I know of one or two 108 operators here. Does anyone have experience with the Aeronca Sedan?

The Stinson has a bigger payload and is faster, I know. I won't fly on floats but would certainly be on straight skis, some winter.

My wife says the Champ is too small for travelling, so it's time to upgrade. The C-170B is generally out of my price range. Either a Sedan or Station Wagon (stock) would fit the budget. I've been slowly tilting toward the 'Wagon, mostly due to the above-mentioned features. They're big, comfortable and reasonably fast. In favor of the Sedan is its short-field performance. Of course, like many airplanes, it'll land in places that require disassembly for take-off.

Jon B.

Jon--

I recomend the -3 the Sedan don't have much range and no flaps if I remember correct.... I could be wrong on both..... I will look into my notes again and report back.

Wup:

You are correct on both counts. The Sedan has only 36 gallons of gas vs. 50 for the -3. The -3 has flaps, whilst the Sedan does not.

Earlier 108s also have only 40 gallon tanks, lower gross weight, smaller tails, (in some cases) smaller engines, and (except the 108-2 Station Wagon) the heavy rear floorboards.

Jon B.

Cool I didn't even have to look to make sure!!

I'm a huge Stinson fan... they're such a great aircraft from both standpoints: maintenance and flying. The favorite of mine of course, is the -3 with an O-470... In my opinion, they're the real "sleeper" out there right now!
I've rebuilt a few, and everytime I do, I like them better and better!
JH

The stock Franklin is something to consider about the Stinson. The 150-165 parts are not in production. Strata tells me that the 220 is going back into production, but I don't think it shares many parts with the smaller engines.
I would love to see a 108-3 with the Franklin 220 in it. That would be something.
Have you considered a Pacer?

The 220 conversion is a nice one. It is lighter than cont. or lyc. of similar hp. There a more around than one would think. The Stinson becomes a serious performer with over 200 hp. There are stcs for many engines.

The buzz at this point is that the polish company PZL has or is re-procuring the rights to the piston engine from pratt and whitney.

They have stated that if they do they will make parts for the older ones as well, things like crankshafts and valves.

There are lots of spare parts for the 165 still around, but cranks are becoming hard to find.

There is a business in texas ran by Susan Prall and her daughter or daughters i am not sure if it is one or two, Franklin Engine Parts. These people have put an enormous of money and energy to getting other spares approved. They have been successful on many parts and gaskets.

The key to a franklin is to have someone who knows them work on them. They have a few quirks, ie the cylinders are lined. They are also designed for no lead, and running 100LL can be a problem with sticking valves if the egt is not kept in the proper range.

There are several very good repair facilities for the franklin, and rebuilds are not bad, in the 8-10k range. THe TBO is 1200 hr. I think, but many are going well past that mark into the hight 1000s if the engine was fitted with a oil filter at the last rebuild.

If you go to buy a franklin powered airplane with 165 hp engine one needs to check the case numbers to ensure that they are "heavy case" castings.

The point of this is that the franklin is a fine engine, it is powerful, smooth and is easy to maintain, but, you need to be aware of its quirks and keep an eye on them just as any engine. Education and knowing your power plant and its operating parameters will help all brands work longer and with out as many problems.

Speedbump is correct, it is something to think about and get all of the facts and make an informed decision. This advice should be used for ALL ac and engines.

Oh yea, I forgot to mention that there are 108s out there with an odd ball military engine in them, it was an early conversion. This engine is orphaned and very hard to get parts for, and there is only one propeller that fits this engine, very expensive and has many ads on it.

If I can find the engine designation I will post it. My advice is to avoid this combination.

Hardtailjohn,

Did you recive the pm that I sent you?

Dane

Don't think so Dane....nothing showing anyway.... ??? Shoot it to me again if ya want.
I'll echo the comment about smoothness of the Franklins... really a nice running engine. The reason I'm so stuck on O-470's is that you can always find parts about anywhere you go! There is a couple that have P-ponk's "eagle" engine in them and they're really something from what I hear.... and I also have an STC for aux fuel tanks for the Stinsons in the works, so I tend to promote them a bit...
JH

i agree with soaringhiggy- the 220 franklin conversion fits the 108-3 perfectly. it has excellent power.
the one that most people try to avoid is the lycoming o-435 with somewhere around 190 hp. there were lots of them left over from the vietnam era, and lots ended up in 108's.
other stc'd choices include
continental IO-360
cont. O-470
lyc. O-320
lyc. O-360 and IO-360
lyc. O-540 (i flew one of these )

I think Dane has covered the bases well regarding Stinsons, but I wanted to add my $.02.

I have a 108-2 that I bought about 9 months ago. When I bought mine I looked at -1s, -2s, and -3s armed with knowledge of the differences between them. My only real preference was that it have the F165. Had I found the right one I might have preferred a -3, but I found a -2 that fit the bill.

So far I have been nothing but pleased with it in all regards. It has proven to be an excellent stable aircraft to build TW time in and generally fun to fly. I have two frinds locally that have -3s and I admit to being jealous of two attributes of their planes - the extra 10 gallons of fual and the higher gross weight. So far neither of these points has been a hindrance, but would be nice to have nonetheless.

