Hello BT,

Once again I am calling all in the BT community for your knowledge and insight.

I have been looking at the Cessna 170 as a get around aircraft.

In my looking around, I started to look at the Stinson 108.

It too seems like an intriguing aircraft. There are many out there for very low prices right now.

I am interested to get some input from the BT nation.

Give me you input, knowledge, and opinions of this aircraft.

Any input is welcome.


Thanks

I owned a 108-2. In Stinson parlance, that's "big engine, small tail, no wood paneling" . I got my tailwheel endorsement in the airplane, and it was very forgiving. Once, it even landed itself when the instructor thought I was flying and I thought he was. Rolling out cleared up any lingering doubt.
The cabin is big and comfortable, visibility is pretty good for a high-wing, and there's plenty of room for bags. BUT, it is not an airplane to load up with 4 souls, full fuel and go fly. Any more than you would in a 172, I guess.
With two to three folks the airplane performs well. But that big fuselage is draggy and there are circumstances (load, temperature, altitude) that you just can't power your way out of. Many flap handles have been field modified to offer additional settings. So counting clicks is not reliable. You have to confirm on the ground what each click of the bar is doing. The runway is way too late.
Now, an IO-360 up front would go a long way to solving all these issues. The 165 Franklin I had ran well and was supportable. Not sure what the deal is with them now.
Very enjoyable airplane to fly, to show off, and to introduce your feet to why airplanes have rudder pedals. And like you said, there are some VERY nice ones on the market.
Robin

My 108-3 has been in my family for 23 years. It is a very nice flying airplane. My plane has an 1100 lb useful load. Not bad for 165hp. The Franklin is a great engine. Very smooth and reliable. Parts can be hard to find. Crack free crankshafts are nearly impossible to find. The good news is that there is a company here in the US that is gearing up to sell any part (including cranks) that you need. The Franklin burns a consistent 10gph. Franklins like to be run hard. Do not baby them. Cruise at about 2600 RPM. This will give you about 100kts. DO NOT BURN 100LL in this engine unless you treat it with TCP. Auto fuel is the best fuel for this engine. It was actually designed to run on unleaded fuel back in the 40s. We didn't know this back in the 90s and trashed our valves in 600 hours. I now have almost 300 hours since a top overhaul and have run strictly auto fuel. My lowest compression a few months ago was 77/80. If I remember right there are only 5 ADs on the Stinson (None reoccurring). The last AD on the airframe was in 1950. Univair has any airframe parts you will need. They are a bit spendy but who isn't these days.

I love my Stinson. I have a little over 1000 hours in her. In my time building days I flew it over the Statue of Liberty and two weeks later had it over the Golden Gate Bridge. These days she is my fair weather flyer. I don't take it on too many x-countries anymore. I use my Bo for that.

Hello again,

Tracy, thanks for the link. It looks like a beauty. I assume it is still for sale. I will inquire.

Robin, thanks for the input. There are many 108-2's on the market right now. I like the look of the aircraft. I am learning more about the franklin engine. With the aviation market right now I would be less apprehensive about having an aircraft with that engine. Plenty of spares out there, and cheap prices. I have heard your comment on ease of flying and ease of landing this aircraft echoed. As a person that has no recent tailwheel time (not in the last 15 years), this would be nice.

Sean, Thanks for the photo, that is a beauty. I like the color scheme. The colors would match my baron I have, which I will keep indefinitely. Like you, this aircraft would be strickly fair weather. My baron would be the weather and long distance cruiser. I appreciate the write-up on the 165 franklin. Your comment on running autogas is good to know, and makes the stinson an even more intriguing choice for a runabout.

Thanks again guys and gals.

Please keep the comments coming.

I have only one hour in the 108-3 ... And it was a delight in the air and to wheel land. Large cabin too!

Hello again,

It looks like I will have an opportunity to see a couple of Stinson aircraft this week. If I get a chance I will take pictures and post them.

I expect I will have more questions after I see them.

The one unique aspect of both the aircraft I will see this week is that they are both metalized. I don't think they came that way from the factory.

Interesting, I will inquire.

