I bought my Stinson with a Franklin 220 FWF package off a Maule M5, and have had plans to install it ever since. I have a 108-1, so I will need to add the rudder trim kit and bigger fuel lines (already have). There are no currently supported STC's for the conversion that I'm aware of, so I would need to get a field approval, which I understand are getting harder and harder to come by, but I have a copy of the installation drawings from one of the STC's to base the installation on.

Browsing Barnstormers yesterday, I found a couple of Maule M4 220C's for sale for under $40k. One, if not both are IFR equipped, and I've always had Maule cargo door envy....

Obviously it would make better financial sense to get out of the Stinson and into an M4 220 (I would keep the 220 I have now for a spare). Even after I did the engine conversion and put some fresh paint on the Stinson, I'd still be left with a VFR bird with about 200 lbs less legal useful load. That said, I've always liked a sleeper, so a 108 with a 220 under the hood has a fair bit of appeal, as does being a "caretaker" for a classic.

I guess I'm looking for some real world experiences with the M4, as far as handling qualities compared to the Stinson, and other things to consider like crashworthiness (Stinson's have a great reputation for protecting their occupants), cruise speed, etc. My cousin has an M5 235, is that comparable to the M4 as far as handling? How about insurance for a 300 hour (280 or so tailwheel) pilot in the Maule? My current insurance is surprisingly affordable, but the hull value is less than 1/2 of the Maule. A call to the insurance company would probably give the best answer there.

Thoughts, other than "just get a mall"

I haven't flown a super Stinson, but I got a good amount of time in a 108-1, out of all the stuff I've flown, the 108 is one of the nicest flying aircraft out there, awesome landing gear, super light controls, built like a tank and they are one of the best looking tail draggers too IMO.

Taking that and go from 150 or 165hp, to 220 with a CS prop, I'd take that anyday over a Maule.

1:1

Speaking of #s - How tall are ya.
More to the point how long legged are ya?
Need to make sure your knees are comfortable with the slanted panel / frame under each end of the panel.

Yea the M!@# cargo door is a lazy mans, dream. I sure liked it when shopping around.
Have a few hours in Stinsons but don't remember the models.
Nice and comfortable in the air, but the big vertical always kept me wide awake on short final.

My first Stinson flight came when my instructor asked me to go with him to drop off a J-3 and pickup a Stinson. Problem came when we dropped off the J-3, he ran into an old Navy friend and decided to stay for a couple days. I asked him how do I get home? He tossed me the keys and said you take the Stinson home. Now I was just a few hours out of solo with my champ. The instructor says it flies just like a Champ. Hokay, a bit nervous till in the air and was beginning to feel pretty much okay until I pulled the throttle back and thought the engine was coming apart. Had never flown a geared engine before, I can guarantee ya it made my eyes pop open for a second or two.

Here's to more than one style of instructor.

Trim

Edit = I could not even spell trim the first time

Trimtab wrote:....Have a few hours in Stinsons but don't remember the models.
a bit nervous till in the air and was beginning to feel pretty much okay until I pulled the throttle back and thought the engine was coming apart. Had never flown a geared engine before, I can guarantee ya it made my eyes pop open for a second or two. ...

I dunno which model Stinson you flew, but (other than the experimental 108 with the GO-480 which someone posted about here recently) I don't think I ever heard of any Stinsons having a geared engine.

I have been looking for a good 108. PM me if you decide to sell it.

Trimtab wrote:1:1

Speaking of #s - How tall are ya.
More to the point how long legged are ya?
Need to make sure your knees are comfortable with the slanted panel / frame under each end of the panel.

I'm 6' with a 34" inseam, average/slim build. I don't recall having any fitment issues in my cousin's M5, but I don't know how similar the cockpits between the M4 and M5 are. I'm ass-u-me-ing that they're probably identical except for the tails...

CFOT wrote:I have been looking for a good 108. PM me if you decide to sell it.

Will do. I've already contacted one person that's expressed interest in it in the past, mostly as a feeler at this point. Mine is a Met-Co-Aire metalized -1 (fabric ailerons).

Considering the size of the airplane, the doors on the 108 have always seemed pretty small to me. I've only been in a 108 once, a short ride a long time ago so I don't remember much about it, but those small doors have always made the cabin look kinda cramped to me.

Hi Kelly,
1st of all I usually don't like to respond to questions like this due to pissing contests such as mine is bigger than yours!, but maybe I can offer a useful opinion based on facts. 1st plane 59 172, 2nd Stinson 108-1, 3rd Maule 73 M-4 220, 4th 69 M-4 220. I have also spent some time in Super Stinsons 108-3 220 Franklin & 230 Continental. Biggest difference between those 2 is more weight on the nose with the continental & having to add weight at the rear for CG. The Stinson is a great airplane & my 1st plan was a Super Stinson. Then came some time in the Maule. Both the Maule & Super Stinson get off & climb like a Homesick Angel, M-4 is much quicker handling & lighter on the controls. M-4 flaps more effective. The M-4 220 is faster with approx 145 mph cruise or pull back to 135 @ 9.5 GPH. Stinson more like 135 MPH cruise. M-4 requires you to be a bit quicker with the feet in the landing dance. M-4 Cabin fit & visibility much better (Unless you have a long torso, then favor to the Stinson as you sit a bit lower), M-4 takes up a smaller footprint in the Hangar, The (Lazy man door) is where the Maule shines. I have personally seen a M-4 flown into our grass strip with 2 guys left Oregon with Fuel, pilot, copilot, & a 220 Franklin in the back for a Super Stinson, That Stinson owner now flys a Maule! I have also seen other M-4 Drivers here on the site haul a quad, a snowmobile, Refridgerator into their remote cabin on ski's. Try that loading feat in your Stinson or 180. Having spent time in both I prefer the Maule for the reasons stated above. You asked, just my honest opinion!

