Okay, there are a few threads comparing the performance of these two aircraft types. But what I’m wondering is how do they fly? I flew a few C170b’s that were just docile and really light on the controls a real pleasure to fly, does a Stinson fly like that?
A buddy told me that with the seats close to the floor in a Stinson his legs go numb on long flights...anyone notice that issue? Maybe it’s his poor circulation!
Thanks all!

It may not be a "round tail" but it sure is BIG

I can't really answer your question Scooper, other than to say that they're pretty different airframes. Spend an hour sitting in one, then sitting in the other, even on the ground, and you'll probably get a preference.

I've got a 170B +p, and my mechanic had one of the fanciest Stinson's anyone has ever seen in his hangar. REALLY tricked out... While I was initially envious, before long I realized that my 170, shabby by comparison and half the price, was a much better airplane for what I wanted to do.

Lucky me!

Nice, +p is a good shorthand for that one

The Stinson 108 gets glowing reviews on handling qualities and has a similar useful load to early Cessna 180 types.

The airframe is supported by Univair and being mainly tube and fabric easy/cheaper to maintain.

A significant number are Lycoming or Continental powered, although the Franklin has a good reputation for smoothness.

And yet good examples are a fraction in cost of a PA18/C170/180/182.

Other than perhaps upgrading the tailwheel to a Scott 3200 and slightly larger tyres, no need to debate STOL kits.

While I am a true "round tail" hound given my affinity for the 170B my father always spoke VERY highly of the Stinson Station Wagon. He spoke of good handling, land, air and coupled with good load carrying capacity. I just can't get past the tail, maybe it an OCD thing but in all I understand they are very functional airplane that Stinson aficionados rave highly over

I have flow both and not just a time around the patch. They are different air frames. In the end I bought the 108-3. Strong airplane, no ad's never an inflight breakup recorded, great wing, slowish. The stinson rides really well, the landing gear is really strong, many great examples out there. Parts are Univar cost, which at this point seem no worse than Cessna cost. Simple airplane and maintenance is reasonable, except spark plugs for the frank. Parts for the frank are still available but is something to think thorough. Stinson has an active type club.

so if you go +P then you have to compare to a stinson with an o470 or frank 220, the stinson really shines now.

If you would like more or pic of the plan and I have one in the shop now so I can give pics of the frame I would be happy to do that.

Last thought, I have been flying my -3 for 15 years with no problems other than the ones that I cause.

soaringhiggy wrote:….. if you go +P then you have to compare to a stinson with an o470 or frank 220, the stinson really shines now.
....

A Stinson with a 470 would be comparable to a C180,
the ones I've seen for sale seem to go for quite a bit less.
I'd sure consider one if I was shopping, AND wasn't already a Cessna fan.

I'm by no means an experienced pilot, and will allude to the potential for my biastness.

I have no fear of the Franklin. I built mine, of course, under <cough> close supervision. I spare no time or cost. It turned out very welll.

I like the smaller tail.

I love the dampened landing gear, yeah, because my landings still suck. The gear helps not be such a clownshow.

The Frank is smooth as silk when properly maintained. So smooth, that it tells you if something is wrong. You'll notice if you're paying attention.

Wide fuselage for comfort. Made to travel. A true gentleman's craft.

Nothing against those in the Cessna community. Everyone pontificates on all things Cessna and Piper, so I figured I should put in my own couple shekles on a brand largely unrepresented.

....and I'll offer any information or advice that can be helpful towards anyone Stinson curious.

-Glen N168C

Glen many thanks - how good is the Univair parts support?

There are a few Stinson projects squirrelled away in barns over here in Europe, but getting the local regulator to reinstate a CofA may be an obstacle given their semi-orphan status. Conversion to N reg may be the best route.

Univair is very supportive. Often expensive, but there are reasonable explanations for that. My most recent Univair story:

Trim tab piano hinge ripping. Ordered new. Notch for the tail light not present. Tail light hitting. Asked them about it. Documentation to very far in history. Turns out, Piper simplified that drawing, eliminating the notch. Now, I suppose it's back. They provided another example made with the pre-Piper notch re-incorporated.

