Whilst I mentioned before I would like a 150 on steroids, I also kinda think if I'm going to be spending the money on fuel(engine size) I would want a bit more utility, That bearhawk looks ok, and so does the Rebel, but for my money I would (and have) considered a Piper Tripacer or Pacer as the larger replacement aircraft for me.... surly you gest - I here you say peerring into your computer screens (Piper that is) but the bottom line is they out fly a 172, easy to maintain, parts are available from a number of sources and in the Pacer format, "what a great looking aircraft" plus you can slip a few friends in or carry the baggage for that extended trip away. I am attaching a photo of the instrument panel of one thats for sale here, its go me thinking I gotta tell ya......
Matt, as with any plane they have their own unique set of problems. I've been giving a guy a hand here rebuilding J-3, L-4, and a Tri-Pacer. The one thing I've noticed is everyone of them needed major tube-frame repair prior to recovering the aircraft which becomes clearly visible in a complete overhaul. Now that's not saying they are unlike aircraft like my C-150 which had its own set of problems during the restoration.
A Tripacer is OK if you want a fabric airplane. You must of course hanger it. Also, Tripacers can be nasty on the ground in the wind. Also, till you get used to them, don't expect them to handle like your 150. Get one slow on final and you can be surprised.
Good Evening, or is it morning over there - the latter I think . Point taken with maintenance with regard to tube work etc, but again its all how you look after it regardless of type. When I used to work as an AME at Bankstown for a flying school, I would oftern see some horrible things that happen to aircraft due to the elements both on company planes and private owners especially when parked on grass.
I would not consider owning a fabric aircraft unless I had the appropriate storage for it, in fact to be honest, every aircraft I have ever owned has been hangared because of that very reason of what can happen when they are left out. I know not everyone can be fortunate enough to own or have access to hangars, or perhaps afford it, but then I personally, probably would not own one in that case. The thought of my investment sitting out there coping a beating from the elements is just too much to bare, not to mention the security aspect of it not being locked away out of sight. And yes before you say it, hangars get broken into and bits stolen or damaged, the fact is the chances are considerably less. Having said that I have a number of friends who have aircraft and leave them on the field out in the open who openly state that the money they save on hangarage pays for a repaint every 4 to 5 years and where necessary replacement perspex/plastics etc so thier aircraft always look pretty good, so there is yet another theory on values. Of course it goes without saying, none of them own fabric aircraft.
As to the slow on final problems that George mentioned, yes I got to agree again, but, there are countless aircraft that can bite and bite hard, Pitts Special, Thorp T18, Mustang 11, not to mention countless production aircraft of all makes and models in other than favourable circumstances (climb, turns - you name it), but hey, isn't thay why we have the numbers to go by, as a great prophet once said
Oft shalt thou confirm thine airspeed on final approach, lest the earth rise up and smite thee ..... - one I have always remember and constantly act upon no matter what aircraft I find myself in.
Of course there are a number of other commandments I fly by as well - if you want to check them out, go have a look at the "Short Wing Piper Club" for the list - they are pretty accurate for us aviators
But all things aside - those Pacers look pretty smick, and if I could afford it, it would be another one for the "toy-box" down at the airport
The Pacer and TriPacer are the same airplane except the 3rd wheel is in different places. I don't find them to be as roomy as one would expect for a "4 place" airplane. The great thing about a fabric airplane is the repairability. If you bend something it is usually a fraction of the work to repair compared to metal airplanes. The TriPacer is a pussycat on the ground in virtually all conditions, whereas the Pacer is a challenge (as taildraggers go). A friend/A&P is developing a 180 hp w/ constant speed conversion STC for the Pacers and is about to get final FAA approval. The test airplane is an amazing performer. The short wing Pipers are a different animal...some like 'em, some don't. You know, kinda like Cessnas <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Dan
Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities. (Mark Twain)
What about that paint job? Personally I like something that doesn't have a political or nationalistic message.
I think that the plane is very attractive and love those balloon tires!
I'm not far along enough in my flying life to have identified my mission as to what plane is "next" but if this one does it for you it looks like a decent bet.
I learned to fly in a 160hp Tri-Pacer back in the late 1950s and took my check ride in one. I haven't flown one since, but remember them with fondness. I thought they were a class airplane at the time. A little more speed needed on the approach, but not a dangerous airplane by any means. I'd like to have one today and have looked at a couple in lieu of a 150. Fabric, and the above mentioned tubing, deterioration, however, make me wary of Tri-Pacers priced in the 150 range. I never flew a PA-20 Pacer, but they look like a fine airplane too.
.
..... - one I have always remember and constantly act upon no matter what aircraft I find myself in. 
down at the airport
