A Tri-Pacer owner let me take some quick measurements. I created a very rough schematic of the cabin dimensions. Blue dashed line is approximately where I took the cross cabin measurement. From this I was able to draw my own outline on the pavement to get a fair idea of how myself and gear would fit. Many low cost hours can also be spent sitting in the diagram and making airplane noises.

I'd love to see more of these from other type owners.



Craig

whee wrote:........
I actually had my Dad about talked into looking at bmurrish's 180, but we'd have to sell the Luscombe to buy right now and going from 3.5gpr to 12-13 would be shocking to say the least. ..............

We'd all like a 4 place STOL airplane that does 140 mph @ 5 gph, but it ain't happening. If you want the performance AND capacity, you have to bite the bullet & pay the price that goes with it. Car gas can make a big difference in your operating costs, something to think about. A 470 Cont can burn 87 octane cargas, a 220 Frank or 210 Cont can't (legally anyway). Not sure about the O-540 (or IO ?) in Maules. I believe a Lyc O-360 can burn 91 octane cargas, but don't think an IO-360 Lyc can.
I've only flown in a Stinson once, but as I recall it's not much bigger inside (if any) than a Pacer. I think a good 150 horse pacer is a sleeper as far as performance, I would prefer one of those to a Stinson. Upgraded to a 180 they kick ass. Check out the forums on the shortwing site http://www.shortwingpipers.org and you'll see a lot of good mods being done to improve these underappreciated airplanes.

Eric

I've got a 108-3 metalized Stinson in my Hangar that belongs to my neighbor. He would be willing to part with it as he is quiting the flying because of health problems.
My 2 cents is that the Stinson is the most stable and easiest to fly tail dragger out there. The slats on the leading edge make it a pretty docile bird, recommended decent thru the clouds is throttle back pull into a nose high mush and keep the ball centered until below the clouds add power and relax the back pressure and continue on going to where you were headed!!
Fred has had this Stinson for about 20 years, I owned it for about 5 years before that. It made a couple of trips to AK when I had it. It needs some TLC but is a pretty good old bird. It has a radio in it! thats it for avionics, has a climb prop and a cruise prop and there is most of another engine with it. Has 8.50x6 with clevelands on it and droop tips.
You could probably start talking to him for around 22k.
Has 2 hours since last annual.
GT

Buy the Stinson. I'm about to start on another, this time with the IO-360. As far as fuel capacity in a -2, I can help ya with that too. One of the most overlooked problem points of it is the horizontal stab spar... they tend to do a bit of cracking behind the doublers in the center. Don't bother Univair with ordering one of their junk replacements... they don't fit and wont fix the problem. If you find one that needs help, PM me and I'll fix ya up. An old friend of mine used to always say that the Stinson was a true gentleman's plane... it'll do whatever you ask of it, with no real bad habits.
JH

I owned a Stinson with the 220 Frank for 4 years, mostly used it on floats, some skis, and a little wheels. They are great planes. Mine was a -3, better useful load, 50 gallons fuel. Performance was outstanding. The doors are small, and loading large bulky items in the back can be a hassle. I wouldn't hesitate to own one again. That being said, I now own a 182 - also on floats - and going from a Stinson to the 182 is like going from a jeep to a Suburban. There are darn nice 182's out there now for under $40K, and you have something that you can grow into if that dog of yours ever has puppies. Don't buy a project Stinson, there are complete Stinsons already converted to the bigger motors out there for sale for way way way less than you will ever build one for, and that is assuming your labor is worth nothing.

The Stinson is a very strong airplane. When purchasing an airplane this is one of the most important factors IMHO...

Stronger upside down than many aircraft are right side up...

hooligan wrote:The Stinson is a very strong airplane. When purchasing an airplane this is one of the most important factors IMHO...

Stronger upside down than many aircraft are right side up...

haha..thought that was funny.

I have a lot to think about...ya'll brought up some good points. I already have a plane that looks good and besides a C195 I don't find any others as attractive...mine just needs to be polished really bad.

gbflyer wrote:C182. Lots of available for steal...I mean sale. Plenty of room, decent speed, will go anywhere us mortals need go in the ID back country or otherwise.

gb

There does seam to be a bunch of 182's (straight tail)on Barnstormers for a reasonable price.

I've been getting an average of 10gph fuel burn with mine. Two weekend's ago, flew from Battle MT., NV to Caldwell at 7.5gph!! (80 mph indicated @ 500 ft agl most of the way).

58Skylane wrote:Two weekend's ago, flew from Battle MT., NV to Caldwell at 7.5gph!! (80 mph indicated @ 500 ft agl most of the way).

Was that because you were waiting for a bunch of slow Cubs?