Vaughans

hotrod180 wrote:

Trimtab wrote:....Have a few hours in Stinsons but don't remember the models.
a bit nervous till in the air and was beginning to feel pretty much okay until I pulled the throttle back and thought the engine was coming apart. Had never flown a geared engine before, I can guarantee ya it made my eyes pop open for a second or two. ...

I dunno which model Stinson you flew, but (other than the experimental 108 with the GO-480 which someone posted about here recently) I don't think I ever heard of any Stinsons having a geared engine.

The Lycoming 435 engines were a popular STC for the Stinsons to replace the Franklins.

http://www.univair.com/content/Stinson-STCs.pdf

Thanks Vaughans, that's pretty much exactly what I was looking for! I wasn't sure I'd find anyone that had the opportunity to fly both, so your input is certainly valued. What's the fuel burn at 145 mph, maybe 10.5-11 gph?

How does the fabric on the bottom of the fuselage and tail hold up to rocks and such?

Got an insurance quote yesterday, and the M4 would run me about another $1000/yr.

mountainwagon wrote:I don't think I would want to waste my time or down time or money doing a conversion on a engine or a tail wheel conversion or anything other than "just buy it and fly it."

That's more or less my thought process right now. I'd love to hotrod the Stinson, but the unknown cost, downtime, and approval process are making me lean towards a turnkey solution. Besides, I already have a partially built airplane, why do I need another?

Kelly. Fabric bottom non issue. Cheers

Kelly,
I flight plan using 10 GPH as my average and that seems to be a good average, altitude & leaning the mixture are variables. I haven't had any problems but operate off Grass & pavement & not a lot of rocks. I run 8.50s & some say the tires with the less grooves with wider grooves don't throw as many rocks at the underside. Also forgot to mention the fuel valve in the Maule is a big improvement over the Stinsons with several types available while reasonablly priced & with the 11.5 gal ea aux. tank option for a total 63 gallons gives more options in flight planning. I hate talking down the Stinson because I like them, just that BD kept tinkering & improving & factory support is a big deal as it is still available!

Vaughans

Mojave Flyer wrote:

hotrod180 wrote:..... I don't think I ever heard of any Stinsons having a geared engine.

The Lycoming 435 engines were a popular STC for the Stinsons to replace the Franklins.
http://www.univair.com/content/Stinson-STCs.pdf

The Lycoming 435 STC'd for Stinsons is the non-geared, 190hp O-435 as used on the Stinson L5 Sentinel. In fact, that conversion might even use the L5 engine mount. That engine is a different animal from the geared GO-435 of (usually) 240-260 hp, as used on some early Helio's and some Widgeon conversions.

I stand corrected. I didn't realize there was a difference between the various 435s.

Stinson is the Cadilac, Maule is the Hotrod, !! Either one is better than none!
First airplane I ground looped was a 108-3, Second one was a M6 Maule, Did not hurt anything on either airplane, Pilot had a few problems!!
Have not any since the last one!!
Fly and go is pretty nice.
By the way, If you like the plane getting in and out is worth the hassle. I'm just a tiny guy about 300lbs and just a foot to short @ 6'3" but because I had to hunker down and fly the Maule I'm only 6'2" now! Will say this, I picked up a really nice converted Pacer with long wings and all kinds of nice mods on it, had way less room in it than any Maule I've been in and my head was sore by the time I got to Fairbanks with it from Utah.
Loved my Maules, traded my last one off so I could get a Glastar and finish it and fly!! Still working on that idea??
But have not been grounded so maybe thats why it's taking so long.

Just got another insurance quote- within $100 of what I'm paying now. There goes the myth of Maule's costing more to insure! Or maybe Stinson's don't get the credit they deserve in that regard Hahaha!!

Maules have kick ass advertising.

I am curious about the 220hp Franklin. A bunch of folks on here and elsewhere have praised the Franklin-powered Maules and Stinsons as the favorite airplane they have ever owned. I have been told by quite a few people that the Franklin engines are great engines, but availability of parts and experienced mechanics makes it an unattractive option to some. I understand the background of Franklin engines and the story with the company from Poland that bought them, but what about the number of companies here in the states that specialize in Franklin engines and parts? Is the lack of parts availability just a myth left over from years past or is it a real thing? I ask because there are some pretty nice Franklin powered machines out there at very reasonable prices.

Franklin Parts in Texas, Franklin Aerospace and Southern Aero in NC are a few that I have found.

Sorry if this derails the thread, but it seems relevant. I would be really curious to hear from folks that have actually owned Franklin-powered planes, rather than perpetuating the myth of what they had heard from a guy that knows a guy.

Thx for any input.

JB

1:1 Scale wrote:Just got another insurance quote- within $100 of what I'm paying now. There goes the myth of Maule's costing more to insure! Or maybe Stinson's don't get the credit they deserve in that regard Hahaha!!

Who'd you get the quote from?