When I first began lookinng for a Stinson I got a lot of negative responses regarding the Franklin engine - those proved to be from people who weren't well informed, had no personal experience with them, and who were just perpetuating rumors. The 165 in my plane is a sweet running and capable powerplant. After having enjoyed the remarkable smoothness of this engine I don't know that I will ever be content behind a 4 cylinder mill again. Furthermore, once you tap into the Stinson/Franklin circle you discover that the parts situation is not as dire as some would have you believe.

Somewhere down the road I might be interested in a bigger engine - the F220 and the O-470 are likely candidates. With the 165 I get 100kts IAS (at 10 gal/hr). With the F220 I would expect 130kts or so on the same or slightly less fuel. Right now with two people and full fuel (at sea level on a reasonable day) I can get off the ground in a respectably short distance and manage a satisfying climb rate. I can only imagine what a blast it would be to fly it with the larger engine, but I am content for now as it does everything I ask of it.

Might be more info than anyone was interested in, but as I have gotten to know my plane I have really come to appreciate what a capable and well-designed aircraft it is.

I think the reason the O-435 Lyc conversion is popular on 108's is because it fits. This was the engine found on the Stinson L5 Sentinel, I think it's pretty much a bolt-on show to fit the whole FWF onto a 108. I've heard an appropriate nickname for this engine is "boat anchor"-- 190 horses isn't very much for 435 cubic inches of engine. By comparison, a 470 Cont makes 225 or more.
I think the Franklins are commonly put down by people who don't know any better, just like the Continental C-145/O-300 found on the C-170 & the Aeronca Sedan. The more I fly behind this engine, the more I like it.
Pacers are severely under-rated by most people. A friend has one with a 150-horse O-320 & it kicks ass-- outclimbs AND outruns my 170. They're one of the best bargains around in a 4 place taildragger,IMHO.

Eric

Thanks, y'all for the information.

I've very briefly considered a Pacer but the short-wing Pipers are too fond of the ground for my liking. The Take-off and landing roll numbers just don't do anything for me. That's the thing that keeps me thinking Sedan; the short-field performance.

I looked at a Stinson on Sunday - it wasn't for sale - and noticed that the rear seats may be 'interesting' to get into.

Cultural lesson for the day: In Minnesota, the word "interesting" doesn't mean what you think. It can generally be construed as "weird", "ridiculous" or even "stupid". We're too kind to use those negative words, so we say 'interesting'. The word "unusual" is even far more negative. When you hear that one, look out.

Jon B.

Jon B. wrote:Thanks, y'all for the information.

I've very briefly considered a Pacer but the short-wing Pipers are too fond of the ground for my liking. The Take-off and landing roll numbers just don't do anything for me. That's the thing that keeps me thinking Sedan; the short-field performance.



Jon B.

I wouldn't completly count out the Pacer.. A highly underrated plane

If you think an M-4 is a decent airplane, then you would like a Pacer too.
I have some time in a PA-16. I'm 200+, my instructor was 300+ and the little clipper surprised me. I felt like a sardine shoved in there with a giant. One seat belt and it would barely fit, 95 degree days and it got off the ground pretty well and climbed out. When you pulled the throttle to idle you may as well through something out the window to see where you were going to land though.

Actually getting in and out is not as hard as one might think, however, you might warn your passengers about not waring miniskirts, .. or on the other hand you may not warn them.

Once the technique is known they are no harder to get in and out of than other planes. My 70 year old mother does it all the time.

I have to admit that I like the station wagon, more useful.

Dane

Hi,

Dunno if this is what you understand for a Cessna 170, I mean, maybe you wanted a different engine, lower times or whatever. Don´t even know if I can add the link here or if I shouldn´t (if not, just delete it Zane, needless to say as you are The Master of the Universe ) , but just in case... look:

http://www.global-air.com/global/g06160.htm

To second Dane once again, I wouldn't be afraid of the backseats in the Stinson. I'm 6'1" and am pretty comfortable back there. Getting in and out is no more difficult than getting in and out of the front seat. Just be sure to grab the hand hold with the appropriate hand and put the correct foot in first.

I was at a small fly in a couple of weeks ago and gave countless rides. All sizes, ages, and genders got in back and none had any trouble. There was even one fairly short skirt that illustrated just what Dane mentioned. Of course, being the gentleman I am I politely stepped back as she slid back into the seat.

Regarding the Pacer, I have never been in one but I do have a bit of time in a 135hp Tri-Pacer. With two guys and full gas it did just fine. I imagine a Pacer with a 150 or 160 would be quite a good performer. The short wings do come down quick though, helps to carry some power on the approach.

Cheers - Vick

If it's a cancer victim, it's a pretty one.
Looks like there have been a couple of different schools of thought on the decorating though. "Rigged for hands off flying"? That's optional?
That could be a very good plane if it pans out for $25k. Rag wings are pretty neat for a basic, bullet proof plane that a guy can afford to fly.