I'm coming to the realization that the Luscombe is getting too small. Last week my wife and I went up with our puppy to see how he felt about flying, just like riding in the car or boat, he just lays down and chills. Right now he is 3 months old and weighs 40lbs...there is no way we will be able to fit him in the plane in another few months.

While I'd really like a C180 or a Maule I don't feel like I could afford keeping the tanks full. I have a line on a couple Stinson projects that could be had for a reasonable price but I'm wondering about the different engine options. While a 0-470 would be sweet in a Stinson I run into the same issue of the amount of fuel required and I think I'd rather just but a C180 if i was going to be using that much fuel. Looking at the smaller engine options there is the O-360 or the IO-360. How does the fuel burn compare between the stock 165 frank and these two options? Maybe the stock frank will be all I need...I really don't know. The A1A going to be much improvement over stock? Worth the cost?

I'm open to all suggestions and opinions but what I am looking for is a 4 place that I can take into the Idaho mts with my wife and dog. The Stinson has about the minimum space that I'll be looking for. I'm not going to be buying right away...just planning ahead.

If you are considering an 0-360 why not look at a M7-180. Good useful load, full side open for loading etc.

Tom

Whee,

The stock Franklin 165 burns 10 gph for which you'll get ~100kts in level cruise. The O-470 will burn about 12-13gph in the same configuration and give you ~110kts. I would imagine that the O-360 and IO-360 will be somewhere in between but I haven't flown either so I can't say for sure.

About the best summary of Stinson powering options can be found here... http://www.hangar9aeroworks.com/Stinson ... gines.html

Unless you get a firesale deal on a Stinson project and an engine, by far the least expensive route is to find one already converted. Do it yourself and there will be sunk costs.

Cheers,
Vick

The O-360 or IO-360 will continue to have great parts and service support due to its ubiquity. The Franky 165, maybe not.

I think you are on the right track though with sticking to mid-size engine options. I can barely stomach 8gph with the C-145.

Z

I would stick with the O-360 in whatever kind of plane you would buy unless it was larger like the C-180. Like Z said there are lots of parts for these engines out there, they burn a reasonable amout of fuel. Possibly even a 180hp C-172 or C-170. I was impressed by MountainMatt's 220 Stinson 108, don't know what he paid for it, but I don't think that setup is very common but it sure looks like it performs. HC

The 170B's here with Franklin 220's burn around 11 gph in cruise. Nice engines and LOVE the performance - but you do have to use 100LL.

Hi Whee,

I would agree with TomD. My M5-180C gets about 8 GPH. I went from a Luscombe 8A to the Maule for the same reason you are thinking about it. (My St. Bernard currently weighs 150 lbs)

I flew it to Oskosh with my brother, stuffed to the gills with equipment for a week's stay, 62 gallons of fuel, and still got out of a grass field easy. Cruised at 8 - 9 thousand feet no sweat.

The M-7 would be nice but it is a little too new for me to be able to afford anytime soon...like in the next five years. Then there is the insurance issue for a low time pilot like myself. Also I have heard that with 180hp they don't make a great 4 place, they work just not real well...my home airport is at 4740 msl.

Vick, I didn't know the 165 frank used that much fuel. I thought I heard 8gph but you flew behind one so I guess you'd know. Going to a O-470 and using a couple more gallons of fuel is a no brainer. I hear want you are saying about finding one that has had the conversion done but I like projects, my luscombe was a project that sat in a field for 20 years before I got it, maybe I will find a project that has had a conversion done.

Skystrider wrote:Hi Whee,

I would agree with TomD. My M5-180C gets about 8 GPH. I went from a Luscombe 8A to the Maule for the same reason you are thinking about it. (My St. Bernard currently weighs 150 lbs)

I flew it to Oskosh with my brother, stuffed to the gills with equipment for a week's stay, 62 gallons of fuel, and still got out of a grass field easy. Cruised at 8 - 9 thousand feet no sweat.

But would you try lower loon with a passenger and overnight gear, from a performance standpoint. I'd imagine it would do it without much problem I just am getting tired of landing at "blank" airport and having someone come up and say, "what engine you got in that thing...you really should be in a place like this with that thing"

St. Bernards are so cool. A buddy had one and it would sit with his rump on the couch and feet on the floor...it was a cool dog.

