So recently had a deal on a decent PA-22/20 fall through so back on the hunt.

My mission is low time pilot build enough skill and then do some of the easier back country strips Oregon/Idaho. 90% of the time just me and equipment very very very occasionally 2 passengers + weekend equipment @about 30lb/person. Have all of a hour in PA-22/20 and only sat in a 108-2 i am 5,8 and i felt like it sat lower compared to the pacer with less forward view. I am kind of looking at the Tri-pacer a little bit due to the dirt cheep insurance for my low time it was 1/2 the price to insure compared to the PA-22/20. My local A&P likes pacers but when i talked to him about going with the 108 he was telling me they tend to be more expensive and need repairing more often along with Franklin parts being scarce also lower TBO.

Thoughts? Bang for the buck, Fun factor, High DA performance, upkeep costs?

I've got a 108-2 with a 165 Franklin. I can't speak to the comparison between the two since I have zero Pacer time, but a Pacer and 170 were equally in my sights as I was searching for an aircraft. Ultimately, I ended up with a Stinson because I already had a project Stinson for parts(I wanted to fly sooner than I could finish my project), I've got experience maintaining and flying Stinsons, and what kicked out most Pacers for me was not having a pilot door. One came up with a pilot door during the year and a half I searched and sold quickly. It sure looked like a nice plane.

Franklin support has come a long way in the past few years and that news hasn't reached some mechanics. Parts aren't near as scarce with Franklin Engines in Texas being a huge asset and a few very reputable rebuilders. Franklin's have some quirks that mechanics should know working on them. Nothing bad, just need some different attention than a Lycoming or continental.

As far as a Stinson needing any more repairs than anything else? I don't think so, if comparing to an equal aircraft of age and care. With that being said, have an airframe/engine specific knowledgeable mechanic do a prebuy on any aircraft that you get serious about. Some of these old airplanes have been bought cheap, sold cheap, and nothing put into them. I'm afraid that's where the maintenance comment your mechanic said comes from. Plenty of Pacers are in the same boat though.

If you're not doing commercial work, TBO is a recommendation. The 1200 hour TBO was set on Franklin before modern oils and filters. They've successfully been running beyond TBO like any other engine with a reputable overhaul. Anymore, engines get overhauled due to lack of use than much else.

Another consideration is; if you're not maintaining the airplane, your mechanics familiarity with the aircraft you own and they will be maintaining is a benefit to you. If they're willing to learn and maintain the Stinson then that's fantastic. The Stinson group has plenty of knowledgeable people willing to help.

I have nothing but great things to say about mine. It's docile, honest, no surprises, and just a solid airplane. With the wing slots over the ailerons, you have control through the stall. Performance is great. I used to fly one at DA's of 8k feet and it still performed for me. When I was building time I used to fly chemical up to my dad when he was spraying grasshoppers in Wyoming. I'd take out the back seat and start stacking boxes.

I'd love time in a Pacer to compare, but I'm not selling my Stinson to do so.

I was in a similar boat a couple years ago, my search included 170B, 22/20, or 108.
I ended up with a 54 22/20 150 with a cruise prop, extended wings, on 8's with dodge tanks and plexi to the floor but no pilot door. I've since installed VG's, and put fuel in it.
I've got 0 Stinson time so can't offer much there but I'd not be scared of Stinson and/or Franklin for the right deal.
For the Pacer, I've had me +1 and overnight gear in to a number of ID/MT strips for camping/fly fishing. It's a great setup for that use. I sat in the backseat once on a demo flight before buying it - I've had the backseat out since day one and it likely won't go back in until I sell it.
If I needed to carry me+2 to camp ID/MT I'd be looking at a 180 or similar. You didn't say total TW time, but if it's low a 180 might break my rule of trying to spend more on fuel per year than insurance. With the Pacer that's been no problem, my time is approaching where a 180 would make sense.
Again, I've not sat in a Stinson but I can say at 6' flat I'd like a couple more inches on the Pacer seat for forward vis.
High DA? I've been up to 12.5 but it took a good while to get there. Camping for 2 at 4k MSL - I take off in the morning. Early. On long strips. Climb prop would help no doubt, but bang for the buck it'd be a hard sell.
Maintenance costs - I'm too dumb to know when I should pay other people to work on things, and lucky enough to find an A&P amenable to that. As such, it's been very affordable on the upkeep - though I've not had anything major creep up(knock on wood).
Fun factor? Through the roof. I got the plane for far less than a new pickup, and fuel costs less per hour than most people spend on golf. For the right deal any of these aircraft would likely be similar.
Pacer questions let me know, and good luck.

At one point, I had 4 PA22's with tailwheel, 1 PA20, and 2 Stinsons I took care of on a regular basis. As far as maintenance, it's a wash. They're all tube and fabric and very simple structures and systems. Definitely don't worry about parts for a Franklin...they're actually pretty well supported and not really any harder than a Lyc or Continental....and they're sooooo smooth!!!
I always liked the Stinson a little better personally. It's one tough airframe! Hydraulicly dampened gear vs bungees. As far as visibility over the nose, I always thought they were fine...perhaps the cushions you were on were low?
I did quite a few big tail wheels on the Pipers, and lots of Brian's Skylights. (highly recommended), plus VG's on both.
Either one is a good airplane in my opinion. Just get a good prebuy, as said above, and then go fly the paint right off it!!!!
John

hardtailjohn wrote:perhaps the cushions you were on were low?

