Light Backcountry Plane

LevelWing

LevelWing

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
464
Location
GA
Display Name
Display name:
LevelWing
I'm looking into the possibility of getting a light backcountry plane. Just curious on everyone's thoughts on the Stinson 108's. I've seen a few of them with bush wheels and they seem to have a variety of engines depending on the one you find. Anything from the original Franklins (which came in a few flavors) to Lycomings and Continentals. The folks over at backcountrypilot.org seem to have positive things to say about them and from what I've read around the web, I've seen mostly positive things about them. Plus they're classic aircraft and apparently handle very well.

Does anybody happen to know the fuel burn on the Franklin 165? These look like great backcountry planes if you want one without the high cost of a Husky or your flavor of Cubs.
 
I've heard only good things except:
  • Short body and small tail leads to poor directional control on all but the -3's.
  • I recall some issues regarding baggage space or the floor of the plane limiting size and load.
  • Dont know the fuel burn on the Franklin but I have heard it's a very heavy engine and parts are becoming scarce.

Positives:
  • Cheap
  • Amazingly soft landing gear in the vertical direction.
  • Decent STOL performance.

Many more positives too, I just don't have any first hand experience so take ALL of what I've said with a grain of salt.
 
I own a 108-3. They're a good four seat bush plane in my opinion, easy to fly and you can take off and land reasonably short. Also, despite the way they appear they will handle a pretty good crosswind. Float and ski options are also available if that is something you're after.

The only downside to them is that they are kind of slow if that is a concern.
 
The baggage space is pretty weak on the Stinson. Engine parts aren't as scarce as people make them out to be. Not as available as Lycoming or continental but they are out there. They perform well when light with the franklin but full gross and hot conditions makes them a little more anemic. Expect 10gph at 75% power. Great airplane for the money and not much out there looks better. IO-470 conversions turn them into Cessna 180s or better but expect to pay Cessna 180 money for one with that engine.
 
Grum.Man said:
IO-470 conversions turn them into Cessna 180s or better but expect to pay Cessna 180 money for one with that engine.
Click to expand...

I think you mean o-470 conversions, and the pricing will not be in the same ballpark as anything but the cheapest Cessna 180s. The conversion also will not turn a Stinson into a substitute for a Cessna 180, unless you ignore airspeed limitations.

A friend of mine just contracted to buy one of the nicest 108-3s with an o-470 that I've seen for around $55k. That includes floats and wheels too.
 
I'm not overly concerned about speed; I have the Mooney for that. :D

The ability to get into the backcountry is what I'm after. It looks like a Stinson will do that and I can add the bigger tires if I so desire. There's some good YouTube videos out there on that.

The other light backcountry plane I've looked into is the Piper Pacer. The Stinson seems like it'll haul more and generally outperform the Pacer (150HP).
 
LevelWing said:
I'm not overly concerned about speed; I have the Mooney for that. :D

The ability to get into the backcountry is what I'm after. It looks like a Stinson will do that and I can add the bigger tires if I so desire. There's some good YouTube videos out there on that.

The other light backcountry plane I've looked into is the Piper Pacer. The Stinson seems like it'll haul more and generally outperform the Pacer (150HP).
Click to expand...

I'd take a Stinson any day of the week over a pacer.

But to be honest, I'd take a PA-18 any day over either of the two.
 
Might be a bit pricey-er but would you consider a 170?
 
We were also interested in a Stinson and one of our EAA chapter's A&Ps happens to be a big Stinson fan, who also owns one. He told us that some of the Franklin parts are hard to find, what is particularly a problem if one has an issue away from home. He also said that all of the <30K Stinsons have issues like corrosion, high time engines or old fabric. We also considered a Piper Pacer and a Kitfox, but eventually also dropped these.

Since my wife and I both enjoy building, we finally bit the bullet and ordered a Zenith CH 750 Cruzer kit, with the STOL gear. She will be a nice addition (think open door flying, skis and floats) to our beloved Mooney. :)
 
What's the TBO on the Franklin engines?
 
LevelWing said:
I'm looking into the possibility of getting a light backcountry plane. Just curious on everyone's thoughts on the Stinson 108's. I've seen a few of them with bush wheels and they seem to have a variety of engines depending on the one you find. Anything from the original Franklins (which came in a few flavors) to Lycomings and Continentals. The folks over at backcountrypilot.org seem to have positive things to say about them and from what I've read around the web, I've seen mostly positive things about them. Plus they're classic aircraft and apparently handle very well.

Does anybody happen to know the fuel burn on the Franklin 165? These look like great backcountry planes if you want one without the high cost of a Husky or your flavor of Cubs.
Click to expand...

Fuel burn ... A rule of thumb for calculating fuel burn is 1/2 pound of avgas for each horsepower used. Not perfect but gets you in the ballpark. Example a Cessna 150 with an O-200 at cruise - 100 hp@ 70% power : 100 x .7 = 70 hp / 2 = 35 / 6 lbs per gallon of fuel = 5.83 gph . Can be handy if you want to calculate how much fuel you will save at 65% vs 75% cruise in an airplane you have not flown a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top