help me find a taildragger

Tom-D said:
. fight? no warn.
did you notice most of the 108s you noted are -1 & -2s they aren't even 4 seats. his requirement of four seats eliminates 90 % of those on Barnstormers, Plus the -3s that are under 40k certainly are what I'd call projects.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha you should really know more about the aircraft you are bashing before doing so. Every version of a 108 is a 4 seat
 
Pilawt said:
There were efforts to revive it with tri gear about 20 years ago ... :confused: :eek:

View attachment 70104
Click to expand...
They really thought this would make a dent in 172 sales! There is one on the ramp in McGregor, TX. I always ask people if they know what it is. Nobody has ever guessed correctly.
 
Tom-D said:
the 108 series was an attempt to enter into the light civil market, the design was by Bill Piper, but when Eddy Stinson got killed, the war started, and after the war stinson company got caught in the consolidation fiasco all production stopped.
Click to expand...
The 108 was a larger, four-seat development of the three-seat Stinson 105 of 1939, and Model 10-A of 1940. Bill Piper's involvement was at the end of the Stinson 108 story, not the beginning (he was a banker, not an airplane designer). Stinson (then owned by Vultee) sold the type certificate to Piper in 1949. Piper did not build any further 108s, but rather sold off the inventory of 325 Stinson-built airframes as "Piper-Stinsons".

By the way, in that deal Piper also acquired the preliminary design of a proposed "Twin-Stinson". After much development and modification that design became the PA-23 Apache.
 
Last edited:
Lowflynjack said:
No, but are you telling me that 3 listed for less than $25K and you think they're all projects? I think sometimes you just like to fight with people!
Click to expand...
Earlier this week he was saying how great it would be to buy a plane with the prop folded around the cowl..... now the plane has to be perfect or you’re a fool.
 
texasclouds said:
I like that plane! Flying back from Kodiak would be an adventure too.
Click to expand...
Not that difficult, cold but great flying, just watch weather. The costal route won't be doable 99% of the time in winter.
 
Salty said:
Earlier this week he was saying how great it would be to buy a plane with the prop folded around the cowl..... now the plane has to be perfect or you’re a fool.
Click to expand...
I guess you can't differentiate between buying a cheap project, and a pristine first aircraft.
probably why you shouldn't be buying aircraft. or whining about the cost of a first annual.
 
Grum.Man said:
Hahahaha you should really know more about the aircraft you are bashing before doing so. Every version of a 108 is a 4 seat
Click to expand...
I know enough about 108-1&2s are not 4 place aircraft. most don't even have the back seat installed.
 
Tom-D said:
AND it's over$40k, but still it is probably good buy, but not for a first aircraft.
This one looks great. If it really is, why is it $42K ?
Click to expand...
Canadian! Which is a little under 32k us.
 
Tom-D said:
I know enough about 108-1&2s are not 4 place aircraft. most don't even have the back seat installed.
Click to expand...

You have really fallen off the rocker now. I have never seen a 108 without a back seat. Yes they are 4 place aircraft, end of discussion. The 3 is no different in that regard.
 
I get to fly a friend's 108 on a regular basis and love it! I will say that I would definitely look for one with the 165 hp engine. My buddy's is metalized, 150 hp, and has a cruise prop so takeoff rolls tend to be long and climbs sloooow.
 
Tom-D said:
Before you buy any 108 do the weight and balance, see if it is a true 4 seat aircraft.
Click to expand...


I’m not going to dig through my old papers for this, it will fly with more than two people just fine Tom

You should quit while you’re not ahead on this one, just like the last Stinson topic
 
James331 said:
I’m not going to dig through my old papers for this, it will fly with more than two people just fine Tom
Click to expand...
Be true James, would you recommend a 108 that a new owner bought for cheap?(under 40k?)
You and I both know there are very few that haven't been wrecked once or twice, the nice ones like you had are few and far between, that's why you got 6 figures for it. Even the nice one shown above was covered and painted 25 years ago, very few recently covered and restored aircraft can be bought for under 40k even if they were for sale.
All three of my Stinson customers disagree with you about how well they fly loaded.
And Yes, I will declare any aircraft with safety of flight discrepancies un-airworthy. When you tap the outside of the aft fuselage, then look inside and see rust flakes the size of a dime, it's not getting my signature as airworthy.
 
James331 said:
You should quit while you’re not ahead on this one, just like the last Stinson topic
Click to expand...
Do you really believe I should not warn new buyers of the pit falls of 70+ year old aircraft.
 
Think you didn’t get what I said, it took a 185 (six figure plane) to get me out of my Stinson

And there are lots of nice ones for 25-30, it’s easy to see if they had unfixed damage with how open everything is.

Also you don’t declare anything unairworthy, you can not sign it off, sure, but that’s about it.