Well, your right Whee, 235 is better than 180. But you were talking about fuel economy and room and that was what my answer was based on.

If you want real world fuel burn numbers.
Contact Brian Thompson at
http://www.exploreaviationllc.com/Contact_Us.html
He converted his Stinson 108 to a Lycoming O-360 a couple of years ago.
He's good people.
Good luck,
Larry

Skystrider wrote:Well, your right Whee, 235 is better than 180. But you were talking about fuel economy and room and that was what my answer was based on.

Sorry if a came across wrong...glad you got a thich skin. More HP is always better but I'm fine with the least about required to do the job. Having never ridden in a Maule I cannot judge weather 180ph is enough to haule 4 people to Driggs for dinner or if it would be enough to comfortably fly the mountains with a pax and gear.

More HP is always better but I'm fine with the least about required to do the job. Having never ridden in a Maule I cannot judge weather 180ph is enough to haule 4 people to Driggs for dinner or if it would be enough to comfortably fly the mountains with a pax and gear.

The wings and pretty much everything else about the M5-180 and M7-180 are the same as the 235 version including GW. There IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR HORSEPOWER, but what are you willing to trade for fuel economy?

I seem to remember a fair number of M7-180's at Johnson Creek for the BCP fly in this June. Those guys could probably shed more light on performance w/ load at altitude than I can. I drive a M5-235C

TD

whee,
Vick is is right on with my stinson fuel burn. I can get closer to 9 gph on a long cruise flight, but playing here in the valley I am close to 11gph.

Another option to look at is a 150-160hp. Pacer. I really have enjoyed mine and it makes a great 2 person plus gear/dog airplane. The nice part is that with the back seat out, you have a baggage door and the rear passenger door to access the "baggage area". My wife, daughter and I just got back from Eastern Oregon/Idaho/Washington on a 8 night camping trip where we were at gross most of the trip. It comes out of places like Johnson ceek with no problem at gross and with half fuel and the 3 of us (my daughter is 2 years old and weighs about what your dog does ) we could go play at places like Cabin Creek and Vines. Pacers seem to be a pretty good deal right now. I have pitched my prop to 56 (more of a climb prop) so we see about 110mph cruise at 2450rpm and 8.1gph

The stinsons are really cool airplanes, just another option for you.

I love my Stinson F150 burns 10gph, project are for sale for a reason, join yahoo stinson club the guys are the best, mine got nailed by hail 2 weeks ago not good times right now, might be a good time to up grade

hey STC, how bout you leave you hangar open so I can take you plane out for a test drive...I'll be sure to turn the camera on and I'll be nicer than the last guy

I've thought about a pacer but I think they are a little small...and not having a door on the left side would drive me nuts. Being able to get into Vines with my wife and dog for a day of fishing is what I'm looking for though. Wish I could have come and crashed your party

TomD wrote:

More HP is always better but I'm fine with the least about required to do the job. Having never ridden in a Maule I cannot judge weather 180ph is enough to haule 4 people to Driggs for dinner or if it would be enough to comfortably fly the mountains with a pax and gear.

The wings and pretty much everything else about the M5-180 and M7-180 are the same as the 235 version including GW. There IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR HORSEPOWER, but what are you willing to trade for fuel economy?

I seem to remember a fair number of M7-180's at Johnson Creek for the BCP fly in this June. Those guys could probably shed more light on performance w/ load at altitude than I can. I drive a M5-235C

I agree there is no substitute for HP but I don't know that I need that much power...sure it would be nice but right now all I need is a bigger plane that does a little better than my Luscombe. The only strip I wouldn't do on the Middle Fork of the Salmon is Lower Loon and it just happens to be the one that I really want to be able to get into.

pitman, I believe that projects are for sale because someone lost interest, ran out of $$, or got in over their head. Like I said I like projects and really enjoy the rebuild process. How does you 150hp Stinson do in MT??

Franklin engines are hard to get parts for -the Stinson airframes are timeless -I work on a 108-1,2 108-2's and 2 108-3's . .Most of the airframes have the franklin's but there are 1 0-470 (-3) and o-435(LYC) -2's

whee wrote:hey STC, how bout you leave you hangar open so I can take you plane out for a test drive...I'll be sure to turn the camera on and I'll be nicer than the last guy

haha, hop in anytime, just bring her back in one piece like the last guy.
If you want some stinson time let me know, meet you half way.

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