Let's talk crappy old taildraggers...

Ozone said:
Any ideas about fuel usage in a stinson? Are we talking about 10gal/hr or 14 or 3?
Click to expand...

The 165HP engine is really the only one you want. There is a 150HP engine in the early planes that has thin cases which tend to crack around the cyl barrrels and studs. The 165 Franklin will burn between 8.5-11 in cruise, depending on your power setting and leaning technique. I'd figure 10GPH is a reasonable est.

They are all approved for auto fuel STC, and in my opinion, they like it better than 100LL.

Personally, I wouldn't take a loaded Stinson 108 up over any 10k' passes unless is was very cold, very calm, and I had plenty of spare altitude. They are not the most robust performers. Dream TW to land with the oleo strut main gear, and long tail arm with good rudder and elevator authority. The -3 models aren't as good with the bigger tail because they seem to weathervane a bit more, but I'm no expert in the -3, I just flew the -2 which was my favorite. Pretty planes as well with the grill work and the wheel pants.

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=956842&ZOOM=e1b20323c6dc4da3897c8115304872f9

YMMV
 
Fearless Tower said:
I have not had a chance to fly one yet, but all of the owners I've talked to love them. There was a gorgeous 108 at the Horn Point fly-in a couple weeks ago.

I suspect you will have an easier time maintaining a Continental or Lycoming one, but I have no experience with Franklins. The 108 that I saw at the fly-in had a Franklin and the owner said he hadn't experienced any challenges keeping it going.
Click to expand...

I used to work a -3 with the O-470 towing banners, a very impressive plane with no bad habits to speak of.
 
docmirror said:
The 165HP engine is really the only one you want. There is a 150HP engine in the early planes that has thin cases which tend to crack around the cyl barrrels and studs. The 165 Franklin will burn between 8.5-11 in cruise, depending on your power setting and leaning technique. I'd figure 10GPH is a reasonable est.



They are all approved for auto fuel STC, and in my opinion, they like it better than 100LL.



Personally, I wouldn't take a loaded Stinson 108 up over any 10k' passes unless is was very cold, very calm, and I had plenty of spare altitude. They are not the most robust performers. Dream TW to land with the oleo strut main gear, and long tail arm with good rudder and elevator authority. The -3 models aren't as good with the bigger tail because they seem to weathervane a bit more, but I'm no expert in the -3, I just flew the -2 which was my favorite. Pretty planes as well with the grill work and the wheel pants.



http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=956842&ZOOM=e1b20323c6dc4da3897c8115304872f9



YMMV
Click to expand...


I flew a -3 over 200 hours. Agree with your assessment. 165 Franklins are good engine. Tend to foul plugs due to 14mm plug size, I think. Modest performers, but maxed out leisurely would be a good descriptor. The big tail on -3 can make it a bit more challenging in crosswind, but it still has good rudder authority with its 6' tall rudder.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
 
Ozone said:
What are people's thoughts on a stinson 108, with a continental or lycoming engine, instead of the franklin engine? Also, what's the fuel consumption in one of those with a bigger engine?
Click to expand...

Great aircraft, it's what I had before I got my 185.

Hundreds of hours in a -1, flew it low across the country a few times, landed on beaches, international airports, grass, you name it, also one of the most attractive civil airplanes too IMO.


Honestly they are just fine with the franklin too.

It's a true 4 seater, rides like a caddy, very light on the controls.

I would advise you to get a fabric one, not one someone metalized.
 
James331 said:
Great aircraft, it's what I had before I got my 185.

Hundreds of hours in a -1, flew it low across the country a few times, landed on beaches, international airports, grass, you name it, also one of the most attractive civil airplanes too IMO.


Honestly they are just fine with the franklin too.

It's a true 4 seater, rides like a caddy, very light on the controls.

I would advise you to get a fabric one, not one someone metalized.
Click to expand...

Or one of the fiberglassed "Razorback" ones either.
 
Nothing wrong with Razorback if kept inside. Dad restored my brother's Cub with Razorback in 1969. Still good as the day it was put on. We were concerned about rib stitch cord but checked several spots, including an aileron which was damaged and it is still good too. Also opened the tail to replace a bent longeron from hitting a hole in runway taxiing. Longeron a were still like new inside and out 40 years later.

It is somewhat heavier, but it lasts forever...you just have to take care to keep what is under the fabric dry.


Jim R
Collierville, TN

N7155H--1946 Piper J-3 Cub
N3368K--1946 Globe GC-1B Swift
N4WJ--1994 Van's RV-4
 
Tom-D said:
When the FAA allows flight with out a 3rd class medical, the light weight tail draggers are going to take a hit on their selling prices.
Click to expand...

Same can be said for any LSA.

Hopefully my dad will never want or need to sell his LSA after the changes take place(IF they do). Because he will cry lol.
 
