert Pierce]

I have no doubt you can fly and burn only 6.14 gph. I can do that too, but not at a calibrated 100mph. Indicated Air Speed means nothing to me.
I flew side by side with a Pacer saturday. He was indicating 92 and I was indicating 97. Which one is right. I flew side by side with a Tripacer last year, he was indicating 130 and I was indicating 118. Too many varibles.
What is not a varible is the pounds of fuel burn per hour per horsepower on a 1940's technology aircooled engine. It is a matter of physics and the amount of energy in a pound of fuel and what percentage of that pound of fuel you can extract. Usually only about 30 to 35%.

[Gilbert Pierce]

Okay I was wrong.

A little research revealed that a really good prop and airplane combination can yield a propellor efficiency of 80 to 83%.
Assume you had a 58 inch pitch prop. (climb prop) turning at 2200 rpm and 100% efficiency you could fly at 120 mph. At 80 % it would be 97 mph and at 83% it would be 100.2 mph. So, if you had a 60 inch prop at 2200 rpm at 80% efficiency that would give you 100 mph and at 83
% would be 103 mph.

Now, assuming a 58 inch prop at sea level, 75% power with an O-320 that is 2450 rpm.
Your calibrated airspeed should be 134 mph. I don't think most Short Wings are that fast but giving benefit of the doubt it is possible to go 100 mph calibrated airspeed at 2200 rpm, 45% power and 6 gph.

I apologize for using dogma rather than researching the issue before I opened my mouth.