I’m not going to theorize why your three customers don’t like their stinsons, but it might not be the airplanes fault.
 
I like Stinsons but being that the OP stipulated he wanted a metal airplane I don’t see how they qualify. FWIW “metalized” does not mean a metal airplane, it’s just a rag and tube airframe with aluminum sheets tacked on in place of the fabric which in most cases looks awful and with modern polyfiber fabrics it’s a conversion that no longer makes sense. Also there is a reason that you see a lot of cheap 108’s they are basically a pre-war design carried over from the 10A meaning they have a lot of fiddly little parts that fit together and are not as simple as the post war designs. They were also of that era when there was an obsession for designing “safe” stall-proof airplanes for the common folk so while they have innovative leading edge slats and a a very docile manner they also have an official stall speed of around 65 mph.

But they are elegant looking airplanes, I especially liked the maroon and gold colored ones and the Station Wagons with the stained wood interior.
 
Lowflynjack said:
And why the comment about the A65? They're great engines and contrary to popular belief there are parts for them. Most Cubs, Champs, Luscombes, and Taylorcrafts have them...
Click to expand...

They're old. Really old. Their cranks aren't nitrided so they wear faster, especially if the oil pump cover seeps a bit and loses its prime so the pressure doesn't come up after start. Parts are rare and expensive, cranks are impossible. They can be ground .010" undersize, and with wear after that they're junk.

I have two of them and a bunch of hours behind several of them. And I'm a licensed mechanic and have had them opened up several times. The one in my Jodel is 72 years old. The last one was built 52 years ago.
 
All I can say is I had excellent experiences and dispatch rates with great backcountry abilities and comfy flying, flew it across the country a few times too.

It is a overbuilt and a excellent aircraft, at least in my limited 4ish years of ownership and hundreds of hours in the plane.
 
One bit of food for thought on the 4 seater requirement and possible creative alternative. Is that a requirement for MOST of your flying or just don't want to be limited to 2 seats? I went through similar thought process this fall.

I've been in a flying club for 10 years with a really nice C-172 with 180hp PennYan conversion-truly a 4 person plane, but it became impractical for regular flying with its location about an hour drive away after a move. So I decided to buy to keep local. $30k was my max and I just wasn't happy with any 4 seater I could find for that, especially knowing that I wasn't buying a true 4 person aircraft. I looked at Tripes but all had 30 year old fabric so corrosion scared me, looked at 172's but going from 180hp to 145hp 172 worried me and I knew its load was super limited, same concern with Cherokee 140s, etc, etc.

What I decided to do was to keep the membership in my club and buy a $20k ish 2 seater. That allowed me to buy a lower time 2 seater, while leaving me some room for the infamous first annual, burn 5 gallons an hour chasing pancake breakfasts' by myself or a buddy, which that's probably all it would be anyway, even if I was burning 10 gal an hour with an empty backseat.. BUT if and when I need a true 4 seater its now a 20 minute hop in my "new" '47 Cessna 140 and I'm in the "big" 172. The membership buy in was $3k when I got in, maybe could get $4k for it today, not sure. We just finished $30k+ upgrades to panel and radios, so I'm not sure but she's probably worth $60-70k at least, idk- but far more plane that I could afford on my own at this point...

So for less than $25k I have a gas sipping 2 seater to fly for fun, 3 miles from home, and a great 172 for $80 a wet tach hour/$60 a month in dues when the mission calls for more plane. I really think this is the best of both worlds for the money. If you could make something like that work in your area you may be money ahead, and have better planes than spending it all on one "4" seat bird. Just an idea..
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
I guess I'm a wet blanket when buying old aircraft. I really don't like seeing new owners expectations get dashed 6 months later when they realize that there is a maintenance bill due bigger than the cost of buying.

Remember the horrors of the first annual.
Click to expand...

Been there, seen that. It happens. But it's hard to effectively communicate that pessimism to the pilots all excited about buying their first airplane. They simply don't want to hear it.
 
+1 from me for the Stinson 108. Way undervalued, great plane. There was once one for sale near me for 40k...I wished at the time I didn't already have a plane, because it was 100% restored: new engine, new fabric, new paint, all less than 10 hours...what a beaut!
I've looked at a couple more in the 20k range that were very nice as well...
 
Dan Thomas said:
Been there, seen that. It happens. But it's hard to effectively communicate that pessimism to the pilots all excited about buying their first airplane. They simply don't want to hear it.
Click to expand...
I think what you said on the A-65 is warning people of a risk you see. I questioned it and you answered it in an honest manner and I appreciated the input.

I think Tom calling these Stinsons that are less than $40K projects is wrong and not looking out for the buyer's best interest. I think he saw the data on three planes I provided and just doesn't want to admit he's wrong. I'm not an expert on Stinsons, but if I see three of any given airplane type that all look to have good paint, good interiors, low-time engines, and they're all prices similarly... I'm going to assume that's a good market value for the planes. That doesn't mean you buy it without doing your research.

