Does anyone have any experience with a Metalized Stinson 108-1,2 or 3? What are the downsides besides being able to recover and inspect the structure every 20-30 years? Are they more heavy than a standard fabric covered Stinson? Do they perform the same, better or worse? Your experiences? Thanks

I have a metalized -3 , it adds a little weight however is a little more rugged, also tends to do better outside if you don't have a hanger. My performance is marginally worse than a -3 w/ fabric. My plane weighs close to 1400 most of the others any where from 1320-1400 depending on equipment. It really depends on how you use it with 2 people and all your gear you can fit a lot of stuff and still have power left over, but at gross it's a DOG (however that's at 2400 pounds). Some of the purists don't like it.....but I'm not a purist. My thought is that a metal stinson has all the strength of a fabric one with a monocoque aluminum over it in case I ever take an unexpected detour through the woods....

Mike

Stinsons were metalized mostly in the 50s and 60s because the fabric didn't last long. It must be difficult to metalize as some installations do not look very good. The metalized is at least 100 pounds heavier and much noisier.
The biggest concern would be the possible 40 or 50 years since the tube frame has been inspected.
That being said, some are very happy with their metalized Stinsons.

How hard would it be to De-metalize it if I decide in the future to recover it in fabric? I know its probably better to find one thats in fabric in the first place. How about the wings could I leave them in metal but fabric the fuselage?

I've got a friend with a -2 that was metalized in the 50's. It's a little heavier than a fabric Stinson that's comparably equipped, and doesn't perform quite as well...but he's ok with it, and it's still a great performing airplane. We looked at it and decided it wouldn't be too huge of a job to pull the metal and change back to fabric..but he doesn't see much point in doing so until there's a reason, such as a repair needed etc. Like was said before, the main reason that they were done back then was that the fabric systems were dope and cotton or Irish linen, and those had pretty short lives and required lots of labor to redo...so it basically wasn't worth it back then. Lots of fabric airplanes were sold for almost nothing because it would cost more to recover than it was worth. The modern systems are "light years" ahead of the dope/cotton...even dope/polyester is a far cry from the cotton/Irish linen, and polyurethane topcoats are "light years" ahead of dope, both in weight as well as longevity. There are a few I've seen that had metalized wings, and fabric on the fuselage, and vise-versa.
I sure wouldn't pass up a nice one, just because it was metalized.
John

rambo wrote:How hard would it be to De-metalize it if I decide in the future to recover it in fabric? I know its probably better to find one thats in fabric in the first place. How about the wings could I leave them in metal but fabric the fuselage?

I think that usually turns into a restore project. You are likely to find areas on the tube frame that will require restoration. Same as with a 30 year old frabric.

Actually, with my -2 the fuselage skin is mounted on standoffs so that you can in fact, inspect the tubing quite easily and there is no fabric in direct contact with the tubes to trap water. My plane is 65 lbs heavier with full metal jacket than it was with the fabric but I have a bigger engine so not to worry. As for the wings there are lots of inspection holes on the lower surface so again pretty easy to look at.

shorton wrote:Actually, with my -2 the fuselage skin is mounted on standoffs so that you can in fact, inspect the tubing quite easily and there is no fabric in direct contact with the tubes to trap water. My plane is 65 lbs heavier with full metal jacket than it was with the fabric but I have a bigger engine so not to worry. As for the wings there are lots of inspection holes on the lower surface so again pretty easy to look at.

Shorton,
Is the 65 lbs you gained with a full metal jacket compared to the original fabric or the lighter weight fabrics available in the last 20 or 30 years? The standoffs seem like a good idea, in fact with direct contact fabric would be a tighter seal and would hold more moisture than metal. I am not sure about the effects of electrolysis with the 2 different metals.
It is not uncommon to have fabric today that is over 30yrs old and still in good condition, but making frame inspection difficult.
I have not heard of the standoffs before, only that with the metal, (that lasts for ever) frame inspections do not happen like in the old days when the fabric was replaced regularly.

My stinson is the same way, no tube to metal jacket contact... there is actually a bunch of room. Also there is really no problem inspecting tubes if you are willing to shimmy down the tail, all of them are really inspectable from the inside at annual time when the interior is out.

Mike

My plane was metalized in the 60s I think so the weight differential would have been from what was in use at that time. I don't think cotton and dope but rather some of the earlier synthetics. By the way I still have fabric on the ailerons and it looks like ceconite. I have been told that when they tried to cover the ailerons with metal they induced flutter problems so they quit doing it.

They used the standoffs so that the metal could have straighter lines to run, compound curves can be very difficult to do with sheet metal. It makes the fuse a little more boxy looking and chubbier than with fabric.

It looks like at least with the fusalage that it would not be difficult to remove the metal and recover with fabric if you wanted to do it. Around Alaska the moose have been known to eat fabric planes, strip them right down to the skeleton so I will keep my metal skin.

At the most a Stinson is only part fabric anyway, the nose bowl, engine cowls, tail feathers and front belly section are all metal as well as the strut fillets and gear leg covers. The wing slats and I think perhaps the wing tips were also original metal skin. Cabin doors and baggage door too so you see anyone who claims to be a "fabric" purist with a Stinson is not really slow, nor not really fast just sort of half-fast

I'm glad you brought this topic up. I've been wondering the same thing.

Besides the metalized wings, does the metalization of the fuselage have any structural merits? What I mean is if the tubing is good but the metalized outer skin forms any corrosion does that affect any of the airworthiness? Just a hypothetical question.

Are those conversions rivited or cherry maxed?

Every and I mean every rivet on my stinson is hand bucked.... and very well done. I suspect that the alum superstructure is not really strong enough to hold things together for long, but under certain circumstances I believe that it could do w/o one or the other.

Mike

As far as I know there has not been 1 in flight structural failure of a Stinson 108. I think that there are only 5 airframe ADs and 1 is related to the ashtray.
If I had to land in the trees it seems the more metal around me the better. As for spotting an aircraft post crash, aluminum has a much higher melting point than fabric.
Basically, you would be twice as likely to find Shorton's Stinson as you would my half-fast Stinson

Thanks Guys for the info! I now have a few more questions but a little off topic.

1. What are the differences between the 108 and the 108-1?

B. What are the downsides for having the straight 108 vs the -1,2,3?

3. Would you walk from an engine (F-150) if it sat for 25 years?
THANKS!

rambo wrote:Thanks Guys for the info! I now have a few more questions but a little off topic.

1. What are the differences between the 108 and the 108-1?

B. What are the downsides for having the straight 108 vs the -1,2,3?

3. Would you walk from an engine (F-150) if it sat for 25 years?
THANKS!

These should keep you busy awhile.

http://personalpages.tdstelme.net/~westin/ac-0.htm

http://hangar9aeroworks.com/108main.html

http://members.shaw.ca/flightlines/

Awesome, Thanks, This is good help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..............