Probably this one was in rough shape been sitting and neglected for some years. the other thing that kind of turned me off to the 108 was it is quite a bit harder to aces the rear seat area/cargo compared to the pacer that rear door + baggage door makes things easy.

I am leaning more to a tri-pacer for the moment due to how dirt cheep they are to insure, 2 less cylinders than the 108 and i can do about 80+% of the strips that are not horribly rough. With my low TW time its a difference of $1000/yr to insure that is a lot of gas.

The rear door like the Pacer has would be nice, and I think you can fit a Clam popup ice shanty in there with the rear seat removed. The Stinson has some structural framing and fight control cables that run between the baggage and back seats, so my ice shanty at 6' long folded up doesn't fit unless I take a front seat back out and the steering yoke. There's a certified Stinson that's opened it up between the baggage and rear seat with a field approval and added a rear passenger door AND a giant baggage door. I'm envious and would like to attempt an approval on my project. But that Stinson, is the Stinson of all Stinsons! It's cool!
Stinsons have a decent size baggage compartment and a door on the side. I wouldn't mind a bigger door, but you'd be amazed at what one can whittle through there. S/N 1470 and on had them stock from the factory. They can and many have been added to the earlier S/N's.

hardtailjohn wrote:big tail wheels on the Pipers, and lots of Brian's Skylights.

Pacers and 170's have cooler mods in my opinion for sure with skylights and float options if you ever go that direction and some other things. The Stinson kind of fell through the cracks for a few years and missed out on some stc mods. Some Stinsons have some cool field approvals, but seems it can be difficult to get those through depending on where you live.

Swolf wrote:I am leaning more to a tri-pacer for the moment due to how dirt cheep they are to insure

Nothing wrong with a tri-pacer either. There were a few in western Nebraska flying off their ranches from less than ideal runways. If it saves you money to put in the tank to fly, go for it! And I will beat this dead horse, with a good prebuy of course. That can save you a lot of money and headache down the road.

DreadPirateWill wrote:my rule of trying to spend more on fuel per year than insurance.

Hey, I like this rule!

ljhpete wrote:There's a certified Stinson that's opened it up between the baggage and rear seat with a field approval and added a rear passenger door AND a giant baggage door. I'm envious and would like to attempt an approval on my project. But that Stinson, is the Stinson of all Stinsons! It's cool!

Among other things

asa wrote:Among other things

There is that beautiful beast!
Definitely a stacked beaut. "I think I'm in love, 'cause I can't get enough"

Is there a BCP thread that discusses or reviews this Stinson, that would be some interesting reading I bet.

FWIW I've seen some Stinson 108's fitted with big engines-
O- & IO-360 Lycoming, IO360 Continental, 220 Franklin, even a 540 Lycoming.
My favorite is the 470 Continental.
I've seen a few of the latter offered for sale, of course they go for a premium over a stock 108,
but are usually priced quite a bit lower than a C180 which they would seem to be pretty comparable to.
And they kick ass.

I have had my 108-3 for 15 years. Good solid airplane. There are very few ad's I think 5 that cover all of the 108's and all are easy to comply with.

I like the flying characteristics of the Stinson over the piper personally. The Stinson has more useful load.

Both are good airplanes, but in the end I bought the Stinson and have never looked back.

I agree that the franklin support is really quite good and Susan and Amber have been a force for the franklin community.

I have a Stinson 108, I am 5 foot 9 and have a Oregon Aero temper foam cushion about 1 1/2 inches thick, almost puts my head up to close to the tubing in the ceiling but the visibility over the nose is great!

My first airplane was a 1958 Tri-pacer converted to a pacer with 160 hp it had large drooped wingtips other than that it was stock.
Flying down near Sea level it had a good rate of climb But above 5000 feet it had a very poor climb with two people on board and bags about 300 feet pre minute on a cold day was about all it would do if that. The fuel burn was about the same as a Stinson with a 165 Franklin As I remember. My next airplane was a 57 tri-pacer. It was depressing to go from a tail wheel airplane back to a nose wheel airplane that look like a milk stool. The 57 was a stock airplane with a Johnson bar for the brakes which were lousy. I had a Stinson 108-1 with a 165 Franklin for about 85 hours it did not have a baggage compartment. I did quite a bit of camping with this airplane with two people it really wasn’t a problem not have having baggage compartment.
I decided I wanted a little bit more range so next I got a 108-3 with a 50 gallon fuel tanks. This airplane had a higher empty weight which didn’t help things on climb out. It was disappointing in the back country in Idaho. You had to be very careful about the density altitude. Other than that I love the Stinson it has a great landing gear, very easy to land for a Taildragger. If I had to choose between these four airplanes I would choose a -1 or –2 Stinson with a 165 Franklin, they are very comfortable flying in the late afternoon when the thermals build up compared to the Tri-pacer or pacer.
Two things I don’t like about the -3 Stinson is the big tail it is a little scary when you start getting a good crosswind. The other is it’s a bit heavier than the other Stinson’s generally. IMHO [emoji3]




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mapleflt wrote:Is there a BCP thread that discusses or reviews this Stinson, that would be some interesting reading I bet.

I know that Stinson has been mentioned a few times in here before. Idk if it actually had its own thread or not. Somewhere on here is a link to a video about photography in Alaska and they used that plane. It has some great shots of the plane.

Here's a neat thread with some experimental Stinsons: https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/real ... nson-17951

And this is an awesome video with the baby Stinson and the black bird:


This is the video I've seen on BCP. I can't find the thread though, Wild Photo Adventure Alaska's fire and ice:

Here's a thread about a few that that guy has done.

https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/real ... 1?start=20