I think the Stinson may be a good value because some people don't want fabric and a lot of people are afraid of the Franklin engines. Otherwise, why wouldn't it bring as much as a good Cessna 170?
 
A 70 year old tube-frame airplane that hasn't had an airframe replacement this century IS a project. Unsuspecting buyers just don't know it yet. Tom's doing the OP a service by alerting him about it.
 
Stewartb said:
A 70 year old tube-frame airplane that hasn't had an airframe replacement this century IS a project. Unsuspecting buyers just don't know it yet. Tom's doing the OP a service by alerting him about it.
Click to expand...

You do know most have been recovered at a few points in their life, and gone over during the process

Also I don’t hear about a ton of inflight breakups of stinsons...
 
Stewartb said:
A 70 year old tube-frame airplane that hasn't had an airframe replacement this century IS a project. Unsuspecting buyers just don't know it yet. Tom's doing the OP a service by alerting him about it.
Click to expand...
Not even close to being true, but that's okay, keep the market low for the guys looking for a bargain.

By the way, you have no idea what has been replaced on these planes. Yes, if you buy a 70 year old plane with original fabric, you're going to be spending some money. Most have been recovered. If I've learned anything about airplanes, it's if you're plane is worth $25K when it is average, making it perfect by spending another $15K doesn't mean you're going to get $40K for it.
 
Neither of you has restored a 70 year old tube and fabric plane lately, have you? I have. My original airframe went bye-bye and was replaced with a new PMA replacement airframe. Swapped out old corroded mild steel for nicely oiled 4130. Can't do that on a Stinson that I know of.
 
Last edited:
So, like, this guy was looking for a 4 seat taildragger - ended up with a 170, but considered the Stinson - "Whichever came up first."

However, it is pretty clear from any maintenance topic on this board and elsewhere that the average A&P/AI (every A&P?) has no idea what is or is not legal to do (have you EVER seen a thread where all the experts agreed?). So, I would not recommend a type certificated aircraft as a first aircraft.
 
Stewartb said:
Neither of you has restored a 70 year old tube and fabric plane lately, have you? I have. My original airframe went bye-bye and was replaced with a new PMA replacement airframe. Swapped out old corroded mild steel for nicely oiled 4130. Can't do that on a Stinson that I know of.
Click to expand...

When you recover a plane you’re going to inspect it before you spend all that time and $$ covering it, you’re going to be looking for those rusted or bent tubes, and if you have issues you’re ether going to correct them or find a new part or scrap the plane.

Thus for the VAST majority of these planes, many of which were recovered in the 90s or later, it’s not a 70 year old question mark, as it was gone through more throughout and more recently than many 182/172s.
 
Stewartb said:
Neither of you has restored a 70 year old tube and fabric plane lately, have you? I have. My original airframe went bye-bye and was replaced with a new PMA replacement airframe. Swapped out old corroded mild steel for nicely oiled 4130. Can't do that on a Stinson that I know of.
Click to expand...
No, I haven't, but there are a lot of Champs, Cubs, Stinsons, and on and on that that haven't had the whole airframe replaced. If you said all of the tubes needed to be checked during a recover, I'm with you. To say the whole airframe needs to be replaced or it's a project... do you really believe this?
 
Yes, I absolutely believe it. Internal corrosion is there, you just can't see it until something lets go. Just because somebody recovered the plane doesn't mean the tubes are good. Take that naked airframe to a sandblaster and watch what happens. I don't really care if you guys don't believe it. I just offered my perspective from my own time around Cub rebuilds, including one of my own.
 
Stewartb said:
Yes, I absolutely believe it. Internal corrosion is there, you just can't see it until something lets go. Just because somebody recovered the plane doesn't mean the tubes are good. Take that naked airframe to a sandblaster and watch what happens. I don't really care if you guys don't believe it. I just offered my perspective from my own time around Cub rebuilds, including one of my own.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what happened to the F-24 fuselage, it had been sand blasted so many times the tubes were way to thin, you could take a pair of pliers and with moderate pressure crush the tubes, most were less than .015 thick.

It required most of a year to remove old bad tubes and replace. It would have costs most owners 25-30k to have that done.
 

Attachments

  • longeron repair.jpg
    longeron repair.jpg
    178.4 KB · Views: 17
  • red primer.jpg
    red primer.jpg
    175.1 KB · Views: 17
Tom-D said:
That is exactly what happened to the F-24 fuselage, it had been sand blasted so many times the tubes were way to thin, you could take a pair of pliers and with moderate pressure crush the tubes, most were less than .015 thick.

It required most of a year to remove old bad tubes and replace. It would have costs most owners 25-30k to have that done.
Click to expand...

I don’t see how people removing too much metal was the airplanes fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top