1SeventyZ wrote:

58Skylane wrote:Two weekend's ago, flew from Battle MT., NV to Caldwell at 7.5gph!! (80 mph indicated @ 500 ft agl most of the way).

Was that because you were waiting for a bunch of slow Cubs?

LOL...Yeah, and a C170.

58Skylane wrote:I've been getting an average of 10gph fuel burn with mine. Two weekend's ago, flew from Battle MT., NV to Caldwell at 7.5gph!! (80 mph indicated @ 500 ft agl most of the way).

*** Z - the following dicussion probably warrants a thread split ***

I think we're getting wrapped around the axle with the fuel burn question, and, more precisely, how miserly these engines can be operated. I'm no math major so fire away on the following comparison, but let's consider the trip mentioned above:

Assumptions:
fuel burn @ 80 mph is 7.5gph
fuel burn @ 130 mph is 12.5gph
the fuel burn figures are a trip average, meaning they include T/O, climb, cruise, and descent
no wind, so TAS = GS (TAS & leaning advantages at higher altitudes are not considered - the speeds above are what you get)
the distance from BAM to EUL is 210 statute miles
100LL at EUL/Rapid Refueling is $4.20/gal (guaranteed price)
cost analysis only considers fuel in operational costs

Anybody got a whiz wheel handy to backup the following?
The trip done at 80mph @7.5gph would take 2+36 and would cost $82.68
At 130mph @12.5 gph it would take 1+36 and cost $84.80

So is there any benefit to pulling the power back to 7.5 gph? Certainly if your objective is simply to log time or enjoy a slow cruise, then yes. But for a difference at the pump in Caldwell of $2.12 you can get there an hour sooner and there are arguably further cost considerations such as reduced oil consumption and time on the engine - not to mention the increased risk of lead fouling at reduced power settings.

Just a point to consider...

For a low priced 4 seat STOL that will easily go in and out of Lower Loon, try looking at Maule M4-210, or M5-210. It has an IO360 engine and is fuel efficient and can cruise at 150mph before you add drag factors. The Maule M5-180, or later MX7-180 will also do the job but cost a tad more to buy burn a bit less fuel and cruise at 140+mph.
The Maule door system is a major 'I want it". Driggs with four is a walk in the park for these aircraft.
When studying fuel burn, it is important to look at mpg not gph. I can run a 260hp side by side with a 180hp Maule and burn the same gph provided we have the same drag factors.
Jeremy

I too strongly support the MPG argument, regardless of the make or model. I found that the super cub could burn more gas than the 180 if going somewhere.

gb

I third the MPG sentiment. Also consider your mission. A plane that can put 4 in it -or two and a big dog and all your camping gear -and get everything there and back in one trip burning twice the gph at close to twice the speed is still more economical than a two seater that needs to do it in two trips sipping 4 gph. When my family grew from 2 to 3 to 4, it ended up flying the 182 was way more economical than the Stinson and the Champ I had before it, based on my primary mission. Primary mission being a 250 mile round trip back and forth to Canada on floats most summer weekends. The 182 takes it all comfortably in one load, the Stinson was getting bulked out for 1 load, and the Champ would have taken 3 trips. If tri gear works for your mission, I would look hard at the post 61? 182's, since they have the wide bodies. That extra width of 4 or 8 inches or whatever it is inside seems like 2 feet compared to the early 182's, 180's, and 185's. If kids are in your future you will really appreciate. I realize the early 182's have taller gear etc, but are really going to land in that rough of spots? As in everything aviation related, its all a trade off. At any rate, you could not have picked a better time to be shopping - pretty much a 50% off sale on everything compared to a couple years ago.

Without fail, the gang will always have you in Maule or a 182 by the end of the thread.

1SeventyZ wrote:Without fail, the gang will always have you in Maule or a 182 by the end of the thread.

haha...very true. Surely someone will say it is because they are the two best planes out there...especially the Maule

I really am grateful for all the advice. A Maule would be great but being a 200 hour pilot the insurance would be totally out of reach which is the main reason I am looking at a Stinson. While there is plenty of good strips in ID and 90% of the time a tricycle geared plane would be fine there will be times when a tailwheel aircraft would be better. I already have a plane that will take me 90% of the places I want to go...I want a plane that I can take anywhere.

whee wrote:A Maule would be great but being a 200 hour pilot the insurance would be totally out of reach which is the main reason I am looking at a Stinson.

Sounds like you've checked into that already, but it may be worth shopping around. I think Avemco has a premium break at 300 hours, so you may not be too far off. The next threshold after that is 1,000 hours, and on up.

Good luck- Good thread that you started here.

-DP

There are a lot of good deals on the Aopa forum site.

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=57970

I thought this one was a great buy!

http://forums.aopa.org/showthread.php?t=58070