I loved my 108-1.....went all the way up to Hudson bay and back over Vancouver to Houston. 48 HR's pure pleasure. Nice Plane , stall's like a falling leaf when keeping ball centered. Very slow - drag coefficient like a barn door -95knots on 9GAL/HR auto-fuel.
Only 36 usable fuel .....cutting it close up north. Check YouTube KMOTX lots of Stinson take off and landings. Is now flying in Hamburg, Germany under N -number

I owned a beautiful 1952 170B, and logged about 600 hours in it, and I loved it.

It "flys" just like a 172.

It's underpowered.

The tailwheel steering wallows around while taxiing.

The "spring" steel main gear is aptly named, because, without a zero foot per minute decent on touch-down, it will spring you back into the air, and then you will need some skill to do what comes next, especially in a cross wind.

You will need to learn how to do "wheel landings".

The NTSB accident/incident reports are filled with "ground loops" for 170's.

The 170 is not an "easy flier".

I love the Stinson. Even after a night road landing due to rocker arm failure. 40 year old SB not complied with. Running 100 LL probably did not help. Airplane now getting overhauled engine from
NC shop. I hope to partner on the airplane once it gets the new engine. Hopefully the shop does a good job on the overhaul. I will get the name of the shop. We hope to use the ski equipped airplane to land on lake next to ski hill this winter.

www.southernaero.com/index.php/about

Anyone know anything about them? They were at EAA this year.

The Franklin was designed for 82 Octane......Just get you a Petersen auto fuel STC
and fill she up with regular and 50cc MMO - you will have a happy Franklin. Did it for
700 HR's. Never do an overhaul on the crank! The crank will fail in the woodruff area. ...just do a IRAN. There no cranks around anymore. 2011

They are relatives of mine. Robert's father Dale (I'm not sure of his exact involvement in the organization over there) is my father's cousin. They have been huge proponents of Franklins/Stinsons for a very long time.

They started their business up about the same time that I moved to Illinois, so I haven't had a chance to visit their facility, and only have caught up with them a few times here and there, most recently at Sun N' Fun where they were a few booths down from where I was. They are very passionate and seem to have a lot of momentum building, but Dale explained to me at that point in time, they were a consortium of hoarders, more or less, and were not manufacturing much new stuff at that point in time. I do believe that they desire to change that, but how quickly they're able to is not known to me.

I know that even though they offer restoration services, their bread and butter work seems to come from a steady stream of Franklins entering their facility for an overhaul.

I have a little time in Stinsons, but as noted in the other thread, my bias always has and will be towards the 170. The Stinson landing gear is pretty neat and so long as you don't drop it in from ten feet, you don't know that you've arrived on the ground until you hear the wheels rolling. Much better than the Cessna spring steel gear. I like the fit and finish of the 170s better, I like the look of the 170s better, but having said that, Cessna used the 108 series as their benchmark for developing the 170s. I think the later models (108-3 specifically) is more aligned with a 180 than a 170 as the O-470 has been a popular STC from what I've seen.

They're great airplanes, and truthfully kind of fill the gap between the 170 and the 180 in terms of performance and capability. You'll find some stellar examples of them floating around, but there are also some ratty examples, but the same can be said for 170s. I think if you get a cherry Stinson, you're going to have an airplane that's been gone over with a finer-toothed comb as once the fabric comes off (assuming you're not looking at a metallized one), you can access a lot more systems and structure than you can opening up inspection covers in a 170.

I don't think you can go wrong with either one.

Somewhere in the late 1980's (and I can't remember where) I read the Franklin Engines were still being manufactured under license in Poland. If this is a true statement could not the necessary parts be ordered from Pzl? What would be the FAA import implications?
When I was a kid my father owned a Stinson and I remember it as a nice airplane. He sold it when he bought his first Commanche.

Not any more

Flying magazine did a pirep on the 109-3 Station Wagon back in the 1960s and I remember the author positively gushing about the control harmony and lightness.

If I were buying one today, I think I'd still prefer fabric over metal. Modern fabrics last a long time, and it's good to take a close look at the frame once in a generation.

I've heard lots of people brag about the Franklins. They were an engine of choice for the early Velocity experimentals a decade ago when PZL was building them.