The 108 is a good flying load hauler. I fly one with the 165 Franklin and get 10gph at 110 mph with a climb prop. I'm in Idaho and it will get up over 10,000 ft with no problem. It is also a decent backcountry airplane. It has very good short field performance but a leisurely climb rate. I used to fly another one with a 220 Franklin with a C/S prop. That makes a real airplane out of it. As mentioned for the Stinson and it goes for any of the early airplanes, stay away from the metalized airplanes as they are a lot heavier and fly like crap compared to the original fabric.
If you want cheap fun stick to the 65-100hp two seat airplanes. The side by side airplanes are a tight fit for a couple of big guys but once you are in and flying it doesn't seem that bad. If you look hard a good ECA Citabria would be the best all around fun factor airplane. They can be had for $25,000 for a good flyer. 140s, Tcraft, Champa etc are in the $15-20,000 for a good flyer. I like 140s and have been flying one for over 30 years. Still fun to go out and do an hour of pattern work. Don
 
Henning said:
With 230hp, the 108 was an incredible climber.
Click to expand...

BUT..


Do you want to spend closed to $50k to make an old rag bag do that?

Stay focused Henning. this thread was about little taildragger for fun.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
With 230hp, the 108 was an incredible climber.
Click to expand...

It is a particularly good floatplane, and the original STC owner/developer was Phil Fields.......Fields Chevytown.....Portland Oregon.

Phil Fields and his son were killed on departure from KPDX in about 1968. His Riley Rocket Cessna 310 was fueled with jet.

Strange........................nothing on the net about him.
 
The Stinson 108s are great looking planes. Very sturdy as well. Heavier than many taildraggers. I'd love to have one with a Lycoming 360. I'd be concerned about getting parts of the Franklin engine if it ever needed it.
 
There is an experimental tail draggier for sale for about 11K over in classifieds. I'd also say watching Jesse's adventures in his FlyBaby I'm becoming somewhat a fan of them.
 
Tom-D said:
most of the systems do not call for a punch test. So what do you do, make up a test of your own?



I believe I have a grip, I've been doing these systems for near 60 years.



The Maule tester is for cotton or as directed by Polifiber, nothing else. Get it right, or don't post BS.
Click to expand...


Have you read the ceconite manual in the last 7 years? I think you should and pay attention to the last paragraph of page 92 and the first part of page 93.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I just went and looked it up.

Do you know who Randolph is?
Do you know who now owns the Poly Fiber name?

It's nice they posted this. "We took the original 1958 Ceconite manual and completely rewrote it..and it goes on.

Go find a old original Ceconite manual, read it, then check what I said.

Randolph certainly is not the FAA . The manual you speak of is nothing but the application manual for Poly Fiber. It is approved only by the STC they inherited from Ray Stitz.
 
docmirror said:
The 165HP engine is really the only one you want. There is a 150HP engine in the early planes that has thin cases which tend to crack around the cyl barrrels and studs. The 165 Franklin will burn between 8.5-11 in cruise, depending on your power setting and leaning technique. I'd figure 10GPH is a reasonable est.

They are all approved for auto fuel STC, and in my opinion, they like it better than 100LL.

Personally, I wouldn't take a loaded Stinson 108 up over any 10k' passes unless is was very cold, very calm, and I had plenty of spare altitude. They are not the most robust performers. Dream TW to land with the oleo strut main gear, and long tail arm with good rudder and elevator authority. The -3 models aren't as good with the bigger tail because they seem to weathervane a bit more, but I'm no expert in the -3, I just flew the -2 which was my favorite. Pretty planes as well with the grill work and the wheel pants.

http://www.barnstormers.com/listing_images.php?id=956842&ZOOM=e1b20323c6dc4da3897c8115304872f9

YMMV
Click to expand...

The 165 and the 150 are exactly the same engine, rated at different PRM, the Case AD only applies to a few cases, one would be a rare find these days.
 
My 1958 PA-22/20
160 HP, low engine hours
climb prop
VGs
Carries the family
$19K, $91/mon open hangar, $1k insurance.

Rich
 

Attachments

  • daybreak.jpg
    daybreak.jpg
    439.6 KB · Views: 64
richas said:
My 1958 PA-22/20
160 HP, low engine hours
climb prop
VGs
Carries the family
$19K, $91/mon open hangar, $1k insurance.

Rich
Click to expand...

where is that?
 
richas said:
My 1958 PA-22/20
160 HP, low engine hours
climb prop
VGs
Carries the family
$19K, $91/mon open hangar, $1k insurance.

Rich
Click to expand...
you should enter that in a photo contest
 
Bump... In case someone is looking, this one is for sale at my home base. Cheap. Good looking plane.

i-3QfVwXH-XL.jpg


i-TFn8fmf-XL.jpg
 
For sale in Ohio, 1941 Chief

b4ad8f7f9e7b280f9cd578a67b383213.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top