I really appreciated their support.

Expensive but supportive. Same back in 1988 for my Ercoupe.

Spinner backplate was my last purchase. Quality part, professionally etched with identification. First install; first try.

Could be a whole lot cheaper, yes, but everyone should be paid handsomely for this sort of preservation and work.

-Glen N168C

There are very good used sources as well. The stinson 108-2 and 3 are great. There are benifits to the 3 such as larger fuel capacity etc. All build strong.

With the 220 and CS they perform very well. The 165 and fixed is a bit anemic at higher DA but still do a good job.

I have a straight 1946 108, With a 80/42 Climb prop. Very light, climbs quite well especially under 5000’ DA, but cruise is 108 mph on 9.5 gph.with 8:00 tires.

Mapleflt wrote:

Stinson Super Tail.jpg

It may not be a "round tail" but it sure is BIG

That's funny.

A Stinson with a big engine is hard to beat. After having a few my ranking would be:

1. Lycoming 0-360 conversion
2. 220 Franklin
3. 0-470

A Stinson is just plain neat. I’d opt for a -3 with 220 Frank or the io-360 mod. Even a -2 with 165 frank. Tons of parts, there’s a guy in Corning, Cali that must have 80% of known spare parts in the world.
Ball bearing surface controls, very smooth.

Keep it fabric, I’d avoid the metalized wings and fuselage ones, those get heavy.

I have about 300 hours in Stinson 108's in the last year and a half. My buddy flies a 170B. We argue about the better plane all the time. He has the 300A in his 170B and without a doubt I am off the ground much much quicker than he is. Single pilot light in gas I get off in under 200' (Video: https://youtu.be/kmQ-ieGmcUY ) He is upwards of 300 - 500 depending on the day. Landing is a different situation. We are real close on landing much of it probably coming down the the bravado of the pilot that day. Truth be told he had the Horton STOL kit on his and with the extra wing area I think the 170B is shorter (Don't tell him that, I'll deny it till the day I die) My Stinson 108-2 has VG's for help and it get down and stopped around 200'. (Video of landing: https://youtu.be/DdItK_AbZnl ) Either way both planes do well for our needs. In cruise the 170B is a bit faster but again it depends on the day the only true advantage I'd say the 170B has is it's lower fuel burn. I prefer the tube and rag construction of the Stinson it's more rugged and the fabric is easily repaired compared to a semi monocoque design. I also like the smmoooth running Franklin 165. The 170B has a bit more back seat room for folks but the removable rear seats in the Stinson 108 is great for camping it gives you so much room back there for storage. The Stinson 108 has more useful load. I am super fond of the Stinson 108's classic look and find it to be one of the best looking planes out there, on the ramp people seem to agree folks consistently walk by the C170 and right up to the 108 and start asking questions. On flight characteristics without a doubt the 108-3 is one of the best flying aircraft in cruise I have ever flown (a video I made about flying the 108-3: https://youtu.be/qd_BCZxcAGQ ) though it's ground handling characteristics caused me to sell the 108-3 and purchase a 108-2. The 108-2 does not cruise as straight and stable as the 108-3 as it requires much more rudder input to stay straight but on the ground it is a very easy to fly tailwheel, maybe the easiest I have flown besides the Pawnee. The 108-2 and C170B are comparable in cruise and ground handling as far as landing the 170B has a bit heavier tail and it seems to be a little more of a challenge in a crosswind but both are docile. Overall they are similar they fly together well. I prefer my 108 and he prefers the 170. Questions I'd ask, Do you want a tube and rag or a semi monocoque design? Am I willing to learn how to maintain a Franklin engine as it is different than a lyco. or Cont. maybe teach a mechanic the differences? The results will be the smoothest running engine you have even been behind. Both are great aircraft if you are looking for a light touring backcountry bird.

Bought a 108-2 many years ago. It had a 0-470 in it and had the big rudder which I believe was required with the conversion.
Its been a while but it was very stable and relatively fast.We had planned to put it on floats but the FAA in their infinite wisdom would not allow it so we sold it after 6 months.